The Lack of Hybrid Vehicles

The United States dropped the ball when it came to hybrid vehicles. Since 2005 gas prices have steadily risen with numerous upward spikes, especially in 2008 when gas was at an all-time high. That 2008 gas price scare hurt the SUV as a vehicle of choice (look at the downfall of Hummer) and caused Americans to be more cognizant than ever about how much they are spending on gas. Filling up a 20 gallon tank could cost upwards of $80 at that time. Considering that the average American vehicle averages 20 miles per gallon (1), that $80 lasted for only 400 miles. Considering the average American drives 43.5 miles per day (2), thats nearly a full tank of gas for a week of driving. In 2008 that was approximately $300 per month. For many Americans that is a lot of money.

The main problem I see here is that the U.S. didn't mandate hybrid vehicles before this happened. Its usually not a good thing when government gets too involved in individual choices, however here it would have been justified. The average fuel efficiency for a Toyota Prius hybrid is 42 mpg (1). That is over double the mpg of the national average. The thing that most people do not realize is that the Prius has been around since 2001 in the U.S., and since 1997 in Japan. The technology for hybrid vehicles has been around for over a decade. Imagine if the U.S. had required all new vehicles produced to have hybrid technology back in 2000? Half of all gas money spent is now saved, half of all the billions and billions of barrels of oil needed for vehicles in the U.S. is now not needed. Fewer emissions, less pollution. The list goes on and on. Even if a government mandate was created in 2005 at the start of the gas rise it still would have had major impacts. Money saved, less oil needed, lowering pollution output? Sounds great. Not a chance. Why? The simple answer is that oil lobbyists have too much say when it comes to U.S. economics due to the money they have, so policy makers are swayed by them. They don't care about the public or environment. Instead of goodwill and common sense we get uneducated and disgusting political slogans like "drill baby drill". I'm sure the ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico is thanking them right now.


1- http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/calculator
2- http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/gasprices.aspx

Soda Bottle Planter

Since I have been on the topic of reducing and reusing over recycling, here is a way that I reuse products that most people recycle or throw in the trash. I don't drink soda, a lot of people don't, but we all know soda drinkers. I noticed some empty 2 liter plastic soda bottles in a family member's recycle bin, so I fished them out and made this:



I'm using the bottle as a planter. In this photo I am growing catnip, and in the other bottle I have I am growing parsley. Reusing this soda bottle negates the need to recycle it, thus saving energy. It also reduces the need to buy a new planter or pot, reducing the need to buy plastic, and thus saving energy that would be required to make the pot. My individual act saves energy on a very small scale, but the point is that by reducing and reusing we can decrease energy usage from recycling and the making of new products and as such we can decrease pollution output. Reducing and reusing causes chain reactions of goodness. We should do it more often.

100 mpg for $300!?

Would you like to have a vehicle that could get 100 miles per gallon? Would you like that vehicle to cost $300? How about around $100 for a year of insurance? Look no further...



A moped is a great way to do city traveling. You use much less gas than any car and as such produces less emissions. You save a lot of money on insurance and you do not need a special license. And maybe most importantly you are in essence reducing, reusing, and recycling by buying a used moped. Reducing the need for a new pollution producing vehicle, reusing an already existing vehicle, and recycling something someone else didn't want. You can easily find a moped on craigslist or in any local classified ad section. Mopeding might be the greenest mode of vehicular transportation, and its fun!

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - The Forgotten Two

The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle campaign hit its stride in the '90s in terms of public service announcements and laws requiring recycling. This should have occurred earlier, but better late than never. The general purpose of the campaign was a good one, but it focused on the wrong thing and as such gave the public misinformed ideas.

The campaign, rather than focusing on each "R", focused on one "R" -- recycling. If you're going to rank each "R" in terms of importance recycling would be last with reduce first and reusing second. The campaign focused on the wrong aspect of itself and is now, in many ways, paying the price for that. Recycling, while needed and vital, creates pollution due to the energy it requires to recycle items. Reducing and reusing produce no pollution. They actually decrease pollution output as when you reduce and reuse you negate the need to recycle and negate the need to produce more items. Reducing and reusing also keep recyclable items out of landfills, as recyclable items often get trashed either on accident or due to a lack of caring. According to the EPA recyclable paper makes up 40% of landfill contents (1). For all of the negatives, its understandable why the RRR campaign focused on recycling over reducing and reusing -- the public at large wants convenience and wants new things. Human nature and greed in many ways hurt the purpose of reducing and reusing. That said, had the campaign focused on those two as much as recycling a difference surely would have been made. Things have not totally changed however as even in recent years when there is more knowledge available that reducing and reusing are more important than recycling, we still see ill-conceived campaigns and slogans. An example is in Monroe County, New York. A slogan they use for their reduce, reuse, recycle campaign:

Slogans like this make the move into a greener society difficult. Although this isn't surprising coming from Monroe County NY, which is the least green and the most polluted NY state county, with Rochester being more polluted than any other upstate NY city. Regardless, the slogan here, and there are many more like it, kind of gives a hopeless feeling when trying to further greenify society. Its about time we focus on reducing and reusing. It simply more important.


Sincerely,

Sustainability favoritism

Sustainability is one of the main topics in green blogs. Environmental sustainability is an umbrella term that encompasses the various and related sub-areas of sustenance. These sub-areas include, but are not limited to:

Ecosystem Sustainability; protecting ecosystems by reducing the reliance on the usage of products that promote deforestation and destruction of local and regional environments.
Energy Sustainability; the ability to meet current and future energy needs with non-polluting, renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, and water.
Food Sustainability; promoting methods of cultivating crops and humane treatment of meat animals in order to sustain the human population with healthy food choices so as to avoid famine and hunger.
Refuse Sustainability; the reduction of waste that gorges landfills causing ground pollution, and the reduction of recyclable items that require vast amounts of energy, which thus causes pollution, to recondition into further usable items.

All of these are related to each other, all are important issues, and all are intimately tied to the well-being of the greater environment. That said, I have noticed favoritism for certain areas over other areas in various blogs. One entry in a well known blog I read promoted the usage of water bottles made of paper over water bottles made of plastic. On the surface this seems like it might have merit, but the reality is it doesn't. At the worst that blog entry seems like favoritism of refuse sustainability over ecosystem sustainability, and at the best it is simply promoting a bad, environmentally unfriendly idea. The reason I sense favoritism is when its viewed on the surface it looks as though the use of paper water bottles would seem to be better in terms of producing less waste than plastic. At the same time, however, the ecosystem impacts would be worse if paper bottles were used over plastic as trees and natural settings would suffer. Going past the surface and looking at this more closely we see that paper requires more energy to produce and to recycle than plastic. So this blog also goes against energy sustainability. If accidentally trashed and put into a landfill paper can take a longer than expected time to break down (1) (2). If a paper bottle fad ever caught on I think it could be said that most paper bottles, especially from large companies, would be from non-sustainably sourced lumber. There goes more trees. Plastic bottles also have more utility than paper ones would. I know people who have made rain catches out of plastic bottles. I doubt doing that would be possible with paper. I don't mean to delve off into a different topic, but the point is thinking that paper water bottles are an "answer" seems like a rash opinion from someone who puts refuse sustainability over ecosystem sustainability as at first glance paper bottles would seem to produce less garbage, but would be worse for the trees and pollution. This "less garbage vs. stop deforestation" image immediately creates a counterbalance that I view as shoddy blogging with a bias.

Although I would rate ecosystem sustainability as the most important of the sub-areas due to the fact that flora and fauna are the most time sensitive and significant, the reality is all types should be at the forefront, and not neglected for another. I used one example above, but the reality is a lot of blogs focus on one area with disregard for the others. I find that disturbing.

Sincerely,