Senate Food Labeling Vote Is Suppression of Consumers’ Voting Rights

by
A class photo of the 110th United States Senate.

A class photo of the 110th United States Senate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recent Senate rejection of an amendment to the Farm Bill, which would permit states to require labeling of GMOs in food and beverages clearly represents a suppression of consumers’ right to vote.  A vote is defined as a “formal expression of a wish or will”.  Therefore, when we purchase food and beverages, our selection is in essence a vote.  The selection of food and beverages should be a willful choice; however, the withholding of information on food and beverage ingredients suppresses the consumers’ right to make informed choices.

During a debate on this amendment, which includes “generous support for crops like corn and soybeans that are often genetically modified“, senators from farm states overwhelmingly opposed the food labeling amendment.  They feel that the issue of labeling should be left to the federal government.  Also, they voiced concern that food labeling would result in increased costs of food.  The supporters of the food labeling amendment state that a major problem with GMOs is that “the modified seeds “are floating from field to field, contaminating pure crops”. [1]

Upon analysis of the motives of the proponents and opponents of this amendment, is understandable that each side is backed by private interest groups, with the giant seed companies pushing against the amendment and the organic food companies lobbying to pass the food labeling amendment.  It is disturbing, however, that the FDA and USDA have adopted the position that “the engineered foods they have approved are safe– so safe, they do not even need to be labeled as such– and cannot be significantly distinguished from conventional
varieties.[1]  This position is a direct attack on consumers’ right to know and its right to “vote” in the marketplace by making informed choices on food and beverage selections.  Clearly, the Senate is overstepping its boundaries.

As consumers, we have to protect our rights, particularly those that involve our very personal choices, i.e., food purchases.  It is amazing that Congress is spending such an inordinate amount of time and effort to ensure that the American public has access to every detail of the Benghazi attack, the IRS‘ attack on the Tea Party or detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo, while working to deny us access to information that affects our health, survival and “right to vote”.  I imagine that most readers would agree that the ingredients in the food that we feed our families trumps the details of the Benghazi attack.

Now more than ever we have to be extremely careful of protecting our voting rights, starting with the election of “public servants“.  We need individuals in Congress who represent us and who trust us to be able to make informed choices, not those who would willfully suppress our right to information.  The green movement needs your voice now.  Let’s fight to protect our right to choose our food based on complete and accurate information on ingredients.  To do so is to live green, be green.

__________________

Sources for this article:

[1]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/senate-gm-food-labeling-farm-bill.
[2] http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-calls-corporate-controlled-senate-rejecting-gmo-labels.html

Africa Inside — Upcoming Bag Exchange Needs Support

by
Orthographic map of Africa

Orthographic map of Africa (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We here at LGBG would like to take this opportunity to update our readers and supporters on Africa Inside’s project to eliminate plastic bag pollution from the African countryside.  This program is the brainchild of Lori Robinson, Africa Adventures Specialist for the Jane Goodall Institute.  Lori has dedicated considerable time and effort to promote conservation through the development of programs to educate Africans about the protection of its most precious resources, wildlife and environmental.

LGBG is proud to sponsor and partner with Lori and Africa Inside to rid the African countryside of discarded plastic bags, which kill wildlife when ingested out of  curiosity, clog rivers and streams, get caught up in trees and bushes and release toxins when burned.  Lori’s “bag exchange” program has been successful as a simple and effective solution to plastic bag pollution.  For every 25 bags picked up from the countryside and turned in on exchange days, each individual receives a sturdy reusable tote from America, which are very popular and sought after by African citizens.  We have been working diligently to get donations of reusable bags, as well as funds to ship the bags to Lori.  We thank you for your support to date, and we urge you to continue to help Africa Inside advance this wonderful cause.

Africa Inside’s next plastic litter cleanup will take place in Samburu, Kenya in August 2013.  We still are still collecting bags and financial donations to ensure the success of this project.  For information on how you can help, please visit the Africa Inside website at http://africainside.org/globalconservation/one-wordplastics/ or contact us here at LGBG.com.  Africa Inside is supported by the Creative Visions Foundation, a publicly supported 501(c)3.  Upon receipt of donations, each contributor will receive the necessary receipt for tax deductions.

Once again, LGBG thanks you for your support to date for Africa Inside’s mission.  To support such a wonderful cause is to live green be green.

Donate Button

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVM2lDFNcw&w=560&h=315]

Celebration of Ben Franklin– A Visionary 200 Years Ahead Of His Time

by
Benjamin Franklin 1767

Benjamin Franklin 1767 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

In recognition of the 223rd anniversary of Ben Franklin’s death, we here at LGBG feel that it is important to remember and salute this visionary and his accomplishments, particularly those relative to the green movement.

 

Ben Franklin was born on January 17, 1706 in Boston, Massachusetts and died on April 17, 1790 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Franklin was a printer by trade and a scientist, a librarian, inventor and statesman.  He was internationally renown for his work to harness electricity with the invention of the lightning rod.  His values were consistent with the green movement in that he espoused thrift, hard work and education.

 

In addition to inventions of the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses and a flexible urinary catheter, Ben Franklin also was a social innovator.  He is credited with the “pay it forward policy whereby an individual in receipt of a good deed repays the assistance by doing something good for someone other than his/her benefactor.  This practice has evolved into an international movement of random acts of kindness.

 

Ben Franklin was a man ahead of his time and a proponent of green living and sustainability, as evidenced by his influence on the then emerging science of population study and demographics.  He was an astute observer of population growth trends, both in the United States, as well as in Europe.  He acknowledged the importance of maintaining an adequate food supply to accommodate the fast-growing U.S. population.  Out of concern for economic development and the reliance on the shipping industry for transportation of goods and people, Franklin studied the currents in the Atlantic Ocean, and gulf stream charts and made recommendations on navigation currents so as to control sailing time to various destinations.  He is best known, perhaps, for his work with electricity, and he also delved into research on refrigeration and evaporation.

 

At an early age, Ben Franklin adopted a set of virtues which he used to guide his life.  Several of these virtues are consistent with the tenets of the green movement and sustainable living.

 

1.  “Temperance.  Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.”
2.  “Order.  Let all your things have places.”
3.  “Resolution.  Resolve to perform what you ought.”
4.  “Frugality.  Waste nothing.”
5.  “Moderation.  Avoid extremes.”
6.  “Cleanliness.  Tolerate no uncleanliness.”
7.  “Humility.”

 

Benjamin Franklin was a visionary, who fully appreciated the gift of this earth and lived his entire life dedicated to healthy living, industry and the protection and progression of mankind.  His accomplishments cannot be understated, and our current Earth Day celebration would be lacking without the observance of this great man.  He was a true  example of what it means to live green, be green.

 

_______________

 

Sources for this article:
1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin.
2.  http://www.ealmanac.com/2974/numbers/the-thirteen-virtues-of-benjamin-franklin/.

 

Time To Consider Market-based Solution To Freshwater Shortage

by
Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/water...

Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleprint.html Other language versions: Català Czech español Finnish Greek Japanese Norwegian (bokmål) Portugese Romanian עברית Diné bizaad (Navajo) and no text and guess water vapor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The world’s ever-increasing population and overwhelming demand on the freshwater supply, combined with the adverse effects of climate change, has triggered a new and urgent focus on the issue of water security and the need to address looming threats to water shortages globally, and now includes conversations on market-based solutions to this problem.   Some readers may find it difficult to appreciate the reality of a water shortage given that 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water; however, the facts are that (1) the majority of that 70 percent is saltwater and (2) clean freshwater for consumption, agriculture and other human activities is in short supply.

In the United States alone, the total use of water for agriculture, industrial and personal use is greater than the entire amount of water that flows in the country’s rivers.  The net amount required to meet the demand is pulled from ground water beneath the earth’s surface, thus creating a shortage there.  Consequently, our extreme demand on the water supply has led to a “new geologic era” in which “humanity has taken over key [planetary] drivers:  the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle”.  [1]  One proposed solution to the water shortage is the adoption of a market-based system that privatizes freshwater services and allocates a price for its use.  Under such a scenario, water quantity and quality would be traded as goods with the potential that water would become the “biggest commodity of the 21st century”. [1]

The greatest benefit derived here is that a market-based system would provide a strong incentive to conserve water.  Everyone would pay for what they use as priced on the open market.  This would then focus more attention on water quality.  The removal of water services from state, county and municipal control and placement in the competitive market also would encourage more efficient use of water.  Ultimately, with the creation of investment opportunities, private companies would be better able to fund research and development on sustainable practices and to build and maintain the necessary filtration, clarification and delivery systems without political and budget constraints inherent under public control.  On the flip side of such a proposal, privatized water could negatively impact poor communities, possibly leading to health catastrophes as people unable to afford water would use rivers, streams, ponds and lakes, which often are contaminated and pose health risks.  As such, any solutions that privatize freshwater delivery would have to include a component that provides affordable access to the water supply for basic consumption and hygiene to those unable to purchase service.  Interestingly, studies do show that people tend to find a way to purchase things they deem important.  As an example, statistics indicate that  in India, more people have access to cellphones “than to basic sanitation“, i.e., toilets. [1]

The privatization of water could be a boost to the green movement simply by the change in attitude with the realization that its use comes with a premium price tag.  Individuals would be more receptive to reduce their reliance on water in the home by carefully planning lawns and landscaping.  Hopefully, they would use more grasses and plants that are drought resistant.  Also, as the cost of water to feed farm animals is passed on to consumers, it is likely that people will entertain the notion of reducing their meat consumption to some extent.  Lastly, farmers hopefully will be more inclined to shift from flood irrigation of crops to drip irrigation, thereby reducing their agricultural water consumption by about 20%.

The reality here is that fresh water shortages are a major concern, particularly here in the United States where the availability of freshwater largely has been taken for granted.  A recent report by the U.S. Drought Monitor notes seven states, namely Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska are in the throes of severe drought. [2]  Clearly, this is an issue that deserves immediate attention simply because we cannot exist without fresh water.  Privatization of the management and delivery of freshwater through a market-based system is a possible albeit extreme solution and definitely merits discussion.  To save our freshwater is to save our lives.  To do this, let’s live green, be green.

_______________

Sources for this article:

1.  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/states-running-out-of-water_n_2984979.html.

"WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE" -...

“WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE” – NARA – 516053 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Consumers’ Rights Concerns Weakened by Right To Know Laws

by
Hollywood, FL, March 26, 2011, Rally for the R...

Hollywood, FL, March 26, 2011, Rally for the Right to Know (Photo credit: MillionsAgainstMonsanto)

In reviewing the many battles raging on the food we eat and products we use, it appears that the right to know laws [1] are the sticking points in these controversies.  The current right to know laws are weak and effective in terms of addressing food and product ingredients. [2]   While the majority of consumers presume that consumer protection laws are designed to guard individual rights, the reality is that the purpose of most consumer protection laws is to promote the well-being of the population.  This renders their focus to social concerns, as opposed to legal protection.  This often is in direct conflict with the green movement, which acknowledges the damages to the environment by human action and proposes changes in past behaviors to alter the course of destruction.  The green movement seeks to adopt long-term effective solutions to problems of global warming and climate change and their impact on people and specifically on the food supply, while many other concerns seek immediate and often questionable solutions to problems such as world hunger.

This issue clearly can be seen in the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  In an effort to ensure an adequate food supply, large companies, such as Monsanto and DuPont, design seeds that are resistant to drought, disease and other adverse weather conditions that lead to soil erosion and depletion of nutrients.  The general perception is that research on these projects is undertaken with such a sense of urgency that caution generally is  thrown to the wind, and the quality of food and potentially harmful effects of GMOs have been considered less important than the quantity of food produced.  The consumers’ right to know the hazards of GMOs has been ignored largely through the refusal to even note on packaging that products contain genetically modified ingredients.  The outcry of environmentalists and supporters of the green movement is often criticized, based on the notion that GMOs represent the quickest solution to address the issue of crop failures and the resulting threat to the food supply.  The alternative of organic farming is considered  too costly, unpredictable and incapable of producing enough food to feed large populations.

A second area of concern over the ingredients in food can be found in numerous articles on the Internet denoting the “horrible” ingredients contained in food products.  The bad contents in food run the gamut from insect parts to carcinogens and unlisted animal byproducts.  Many of these ingredients are harmful to the body while others simply represent a violation of choices we are free to make, i.e., vegans and vegetarians have the right to not eat animal byproducts.  Refusal to label the contents of food ingredients violates the public’s right to know the contents of these foods.

The course of action needed to address the issue of labeling is twofold–legal and economic.  The legal solution is to revise the consumers’ right to know the contents contained in food.  Currently, food labeling laws address nutritional content, particularly in terms of calories, fat, cholesterol and other substances, such as sodium and percent of daily requirement of certain predetermined nutrients and vitamins.  The law in this regard desperately needs to be expanded to include other ingredients, which are unproven as to their safety, such as GMOs, or those that may be distasteful to certain people or deemed not in accordance with certain lifestyles.  This really is no different from stating that products contain ingredients that are known allergens, such as milk or peanuts.  The second course of action involves consumers using their buying power to speak for them.  This process starts with each of us educating ourselves on the reputable businesses that insist on selling products that label ingredients.  While these products may be more expensive now, that will change when they become the norm, rather than the exception.

Browsing the Web is a good place to start to learn about unacceptable ingredients in food.   Whole Foods has a great site with a list of unacceptable foods. [3]  Also, contact your legislators and voice your concern over the issue of food labeling and its importance to your family’s health.  We have to fight for our right to know the ingredients in our food and other products of daily living.  To do so is to live green, be green.

_________________

1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_know
2.  http://businessethicsblog.com/2010/10/01/consumers-right-to-information/
3.  http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-food

Why The Vatican Should Continue The Legacy Of The Green Pope

by
pope and me

pope and me (Photo credit: BoFax)

With the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI and the upcoming enclave to elective a successor Pontiff, it is paramount that the College of Cardinals remain mindful of the environmental legacy of Pope Benedict and the need to continue and advance his work.

Pope Benedict XVI, John Ratzinger, is a strong champion of the environment as evidenced by his words and actions.  In his speeches and writings, he called for both Catholics and people of “good will” to care for creation.  He prompted the installation of solar panels on the roof of Paul VI Hall at the Vatican, and he authorized the Vatican’s bank to purchase carbon credits through funding of a Hungarian forest, resulting in Vatican City being the only country that is totally carbon neutral.  Additionally, Benedict adopted the use of the hybrid, partially electric Popemobile.  Pope Benedict’s commitment to the environment is based on spirituality, as well as morality, thereby making his mission a universal one and prompting the environmental community to acknowledge the Catholic Church as an ally in the green movement.

It is noteworthy that Pope Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, also was committed to the environment.  In many of his speeches and writings, he remarked on the principle of “stewardship” and the consequences of failure to address “problems stemming from globalization of the economy and the worsening of the ‘ecological question‘ “.

As these Pontiffs have set the stage for the inclusion of the environment in the work of the Vatican, it is so important that this legacy continues and grows.  This could be especially beneficial to the Catholic Church in light of its status in the world today.  Faced with distractions from its good work by criticism of its handling of sexual abuse and pedophilia within its realm and corruption extending into its inner circle, the Vatican needs a game changer.  Inasmuch as the younger generation (millennial) appears to be more committed to the green movement (as evidenced by their greater efforts as compared to older generations to recycle, buy local and to reduce their ingestion of meat), the election of a successor Pope strongly committed to the environment presents an excellent opportunity for outreach to young people g
globally, who have left the Catholic Church.  Additionally, the issue of the environment is a global one, which also tends to be more attractive to the younger generations, particularly in the United States, which has witnessed an increased apathy of young people towards many institutions in America, such as church and government, largely due to the toxic state of politics in this country.

The Catholic Church is the one organization that has a global presence.  Whether Catholic or not, we all listen to the messages and doctrines coming from the Vatican, and we look to the Church for guidance on most issues.  This acknowledgment of the Church as a major player in world matters positions the it to be not just a voice on the environment, but also to be a leader in this effort.  We hope this will be recognized by the College of Cardinals in their election of their new leader.  Having a green Pope at the helm of the Catholic Church definitely inspires us to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

1.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130228-environmental-pope-green-efficiency-vatican-city/.
2.  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264jm.htm.
3.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/meditations-on-the-legacy-of-pope-benedict-xvi.html?_r=0.

The Keystone XL Debate Is Back, But The Facts Remain The Same

by

A debate that many once thought was done and settled has reared its head again recently, the Keystone XL oil pipeline.  Like many issues in America, it has become a partisan rallying point, with Democrats (for the most part) and Republicans setting up camp on different sides of the issue. Many, no doubt, recall the continuous news coverage over this very divisive issue during the previous two years, and they also may recall that news coverage then suddenly stopped.

The issue was brought back into the spotlight earlier this week by (R) Gov. Dave of Nebraska when he endorsed a revised pipeline going through his state.[1]  Before we go any further let us refresh our memory on the basic facts about the pipeline:

“The full proposed pipeline, which would cross the U.S. border in Montana, is designed to bring between 500,000 to 700,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands region to refineries on the Gulf Coast. It would shortcut to an existing pipe that goes through much of Canada before cutting into the United States in North Dakota on the way to Cushing.” [2]

The important thing to take away from this is that already there is a pipeline in place. The proposed additions would shorten the distance that the oil needs to travel, while allowing it to be shipped to Gulf refineries, instead of those in the Midwest that currently are used. Another major point to understand before we truly dive into this debate is that part of this proposal already is being put into effect. The part of the pipeline that would take the oil from Cushing, Oklahoma to oil refineries in Texas is going forward.  Since this portion of the pipeline does not cross an international border, it does not require federal approval.  Furthermore, the Obama administration was never in opposition to this segment of the pipeline, which is expected to be fully operational sometime later this year.[3] Now for many who read this blog, it is obvious on the environmental side why one would be in opposition to this pipeline. Unfortunately, many people find environmental and economic concerns to be mostly incompatible.  Consequently, I cannot stress the importance of showing why this pipeline does not only make sense from an environmental perspective, but also from a long-term economic one.

The debate over the Keystone pipeline, like many things, has been caught up in the current contentious disputes raging in America. As such, for many, the debate over the pipeline boiled down to one word– jobs. TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, estimates that if the entirety of the proposed pipeline were to begin construction, then it would, “would create 20,000 “direct” jobs. That includes 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs producing commodities, such as pump houses and the pipe itself.  [They] also project nearly 120,000 ‘indirect’ jobs — think restaurant workers and hotel employees to support the construction”.[4] Since the Cushing-to-Texas part of the pipeline already is moving forward, we should note that TransCanada states that this segment, in particular, would create 4,000 jobs.2  

However, we must take these numbers with a grain of salt as they come from a company that desperately wants the full project to gain approval. When we put these numbers under the microscope, it becomes obvious that they do not add up:

“But TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that’s 20,000 jobs by the company’s count. The estimates also include jobs in Canada, where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed. The U.S. State Department, which must green light the project, forecasts just 5,000 direct U.S. jobs over a two-year construction period. Even according to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.”4

We see now that they are not necessarily lying, but presenting the truth in a misguiding way, to put it lightly. That being said, these are the numbers we should be analyzing if we are to bring jobs into this debate. While jobs are undoubtedly appreciated, we cannot keep jumping from temporary fix to temporary fix.  In this country, we do have an employment problem interwoven within our greater economic issues. However, these greater economic problems did not arise from a temporary scenario.  Our country and our world have been resting on a structurally flawed economy that needs dramatic restructuring in order to be stable and more beneficial to all. When we pour energy and resources into these temporary beneficial programs, we blind ourselves from the true debate generally and specifically from the trued argument regarding employment. No doubt there will be temporary gains in employment, but we must begin to think in the long-term, and in regards to this perspective, “one study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reasons given for this phenomenon  is that the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, the study said, and that would slow consumer spending and cost jobs”.4 This brings us to the other argument advocating the construction of the pipeline, gas prices. Why would we turn away this new supply of oil when gas prices are so stubbornly high?  The answer is that the argument that this oil will decrease gas prices is a logical fallacy.

The cost of gasoline in this country has risen steadily over the past decade, followed closely by the calls for less oil imports and more domestic oil production. This is a natural conclusion since the price of gas determines the price of so many other products in this country, while dependence on the price restricts or opens up our travels.  In my previous posts, I have discussed the increase of domestic oil production; however, simply concluding that increasing the amount of oil brought into the country would automatically lead to lower gas prices is an all-out rejection of the facts.  If this pipeline was about getting more oil into this country for cheaper domestic gasoline prices, then the Cushing-Texas part of the pipeline would be unnecessary. Regardless of whether or not the controversial section of the line is finished, connecting to the Gulf refineries would enable up to 700,000 barrels/day of Canadian oil to now have access to global markets.  Of those 700,000 barrels/day, Valero has signed a contract for 100,000 barrels a day until 2030. Valero is operating with the full intent of converting these barrels into diesel to export. [5] Furthermore, the lack of a connection to Gulf refineries has led to a glut of gasoline in the Midwest, reducing competition and depressing prices. Cheaper gas prices directly benefit consumer spending and have a beneficial effect all the way down the supply chain. 2

For the President to approve the construction of this pipeline, it must be proven that doing so is in the best national interest. Let us then check the facts and see this truly is the case. When we really focus on the job numbers, we find that despite grand claims by TransCanada, the stark reality is different. While there would certainly would be job creation, the majority of these positions would be temporary. The actual tally of long term jobs created numbers only in the hundreds. In all likelihood, there is a chance that in the long run it could decrease in employment due to higher gas prices throughout the Midwest. When we take these two outcomes into account, it becomes clear that the benefit to the economy and the long term energy independency of this country has been highly overstated.  Furthermore, we have not even taken into account the environmental effects of tar-sand oil. On average, emissions from tar sands are 23% higher than oil from more conventional fossil fuel sources.[6]  These already higher than average emissions are compounded by the extraction of the oil, which amplifies the environmental effect. Through the process of extracting the tar-sand oil, acres upon acres of carbon absorbing peat lands would be destroyed. Recently, Scientists from the University of Alberta found that, “10 operational oil sands mining projects would destroy enough peat lands to release 11.4 million to 47.3 million metric tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere. That release is the equivalent of seven years’ worth of emissions from the oil sands mining region”. [7]  The damage continues even beyond this initial carbon release.  What were once carbon absorbing peat lands will be replaced by dry forests which will take in significantly less carbon.

When we consider all the factors, combined with and all the facts concerning the Keystone XL pipeline, it is easy to see that it is not in the public interest. Not only the controversial international section, but the Cushing-Texas portion as well. We have a company, TransCanada, which has skewed the facts and has allowed falsehoods (i.e. the jobs and cheap gas argument) to be publicly displayed as truths. It is true, as many of the columnists of my sources have noted, that stopping this pipeline is not a silver bullet for global warming. However, the point also is continuously made that if we cannot stand up to projects such as these, then what hope do we have? To end global warming and to possess more economic security, we must begin cutting our dependency on fossil fuels altogether, both imported and domestically produced. If we do not pick a point to begin pushing back, then we never will do so. If we allow one project such as this to go forward, while recognizing the overall dangers, how can we stop others? The pushback has to begin somewhere and what better way than against a pipeline dedicated to one of the most polluting fossil fuels in the world?  Let’s work hard to push this project back now so that we may live green, be green.

By Sean P. Maguire

seanpic

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/keystone-pipeline-decision-tests-president-obama-jobs-climate/story?id=18292687

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/index.htm

[3] http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/27/news/companies/keystone_pipeline/index.htm?iid=EL

[4] http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm?iid=EL

[5] http://dirtyoilsands.org/files/OCIKeystoneXLExport-Fin.pdf

[6] http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/february/tar-sands-creates-more-pollution-than-other-fossil-fuels-/70152.aspx

[7] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oil-sands-co2-emissions-higher-than-thought

LGBG SPOTLIGHT: VerTerra – Dinnerware from Fallen Leaves

by


Photo Credit: http://www.verterra.com

While deep in my search for outstanding companies of all kinds the other day, I stumbled upon this sustainable gem — VerTerra.  I immediately decided that I must write this week’s spotlight article on it, to let all LiveGreenBeGreen readers know about this amazing company.  So, here it is:

VerTerra is a manufacturer of single-use dinnerware, an undoubtedly saturated industry.  However, unlike nearly all competitors out there, VerTerra operates with a special spark at its sole.  The company is completely focused on the environmentally and socially conscious consumer, as it sustainably produces its eco-friendly, high-quality products using fair wage labor practices.  But that does not mean its only customers are those environmentally and socially bleeding hearts — anyone can and should use their products!

Striking the perfect balance between smart and sexy is one of the most daunting and difficult tasks, and VerTerra makes it look effortless in their products.  What is most amazing, though, is exactly how the seed of this business idea came to be planted in the mind of its founder, Michael Dwork.  On a trip to India, Mr. Dwork stopped to buy some food from a street-vendor of sorts, not an unpopular practice.  To his amazement and delight, he found the woman serving him simply took fallen leaves, soaked them in water, and with a fairly primitive waffle-iron-like device, pressed them into serving plates!  He knew he wanted to bring this concept to full manufacturing fruition back home, so he fittingly set out on a journey to do just that.  And with one of the best ideas and founding stories in the industry, LiveGreenBeGreen agrees, he has gloriously succeeded.

To find out more about this eco-friendly entrepreneur’s brand, please visit and explore VerTerra’s Official Website at: http://www.verterra.com

And to explore and purchase the eco-friendly, disposable dinnerware solutions of VerTerra and other brands, please visit: http://www.joannehudson.com/disposable-plates-green-dinnerware.html

A Race To The Top For Our Infrastructure

by

The typical picture of Washington currently is that democrats say yes, republicans say no, and vice versa. What then if I were to tell you of a government reform that inspired the exact opposite, an Obama administration proposed reform that had states painted both red and blue competing for federal funds, while taking the reform of an antiquated and failing system seriously? You would most likely point me to a calendar and tell me that the fifties are over, and I would merely show you the Race to the Top.

The Race to the Top program was a product of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), commonly known as the Stimulus Bill. It provided $4.35 billion dollars in federal funding for states’ education systems. However, this was not a simple funding provision, but a competitive grant program. States would compete against each other for these funds by engaging in education reform.[1]For many, the results were somewhat muddled, with different groups focusing on different aspects of education. Regardless the perceived inadequacies of the program, it did accomplish two things: it caused states to recognize and evaluate failures in their education systems, formulating ways to fix them, while also injecting much needed funds into school systems that were facing dire budget cuts and setbacks. As I previously said, the actual results of the program are still hard gauge and likely will not be quantifiable for years to come. That being said, admission of a problem is always the first step to recovery.

With that notion in mind, we can no longer ignore America’s crumbling infrastructure.  This is a subject that I have touched on in the past and which many of us notice on our commutes to and from work every day.  As I stated in my November 27th post, America needs roughly $2.2 trillion dollars in infrastructure investments.[2] The need for these investments could not come at a more opportune or inopportune time. As of December 2012, the unemployment rate stands at 7.8%.[3] Any infrastructure project would be beneficial to increasing employment, not only through the jobs required to complete the task, but also through the multiplier effect. While government infrastructure projects are typically, and sometimes rightfully so, decried as pork-barrel projects, their economic benefit greatly exceeds the majority of government spending.  A report from the fall of last year found that, “each dollar of infrastructure spending increases the GSP by at least two dollars”, and furthermore, “that the multiplier increases during a downturn. Leduc and Wilson found that the multiplier in the wake of the 2009 stimulus was ‘roughly four times’ more than average. That means infrastructure investments offer more value during busts than booms, which should encourage policymakers attempting to counteract high unemployment in the construction sector by increasing spending on highways, roads, and bridges”.[4] However, Washington is driving with its eyes not fixed on the road at the moment, but instead on the debt ceiling crashing through the skies.

The debt ceiling is typically raised by Congress every few years, but over the course of the Obama administration, it has become a partisan sticking point. A majority of America agrees that not raising the debt ceiling is liable to cause economic damage to the United States, but many people are more divided on which outcome is the best, with, “39 percent of [AP-Gfk] poll respondents support[ing] the insistence by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that deep spending cuts be attached to any measure increasing the debt ceiling. That is more than the 30 percent who back Obama’s demand that borrowing authority be raised quickly and not entwined with a bitter fight over trimming the budget. An additional 21 percent oppose boosting the debt ceiling at all”.[5] Not surprising, the survey goes  on to find that the two top issues for Americans are the economy and the federal deficit. The point to take away from this is that the great recession is still firmly locked into the minds of many Americans and that we are not likely to see any significant spending comparable to what our infrastructure actually needs. As such, if we are not going to be able to spend more to dig out of this hole, then we have to spend wiser, and there is no better way to get the best ideas then through competition.

We have in this possibility an intersection of resounding truths: America’s infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, the health of the economy is seen as still in balance, and the concern for the federal deficit will likely curtail spending increases. We’ve already shown that infrastructure investments are one of the most efficient ways that the government can spend. With our constrained ability to spend, but a desire for a healthier economy, we must choose the investment with the greatest track record for success. By making it into a competition in the spirit of the Race to The Top, we are increasing the economic benefit of the spending even more. By cutting out the pork, we are targeting the projects and the plans that would be the most beneficial, the best of the best, one could say. Furthermore, it has been noted that in downturns that the multiplier effect is even more resounding. While the recession may be officially over, unemployment remains high. When we break unemployment down by state, we see states like Mississippi (8.5%), New Jersey (9.6%), and California (9.8%) with unemployment levels well above the national average.[6] What you will also find in these states are infrastructures with extremely low ratings that are in need of drastic improvements. [7] The recession may have ended but for many of these states the wounds have yet to heal. An increase in infrastructure spending would provide a much needed injection of cash into their economies and likely a multiplier effect above the average.

Inspirations for new investments are appearing in the news every day, most recently out of the Netherlands.  While we are attempting to get our infrastructure to meet the standards of the modern day, this nation already is planning and getting set to build the needed infrastructure of the future. Construction is set to begin soon on glow in the dark highways, “treated with a special ‘foto-luminising powder’ that is charged up during the day and illuminates the contours of the road and lane markers at night for up to 10 hours… [And] dynamic paint [that] responds to changes in temperature. A pattern of snowflakes, for example, appears when it is cold and slippery… [While] other innovations to debut in the coming years include an induction priority lane that will charge electric cars as they drive, presumably via induction coils that are powered by wind”.[8] State and national leaders would also be wise to take note of the success of the Dutch bike system, with, “ 27 percent of all daily trips [being] made by bicycle”.[9] In all likelihood America faces a tough road ahead, torn by somewhat contradictory desires and opinions.  Nonetheless, we still possess the capability to determine the difficulty of that road ahead. We can determine this by being smart, spending smart, and letting the spirit of competition drive us down the best road.  Creating a competitive program to improve the nation’s infrastructure indeed is a way to live green and be green.

By Sean P. Maguire

 

[1] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

[2] http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

[3]http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

[4] http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/debt-limit-poll_n_2498441.html

[6] http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[7] http://www.asce.org/Infrastructure/Report-Card/State-and-Local-Report-Cards/

[8] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/futuristic-highway-glows-dark-reports-weather-1C6670949

[9]http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/how-to-make-biking-mainstream-lessons-from-the-dutch

Obama Gun Control Policy Triggers Massive Outcry From Guns-Rights Supporters

by

In response to the outcry following the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings on the heels of several other incidences of gun violence in schools and public arenas, the Obama administration unveiled a substantial proposal to address the issue of gun violence in America, triggering objections from guns-rights supporters, but gaining the support of millions of American citizens.  The President’s proposal has four principal components:

  • Law enforcement.
  • The availability of dangerous firearms and ammunition.
  • School safety.
  • Mental health.

To effectively impact all four of the principal elements of the sweeping proposal, President Obama made the following recommendations:

  • Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.
  • Reinstating the assault weapons ban.
  • Restoring a 10-round ammunition limit in magazines.
  • Eliminating armor-piercing bullets.
  • Providing mental health services in schools.
  • Allocating funds to hire more police officers.
  • Instituting a federal gun trafficking statute.

Many political observers and gun lobbyists are voicing complaints about the massive effort to address the gun violence problem, which is leaving a huge black mark on our society today.  Complaints range from disagreement with the attempt at such a massive overhaul of the current ineffective gun regulations to outcries of political overreach by the current administration and violation of citizens’ second Amendment rights to bear arms.

It appears that some key points are being overlooked here.  The level of gun violence should send a distress signal to each and every one of us in this nation, particularly when we peel back the layers of each past instance and see the consistent pattern of mental illness, social maladjustment, bullying, etc., all toxic ingredients woven into the fabric of this ridiculous mayhem.  This is an awful testament to any society, let alone one such as ours, which consistently touts our civility, intelligence, Christian values, and sense of humanity.  We consistently show pride for our liberty and rights, as we should; however, we need to stop and consider the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Surely any parent who sends their children to school or to a public place, such as a shopping center or a movie, should have the reasonable expectation that their children will return to them.  Acknowledging this right and working to enforce it will not take away from the rights of law-abiding citizens who want to own weapons, not by any means, and that is not the intent of any gun legislation.  If done the right way, gun owners will still have their guns, if they are legally entitled to do so.

In the height of the emotion and standoff over the proposed gun regulations, we need to stop and think.  The families of Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as the Giffords and other families who were affected by mass killings have taken this opportunity to stand together for a safer world from gun violence at a time that is anything but convenient for them as their wounds and hurt are so raw and real.  It is awful, an abomination, that we declare our rights to take up arms so loudly because of potential possibilities of aggression that may or may not happen when these wonderful people are speaking up trying to convey the message of the reality of gun violence, a stark and dismal reality for them that will haunt them for the remainder of their lives and a reality that they are trying to prevent the rest of us from every experiencing.  Why can’t we listen–  “Be still and know.” (Psalm 46:10).

It was poignant to see the nation rally and support the communities that have suffered horrible attacks of gun violence.  Now let’s really help by working to save America’s children.  We can put an end to the senseless acts of violence going on in America today.  As the victims of these tragedies reach out to our legislators and communities to solve the issue of gun violence and its impact on the American family, let’s listen and accept the message that this has to stop.  To do so is to protect our family and definitely is a great way to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cipad%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D258011

America

America (Photo credit: acb)