If you have to use a car, share one! October 21, 2009

There are undoubtedly too many cars on the road–too many single-user cars that is. There is a growing trend, however, towards carsharing. Carsharing is similar to car rental with the main differences being you can use the carsharing vehicle for as little as a half-hour and the cars are located in the communities rather than at a central car rental location. In short, carsharing serves as a unique cross between a rental car and cab service. This implies that urban dwellers across the Eastern seaboard, Seattle, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto and even London can take part in an environmental alternative to owning a car.

As a former car owner, I know the need for mobility-independence–the ability to leave the city on a whim; however, as a steward of the environment, I also understand the need to reduce, when possible, my carbon foot print. Well, I recently found a resource that helps to achieve a frequently sought after balance between wanting/needing a car and wanting/needing to help the environment: the Zip-Car.

Zip-Car is a membership based car haring service that includes gas, insurance, maintenance, and 180 miles of free driving. Membership fees vary based on the how you plan to use the vehicle but are generally less expensive than renting car. The fees are considerably lower if you are a student or part of business that takes advantage of the Zip-Cars business-friendly plans.

There are other programs that are starting to pop up, such as Connect by Hertz, but Zip car is still the market leader in the US for now.

Making Your Food Purchase a Little Greener: October 12, 2009

I think that it can be agreed upon that food is a pretty big part of our lives. Because food plays such a large role in our existence, it’s not hard to imagine that the production and transport of our food is a big contributor to our overall carbon footprint. Being a conscious shopper and consumer of food is a great way to lessen your impact on the globe. Here are a few things to consider the next time you are in the grocery store:

1. Transportation - Transporting the food that we eat is one of the biggest contributors to the foods carbon cost. When thinking about the carbon cost of a food, it is important to take into account not only the distance that a food has traveled, but also how that food traveled. That is to say, it most likely takes far less fuel to ship French wine by sea to the east coast of the US than it does to ship the same amount of wine from California by land.

2. What goes into the food – Both ingredients and energy input are important to consider in this category. A product that uses many different ingredients will most likely be far more costly than a food that uses fewer ingredients. This is because in addition to the fuel it takes to gather and transport all of the ingredients to a central production site, it takes even more energy to put the ingredients together into the final product. It is also important to consider the environmental cost of the food. For example, beef is a more costly source of protein than beans for several reasons. First of all, the beef accrues the carbon cost of the feed that it eats, while the beans get their energy from the best know renewable energy source, the sun. Secondly, beef has the negative environmental impact of its methane production, while beans have the positive impact of photosynthesis. Third, the production of beef has many more steps and by-products than does the production of beans. Finally, the run-off from feedlots is far more harmful than any by-product of bean growth.

3. Size of operation – Generally speaking, food that is produced by smaller operations will have a smaller carbon cost than food that is produced in larger businesses. We will use the example of vegetable growth to illustrate this point. Larger operations will most likely use more large machinery in the growing and harvest process than will smaller operations and this means that larger operations will use more fuel. Larger operations are also more likely to use larger and more general applications of things like fertilizer and insecticides than will smaller operations. It is also important to think about the size of the provider. Large grocery store chains usually send all of their products to a central distribution site where it is stored and then redistributed to regional branches. Smaller groceries most likely do not have redistribution centers and this cuts out a leg of transportation, which ultimately saves fuel. In addition to added fuel costs, keeping produce cool and fresh while in storage uses energy and chemicals.

While it is true that no one factor is a good benchmark for judging a food’s greenness, using what information you know about a product, you can make informed choices that will help to decrease your carbon footprint. Generally speaking, food that travels a shorter distance, uses fewer total ingredients in its production, and is produced and/or provided by a small organization will be a good choice.

DC Green Festival is this weekend! October 5, 2009

If you are in or near the Washington DC area, or the East Coast for that matter, come join us at the Green Festival this Saturday and Sunday, October 10th and 11th. The Festival has lots of information on green living, opportunities for green shopping (get your holiday shopping started early!), and food sampling. If you are there, stop by our booth, 646, to say hi!.

Trains, Planes and Automobiles! October 1, 2009

America’s growth and westward expansion was based on the dominance of the train.  By 1929 the U.S. had one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world (65,000 railroad cars in operation and 265,000 miles of tracks).  Where did this train system go?  Where America once dominated, now we lag behind Europe and Asia who both have extensive and convenient rail systems.

The decline in the dominance of train travel is due in large part to the rise of America as an auto nation.  America’s automobile companies worked to beat the trains by buying rail lines to close them and pressuring Congress to build an extensive highway system throughout the country.  Although these efforts were a huge success for the auto companies, they took their toll on the environment as well as the U.S.’ dependence on foreign oil sources.  This dependence on automobiles has lead to troubles for America, and as these problems have arisen people have looked toward trains once again.

Train travel has the least harmful impact on the environment by leaps and bounds compared to plane and auto travel.  The only method of transportation that is better in walking or biking, clearly not a practical alternative to traveling throughout the country.  The U.S. government recognizes this as a benefit to train travel, and for this and other motives, it created Amtrak in 1971 to provide rail service in the U.S..  Amtrak uses around 21,000 miles of track, mostly pre-existing freight rails, and served around 28 million customers in 2008.  While this is a large amount of people, if anyone has ever ridden Amtrak, they know that the service is incomplete and would not be able to compete against the rails in Europe.  Why does America continue to lag in a much more sustainable alternative to travel?

President Obama recognizes the tremendous potential for growth in the U.S. rail system and has allocated $8 billion to enhance the rail system.  Hopefully this will produce great strides in the rail system and U.S. can lessen its harmful impact on the environment while providing a more pleasant travel experience.

Biodiversity is More Than a Want- It’s a Necessity September 23, 2009

The brilliant colors of coral reefs in the ocean, extensive foliage in the rain forest, animals running in open Western planes.  These are the symbols of biodiversity seen all over advertisements for vacations spots labeled as “paradise.”  Maintaining environmental biodiversity is clearly important to maintain the picturesque images of the earth, the ones that get turned in to posters that say “Relax” underneath the picture and fill the covers of National Geographic magazines.  But, what needs to be recognized is that biodiversity is not just a luxury, it is critical to the health of the environment.

Natural biodiversity is important to the health of ecosystems throughout the world.  Diversity helps ecosystems function in ways such as producing a wider variety of species, ensuring natural sustainability of species and allowing ecosystems to be more able to recover successfully after disasters.  All of these functions are obviously important for the future safety of the environment, but natural biodiversity can also have an impact on the economy and directly on you.

The Convention about Life on Earth stated, “at least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to such new challenges as climate change.”  Biodiversity provides services like promoting a greater variety of crops; protecting water resources and helping break down and absorb pollution.  It also creates numerous resources such as food, medicinal resources, wood and plant products, breeding stocks and future resources.

People and governments need to increase their education and knowledge about what biodiversity is and why it is important.  Natural diversity is crucial not just for the health and safety of the environment but also for all people and the functions of the world we have created.  We should place much more emphasis on and work tirelessly to understand and protect the resources that the earth has given us.

Are Companies’ Actions Truly Green, or Simply Green Reactions? September 17, 2009

It is currently all the rage for companies to introduce environmentally friendly products, or change their methods of production to include measures to protect the environment.  However, it is obvious that these actions are not done without a motive to increase sales or save money, especially given the current economic situation.  This motive explains the copious increase in green marketing.  TerraChoice points out that green marketing has tripled between 2006 and 2008.

A problem I see with the current onslaught of green marketing is not that these actions are being used to promote sales or save money, but that for some companies, these actions are merely defensive. In many case, companies choose to make huge strides in acting environmentally friendly when they have been criticized and given negative press for harming the environment.   A recent example is Nike and Coca-Cola’s environmentally friendly commitments after being  publicly criticized.  Nike was criticized in a Greenpeace study of hurting the Brazilian cattle in the Amazon.  In reaction to this study Slaughtering the Amazon Nike has made strides to make amends, including a possible implementation of a tracing system to ensure that future biome harm doesn’t occur.

That being said, is this issue of defensive green actions truly a problem?  Even though the companies’ motives may not be ideal, environmentally friendly actions are still advancing.  I believe it is crucial to the health of our environment that companies take charge in helping the environment.  Therefore, although it is easy to see companies’ motives as insincere,  the work they are doing to green-up their companies should be praised. They are still moving in the right direction, and if it helps their business, it can also help our economy, leading to a win-win for everyone.

Exploring The Future of Green Housing – Solar Decathlon 2009 September 10, 2009

For the fourth time since 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy will be hosting the Solar Decathlon on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. from October 9th-18th. The purpose of the Decathlon is two-fold: 20 universities from around the world compete to design and build the most sustainable solar-powered single-family home, while the public gets a chance to tour the complex of houses, catching a glimpse of what housing may look like in the future. The competition was founded as a means of helping solar-power technologies break into the mainstream market.

Two years before the competition begins, the student-founded teams begin to design their entry into the competition, then build it on site, and later transport it to the National Mall (some from as far away as Madrid, Puerto Rico, and Munich), where it will be judged in ten different fields, including architecture, lighting design, communications, hot water, comfort and market viability. While the competition is taking place, the public is encouraged to walk through the houses and better see what scientists, engineers, and designers are envisioning as the building norms of the future.

The number one reason that the competition has been made public is to show the greater population that it is possible to power every part of a home through wind and solar energy, as each house is built entirely off the grid. Building materials also play a huge role in the competition. Many entries from previous years relied heavily on recycled materials like shipping crates, as well as sustainable materials like bamboo to earn extra points from the judges. Passive heating and cooling measures, as well as solar water heaters, are staples in the design of most of the houses.

For more information about the houses, the universities involved, or the Solar Decathlon in general, visit the USDoE’s website.

Hang-Up the Rag and Bucket – Tips for Sustainable Car-Washing September 3, 2009

Washing the family car in front of the house seems like a great way to save money on a professional car wash while spending some time in the sunshine, right? What you may not realize is that with every wash, you are sending upwards of 120 gallons of soapy, toxin-laden water directly back into the watershed. Furthermore, studies show that washing you car by hand wears away at the finish on your car much faster than with a professional wash.

Since the water that runs off your driveway and into the sewer isn’t sent to a water treatment plant the soap, gasoline, oil, and heavy metals that used to be on your car are put directly into streams and rivers. Conversely, professional car washes are required by law to sent their run-off to a water treatment plant. Furthermore, your average professional car wash uses between eight and 45 gallons of water – drastically less than what you would use at home. Lastly, the cloth that is used in the overhead and side rollers in professional car washes is designed specifically to minimize damage to the car’s finish. Though they can be more expensive than their home-based counterparts, these car washes are not only better for the environment, but also better for maintaining your car’s appearance.

In the instance where a professional car wash isn’t an option, some steps can be taken to minimize your impact on the environment. A wide array of green cleaning agents can be used to take care of the car’s body, windows, hubcaps, and tires. Using a pressure-washer instead of a garden hose greatly reduces the amount of water needed to get the job done. Washing the car on a permeable surface like gravel or grass greatly reduces the amount of run-off that makes it into fragile ecosystems. Finally, instead of finishing by dumping the bucket of soapy water into the gutter, pour it into the toilet to ensure that it makes it to a water treatment facility.

Greening Your Commute – Take Advantage of Bike-Sharing Programs August 27, 2009

This month, Washington D.C. will celebrate the first birthday of its pilot bike-sharing program, SmartBike D.C., which has not only been welcomed by the public, but has greatly succeeded. Within the first ten months of their introduction, the fleet of 120 bicycles had made more than 11,000 trips throughout the District. In reaction to the ready acceptance of the program, city officials have decided to increase the fleet by 400-percent, with rental locations spread throughout the city. Of the 40 new terminals currently being planned, 28 have gotten final approval to build, and should be operational by Fall 2009, expanding service into the District’s outer-reaches.

Many of these new terminals will be located near pre-existing transportation hubs, giving customers a varied array of transit options including busses, trains, and the metro. Given these improvements, the program is expected to gain even more momentum, gradually replacing cars and taxis on the Capitol’s streets with SmartBike’s signature red and white bikes.

Similar to other bike-share programs throughout Europe and Asia, SmartBike requires that users subscribe to the service, a cost of forty dollars per year, giving them unlimited use of the bikes. After signing-up, a customer is issued a SmartBike card that can be swiped at any terminal, allowing them to take or return a bike to any of the secured bike racks.

A list of the District’s bike laws, and maps of bike routes can be found here, and SmartBike D.C.’s homepage can be found here. Lastly, the nation-wide cycling promotion group, Critical Mass, has a rapidly-growing branch in the District. They coordinate regular rides throughout the city, and their webpage can be found here.

Bring food, not waste, to school August 20, 2009

It’s back-to-school time again, as can be seen from the lines at supply stores, and children walking around with their lists of items to purchase, not to mention the prominent new backpacks displays and stores touting ‘back to school specials’. While the focus is on buying new, some moms are wondering how they can decrease waste and reuse what they have. One way  is by minimizing waste associated with making children’s school lunches.

Using one time use lunch packaging, or pre-packaged meals, such as the beloved “Lunchable”, is a matter of convenience and habit. However, hardly any busy mother stops to think about the waste these products create.  The typical American school kid creates 67 pounds of discarded school lunch packaging waste per school year. That’s a lot of plastic and paper in the landfills! It is time to push the brown bags and paper napkins aside for reusable packaging.

The waste created by school lunch packaging fills our landfills and garbage incinerators with plastics, and create hazardous emissions. Plastics can also leach chemicals into the food, and can actually hurt the children that the lunches were made for in the first place. So while shopping for a new Spiderman backpack or a new school outfit, consider buying reusable drink and food containers, cloth napkins and metal silverware, as well as lunchboxes. This will not only help the environment, but also help your wallet and keep your kids safer in the long run. Some fun options include lead-safe lunch bags, Laptop Lunches,  Citizenpip, stainless steel boxes, LunchSkins, and Wrap-N-Mat. There are many alternatives out there once you start looking, and your child will enjoy having a fun lunch box or sandwich wrap instead of a brown paper bag to bring to school. Cloth napkins and silverware also make lunch feel more like a ‘real’ meal.