All posts by Lisa Tae-Ran Schroeder

 
Blog

Religion advocating for the environment


According to the media, one of the latest green movements is happening in churches, synagogues, and mosques around the country. Several news organizations have already done stories about people from different faiths who all have the same goal of saving the environment.

The Weather Channel’s "Forecast Earth" profiles Baptist pastor and environmental advocate Dr. Gerald Durely, who was inspired by the environmental film The Great Warming. Dr. Durely says in the piece: "As one who believes that the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, is that we have an obligation to ensure that what God has created, we keep together." The pastor has taken his environmental message and movement to his congregation because he says it will "make a difference for my children, my grandchildren, and generations to come when we begin to conserve and do what it is on this Earth that is so important."

ABC News looked into a North Carolina church that for the second year in a row is having a so-called "carbon fast" for Lent:

"Lent is a traditional time when we talk about reducing," said the United Church’s pastor, Richard Edens.

Lent is the 40-day period in which Christians fast and atone to prepare for Easter. This year the congregation has weekly themes; for example, one week they save water, another week they eat only locally-grown produce. And they are part of a growing international movement of carbon-fasters.

New Jersey Jewish News reports on a Jewish environmental organization’s call to synagogues to become more environmentally friendly by changing their old incandescent lightbulbs to energy-efficient ones:

"We’re trying to make our synagogue more energy-efficient, so it was a natural process," [Kevin Fried of Montclair, NJ’s Bnai Keshet synagogue] said. "We’re doing our part to help the environment. A couple of weeks ago we held a screening of An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore’s documentary on global warming) and had CFLs [compact fluorescent lightbulbs]" on hand for people to see and purchase.

The article also features other energy-saving tips from the Coalition for the Environment in Jewish Life.

CNN reports on the "greenest" Canadian Church that is a model of eco-renovation. Father Paul Cusack of St. Gabriel’s Parish says he is "trying to raise the consciousness of people through the beauty of creation." And asks his parish: "What are we going to do as individuals in this community to change our lifestyle or anything else to facilitate the healing of the Earth?" The renovated church itself is a model of environmental-friendly architechture.  Among its Earth-friendly features are large windows to draw in solar heat and a living wall that is a natural air purifier. And as Father Paul says, "It’s not words that make the difference, it’s actions."

The Washington Post and Newsweek‘s "On Faith" section online addressed interfaith environmental care. Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core brings together Evangelicals and Muslims to work for the greater good. Patel writes:

The Holy Qur’an teaches that God created Adam to be His servant and representative on Earth with the primary task of caring for the beauty and diversity of creation…In my Muslim outlook, I believe this is moving creation in line with the intention of the Creator.

Among Patel’s interfaith initiatives are Earth Day programs involving different faiths.

keeping the earth ever green

*Please note that ever green is religion neutral and does not advocate for or against any religion, but I am always happy to report on anyone or anything that is helping the environment regardless of motivation.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Barack Obama caught with plastic bags


Presidential hopeful-senator-supposed environmental advocate Barack Obama proves in this week’s US Magazine that he’s "just like US!" by happily accepting groceries in non-biodegradable plastic bags: 

One of ever green’s very first posts in January 2007 was about the continuing scourge of plastic bags. The very first paragraph could be applied directly to this photo of Senator Obama:

Here’s a familiar scenario. You go to the grocery store, get your items and, at the checkout counter, a bagger puts your items into several plastic bags. The bags are never filled to capacity, sometimes only a few items are put into each bag, and usually the bags are doubled. You then head out of the store with many more bags than you need.

Look closely at the two bags Mr. Obama accepts in the picture…they are barely full. He could have at least only used one bag instead of two.

Evironmental responsibility rests on many things, but it’s really the individual person — as elected officials campaigning surely know about — that can make change for the better.

One would think that for such an important campaign and the environment as a high priority, Senator Obama’s advisors or supporters could have given him a reusable canvas bag for him to shop with.

I looked around and found a nice bag for him to use: 

Mr. Obama may have scored a lifetime League of Conservation Voters score of 96 out of 100 for his first two years in the Senate — but ever green gives him a 0 just from this picture alone.

On the other side, Senator Hillary Clinton has a LCV score of 90 for six years service and her campaign is carbon neutral. Ever green has endorsed her as Democratic presidential nominee.

 

keeping the earth ever green

Check out another early ever green photo essay on plastic bag litter. 

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Nuclear power supports Barack Obama-should you?


NBC News reports on Democratic presidential nominee hopeful/Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s murky ties to nuclear power. They claim that a nuclear power corporation has given a large donation to his campaign. Nuclear power is also supported by Senator John McCain as a "clean" power source. Certainly it does not emit carbon, but the radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of in a safe way is the environmental issue. Watch the Lisa Myers report below:

 

 

 

 

keeping the earth ever green

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

The presidential candidates and the environment


With the February 5th primary almost here, where the majority of the states vote to choose who they want as their party’s presidential candidate, ever green is looking at their environmental history to determine who the standout candidates are.

How Green Is Your Candidate?

Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential candidate who ever green stands behind. Her environmental record is ongoing; according to Grist, she has sponsored or co-sponsored almost 400 lawmaking proposals about energy or the environment. And this continues even as recently as last week. In the midst of her non-stop campaigning Clinton still managed to co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer’s bill to reverse the EPA’s global warming waiver decision. This controversial decision blocked states’ own efforts to cut vehicle emissions. Also note that 17 other senators co-sponsored this bill, including Senators Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Ted Kennedy, to name a few. Senator Clinton has also introduced legislation to amend the Defense Authorization Act to include global warming as a threat to national security. This amendment has passed congressional approval twice, was vetoed once by President Bush, and now again is pending his approval. For her campaign, she promises to reduce electricity consumption, support a $50 billion alternative energy fund, greatly increase fuel-efficiency standards, and green up low-income homes, among other things. Clinton’s presidential campaign is carbon neutral. And the nonpartisan group, League of Conservation Voters (LCV), gives Senator Clinton a 90 percent lifetime environmental voting record, which is a very high average considering it spans from 2001 when she was first elected to office.

Although ever green is not Republican, I do stand up for Senator John McCain as presidential candidate for that party. As noted in a previous ever green post, McCain co-sponsored the 2003 Climate Stewardship Act that the Republican majority Senate at the time rejected. According to the League of Conservation Voters, McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate who has done or said anything at all about environmental issues and global warming. The other candidates have barely acknowledged global warming as an issue or problem. Senator McCain, although only receiving a 26 percent lifetime environmental voting record, was the only Republican who bothered to answer the LCV’s questionnaire. For his campaign, McCain doesn’t lay out any specific numbers as do the Democratic candidates on environmental issues; instead he acknowledges that there is an interdependence between economics and the environment and that they both need to be healthy to work. He also is an advocate for nuclear energy as an alternative and clean energy source.

keeping the earth ever green

 

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

How New Jersey became one of the nation’s top solar power states


Rise in the New Jersey solar market
The Garden State is living up to its name by having one of the nation’s top solar energy power programs. Since the program’s conception, solar installations have dramatically risen by over 300 percent.

Originating in 2001, through the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) designed a model of green-energy plans and incentives that make environmentally-friendly energy consumption reachable and affordable for average consumers.

Especially attractive are the incentives for installing solar panels (also know as photovoltaics), which over a number of years can actually bring individual energy costs down to zero. These incentives include high rebates for cost and installation as well as special loans for businesses and schools.

New Jersey is now the fastest growing solar energy market in the U.S. When the program began in 2001, there were only six solar panels running. By 2006 the number of solar panel installations doubled and, according to the BPU, there are now over two thousand statewide. This number is second only to California — which, the BPU points out, has four times the population and energy needs of New Jersey.

New Jersey’s solar power programs are even attracting wealthy investors such as Ted Turner. Last year he partnered with Dome-Tech Solar to create DT Solar, a renewable energy company. Turner’s company just finished installing the nation’s largest corporate solar system for Hall’s Warehouse Corp. in South Plainfield.

Success through the Solar Financing Model
Leading the way for affordable solar power is New Jersey’s Solar Financing Model. Through state rebates, government tax credits, net-metering, and renewable energy certificates, the cost-effectiveness of buying and installing solar panels is reduced to 10 years or less. Cost-effectiveness previously had been measured at 25 years. 

This model has set a high standard that other states are using to create their own solar power programs. New Jersey currently matches cost and installation of solar panels up to 60 percent. Net-metering allows excess electricity generated to be sold back to utility companies. Renewable energy certificates compensate owners for every 1,000 kilowatt hours (1 MWh) generated by their solar energy installation.

Another incentive for solar panel buyers is a federal tax credit of up to $2,000 provided through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). This is the same act signed by President Bush that also gives rebates for hybrid vehicles and energy-efficient appliances, among other things.

However, the state’s program will soon be transitioning from rebate-based to market-based, says BPU Public Information Officer Doyal Siddell. This market-based program still under review would phase out the rebates and in turn could refocus buyers’ costs primarily on renewable energy certificates.

New Jersey as an environmental leader
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the net electricity generation for New Jersey was 4,709,000 megawatt hours (MWh) measured in November 2006. Nuclear, natural gas, and coal make up the largest energy sources comprising 4,588,000 MWh. Only 36 MWh are currently generated from solar.

New Jersey also houses the highest-capacity and oldest running nuclear power plants in the nation at Salem Creek and Oyster Creek respectively.

It is also one of the top five particulate air (soot) polluters in the United States.

New Jersey Governor John Corzine recently signed an executive order adopting strict rules and goals to actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The order mandates limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and electric companies will be fined if found going over. "I’m proud that New Jersey is helping to blaze that trail," Governor Corzine said in a press release.

The state’s goal is to have 20 percent renewable energy output by 2020, with 1,500 MWhs by solar power alone.

Growing market for solar power
The solar energy market currently makes up less than 0.1 percent of all energy produced across the country. The growing need for alternative sources of energy production could bring solar energy to a more prominent position. And in New Jersey,  businesses and homeowners now have the cost-effectiveness and governmental support to utilize the power of the sun.

keeping the earth ever green 

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Cigarette butts are unsightly and pollute the environment


Billions of cigarette butts get tossed out onto the streets, creating ugly litter and causing toxic chemicals to be released into the environment. Watch as ever green explores this issue:

 

 

keeping the earth ever green 

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Eating meat worse for environment than driving or flying


According to a United Nations report published last November, animal agriculture emits more global-warming gases into the air than does transportation. And greenhouse gases aside, the report also shows how livestock degrade and pollute land and water sources. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options is a free, downloadable report that explains in great detail how the animal agriculture industry hurts the environment, which in turn makes it clear that eating meat products helps to contribute to the Earth’s demise. In the summary and conclusion chapter, the authors broke down their findings:

Economic, social, and health impact:
Although the livestock industry accounts for less than two percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), its output is around 40 percent of all agricultural products. And in developed nations animal agriculture makes up 50-60 percent of all agricultural output. More important than its output, raising livestock provides livelihoods for people in developing countries, which is sometimes the only viable way the poor can live by. It has been shown that modest consumption of meat and dairy products can be beneficial for health. But the overconsumption of the same are to be blamed for obesity and its health-related problems, most notably in developed nations.

Environment, air, and water impact:
The animal agriculture industry takes up almost 30 percent of the Earth’s usable land space. Many countries, such as Brazil, have clear-cut, massive amounts of once abundant forests for the purpose of installing cattle farms. And the agricultural land used to raise feed for these cattle has been polluted by pesticides and fertilizers, as well as degraded by soil erosion and water pollution. The livestock sector is also a "key-player" in water use as well as depletion, which is mostly used to irrigate the crops used for feed. Grazing livestock disrupt natural chemical patterns in soil as well as destroy wild animal habitats. Ironically livestock consume more than 77 million tons of "human edible protein" as opposed to the 58 million tons the animals actually contribute to the food stream. The major pollutants from this industry include animal waste, hormones, and antibiotics, as well as chemicals used to produce leather. In addition, animal agriculture contributes 18 percent of the total effect of global warming. And in terms of greenhouse gases, livestock overall contribute 9 percent of carbon dioxide, a whopping 37 percent of methane gas, and 65 percent nitrous oxide.

Solutions:
Unless changes are made and implemented immediately, the report states bluntly that "environmental damage will double." Some solutions include taxing livestock companies for environmental damage as well as creating incentives for environmental upkeep. Implementing new technologies at a fast pace could create higher productivity and therefore impact the environment less. Requiring industrial livestock to be located in less concentrated areas where it’s easier to dispose their waste to neighboring croplands is another recommendation.

The impact of animal agriculture to the environment is already apparent, so being able to manage it in a way that benefits the producers, the consumers, and the environment is a problem that needs to be solved immediately. As a consumer, eating less meat is a small way to help.

keeping the earth ever green

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Environmental detriment of bottled drinks?


The detriment of the unenvironmentalness of bottled water have recently been the cause celebre in the media. There were lots of similar reports about the plastic waste that bottles have made and how bottled water doesn’t necessarily taste any better or have less bacteria than tap water. It was even reported that cities and towns’ local governments have been trying to tout the natural deliciousness of tap water to stem the plastic waste created from the bottled variety. Studies and statistics were cited on how many hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles end up on the planet just from bottled water alone. But these so-called media giants who jump onto any sort of trendy — ahem — "news item" only skimmed the surface of this subject.

History of bottled drinks encased in plastic
Beverages including soda and water began to be bottled in plastic in 1970 and 1968 respectively. Starting in the 1980s, the plastic used for bottling was of the PET (polyethylene terephtalate) type, which is recyclable. This type of plastic became the plastic bottling standard.

Number of bottles from water or other drinks
Nowhere in any of the media "reports" on the bad-for-the-environment-plastic-bottles-from-bottled-water stories were there any statistics about any of the other beverages in plastic bottles. What about the annual numbers of plastic soda bottles produced vs. bottled water? If some of the people who drink bottled water now are ones who used to drink soda, the number of bottles strewn about the Earth could possibly be the same.

International Bottled Water Association President Joseph Doss told the Agence France-Presse that their industry alone should not bear the brunt of the criticism: "If the debate is about the impact of plastic packaging on the environment, a narrow focus on bottled water spotlights only a small portion of the packaged beverage category and an even smaller sliver of the universe of packaged products. Any efforts to reduce the resources necessary to produce and distribute packaged goods — and increase recycling rates — must focus on all packaging."

Health benefits from drinking water vs. soda
No matter where the water comes from, bottled or from the tap, it is much more healthful than chemical-laden soda pop. If there are these negative reports about how bottled water is bad for the environment, people might instead pick up some soda, thinking that there are no bad reports about that.

Plastic bottles can be recycled
Like stated previously, all plastic bottled drinks use the standard PET plastic, which is recyclable. Even if the bottles are thrown into the trash, most likely in large urban areas, someone will pick through the garbage specifically looking for plastic bottles so they can cash in the deposit.

 

The best thing for the environment is definitely not buying plastic bottled drinks. But, if the bottle is the only thing a drink can be purchased in, it’s good to know that at least the bottles can be recycled — and drinking water is definitely much better for one’s health than soda.

keeping the earth ever green

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Hypocrisy of “I’m not a plastic bag” bag


Recently handbag designer Anya Hindmarch decided to jump on the environmental bandwagon by releasing a limited-edition canvas shopping bag emblazoned with the words "I’m not a plastic bag." Because of its exclusiveness, people lined up around supermarkets in cities all over the world just to get their hands on it. The bag was/is a definite hit and sold out in hours only to appear on eBay later on for a mark-up equaling hundreds of dollars. But this message of creating a buzz around a canvas bag that should help the environment is wrong.

The people that bought the bag won’t use it in place of plastic bags
Most people aware of this bag are most likely into trendy items and not interested about the environment. This bag is the "it" bag of the moment, so just because it’s made out of canvas and its claim is that it’s not a plastic bag doesn’t automatically make the person who buys it "green." A lot of the people that bought the bags wanted to resell them on eBay for hundreds of dollars anyway, not use them for grocery shopping. Most of the people that bought the bag probably don’t even shop for groceries themselves. They send their housekeepers or personal chefs who most likely won’t get the bag lent to them for that purpose.

The bag designer is all about consumerism, not environmentalism
Anya Hindmarch is a bag designer. Her job is to create bags and encourage people to buy as many of them as possible so she can make a living. Encouraging mass consumerism is not good for the environment. And even though she pretends that her "I’m not a plastic bag" bags are good for the environment, London’s Evening Standard recently uncovered the unflattering fact that Ms. Hindmarch’s bag was manufactured in China using non-organic and non-free-trade materials.

Have yet to see regular people using the bag for groceries
A quick trip to some Manhattan grocery stores didn’t uncover anyone actually using the bag for its so-called intention. The grocery baggers — as usual — still used plenty of plastic bags. They were double bagging and barely filling these bags full. There was not an "I’m not a plastic bag" in sight. There was, however, a non-trendy, ratty, old Hughes Market canvas bag and Sierra Club canvas bag that were in use by me. But since they have been in use every week for years, no one wanted to rip them off my shoulder and offer me $200.

The people that waited in line and bought the bag are hypocrites
Here in the U.S. the bag was sold at Whole Foods stores for a mere $15. The day was rainy. So after the lucky people who were at the front of the line got their precious canvas bag, it got wrapped up in a plastic bag to keep it dry. How ironic is that?

keeping the earth ever green

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

How green are the new NYC sports stadiums?


A frenzy of construction activity has arisen to the cause of building new New York-area sports stadiums. It’s not that the old stadiums were falling apart but because new stadiums represent presumably more interest and revenues for the sports teams. Even though tear-down and construction of the stadiums could reap environmental disaster, as long as more money pours out from the stadiums, that’s all that really seems to matter. Green building has been gaining in popularity and is much easier to utilize and abide by environmental rules. It’s good to see that many of the new stadiums will be green, but unfortunately some of the new arenas decided against any sort of environmental aspects during and after construction. Lew Blaustein wrote an excellent article, "Green fields of dreams," for green-links.org detailing his search for answers about how green the new stadiums are/will be. Below are some sum-ups of his findings:

The Prudential Arena for NHL’s New Jersey Devils in Newark, NJ:
Green aspect: The fact that it will be downtown and easily accessible by public transport, something that their old Continental Arena in the Meadowlands did not offer.
Non-green aspects: Everything else about it, even though ironically the architect firm HOK Sport has collaborated with the U.S. Green Building Council on other stadiums.

Red Bull Park for the Red Bull New York major league soccer team in Harrison, NJ:
Green aspects: The new stadium will reclaim New Jersey’s largest brownfield (a commerical or industrial site unused due to environmental pollution) area and will clean up 100 acres along the Passaic River waterfront. It will also be accessible by public transport. Once built and in use, the stadium will supply only recycled paper products from a local company and will use clean energy supplied by carrier PSE&G.
Non-green aspects: Building plans and materials are not finalized and therefore LEED (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design) compliancy — in other words, the green building industry benchmark guidelines — is not certain.

Citi Field for baseball’s New York Mets in Flushing, NY:
Green aspects: Lew calls it a "veritable Green Grand Slam!" Will be LEED-compliant where possible during construction and operation. Public transportation, green energy use, sustainable building operations, among other implementations, are emphasized.
Non-green aspects: LEED currently does not have guidelines for open-air stadiums, but this stadium’s commitment to environmental protection sets its own high standards.

New Yankee Stadium for baseball’s New York Yankees in Bronx, NY:
Green aspects: No one associated with the stadium would talk to Lew about its greenness, therefore making him come to the conclusion that it is not green. Everyone likes good publicity, so he concluded that they would definitely be willing to talk up any sort of green aspect in the building or design if there was any. However, a new MetroNorth train stop is to be built by the stadium, giving it access by public transport.
Non-green aspects: The land taken over for building the stadium was two well-used public parks. A new mall will be built next to the stadium that will attract CO2-spewing vehicles.

Barclay’s Center Atlantic Yards for New Jersey Nets basketball team in Brooklyn, NY:
Green aspects: This Frank Gehry-designed stadium will be completely LEED-compliant and the first LEED-certified green arena. It will be built on environmentally-damaged land and will develop and clean up the area, creating public spaces, environmental homes, and office buildings. Construction will minimize environmental damage by using particulate filters, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, and noise barriers, among other things. Once completed, the arena will be easily accessed by public transportation and sewer overflow into the Gowanus Canal will be reduced by simply reusing rainwater.
Non-green aspects: Lew didn’t write about any.

Jets-Giants Stadium at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, NJ:
Green aspects: Sustainabilty is a definite high priority for the building of this stadium. The separate teams decided to share the stadium, thereby cutting down instantly on the environmental detriment of building two different stadiums. A new light rail system will be constructed and car traffic is anticipated to be cut by 5,000 vehicles per game. Construction will be LEED-compliant.
Non-green aspects: Lew didn’t write about any.

keeping the earth ever green

Click here for the full article, "Green field of dreams."

For more on LEED, please visit the U.S. Green Building Council .

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Al Gore’s summer conservation concert Live Earth


One of the must-do events for eco-conscious folks is to attend one of the Live Earth concerts this July. According to the official website, the event will be a "24-hour, 7-continent series of 9 concerts taking place on 7/7/07 that will bring together more than 100 music artists and 2 billion people to trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis." And yes that does mean that there will be a concert on the continent of Antarctica, which, however, can only be attended by the 17 research scientists already there. But in terms of the other continents, anybody can go listen to music and learn about how to save the planet.

In recent years, Al Gore has been one of the greatest influences in the rise of interest to conserve the planet. His highly popular documentary An Inconvenient Truth helped the cause of global warming; and, through his efforts, environmentalism is no longer a bad word. But the question of ecological responsibility during huge mega-stage musical events seems illogical.

The Live Earth organizers claim that this event will use new Green Event Guidelines (GEGs) as outlined by LEED, the Green Building Rating System. A quick visit and search on the LEED website didn’t show any sort of GEGs. A call to their customer service to find out about this led to only a voicemail saying to leave a message. Granted, the new GEGs could be so new that there is no information about them yet, but since this concert is such a big event that could yield a lot of publicity for LEED, one would think they would have info about it.

The place that there are GEGs is in the Live Earth press kit, which of course they want to publicize. So according to this, Live Earth will use renewable energy and biodegradable plastics, recycle, offset carbon emissions, and use hybrid vehicles among other things. Environmental advisor John Rego says that this event is breaking ground for the live event industry and is a learning process because of the newness. He goes on to say that educating the people involved in this event about minimizing their environmental footprint, from which they will be able to take and make good in future events, is key.

The real question is what sort of impact will happen regardless of all the so-called environmental precautions taken. Thousands of people converging for a day in one area has to have a negative effect. Most of the people who will attend this concert probably think they care about the environment enough, so how does this event really "trigger a global movement to solve the climate crisis?"

keeping the earth ever green

For more on LEED visit their website.

For more on Live Earth click on their website.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Idling vehicles bad for health and earth


With the average gas price at over $3, using less gas should be the norm, but many people still idle their cars, delivery trucks, or buses. This not only wastes gas but also spews out greenhouse gases and creates poor air quality like smog that’s unhealthy to breathe.

A 2003 New York City Council report compiled findings about idling engines. It found that idling a car for more than 30 seconds wastes gas and is not good for the engine. And "when viewed in the context of global warming, idling your car is about as responsible as fanning the flames of your burning house." Diesel fumes are the worst for adding to environmental as well as health degradation. This is especially of concern for school children who are exposed to diesel exhaust from school buses. New York City has the highest asthma rate in the nation and idling vehicles are one of the main contributors to this.

New York state and city have laws concerning idling. Under state law vehicles can’t idle for longer than five minutes unless for emergency purposes, if the engine is needed for maintenance, or to run an auxiliary function such as a loader. And the city’s law is similar except that vehicles cannot idle for more than three minutes.

But a quick stroll around the streets of New York show that many delivery trucks, such as mail or parcel delivery and food delivery, idle for much longer than three minutes. Often times they even block traffic, leaving their truck to idle in the road while they make their delivery.

But the city is trying to fight pollution and global warming. It uses hybrid buses for public transportation and a small percentage of taxicabs are hybrid too. Mayor Bloomberg recently made a splash by declaring that all taxicabs need to be green by 2012.

Idling vehicles are a big problem. Each individual can either contribute positively or negatively to this detriment. The easiest decision to make is to turn off your engine instead of leaving it to idle.

keeping the earth ever green

To read more about New York City’s commitment to clean transportation, click here.

 

 

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: