Green Living-Article 1

Hot,Flat,andCrowded:WhyWeNeeda GreenRevolution—andHowIt CanRenewAmerica

By ThomasL.Friedman

Thefollowingis excerptedfroma bookabouttheneedfora greenrevolution.

Americahasaproblemandtheworldhasaproblem.America’sproblemisthatithaslostitswayinrecentyears— partlybecauseof9/11andpartlybecauseofthebadhabitsthatwehaveletbuildupoverthelastthreedecades,bad habitsthathaveweakenedoursociety’sabilityandwillingnesstotakeonbigchallenges.

Theworldalsohasaproblem:Itisgettinghot,flat,andcrowded.Thatis,globalwarming,thestunningriseofmiddleclassesallovertheworld,andrapidpopulationgrowthhaveconvergedina waythatcouldmakeourplanet dangerouslyunstable.Inparticular,theconvergenceofhot,flat,andcrowdedistighteningenergysupplies, intensifyingtheextinctionofplantsandanimals,deepeningenergypoverty,strengtheningpetro-dictatorship,and acceleratingclimatechange. Howweaddresstheseinterwovenglobaltrendswilldeterminealotaboutthequalityof lifeonearthinthetwenty-firstcentury.

IamconvincedthatthebestwayforAmericatosolveitsbigproblem—thebestwayforAmericatogetits“groove” back—isforustotaketheleadinsolvingtheworld’sbigproblem.Ina worldthatis gettinghot,flat,andcrowded, thetaskofcreatingthetools,systems,energysources,andethicsthatwillallowtheplanettogrowincleaner,more sustainablewaysis goingtobethebiggestchallengeofourlifetime.

ButthischallengeisactuallyanopportunityforAmerica.Ifwetakeiton,itwillreviveAmericaathome,reconnect Americaabroad,andretoolAmericafortomorrow.Americaisalwaysatitsmostpowerfulandmostinfluentialwhenit is combininginnovationandinspiration,wealth-buildinganddignity-building,thequestforbigprofitsandthetacklingofbigproblems.Whenwedojustone,wearelessthanthesumofourparts.Whenwedoboth,weare greaterthanthesumofourparts—muchgreater.

Source: Friedman,ThomasL.Hot,Flat,andCrowded:WhyWeNeeda GreenRevolution—andHowIt CanRenewAmerica.NewYork:Farrar,2008.Print.

Green Living-Article 2

U.S.CouldLearnaThingorTwo fromSingapore

By AlanM.Webber

Thefollowingis excerptedfromanonlineeditorialina nationalnewspaper

It’stimetotake...alookathowSingapore’stransportationpolicymakersdealwiththetyrannyoftheautomobile. StartwithSingapore’sgeneralapproachtoeverypolicyissue.Theoverarchingpremiseisthatthegovernment intendstorunthecountrywithabusiness-drivenperspective.That’sanideayou’dthinkwouldappealto PresidentBush,America’sfirstMBAchiefexecutive....

Sowhatisit thattheSingaporeangovernmenthascraftedasitscomprehensivepolicyapproachtotheauto?Thefirst thingyouneedtoknowis,if youwanttobuya carinSingapore,youfirstmustbuyapermittobuyacar....The currentpriceis roughly$10,000fora midsizecar.Andhere’sthepolicykicker:Themoneygoesintosupportingan efficient,highlydevelopedmasstransitsystem,whichtodayhandlesabout4 millionridesperday,comparedwith3 milliondailyprivateautotrips.

Taxesaretheotherenergy-conservingmeasureadoptedby theSingaporeangovernment.Inparticular,carbuyerspayanannualtaxthatspecificallypunisheshigh-powered,gas-guzzlingengines.Butforeverystickthere’sacarrot:Thegovernmentawardsa lumpsumtaxrebateof40%ofthepriceofa vehicletoSingaporeanswhooptforhybrids.Asanypublicpolicywonkwilltellyou,taxpolicyispublicpolicy.InthecaseofSingapore,thepolicymessageisclear: Gasolineisscarceandexpensive—andlikelyonlytobecomemoreso.Taxpoliciesthatencourageconservationandpunishwastejustmakesense....

ThesearejustafewofthethoughtfullyalignedpolicyincentivesadoptedinSingapore.Moreimportant,perhaps, Singaporeisonlyoneof manyplacesintheworldthatismakingenergyconservationandautomanagementa priority.JustasglobalizationhasmadeAmericancompanieslearnfromotherbusinessesaroundtheworld,sothe opportunityexistsformayors,governorsandevenmembersofCongressandWhiteHouseofficialstolearnfrom moreadvanced,moreadventurousnations.

Source: Webber,AlanM.“U.S.CouldLearnaThingorTwo fromSingapore.”Editorial. USAToday.USA Today,14Aug.2006.Web.17Aug.2009.

Green Living-Article 3

EnergySavers Booklet:TipsonSavingEnergyMoneyatHome

Thefollowingis excerptedfroma WebsitepublishedbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy.

DidyouknowthatthetypicalU.S.familyspendsabout$1,900a yearonhomeutilitybills?Unfortunately,alarge portionofthatenergyiswasted.Andeachyear,electricitygeneratedbyfossilfuelsforasinglehomeputsmore carbondioxideintotheairthantwoaveragecars.Andasfortheroad,transportationaccountsfor67%ofallU.S.oil consumption.Thegoodnewsis thatthereis a lotyoucandotosaveenergyandmoneyathomeandinyourcar.

Startmakingsmallchangestoday.

•Installaprogrammablethermostattokeepyourhousecomfortablywarminthewinterandcomfortablycool in thesummer.

•UsecompactfluorescentlightbulbswiththeENERGYSTAR®label.

•Airdrydishesinsteadofusingyourdishwasher’sdryingcycle.

•Turnoffyourcomputerandmonitorwhennotinuse.

•Plughomeelectronics,suchasTVsandDVDplayers,intopowerstrips;turnthepowerstripsoffwhenthe equipmentisnotinuse(TVsandDVDsinstandbymodestilluseseveralwattsofpower).

•Lowerthethermostatonyourhotwaterheaterto120°F.

•Takeshortshowersinsteadofbaths.

•Washonlyfullloadsofdishesandclothes.

•Drivesensibly.Aggressivedriving(speeding,rapidaccelerationandbraking)wastesgasoline.

Source: UnitedStates.DepartmentofEnergy.OfficeofEnergy EfficiencyandRenewable Energy.EnergySavers Booklet:TipsonSavingEnergyMoneyatHome. 6 Aug.2009.Web.18Aug.2009.

Green Living-Article 4

SellingtheGreenEconomy

By RobertJ. Samuelson

Thefollowingis excerptedfromanonlinearticleina nationalnewspaper.

Fewthingsaremoreappealinginpoliticsthansomethingfornothing.As Congressbeginsconsideringanti-global- warminglegislation,environmentalistsholdoutpreciselythattantalizingprospect:Wecanconquerglobalwarming atvirtuallynocost.Here’satypicalclaim,fromtheEnvironmentalDefenseFund(EDF):

“Foraboutadimeaday[perperson],wecansolveclimatechange,investinacleanenergyfuture,andsavebillions inimportedoil.”

Thissoundstoogoodtobetrue,becauseit is.. . . TheclaimsoftheEnvironmentalDefenseFundandother environmentalists...relyoneconomicsimulationsby“generalequilibrium”models.AnEnvironmentalProtection Agencystudyputthecostaslowas$98perhouseholda year,becausehighenergypricesarepartlyoffsetby governmentrebates.With2.5peopleintheaveragehousehold,that’sroughly11centsadayperperson.

Thetroubleisthatthesemodelsembodywildlyunrealisticassumptions:Therearenobusinesscycles;theeconomyis alwaysat “fullemployment”;stronggrowthisassumed,basedonpastgrowthrates;theeconomyautomatically accommodatesmajorchanges—iffossilfuelpricesrise(astheywouldunderanti-global-warminglaws),consumers quicklyuselessandnewsuppliesof“cleanenergy”magicallymaterialize.

There’snoproblemandcostsarelow,becausethemodelssayso.Buttherealworld,ofcourse,isdifferent.... CountlesspracticaldifficultieswouldariseintryingtoweantheU.S.economyfromtoday’sfossilfuels.OneestimatedonebyeconomistsattheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyfoundthatmeetingmosttransportation needsin2050withlocallyproducedbiofuelswouldrequire“500millionacresofU.S.land—morethanthetotalofcurrentU.S.cropland.”Americawouldhavetobecomea netfoodimporter.. . .

Thesellingofthegreeneconomyinvolvesmucheconomicmake-believe.Environmentalistsnotonlymaximizethe dangersofglobalwarming—fromrisingsealevelsto advancingtropicaldiseases—theyalsominimizethecostsof dealingwithit.Actually,nooneinvolvedinthisdebatereallyknowswhattheconsequencesorcostsmightbe.All areinferredfrommodelsofuncertainreliability.

Source: Samuelson,RobertJ.“SellingtheGreenEconomy.” WashingtonPost.TheWashingtonPostCompany, 27Apr.2009.Web.18Aug.2009.

Green Living-Article 5

InTopPollutingNations,Effortsto Live‘Green’Vary

By MagaliRheault

Thefollowingisexcerptedfromanarticleontheresultsofpollsonenvironmentalawarenessconductedin2007.

AccordingtotheEnergyInformationAdministration,theUnitedStates,China,Russia,Japan,andIndiatogether accountfor54%oftheworld’stotalcarbondioxideemissions,whichrepresentthelargestshareofman-made greenhousegases.GallupPollsconductedin2007showthatAmericanandJapaneseresidentsexpressthehighest levelsofenvironmentalstewardship.

Source: Rheault,Magali.“InTopPollutingNations,Effortsto Live‘Green’Vary.”Gallup.Gallup,Inc.,22Apr. 2008.Web.18Aug.2009.

Green Living-Article 6

The Pros and Cons of the United States ‘Going Green’: Is Environmental Consciousness Really All Good? By Sevastian Winters

The following is excerpted from an online article about the United States going green.

The buzzword for the environmentally conscious is "green". Environmentalists want Americans to believe that green is good and that every other way to live will condemn humanity, and indeed all of nature into an existence that makes Hades look like Club Med. At the same time, industrialists are clamoring to get out the word that the earth is so resilient that eating coal dust is essential for a long and healthy life. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle. Moderates understand the value of good stewardship of our natural resources, but they also understand that the conversion process takes time and comes with some hefty price tags. Here are three benefits to the United States choosing to "Go Green" and three drawbacks that must be considered in any plan to do so.

The Good

  • Learning to use our natural resources with respect to how finite they are will serve future generations and prolong the amount of time that the earth will continue to sustain life. No matter how you view the world's resources, the one thing everyone can agree on is that natural resources do not exist in limitless supplies.
  • Creating new environmentally friendly products and refitting the world with such items will create jobs. Jobs in new technology sectors have traditionally been high paying. Going green is good for workers, and therefore good for the economy.
  • Necessity is the mother of invention. When laws limit people, human ingenuity finds its foothold and invention takes the place of convention. With the introduction of new laws that force companies to find green alternatives come up with inventive plans that increase productivity, quality, and in some cases even revolutionize the way we do things.

The Bad

  • While going green may be good for the long-term economy, companies are the ones who must shoulder the financial burden of unsure investments. That which looks possible from the outset is often mired in more hoopla and expense than it is in reality. When companies lose money on such investments, workers lose jobs, companies go under, and the economy crumbles.
  • Going green eats up time for productivity. In the 1970's nearly every juice bottle, pop can, and newspaper found its way into a landfill. Today, people stop for an extra few seconds or minutes to separate recyclables from true garbage. While it's arguably good for the environment, the fact is that 3 minutes per week over 300 million citizens take up 7,800,000,000 man-hours of time per year. The smallest bits of time taken to go green, when spread out over the whole of the citizenry will adversely affect the gross national product.
  • When new industries grab a foothold, old industries will fall by the wayside, causing an avalanche of job loss, financial hardship, and in some cases catastrophic poverty. Imagine if every oil-producing nation was suddenly left without any viable resources because the world suddenly switched to another form of energy. Those people are our trading partners. The world has gone global. To destroy an industry in a developing nation now costs us money and jobs here in the United States.

The Truth

In the long term, going green is a Utopian ideal to which we must aspire if life is to continue on this planet. However in doing so we must also leave as small a footprint on humanity as we are able. Incentives for invention are worthwhile. Penalties for overindulgence are worthwhile. It is more important that society train itself in the mindset of good stewardship than it is that the electric car obliterate the need for oil inside of 10 years. The truth of consummation is that humans will always consume natural resources. We do so at a lower rate per capita today than we did in the 1970s and that trend is continuing. It is better that the trend continue than that humans ever find a single solution that allows us to indulge our whims without a requirement of stewardship. May you enjoy a rainbow of environmental possibilities, the color green among them.

Source: Winters, Sevastian. “The Pros and Cons of the United States ‘Going Green’: Is Environmental Consciousness Really All Good?” Associated Content.Associated Content, Inc., 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Aug. 2009.

Green Living-Article 7

Why People Opt Against Going Green

By Kate Rogers

Walk down any grocery store aisle or even department store, and you’ll be bombarded with green products. From dish detergent to baby wipes, to organic T-shirts and yoga mats, it seems as if every company is looking to grab a piece of the “green” pie. But not all consumers are buying.

Although the green movement has gained steam over the years, not everyone has gotten on board about reducing their carbon footprint.

Green lifestyle expert Danny Seo says the main reason people choose not to buy green products is simple: they’re selfish.

If there is not a tangible benefit to wearing organic cotton, or changing to organic bedding, Seo says people literally will not buy into it.

"All you know is that you have done something better for the planet. We are selfish, and want to know what we are getting out of it. That is why something like organic cotton will never work, because there is no direct link to why people should want to do this."

The surge in gas prices in recent years made hybrid vehicles become much more attractive to consumers because they showed buyers their savings instantly when filling up at the pump. They aren’t necessarily making the switch to save the economy, rather to save their wallets. The savings on something like an LED bulb, which cost between $30-$50 a bulb and last four to five years, don’t really give instant gratification.

Sustainability was often tied to luxury when first marketed about five years ago, according to Seo, and it didn't feel accessible to the general public.

"Things like the Lexus Hybrid or Tiffany's sustainable diamond collection, they were the loudest and got the most attention. Shopping at Whole Foods, people think it costs more. There is a whole misconception out there.”

Amy Todisco, green living expert, points to product confusion as to why more consumers aren’t jumping on the green band wagon. There are so many different messages and products claiming to be green that it’s too over overwhelming to consumers, Todisco argues.

"There is a lot of information, and a lot of it is conflicting. People are not sure what to trust or what to use, it's hard for consumers to figure out."

Already worried about the economy, their job security and their budgets, adding the concern of “going green” can be too much for consumers.

"It's not the highest priority for people," Todisco says. "Unless they connect emotionally with it, or its connected to a personal concern, they may not want to have a greener lifestyle."

Todisco started living a more eco-friendly lifestyle nearly 20 years ago, when she was pregnant with her daughter, because she wanted her baby to be as healthy as possible, proving Seo's "selfish" argument as to why people want to make green choices. Todisco agrees and adds there may be some stubbornness in the public toward this movement.

"If they don't feel like their actions are making a difference, then why bother? In some ways, the advocates of green living have to pick their battles—its promoting things rather than banning them."

Green shouldn't be thrust upon the public through initiatives without incentives, Seo says. If you want people to buy into a program, or convert to green living, they need a reason.

"The problem with that mentality is that it is a medicine approach," Seo says. "You are going green because it is good for you, so you are being forced to take your green medicine. You need to put a big old spoonful of sugar on top of that in order to take it.”

Source: Rogers, Kate. "Why People Opt Against Going Green." Fox Business. N.p., 4 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.