There are a lot of things an average person can do in sixty seconds or less in their everyday life that will, more or less, benefit the earth.  So here it goes…

• Switch out your light bulbs to ones that are more energy efficient.

Remember that every time you turn on a light in your home or office you send a message to the power grid, demanding more energy.  In America, 301 million people share the same power grid.  That’s five percent of the world’s population, inevitably sucking up a quarter of the earth’s energy. Over half of the grid is powered by coal plants alone, which are the nation’s number one culprit for greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that, for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, 1.43 lbs of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.  In Texas, 144 lung cancer deaths and 1,791 heart attacks a year are attributed to pollution from power plants. Switch to energy efficient light bulbs and cut the amount of energy you use by two-thirds.

• Conserve water by turning off your faucet when brushing your teeth or taking less time in the shower.

The average American family consumes around 300 gallons of water everyday. This works out to be 495,000 gallons per person every year.  What boggles my mind is the fact that there are about 1.2 billion people in the world who don’t have access to clean, portable water and here we are overestimating the frugality of our supply.  We have to realize that water is fast becoming the world’s ultimate commodity, and water conservation is the most cost-effective way to reduce our demand for it.

There are several quick and easy things you can do in your home or change in your daily routine to conserve water.  First, you can simply cut your shower time by 60 seconds or more.  If every member in your family does the same, you can end up saving 200 to 300 gallons a month.  Also, if you are a fan of hot showers and hate the first 60 seconds or so of cold water that first escapes the showerhead, you can use a container to catch the cold water and save it for when you want to water plants or rinse your vegetables.  Second, turn off your faucet when you are brushing your teeth or shaving, and don’t leave the water running when you’re washing dishes—fill one of your sinks for rinse water instead.  These simple acts can save three gallons of water in one day alone.

• Read your product labels.

The production and distribution of all kinds of clothing have a tremendous impact on the environment.   Wool comes courtesy of sheep, whose herds are known to burp and err… otherwise emit methane—a greenhouse gas that is almost 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. In countries like New Zealand, methane is fast becoming the most potent greenhouse gas.  Researchers for the United Nations now believe that livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change—being responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than cars are.  Furthermore, the method of growing cotton is extremely petrochemical-intensive.   About ten percent of all agricultural chemicals in the United States are used to produce cotton, which is grown on just one percent of all major agricultural land.  The process of growing cotton requires 110 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre.  At the end of the day, the use of these synthetic fertilizers and soil additives can wreak havoc on our soil, water, and air supply–leading to oxygen-less deadzones or even acid rain.  Some popular fashion outlets like H&M are now carrying lines of eco-friendly garments, including those made from organic cotton.  Green is the new black; be aware of where your clothes come from and how they are made.

As for the ever popular subject of organic food…

One may enjoy biting into the more conventional, juicy fuji apple—truly nature’s candy, and some say the sweetest apple in town; however, the organic gala apple is just as good as the former, but better for you and for the environment.  It’s true that organic food products are almost always more expensive than the more conventional fruits and vegetables; although, it would only be fair to point out that organic farming is a major player in the effort to combat global warming.  Birthed during the organic movement of the 1930s and 1940s, today organic farms cover a mere 0.8% of the total farming area in the world. Many people don’t realize the great benefits organic farming offers to our land, lives, and livelihood.  Aside from its major contribution of reducing carbon dioxide emissions (done by sequestering carbon in the soil), organic farming also (1) cuts production cost by 25% to 30% for farmers, (2) reduces soil erosion by up to 50%, (3) has a positive effect on the ecosystem and groundwater supplies, and (4) preserves the original nutritional content of food, giving consumers a healthier and fresher substitute.

• Reuse and Recycle: refill your water bottles and separate your trash.

Ever buy a bottle of water before working out at the gym, or have a bottle of water with your lunch?  Have you ever contemplated the existence of that bottle of water and how it can affect the environment, even after you have used it?

The United States is the largest consumer of bottled water in the world, with Americans chugging a little less than seven billion gallons in 2004 alone.  It takes one and a half million barrels of oil a year to produce the part polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles made in the U.S.  That’s enough oil to fuel 100,000 cars commuting into downtown Austin daily (this is also another issue that needs to be tackled).  Globally, it takes more than two and a half million tons of plastic per year to make water bottles.  This is a process that requires a whole lot of energy and, in the end, leaves us with heaps of unwanted plastic waste worldwide. Now, I’m not saying to boycott bottled water.   I am just saying that if you do purchase bottled water—and do so frequently, don’t throw the bottle out right away.  You can reuse the bottle—refilling it with water from the tap or water fountains.

Furthermore, by taking 60 seconds to put your newspaper, tuna can, or salsa jar into a separate recycling bin you can ultimately save humanity years in environmental damage.  About 60% of the household trash thrown away everyday can potentially be recycled.

• Say something!

Probably one of the simplest things an individual can do to bring awareness to green issues and hopefully effect change is to speak up and say something.  You can talk to the manager of your local supermarket and ask that they carry more organic products.  You could call or email your local representative to speak about environmental issues that affect your family, neighborhood, city, or state.

Why not take 60 seconds out of your day to save the earth?

Yours truly,

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

For years fast food restaurants have been our nation’s go-to source for cheap, quick food we can eat on the run or take home to the family to avoid cooking dinner for the night.  I am betting that almost every person reading this blog has or will eat a product of the fast food faction at some point this week.  Well, thinking about our fan base…maybe not.  According to a 2004 study by the International Trade Leader, Americans are ranked number one when it comes to the purchasing of convenience meals—spending a total of $148.6 billion, more than our spending on higher education.  Among the top ten nations listed, the United States is responsible for almost two-thirds of the total spending on fast food meals.  Aside from the commonplace debate about whether to buy organic or conventional fruits or vegetables, there are an overwhelming amount of other choices made every day that can ultimately have both personal and global consequences.  What many people don’t realize is that our national diet may not only affect our waist sizes, but it may also lead to environmental, political, cultural, social and ethical repercussions.

People are now, more than ever, beginning to value those things in life that can be obtained fast, cheap, and easy—including the food we eat.  In the past five years, the fast food nation as we know it grew unexpectedly.  There is one major contributor, responsible for about 80% of this growth.  Two words: drive through.  Recently, our country has seen a rapid increase in the amount of drive-through lanes at fast food institutions.   More than half the money spent at fast food restaurants is received through a drive-through window from a customer tucked behind the steering wheel and hopefully a seatbelt.  Today, 90% of the 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the United States have a drive-through lane; Starbucks has picked up the pace and added drive-through lanes to many of their stores across the country; and one fast food business called Good to Go has 14 drive-through lanes at their Houston location alone.

Now, I would like to do something a little different here.  I am going to talk my way through a normal visit to a local fast food place—starting from the time you start your engine to the time you eat the last fry.

So, let’s say you are jonesing for a cheeseburger and french fries.  You decide to take a break from your television marathon and go to the nearest fast food joint to get some food.  You hop into your Ford Focus and drive about seven or so minutes to the restaurant (making the entire trip a total of 15 minutes, minus the time spent in the drive-thru lane).  It takes about 8000 litres of air, weighing almost 12 kg, to burn one litre of gasoline or diesel. Furthermore, for every litre of petrol you burn, you emit 2.5 kg of carbon dioxide.  Aside from carbon dioxide, our cars also emit carbon monoxide, lead and hydrocarbons while we are driving through the act of petrol combustion.  This has lead many to believe that driving a car is probably the most polluting act an average citizen can commit in their lifetime.  In recent years, emissions from passenger vehicles in the United States have increased thanks to the increase in vehicle usage and the nationwide preference for larger vehicles.  An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed far more fuel than its counterpart in 1988. So, what can you do?  Like Kirsten said in an earlier blog entry—drive less.  Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately.

Since you just ran out of the house and you are still wearing your pajamas, you decide to order from the drive-through lane to avoid the embarrassment and save some time.  You pull into the line and notice four other cars in front of you—all burning around the same amount of petrol and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  Many believe that avoiding the drive-through lane and parking your car is the greenest thing to do.  On the contrary, some researchers in Canada have claimed that a parking-only restaurant produces 20% more smog pollution and 60% more greenhouse gases than a restaurant with a drive-through lane due to the stopping and restarting of cooled-down vehicle engines.

Finally, you pull up to the speaker box and place your order—a cheeseburger with everything on it, an order of french fries, and a small coke.  When it comes to fast food restaurants, up to $1,000 a month can be spent on electric bills for one location alone.  Air conditioning and lighting account for 25% to 40% of the electrical spending, while refrigeration shares the majority with other expenses including powering the speaker box and indoor cooking appliances.

You drive forward to the drive-through window and wait patiently for your food.  One of the most overlooked energy users at fast food restaurants are the drive-through windows themselves. The window is oftentimes left open unnecessarily during the drive-through process, letting air-conditioned air escape.  The employee appears in the window and hands you your order.  Your total is $6.99.  You give them cash, they give you change, and you take a peek inside the paper bag to make sure everything is there.  You see your cheeseburger wrapped in paper and your fries sitting in its cardboard packaging, along with some napkins and a few packets of ketchup.  You grab your drink and take a sip of the coke from the straw protruding from the paper cup.  In general, fast food outlets are our country’s primary source of urban litter, which includes the paper, plastic, and Styrofoam packaging material.  The most abundant type of litter (not counting cigarette buds) is Styrofoam, which becomes a permanent fixture in our environment when littered.  Moreover, plastic is the largest source of marine debris.  In some areas of the Pacific Ocean plastic has become so concentrated, there is six times more plastic than there is plankton.  These materials from fast food restaurants have become a huge burden on the local communities.  Less than 35% of the waste from fast food businesses is diverted from landfills.  Every year millions of pounds of food packaging waste litter our roadways, clog our landfills, and spoil our quality of life.  Food packaging takes up 15% of landfills.  About three-fourths of all food packaging come from forests, with half of landfill waste being made of either paper or wood.  The Southern forests of North America supply 60% of United States and 15% of global paper demands. This demand for wood and paper products has led to deforestation, resulting in a total decline from 356 million acres in colonial times to 182 million acres today.

You give your thanks and drive off.  As you drive you start nibbling on some fries because they taste better when they’re hot.  In order to fry these delicious pieces of potato, fast food institutions use fryers, which ultimately requires a lot of oil and energy to operate.  There is now a new generation of fryers that supposedly allow restaurants to cook the same amount of product with approximately 40% less oil.  Furthermore, these low oil volume fryers use about 4% less energy than their standard counterparts.

Once you get home you turn the television back on and sit down to eat your meal.  You bite into your cheeseburger and slurp some of your coke.  According to the Economist, Americans eat as many as three burgers a week for a total of 150 burgers every year.  Believe it or not, the cheeseburger has its own footprint and global warming impact.  There is a ton of energy cost associated with a common cheeseburger, including what it takes to grow the feed for the cattle for beef and cheese, growing the produce, storing and transporting the components, as well as actually cooking the burger.  The total greenhouse gas emissions that arise every year from the production and consumption of cheeseburgers are roughly equal to the amount emitted by 6.5 million to 19.6 million SUVs.

Bon appetit.

This blog entry isn’t meant to scare anyone out of eating a cheeseburger or prevent anyone from going to a fast food restaurant.  It is meant to provide you with information on topics you may not know about, help you to open your eyes, and get you to think about the things you do everyday that can ultimately affect the world and the people around you.

Until next time.

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

This week, an assemblage of over 150 entrepreneurs, investors, manufacturers, and energy providers—under the banner of the We Can Lead business group—will march to Capitol Hill to show their support for energy legislation such as this year’s American Clean Energy and Security Act.  The attendees will receive media training, go to policy briefings, and have the opportunity to meet and greet with key policy makers.  The main message for the event?  A climate bill is good for the earth, AND good for business.

Contrary to popular belief, not all businesses are alarmed by the alleged high costs of a new climate bill.  Some 28 companies and green groups, including United Technologies and the Nature Conservatory, are paying a pretty penny in advertising to publicly voice their support of energy reform.  The seven-figure campaign will be launched this Tuesday and, hopefully, other companies will take note and realize that there aren’t sufficient financial reasons to fear a climate bill.

Exelon Corp. is one such company participating in both the advocacy events on Capitol Hill and the allied advertising campaign.  As the largest nuclear power company in the nation, Exelon made waves earlier this month when the company left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The company claims the two bodies simply did not see eye-to-eye on climate change issues.  Exelon is not alone in its flight from the Chamber.  California’s PG&E Corp. and New Mexico’s PNM Resources also announced plans last week to disband from the national business alliance.  Most recently, Apple pulled out and Nike relinquished its spot on the group’s board of directors.  The latter also claims its views on climate change differ drastically from those of the Chamber; however the company plans to retain their membership and continue their efforts toward new climate change legislation.  Much of this disapproval came directly after the Chamber publicly challenged positive findings from the federal EPA concerning the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Clean Air Act.

Built at the peak of a major Republican decade, some would say that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a mostly conservative, antiregulatory lobbying group.  Now that Washington seems to be swaying to the liberal side—essentially becoming more populist and green, the major faces of big business are skeptical of being associated with institutions as such.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, the group hopes to promote five core principles in regards to climate change.

Any legislation or regulation introduced must:

1. Preserve American jobs and competitiveness of U.S. industry;
2. Provide an international, economy-wide solution, including developing nations;
3. Promote accelerated development and deployment of greenhouse gas reduction technology;
4. Reduce barriers to the development of climate-friendly energy sources; and
5. Promote energy conservation and efficiency.

The group’s stance on global warming legislation is currently and constantly publicly disputed by various parties on the big business roster, including their former members.

From the We Can Lead two-day rally in Washington to the powerfully proclaimed ‘pro-climate bill’ advertising campaigns; from the recent exodus of corporate icons from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the overall vocal support for climate change legislation.  It seems as if corporate America and the American public alike view climate change as a business worth investing in.

The amendment would ignore worldwide scientific consensus that indicates carbon dioxide emissions from both stationary and mobile sources as a major threat to public health and welfare.  Logic, science, and the law agree!  Global warming pollution from power plants and oil refineries is just as harmful as that from cars and other passenger vehicles.  According to major scientific bodies, such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions—no matter what its source may be—are warming the planet, as well as threatening public health and the welfare of our citizens.

Furthermore, the Murkowski amendment would severely undermine the Clean Air Act’s provisions to protect public health and the environment.  Oil refineries and coal plants are among the biggest global warming polluters in the nation.  The amendment would let these big players off the hook, delaying any momentum our nation has in transitioning to sources of clean energy.  If the amendment is rejected, our ongoing shift toward solar and wind energy will drastically benefit our nation, providing a continuous and cleaner supply of energy that will only get cheaper over time, while creating millions of clean energy jobs.

The United States is the single largest producer of harmful gases, with China and India following closely behind. China has even surpassed the US at times in CO2 emissions, although with the current economic recession it’s tough to know who is winning, or should we say losing, the carbon pollution race. Our nation alone contributes nearly 25 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions each year. It is feared that the amendment would make a loud statement heard across the world; one that says the U.S. is not serious about reducing and controlling its global warming pollution, giving developing countries a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to reducing their own carbon emissions.  This could be devastating to international negotiations slated to take place in Copenhagen in December to create a framework to follow up to the Kyoto Protocol.

Lastly, the Murkowski amendment could inevitably prevent the EPA from preparing to implement climate legislation.  The Agency would be prohibited from collecting information and expertise it may need to effectively implement climate change legislation, such as the carbon-capture-and-sequestration bonus allowance program, free allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers, or early-offset programs.

If Murkowski gets her way, we could see a vote this week.  This is the wrong message for our Senators to send, who should not be trying to overturn a Supreme Court ruling and impede international climate negotiations through dirty tricks playing with the budgets of federal agencies.

Click here to see a general action alert by the Sierra Club and more reporting on this by the New York Times.

So far, the media tour has brought awareness to communities in Waco, Dallas, and Abilene in regards to nearby coal plants that are flying under the legal radar.  These districts have been negatively impacted by the failure of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TCEQ) to enforce the law and control pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) recently rejected key aspects of the TCEQ’s air permitting plan, and called for proper enforcement of the Clean Air Act in Texas.  The goal of Public Citizen Texas and the Sierra Club has been to stop the development of any new coal plants in Texas, as well as those that are currently being constructed.  The proposed moratorium would last at least until the TCEQ cracks the whip and strictly enforces Clean Air regulations.

According to a clause under the American Clean Energy and Security Act, plants that are already under construction, near construction or were permitted before January 1, 2009, may escape new regulations.  Around 43 new coal plants will be built on American soil within the next five years, with about a dozen of those in Texas alone.  These provisions—which have come to be called ‘grandfathering’ clauses—and others like it, could allow all of these plants to escape recently set performance standards.

To put things into perspective, let’s take a minute to reflect on the original grandfather clauses.  Birthed during the segregationist Jim Crow period that followed the Civil War, grandfather clauses restricted voting rights in several southern states.  It stated that men, or descendents of men, who had voted before 1866 did not have to meet the educational, property, or tax requirements for voting then in existence; however, slaves could not legally vote before or during the Civil War.  Therefore, most individuals were deemed ineligible.  The Jim Crow laws were inevitably struck down, but the idea of the grandfather clause remained.

What’s the phrase?  Oh, yes.  It’s merely history repeating itself.

Congress’ initial decision to exempt existing coal plants from the stipulations listed under the Clean Air Act was to avoid causing any economic disruption.  They assumed the older plants would be replaced with newer, cleaner ones; but instead, the grandfathering clause has encouraged utilities to just extend the lives of the old, high-polluting plants.

There is no reason why plants being permitted and built today should not be held to the new emission standards. The first step to combat this problem should begin at the state level.  If you live in College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, or Houston, our clean energy trailer is coming to a venue near you.  The remaining dates and times of the Texas State-Wide Coal Plant Tour are listed in a blog below.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.