All our environmental efforts mean nothing unless we start talking about the one issue that so many refuse to face. Stream our film for free through the end of May and see what it is that can help alleviate the stresses rapid population growth has had on our earth and it's ecosystems.
"The Pledge (An Earth Anthem) music video by the award-winning Earthman Lanny Smith and the Planet Earth Project features both the Miami Children's Choir and the Nashville Children's Choir, and is signed by for the hard of hearing by children. This will inspire everyone.
On Youtube at http://youtu.be/_uA4iqxv1G0
Monsanto and its GMO program is BAD for all of us and needs to be STOPPED NOW!
This is about identifying barriers to green energy technologies in existing rental properties. I am a renter for over 30 years. (It is not possible for me to own a home.) My income goes to pay for my landlord's property and taxes, but I have no control over how she chooses to spend her money on maintenance and improvements to her property which is my home. But I pay for the energy bill for my flat. I am doing ...more »
This is about identifying barriers to green energy technologies in existing rental properties.
I am a renter for over 30 years. (It is not possible for me to own a home.) My income goes to pay for my landlord's property and taxes, but I have no control over how she chooses to spend her money on maintenance and improvements to her property which is my home. But I pay for the energy bill for my flat.
I am doing what I can with the control I do have over my energy expenditures. I am enrolled in the Energy Star program where I live which directs my money toward green energy technology at the WE Energy Company. This is my largest bill/expense after food. I want to use my own money toward buying things that would make my home more energy efficient because no matter how much I invest in green energy at the corporate level, but I am still wasting a lot of energy living in an older home with poor insulation in the attic.
Every landlord I have had seems to dislike when I bring up energy-saving and green ideas, even when I offer to PAY FOR THEM MYSELF. Like a low-flush toilet, or a no storage water heater. Sometimes I did it anyway, without their permission, like insulating an old water heater and the naked hot water pipes in the basement. But I was reprimanded and told not to do that again because it was their property!! I have told them about available programs for landlords to get back some money if they choose to upgrade to greener technologies, like a high-efficiency furnace or water heater, but more than once was told that the paperwork or some other requirement made them reluctant to do so. I think it is uncertain for them to pay for something up front that is expensive, and not be entirely certain they will get a reimbursement amount.
This leaves me with no control over how my largest energy expense is used, and I have no way to reduce it. The suggestions I have tried, such as caulking, plastic over windows, low-flow shower heads, and such, are a minimal help compared to what the landlord and I could do if we were to invest some of our money into better insulation, for instance. My landlords are elderly and live on a fixed income. They also live as they used to when energy was cheap and its hard to get people over 80 to think about big investments in anything because long-term doesn't exist for them.
* If there was an up-front decrease in the amount spent when the water heater or furnace is replaced that might make the difference for many landlords like mine.
Also, if there was a greater incentive to insulate attics very thoroughly it might make it worthwhile for them to consider it. However, they are considering selling the house, and a well-insulated attic is not visible enough to young buyers as a selling point. So what is the landlord's incentive to do it if they don't plan on ever living there and paying the energy bill themselves?
This is the kind of thing that is like building good infrastructure for our country. It would be perfect to create a nationwide program where jobs are created to go into older rental properties where the landlords are also older and really insulate and maybe even do energy-efficient windows and doors. This could save tons more money than giving away flourecent light bulbs like our current energy program does. I replaced lots of light bulbs, but it hardly makes a dent in my large energy bill, because my biggest usage is heat and hot water.
Furthermore, I am excited to see solar energy technology improving to the point where it is becoming affordable for homeowners. However, I can't see convincing my elderly landlords to invest in something so new and "gee-whiz" to them, even if I shared the cost.
I would love to try it out and use all that wasted roof space on top of my house to power my computer and refrigerator.
This would be another type of thing where if a team came in and assessed the home for a solar array and helped with choosing it, installing it and making it really affordable maybe some forward-thinking landlords might go along with it, as long as it was low-maintenance or had maintenance included.
However, I think most landlords would say why bother if I don't pay the energy bills anyway? So maybe doing one home on each block in a targeted neighborhood would get people talking about it, and neighbors could share information about how it works, the energy savings, and how it is maintained and how it looks. Then maybe tenants would be asking for it, since it isn't an un-heard of thing for renters to have anymore. In poor neighborhoods, many times improvments to homes are wasted as disgruntled tenants leave and damage or steal them. I know a landlord who owns 200 properties in the inner city, and he has had many water heaters stolen when properties were vacant even for a short time. He tells me he hates government programs because there are often a lot of "strings attached" to them. Which to me means he probably doesn't pull all the permits because he has to renovate very quickly so the properties are not vacant even for a few days. And so in his case, the discounts would have to be up-front at time of purchase or he wouldn't do them. For a roof-top solar panel, these would be more difficult to remove and steal so maybe a solar panel would be worth doing since it would be safer. And an insulated attic is never "stolen."
I think that most of the people who are discussing environmental issues are highly educated people who probably own their homes and have more control over how their money is spent even if they choose to rent or live in a condominium. I think that they forget that there are millions of renters out there who might love to try new ways to save energy, because they would notice a decrease in their energy bill more than the average person, because every dime counts when money is tight. If they could afford the green technology, then they could afford to own a home, too. So this is an area where some outside force must step in to get the process going and keep it going. As new science is discovered to reduce energy consumption it needs to be subsidized like the oil industry was and still is, to get it in use and get people used to using it, asking for it and maintaining it. There is always a learning curve for users of new technology and this is why it needs extra help at first. We have a huge bank of older homes in most large cities that are part of our aging infrastructure. Why can't we invest in improving it just like we invest in improving our roads and bridges? These homes are often on small city lots that are more efficient than suburban sprawl. We need to give them the leverage to upgrade.
« less full details »
I think the most important thing that any of us can do to initiate a conversation about the environment, energy or global warming is to work to reform our election process. Even those who start in politics wanting to make big changes are beholden to corporate money for election financing and thus our lawmakers report to interests that are directly counter to those that would make a difference in protecting our world. ...more »
I think the most important thing that any of us can do to initiate a conversation about the environment, energy or global warming is to work to reform our election process. Even those who start in politics wanting to make big changes are beholden to corporate money for election financing and thus our lawmakers report to interests that are directly counter to those that would make a difference in protecting our world. (ie. It is hard to support new and green technology when big oil doesn't want those technologies as competition and big oil just wrote you a big check for your election campaign.)
There is a nationwide movement to reform the election process to make sure that those who govern are making decisions for the public good not for a select few that fund political campaigns. If you search on youtube for Lawrence Lessig The Problem with Money in Politics, you can view a simple yet highly descriptive and engaging talk on this issue given recently at a conference about reform held at UCLA School of Law. Dr. Lessig is a Harvard Law professor. It is refreshing to see such bright minds lending their voice to this important issue.
There are countless documentaries, TEDTalks, websites, dedicated to this systemic issue and the negative effect it is having on our ability to make the big changes that need to happen in order to save our planet for future generations.
Please support those who run for office without taking large dollar donations and join a group focused on reform.
Real change is not possible without reforming our election system.
« less full details »
Most energy efficiency programs are only available to home owners. And land lords that pass on heating bills to renters have no incentive to winterize homes, add double pained windows, install smart heating systems and other improvements that would save energy, CO2 and money. Renters need energy efficiency programs now!
-Set up recycling pick up at all post offices. I've never lived anywhere that had easily available recycling centers, but every town has a post office and trash pick-up. -Charge extra money for things in individual packaging. If it is turned into the recycling center, then they get their extra fee back. Don't want to pay extra, buy in larger containers. -Get rid of plastic packaging, bags, wrappers, etc. Go to biodegradable ...more »
-Set up recycling pick up at all post offices. I've never lived anywhere that had easily available recycling centers, but every town has a post office and trash pick-up.
-Charge extra money for things in individual packaging. If it is turned into the recycling center, then they get their extra fee back. Don't want to pay extra, buy in larger containers.
-Get rid of plastic packaging, bags, wrappers, etc. Go to biodegradable packaging. Pass legislature and enforce it!
-Install solar panels and windmills on the roof of public office buildings and schools, the US has around 100,000 schools. This could supplement clean energy to our communities.
Look at the European countries (Sweden specifically), they burn waste to produce electricity and recycling is mainstream. Recycling should be mainstream in the US, we are supposed to be innovative yet we are way behind the times.
« less full details »
Wanted to share a story about an Air Force Veteran who serves EPA as Chief Photographer. http://youtu.be/jQdu-xD8kSk
Currently, we ask private property owners to preserve resources that the public values. The public must compensate the property owner based on the value of the resource. This can be done with density bonuses, transferable development rights and/or tax breaks. The current system encourages impacts to resources to preserve property value. The public will have to accept higher densities on good developable property in ...more »
Currently, we ask private property owners to preserve resources that the public values. The public must compensate the property owner based on the value of the resource. This can be done with density bonuses, transferable development rights and/or tax breaks.
The current system encourages impacts to resources to preserve property value. The public will have to accept higher densities on good developable property in exchange for preservation of important resources.
« less full details »
In Colorado there are 3.6M+ acres of beetle-kill pine. We are in a sever to extreme drought and it is only getting worse every day. Current USDA Forest Service policy and budget allow for the protection of human life and residential structures. Forest firest are not prevented from occurring (using thinning of deadwood and other management practices), as learned from the Yellowstone fire. This beetle-kill is primarily ...more »
In Colorado there are 3.6M+ acres of beetle-kill pine. We are in a sever to extreme drought and it is only getting worse every day.
Current USDA Forest Service policy and budget allow for the protection of human life and residential structures. Forest firest are not prevented from occurring (using thinning of deadwood and other management practices), as learned from the Yellowstone fire.
This beetle-kill is primarily in large contiguous bands, as can be seen in maps provided through Colorado State University. These bands may have over a thousand square miles of explosively flammable beetle kill pine all together.
seems like a perfect storm.
1. Identify critical habitat of endangered species and give their protection, priority. Thin out deadwood in their critical area, as the Yellowstone lesson does not apply to habitat of endangered plant and animal species.
Surround their critical habitat with fire control lines.
2. Break up the contiguous zones into manageable blocks with fire control lines. In this way, fires can be allowed to start naturally, but then their SCOPE is managed. Instead of having hundreds of square miles of precious resource squandered in one superfire, the fire will burn until it reaches the preemptive fire control lines, and run out of fuel.
This all needs to be done quickly, as this summer is looking like the season of superfires.
Note that this issue is even more pronounced in Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia, where their beetle-kill problem is 10x that of Colorado.
Besides loss of habitat and squandering of a precious resource, there are numerous other ramifications. Consider the impact to tourism, for example. Consider water and air quality from such an event. Consider the potential loss of life, and loss of quality of life for the citizens of the affected states.
« less full details »
As discussed under air quality, based on admittedly limited (self-funded) layman testing and research...the background radiation levels over a significant swatch geographical swath (about 250 miles of road) appear to be elevated over historical levels. Roughly, the readings are about 2x over historical levels. Is this enough of a change to cause issues with some species? In general, mammals are considered to be the ...more »
As discussed under air quality, based on admittedly limited (self-funded) layman testing and research...the background radiation levels over a significant swatch geographical swath (about 250 miles of road) appear to be elevated over historical levels. Roughly, the readings are about 2x over historical levels. Is this enough of a change to cause issues with some species?
In general, mammals are considered to be the most sensitive to radiation changes and insects the least. Yet, one of the very isotopes of Cesium expelled from Fukushima is used industrially to sterilize mosquitos.
The sterile mosquitos are used for biological control of mosquito populations (they are released in the wild and mate with wild mosquitos, tying up their reproductive cycle and producing non-viable offspring).
Last year, I visited a marshy lake in the mountains in mid-summer and there were ZERO mosquitos there. Normally would have had unbearable swarms, that is what got me looking into this.
Also, is it possible that increases could be impacting honey bees? Wondering if EPA can or has done some research along this line?
« less full details »
I propose that the government tax businesses who profit from the sale of non-recyclable (or high-cost recyclable) products (even those that are categorized as non-toxic). Companies who sell products that are impossible to repair (or costlier to repair than to replace; e.g. most printers) and thus end up being disposed of by the consumer should also be taxed. I believe the EU imposes such taxes; I don't know about the ...more »
I propose that the government tax businesses who profit from the sale of non-recyclable (or high-cost recyclable) products (even those that are categorized as non-toxic). Companies who sell products that are impossible to repair (or costlier to repair than to replace; e.g. most printers) and thus end up being disposed of by the consumer should also be taxed. I believe the EU imposes such taxes; I don't know about the U.S.
« less full details »
Background/ History For much of United States history, Environmental Policy was unheard of. When Roosevelt was President in the 1930s, he put many New Deal Programs into place, one of which included conservation programs to help restore forests and rebuild places that had experienced economic and ecological collapse. However, it wasn’t until 1962, when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was written, a book that explained the ...more »
Background/ History
For much of United States history, Environmental Policy was unheard of. When Roosevelt was President in the 1930s, he put many New Deal Programs into place, one of which included conservation programs to help restore forests and rebuild places that had experienced economic and ecological collapse. However, it wasn’t until 1962, when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was written, a book that explained the negative side effects of pesticide and DDT use, that the general United States population had any concern about the environment. Then, in the 1970s, the United States started controlling pollution under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Also in the 1970s, known as the “environmental era,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created. Although the US was one of the first nations to address environmental issues, unlike in many other areas such as economics and technology, the country has failed to lead the rest of the world in environmental policy. In fact, European countries are far ahead of the US in many aspects of environmental law.
Part of the reason that they United States’ foreign policy on environmental damage is lagging behind Europe’s is because the US lawmakers take too long to sign onto international treaties. For example, on Earth Day in 2001, President Bush stated that he would sign the Stockholm POP treaty, which regulates chemicals that are dangerous to human health and/or the environment, but to this day Congress has not given their consent. This treaty was approved by many different groups such as Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), chemical industries, and multiple countries; still, even though this treaty has been accepted by most groups and regulates chemicals that have already been proven extremely dangerous, the United States has resisted giving approval. According to Kristin Schafer, the United States has not only missed an important leadership opportunity, but they are “undermining the effectiveness of these important treaties while the rest of the world moves ahead on implementation.” In fact, according to the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education, the United States exported 1.7billion pounds of pesticides alone during 2001 and 2003. Many of these chemicals had already been banned in the United Sates, so the US sent them to developing countries that lack the capacity to regulate such toxic chemicals.
Lastly, the main difference between European Nations and the United States is that the US runs under the TSCA Program, and the EU runs under the REACH program. The TSCA program requires the EPA to report, keep records of, and test chemicals. These chemicals are allowed to enter the industries and market places and are only regulated once proven harmful. Also, chemicals used before the TSCA program went into effect are grandfathered into the program, even if they are harmful. The EU, on the other hand, functions under the precautionary principle. REACH requires industry to test products and prove that they are safe before they are used. The program aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment through better and earlier identification of harmful chemicals.
Proposal
Though there are many differing opinions on Environmental Foreign Policy, it is important to take both the external and internal costs into consideration. On one side of the debate, industries make much of their money by using chemicals that environmentalists say should be monitored. However if they aren’t releasing these chemicals into the United States, the chemicals are often dumped into Third World Countries, causing many negative impacts there. On the other hand, as many environmentalists state, when the U.S. contributes to worldwide pollution, tension between countries is only worsened.
It has been successful for other countries, such as Europe, to strengthen environmental regions in the past, and it is very reasonable for the United States to do this as well. One way to do this is to simply join the European Nation and use their policy, as well as to sign treaties that the majorities of the nations have signed, instead of working against the other nations. Second, the United States should strive to pursue environmental equality. This would mean not only keeping the United States clean, but requiring U.S. industries to practice the same regulations in other countries as well. This would help to stabilize relationships between nations and enable nations to cooperate on key issues.
Conclusion
Over the last eighty years, Environmental Policy in the United States has begun to grow through the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and through various acts created to control pollution in the U.S. Although environmental improvements have been made, the foreign policy on environmental damage in the U.S. is still lagging behind Europe and other nations. By joining the European Nation and using their REACH policy, as well as signing treaties, maintaining environmental equality, and placing stronger regulations on U.S. industries, the U.S. will build stronger relationships with other nations. This will also keep the U.S. clean and regulate the amount of pollution.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/earth.html#environmental
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/
http://www.fpif.org/reports/one_more_failed_us_environmental_policy
http://enewsusa.blogspot.com/2007/09/gao-compares-us-tsca-european-reach.html
« less full details »
MAKE RECYCLING MANDATORY IN AMERICA. My town recycles yet all of the property managed buildings do not. How can we fight to make people recycle world wide? Our trash consumption is ludacris.. help EPA, I am currently going to school for a degree in Environmental studies, so I hope to join you in the fight to save our Earth..
I think if we can focus more on providing education as to "why" these issues need to be looked at will help all efforts to scale.
School districts all across the USA are serving school food on Styrofoam (also known as polystyrene) lunch trays. These trays, composed of the chemicals styrene and benzene, are used for about 30 minutes only, then most commonly incinerated or transported to landfills where they take up an enormous amount of space. In New York City alone, 850,000 Styrofoam trays are used per day, which are exported to out of state to ...more »
School districts all across the USA are serving school food on Styrofoam (also known as polystyrene) lunch trays. These trays, composed of the chemicals styrene and benzene, are used for about 30 minutes only, then most commonly incinerated or transported to landfills where they take up an enormous amount of space. In New York City alone, 850,000 Styrofoam trays are used per day, which are exported to out of state to landfills and incinerators (except for Tuesdays- see EPA Eco Student blog https://blog.epa.gov/students/2012/02/trayless-tuesdays-in-nyc-schools-inspired-by-a-7-year-old/).
It is time for the USDA National School Lunch Program to address this issue and support the nationwide procurement of affordable alternatives, such as recyclable, compostable, and reusable school lunch trays. All children deserve to eat a healthy school meal on a healthy, non-polluting surface.
see more at www.cafeteriaculture.org
« less full details »
This may be an unpopular concept but we do need to start discussing it. The root cause of all our environmental problems is that we have just about exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth for human population. Reducing the human population on earth will reduce the demand on natural resources such as fossil fuels and potable water; will reduce contamination of air, water and land; and will reduce waste production. ...more »
This may be an unpopular concept but we do need to start discussing it. The root cause of all our environmental problems is that we have just about exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth for human population. Reducing the human population on earth will reduce the demand on natural resources such as fossil fuels and potable water; will reduce contamination of air, water and land; and will reduce waste production. What you can do is have fewer children. If everyone had an average of one child per couple, the world population would drop substantially in one generation and many of our current problems would disappear. I have done my part by having no children. It was a sacrifice I made to help the world.
« less full details »
Social Web