Unless you have been trapped in a cave for the last seven months you are well aware of the disaster overtaking the American automobile industry. Our government is using billions of taxpayer’s dollars to prop up an industry that has been one of the leading facilitators of numerous ills in our society, which will also take billions of dollars to repair, if it is even possible to do so.
Air pollution which contributes to increased medical costs, urban sprawl, a negative balance of payments from importing oil and global warming can all be traced at least in part to our addiction to the automobile. Now that I’ve ranted about the autos effect upon our society I also greatly acknowledge that we all, myself included, greatly enjoy the mobility and freedom provided by the pernicious machine. We can’t live with ‘em and we can’t live without ‘em. What are we to do?
A lot has been written about the currently nonexistent plug-in electric car. This machine when it finally hits the market could help solve some of our problems but current pricing estimates place the car in the forty thousand dollar range. I’m sure of one thing, it won’t solve many problems if you don’t sell them and at that price I’d hedge my bets.
However, there is one personal transportation option on the market that fits into all of President Obama’s initiatives for energy self sufficiency, global warming (reduction of green house gases), health care (exercise and weight loss), environmental protection (reduction of air and water pollution), and infrastructure renewal. That option is the Electric Bicycle.
The electric bike using lithium batteries (traditional lead-acid is very environmentally harmful) can go, depending on load factors and riding habits, roughly twenty miles at twenty miles an hour on one charge. It is almost completely silent, gives off no emissions, does not use foreign oil, does not require much room to operate or park, never needs a tune up and provides exercise. It eliminates many of the drawbacks of riding a traditional bicycle for basic transportation while having few of its own. I recognize that not many of us are hardy enough to ride a bike in the rain, snow or freezing cold but that applies as well to motorcycles, motor scooters and traditional bicycles. The electric bike can get you farther, faster without arriving at your destination soaked in sweat. It can operate in many places where other motorized vehicles cannot and makes taking hills a cinch. Riding five or ten miles to work is no big deal and you can simply pedal around bottled up traffic. Usually the lightweight batteries easily detach from the bike and can be carried into your place of work or school for recharging.
Some electric bicycles offer high tech extras such as LiFePO4 batteries that are good for a thousand recharges, regenerative braking that helps recharge the battery much as a Prius does, and internal gearing to generate more torque for uphill climbs. Most electric bikes use what is referred to as a hub motor. This is not a traditional gear or belt-drive motor but is built directly into the hub of one of the wheels. This motor contains two internal rings of opposing magnets that when power is applied causes the wheel to spin. Such motors need little service and never require oil changes, spark plugs or new belts.
Electric bikes come in several of styles. There are the traditional “beach cruiser” and mountain bike styles as well as electric folding bikes, tricycles and “road bikes”. The electric folding bikes are particularly interesting. Smaller and lighter than a traditional bicycle, they easily fold up and fit into a car trunk and can be carried on a commuter or subway train with little effort. You can take the train to your stop, unfold the bike and pedal on your way. They are also useful for those who live in tight quarters and have no external place to store their ride.
For those of you that are moderately handy with tools, there are a number of electric bike kits on the market that allow you to adapt an ordinary bicycle into an electric bike. One company, Worldwide Electric Bikes, has a particularly well-designed kit that has many of the features I previously mentioned. These electric bike kits do not require a high level of mechanical ability to install. A few common hand tools, a basic understanding of how things go together and the ability to read directions is all that is required. However, if you don’t know the difference between a crescent and a hex wrench, you may wish to buy a pre-made bike or have someone install the kit for you. If you do choose to go the kit route, you can end up with a much more powerful and sophisticated bike for substantially less money than a factory built electric bike.
Electric Bicycles in all forms have long been a staple of personal transportation in Europe and Asia where there are hundreds of thousands in operation. In the United States bicycles have traditionally been dominated by the toy or recreation market or for the dedicated enthusiast. In both Europe and Asia, cycling has been a traditional means of basic transportation. I believe that this is going to be more and more the case in this country. People are avidly seeking relief from the high financial and societal cost of automobiles. The electric bicycle, while not a panacea, is definitely poised to help provide a portion of that relief.
Electric Bicycles are inexpensive to purchase, require no license or insurance, have a negligible cost of operation and are totally “green”. So, what’s not to like?
Hello friend, Knowing enough about how to install solar panels to make solid, informed choices cuts down on the fear factor. If you apply what you’ve just.
Atlantic Wind & Solar Inc. (OTC:AWSL), a leading edge renewable energy company, positioned to capture significant market share in the true growth sector of the 21st century, reports on recent developments including; the completion of …
SMECO is planning to use the RFP process to find out and enter the solar project receiving cost effective source of the clean, renewable energy which will help to achieve a part of RPS obligation each year during the next 20 years.
The two most popular home green energy systems are wind generators and solar panels. Of two, solar energy panels have emerged as a common, due to their solid-state nature â?? e . g with fewer moving elements, they require less maintenance …
Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling.
Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that.
Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out.
If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever.
Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it.
Tata to sell solar powered steel cladding. Aaron Morby | Wed 30th March | 8:07. Tata Steel is to start test commercial production of specially coated steel that will see buildings generating their own electricity. …
China may increase energy supply from solar energy in wake of nuke crisis. 30 March 2011 52 views No Comment BY: BNO News. BEIJING (BNO NEWS) — China is considering to raise its five-year goal for photovoltaics (PV) industry capacity …
Setting up a solar energy system is really the only alternative if you want to swim in warm water without breaking the bank. The good news is that the government may even reward you for keeping a system like this. …
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?
As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.
Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.
The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.
On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).
The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.
With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.
So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?
Ugh, a tax?
Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.
This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.
The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.
Won’t this cost me money?
You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills – grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.
Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.
Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”
These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.
Disclaimer
Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!
Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
The hard truth is that we all need to reduce. Reduce the amount of money we spend. Reduce the amount of food we eat…and our waistlines. And reduce the amount of stuff we throw away. In fact new we look at the 3 R’s of reduce, reuse, recycle, they are actually in that order for a reason. It is a hierarchy for a reason and reduce is the Holy Grail. Put in its simplest terms reduce means that we use less of the earth’s resources and in any environmental scheme should be our first priority.
That said, it is also the hardest to accomplish. When I thought about all the things we do to be greener, the number of examples of reducing stumped me. I suppose the most obvious example of our efforts to reduce was the decision some months ago, not to purchase an automobile. My husband has the use of a company van, but even that is rarely used. The difficulty comes when we want to go anywhere as a family. The work van has only one bucket seat in the front that fits three people. Obviously this presents difficulties. Even on our Saturday shopping trips with my mother-in-law, I end up sitting in the back of van; a solution that is both dangerous and illegal for the children. About a year ago, when I was working full-time, we were seriously considering buying a vehicle. But in the end, we thought the expense was too much when you consider not just payments, but insurance, road tax, maintenance and gas. Instead, we signed up for StreetCar; a car rental scheme that you pay a monthly fee to join and an hourly or daily rate only when you need to use a car or van. Looking back, that was one of the best decisions we have made both for the environment and family finances.
The other obvious example I found of reduction was our decision a year ago to switch to bags for life. We now have a stack of them beneath our kitchen sink and faithfully use them for our Saturday shops. But I do admit to occasionally forgetting them when just running out to grab something quickly. When this happens though, we make certain to re-use (we’ll talk more about that tomorrow) any plastic bags we get for outings or for small bin liners. Did you know that in the UK alone 100,000 TONNES of plastic bags are thrown away each year; that is the equivalent of 70,000 cars? So if there is one thing, I can encourage you to do, it is purchase bags for life. My store sells the sturdy plastic ones for about forty pence, the jute ones are about a pound, and the pretty cloth ones are about three pounds with a portion of the proceeds going to charity. Or it is very simple to make your own if you sew.
Speaking of which, sewing and mending our clothes is another excellent way of reducing. My boys from my husband to my sons are always wearing holes in their jeans on the inside thighs. Before the economic downturn, I admit we were likely to just toss them out and purchase new ones. But since I have not been working, we have instead taken them to the drycleaners and had them patched. The cost of the repairs is less than the cost of purchasing new (although I am committed to mending them myself from now on…a further savings). And we have reduced in a very small way the demand for jeans.
Of course, as I sit at my desk in my bedroom I am witnessing another reduction…the daylight streaming in through the open curtains. One of the first things I do each morning is open the curtains and the blinds. By using natural light when and where possible, we are reducing the amount of electricity that we consume and that the power grids must generate. We are also of course saving money on our bills. My husband is a genius at this; going around and turning off and unplugging everything he can each night before bed. I admit though that being American this whole switch on the plug thing still gets me and I often forget to do that, but I am improving. Of course, another example was turning down our thermostat during the winter and wearing heavier layers of clothes instead. In fact, I can think of only a couple of days this winter when we turned our heat on before night fall at all.
These are just a few ideas of ways that our family is reducing. There are many other things that we and you can do to cut back on the things we consume and help save our earth’s precious resources. On Friday as I said, we will do a mini-inventory and I will commit to new ideas on how our family can better live the 3 R’s reduce, re-use, recycle. I will be especially focusing on reducing since this is the most important of the R’s.
Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.
Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.
Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
LEED: In Houston Schools Get More Than an E For Effort
We send our children to school every day and ask them to learn. They are, after all, the future of our world; and so we ask them to learn about right and wrong, learn about the world, and learn how to take care of each other. But do we want them to learn how to take care of the world, too?
That is what LEED Green Building schools in Houston and around the nation are doing. They are teaching the children, through example, what it means truly to earn an A for awareness of the environment’s needs. They stand for the future of America as a benchmark of creation care.
LEED Green Building schools are K-12 schools that are tailor-made to produce an environment safe and healthy for children, comfortable for teachers, cost-effective for the taxpayers, and easy on the environment. By addressing the uniqueness of school spaces and children’s health issues, LEED for Schools provides a unique, comprehensive tool for schools that wish to build green with measurable results. The rating system addresses issues such as classroom acoustics, daylight and views, mold prevention, and environmental site assessment.
In addition, Green schools cost less to operate, freeing up resources to truly improve students’ education. Their carefully planned acoustics and abundant daylight make it easier and more comfortable for students to learn. Their clean indoor air cuts down sick days and gives our children a head start for a healthy, prosperous future. And their innovative design provides a wealth of hands-on learning opportunities.
No longer must they learn through books about environmental safety and/or green projects around the world. Instead, they can learn hands-on at school – through observation and through practice.
Houston has taken the lead around the nation in building green schools. The Houston chapter is dedicated to showing school district leaders how the LEED FOR SCHOOLS process can benefit them. Other leading organizations in the area are also committed. Earlier this year, the Houston-Galveston Area Council joined with the Houston chapter to produce a year-long symposia to educate the public and educators about the facts and costs for LEED FOR SCHOOLS.
They ideally will have all their schools “Go Green” over the course of the next 10 years.
Other cities are following their lead. Salt Lake City, Grand Rapids and Seattle are all among the top cities with at least three green schools. And more are being built monthly. Both students and parents, teachers and administrators see the need and the benefits for green schools, and are lobbying for all school to change their ways.
For students and teachers, green schools mean reduced incidence of asthma, decreased absenteeism, improved academic performance and increased teacher satisfaction. For parents, green schools offer the confidence that comes with knowing their children spend their days in an environment that is both healthy and conducive to learning.
Green Schools get more than an E for effort. They are the bright and healthy future for our children.
Copyright 2009 – 2010 theLEED.com and Green Efficient. Article may be reproduced, unchanged, as long as it retains author information and linking.
Rick Walker is the CEO of Green Efficient. GreenEfficient is the leader in the LEED building maintenance and operations market. Primarily serving Texas, their LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED-APS) manage commercial facilities using their integrated services portfolio of LEED-compliant janitorial services, Integrated Pest Management services, HVAC maintenance, lawn care services, purchasing oversight, occupant training and USGBC submittal services. Offices in Houston, Austin, Dallas and Corpus Christi enable the most active Texas LEED construction markets to be covered by their specialty services. For information on LEED, green building and sustainable products, visit their blog: theLEED
