Silver Lining in Fiscal Deal for Commuters

by
MONROE STREET PARKING LOT IN CHICAGO HOLDS 2,7...

MONROE STREET PARKING LOT IN CHICAGO HOLDS 2,700 CARS FOR COMMUTERS AT LAKE SHORE DRIVE. NEW CONSTRUCTION IS UNDERWAY… – NARA – 556196 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While most of the conversation on the recently passed fiscal cliff deal has focused on large-ticket items, such as tax rates, tax breaks, and unemployment benefits, the deal did address and enhance a subsidy for commuters, which is a silver lining for the green movement.

Over the past year, the tax code has provided a subsidy for commuters who drive to work. Under this provision, an employer could cover up to $240 per month in parking expenses tax free for drivers.  Conversely, commuters who took public transportation were only covered for up to $125 of their monthly expenses.  Under the new fiscal cliff deal, the two benefits are set at equal levels, retroactively for 2012 and for 2013.

This provision definitely is a victory for the green movement, which stresses the need to reduce gas consumption and the number of cars on the road.  Also, the argument to increase the benefit to those who take public transportation brings to light the realization that subsidized parking is a distortion because there is a cost involved to provide and maintain parking facilities for drivers, thereby causing an adverse impact on land use.

Hopefully by equalizing the benefit for parking and taking public transportation, more people will opt for the latter.  Discussions on programs such as these now entertain the possibility that commuters who opt for the parking subsidy would be allowed to take the cash benefit.  The goal here is to encourage car or van pooling, which still goes a long way to reduce the number of automobiles on the road on any given day.  Also some jurisdictions are considering plans to increase the cash benefits for commuters who bike to work.

Given that transportation is the second largest household expense for America’s workers, along with the fact that most commuters drive to work alone, provisions to increase commuter subsidies for public transportation and to provide cash benefits for carpooling are very important.  They provide strong incentives for people to adopt behaviors that protect the environment, reduce our carbon footprint and successfully live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-congress-shapes-your-commute/2011/10/19/gIQA7GHOxL_blog.html
http://odenton.patch.com/articles/marc-commuters-could-benefit-from-fiscal-cliff-deal

 

 

Go Green! Ditch the Water Bottles!

by

Go Green! Ditch the water bottles. The bottled water industry is a primary target of the ‘green” movement and for great reason.  If we are going to effectively integrate “green” practices and ingrain future generations with second nature “green” practices, then we must eliminate our consumption of bottled water!  If we do not do something now, bottled water will continue to resonate as one of the leading causes for the decline of our Earth’s health.   This entry is intended to exist as an educational realization of a very real problem that has masked itself as a common, healthy consumer good.  It is also intended to serve as a call to action for people to make the conscious effort to “go green” and consider switching to tap water as well as purchasing reusable bottles to drink from. The true extent to which bottled water is damaging our environment would take thousands of pages to explain however, I will do my best to paint a brief, yet alarming picture with one woman’s research.  Please read, think about what you are reading and take action by doing some research of your own and sharing what you learn as we are trying to do.

We present to you,  “Water Bottle Pollution Facts”, which was published in a 2011 publication of National Geographic by author, Susanne Didier.  Simply put, her findings are overwhelmingly alarming.  In her article, she breaks down the environmental impact of water bottle pollution in terms of the bottles as well as overlooked factors such as production and transportation.  Suzanne points out that American consumers alone, purchase more than 29 billion bottles of water a year, a staggering number.  To honor this demand, more than 2.4 billion pounds of plastic are needed.  Even more alarming, she reports that sadly, only 13% of these 29 billion bottles of water are being recycled!

The next part of her article discusses the transportation element of the water bottle industry supply chain.  People tend to forget that the costs that go into consumer products extend beyond just those of the raw materials and assembly of the product. Two of the biggest added costs are those of shipping and delivery.  To cut to the chase, in order to effectively and safely transport 29 billion bottles of water to U.S. markets alone, over 50 million barrels of oil are needed.  Yes, you read correctly, 50 million barrels of oil are needed!  To put that into perspective, each American, on average only uses a little over 24 barrels of oil a year and around 1500 barrels in a lifetime.  That’s it.

The last part of her report simply highlights that on top of how detrimental water bottles are to the environment, their purpose is not completely justifiable.  She reports findings from a 4-year study by the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) that revealed shocking findings.  Most notably, “Roughly 22 percent of the water tested contained contaminant levels that exceeded strict state health limits.” The report also concluded that there were traces of various levels of hormones and other contaminates, most of which people think they are avoiding by choosing bottled water over tap water.  Ironically enough, in a move (strategic marketing ploy) to be healthier, we are actually doing much more harm to ourselves overall!    

To conclude, the facts are before us and this one example is merely the tip of the iceberg.  We challenge you to impart this knowledge to others and think twice about continuing to purchase bottled water.  We challenge you to use this as a first step towards “going green” and consciously choose to live green and be green in some way every single day!

Here is a link to her article http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/water-bottle-pollution-2947.html

[youtube=http://youtu.be/S7LqsAnhrR4]

Back to School Green Shopping Tips

by

I think it is safe to say that most of us recognize the need to protect the planet; however, we are so bombarded with information on environmental problems that we often become stymied on where to start to make a difference. I think a good start would be with our children and incorporating green tips to improve their lives. The education of our children is the most important responsibility for most families today, and with school starting soon, a few green shopping tips really could be beneficial.

Before taking that annual trip to the store to purchase school supplies, take inventory of items on hand. Try to use products left over from last year, or consider donating items that cannot be used to less fortunate students. When purchasing paper products, shop for recycled, renewable school supplies. Several stores, including Target and Office Depot, offer biodegradable pencils and other eco-friendly products. Backpacks also are major purchases each school year. Invest in a good one made from eco-friendly, well-padded material well suited for your child’s size. A good backpack will be friendly to both the environment and your child’s back.

The return to school signals big changes in meal schedules and food purchases. Be ever mindful of the need for your child to start the day with a good breakfast. Try to incorporate fresh fruit and wholesome grains into breakfast and avoid cereals loaded with sugar. Eating a good breakfast is the first step to take to be prepared to learn. Lunches also are important. Opt for reusable containers for sandwiches and snacks as opposed to plastic baggies. You will save money and the planet. Bamboo cutlery as opposed to disposable utensils is a stylish and economic alternative. Of course, the choices of food that goes into these containers are important. Be creative. Plan healthy lunches and snacks, and try to stay away from processed foods full of salt and other preservatives. Make sure your child stays well hydrated. Invest in BPA-free water bottles, and try to avoid sugary drinks.

Transportation is a big issue during the school year. If your child’s school does not provide bus service, consider walking or biking to school, making sure the routes and pathways used are safe. If you do not accompany your child to and from school, please make sure that your child travels in a group and not alone. If walking or biking is not an option because of distance, contact other parents and form carpools. This will save time, and gas and also eliminate traffic congestion.

The biggest purchase for school, of course, is clothing and shoes. Before going out to shop, take an inventory of clothing on hand and only purchase what is needed. Once again, consider donating clothes that no longer fit or are no longer wanted. When shopping, be sure to look for eco-friendly clothes and even consider organic and recycled clothing. With careful planning, your child can return to school in style.

Preparing to return to school can be costly and overwhelming. However, with planning, careful shopping, it is possible to get this accomplished while buying eco-friendly. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “Be the change you want to see to save the world”. Live green, be green.

U.S. Ranks Low in Energy Efficiency

by

A new report issued by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranks the United States 9th out of 12 in energy efficiency. The ACEEE’s International Energy Efficiency Scorecard looked at 12 nations representing 78% of global GDP, 63% of global energy consumption, and 62% of global emissions. The scoring was based on 27 metrics relative to buildings, industry, transportation and efforts at the national level. The 11 other countries included in the study were the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, EU, China, Brazil, Japan, Canada and Russia.

The United Kingdom scored highest in the study followed by Germany, Italy, Japan and France. While the United States rated well on building-related metrics, it scored lowest on transportation measures. The report specifically notes “limited or little progress toward greater efficiency at the national level”. The findings indicate that the U.S. wastes money that other countries reinvest in energy savings. Upon completion of its ratings for the U.S., the ACEEE makes the following recommendations to improve energy efficiency:

• Setting national energy-saving targets;
• Adopting stricter building codes;
• Increasing funding for public transportation;
• Adopting higher federal fuel-economy standards.

An interesting note was made that overall Americans feel less guilt about their environmental footprint than the citizens of smaller countries. Reference was made to a National Geographic study that concluded that people from countries with larger environmental footprints tend to feel less guilty about their impact. This may explain why the U.S., along with China, Brazil and Russia, scored lowest in this study.

Environmental studies and statistical data are important because they clearly show each country where it stands on issues of green initiatives compared with the rest of the world. Each country then can applaud its successes and also take note of deficits. The U.S. can take credit for positive changes in the area of building-related matters and also strive to make improvements in the public transportation sector on a national level. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work to make this country more environmentally friendly. Let’s live green, be green.

Increased Home Values Through Green Home Improvement

by

Green living is recognized overall as the right thing to do to protect the environment, improve our health and literally to save our planet. As an added bonus, green home improvement can raise your financial bottom line by increasing the value of your home. Researchers at the Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses of the University of California conducted a study of 1.6 million single family homes in the California market sector that sold between 2007 and 2012 to analyze the value of green home labels. Of the homes in this sample population, 4,300 were certified with green home labels from EnergyStar, GreenPoint Rated or LEED for Homes. Results indicate that of the average California homes priced at $400,000, residences with green labels sold for about $34,800 more or 9 percent higher than homes without the green label.

Researchers have labeled this result the “Prius effect” wherein a higher premium was placed on houses with green labels. This finding correlates with the environmental ideology of the area measured by the registration of hybrid vehicles. In communities where “green thinking” predominates, ownership of green homes and cars is a status symbol and a source of pride.

In recent years, awareness of the extent of global warming and the increase of greenhouse emissions has impacted the housing market significantly. This is especially true in warmer areas of the country. Residents in hotter climates are paying extra attention to the benefits of green homes, which include lower utility bills due to greater energy and water efficiency, healthier indoor air quality and improved environmental features, such as convenient access to clean, eco-friendly transportation and close proximity to parks and shopping and entertainment facilities.

The Prius effect is proof that green initiatives at the community level are far-reaching. Improving communities one at a time leads to a change in mindset and ultimately to a revolution. Let’s live green, be green.

Green Nutrition Nourishes the Planet

by

The current world population of over seven billion has necessitated discussion to find ways to be smarter about producing, eating, sharing and preserving food.  At the recent “Eating Planet” symposium in New York, the World Watch Institute and the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition assembled a panel of farming and food policy experts to share their findings and statistics on this subject.  Research indicates that there are more than one billion obese and overfed people on the planet.  Many of these people are impacted by the adverse health issues associated with obesity, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, just to name a few.  On the other hand, there are more than one billion people on this planet who are underfed and must struggle with poverty and hunger on a regular basis.  Amazingly, agriculture is the solution to both of these problems.

Growing indigenous crops empowers any group of people to be independent.  Also, the most sustainable foods on the planet yield the lowest carbon footprint.  A plant-based diet consisting of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds are vital to our health.  Conversely, a diet rich in meat relies on the use of the life-sustaining grains that are so beneficial to people, and in turn, its consumption adversely affects our health.  The transportation costs required to get meat to communities, along with the fuel expenses, preservation costs, etc., also negatively impact the environment.

We would be doing ourselves and the planet a big favor by reducing our meat consumption and increasing our consumption of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc.  Making contributions to funds that educate underfed populations to grow indigenous crops also is something to consider.  Face it, our population is growing, but our planet is not getting bigger.  Let’s work together to make a difference.  Live green, be green.

Environmentally Faster

by

This entry is intended to be more observational and less of a commentary on current events.

I recently moved back to the Washington DC area after graduating from Fordham University. After experiencing the Bronx and all of NYC as a whole, I can honestly say that the traffic is nothing compared to what people in DC deal with every single day. After driving to my new job several times, I became fed up and started taking public transportation despite it taking the same amount of time. The only difference is that you avoid sitting in standstill traffic.

The reality is that that unlike NYC’s commuter train, there is no real advantage to using DC Metro public transportation as a commuter. Most people who work in DC live in the suburbs, however the public transportation system for the demographic is terribly inefficient. One example is the MARC train that is equivalent to NYC’s Metro North. The MARC train does not make getting to Union Station (downtown DC) a transportation priority for DC commuters like Metro North makes Grand Central Station a priority for NY commuters. DC commuters would be better off taking an appropriately scheduled Amtrak train despite it not necessarily being cost effective. The MARC train does exist as more of a Maryland, DC transportation initiative that shuttles residents between the two cities.

From an Eco-friendly perspective, this creates a problem. An efficient and effective public transportation system helps reduce vehicle emissions and overall energy consumption by removing the amount of cars on the road. People in the DC metro area still do not have enough reason to turn to public transportation as it is just as timely and cost effective as driving.

Here is an excerpt from Forbes Magazine from 2008 when DC ranked 7th among the worst cities for commuters:

No. 7: Washington, D.C.
Because most of the workers in Washington D.C. are commuting from the Virginia or Maryland suburbs, it can take an exceedingly long time to make it downtown. Here, 15% of commuters take over an hour to get to work, the second highest rate in the country. Drivers spend 60 hours a year stuck in traffic, and only 26% of commuters get to work in under 20 minutes– the worst rate in the country. The only thing saving D.C. from a worse ranking is its efficiency ranking for carpooling, public transportation and walking, the country’s second best. (stats since then have remained relatively the same)

I want to point point out that the public transportation within the city is great! As the observation above mentions, it is one of the best. Commuters who live outside the city limits however, are nit experiencing the same situation. For everyone’s sanity and for the environment, there needs to be a more effective solution for commuters surrounding our Nations’s Capital. City planners need to look at models such as NYC and Chicago and develop a better a better public transportation for everyone outside the city limits.

20120615-161358.jpg