Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Consumers’ Category

Maybe I am underestimating the reach of this blog, but I am guessing that if your are reading this you probably a pretty well- educated American (if not, you certainly are an English speaker, and are probably from a western country — but most likely yer from Texas), who has the ability to access a computer. You’re a likely to be concerned about the environment and consumer protections, or are at least interested in what Public Citizen Texas is doing in this area.

That is why today’s blog post is interactive. Instead of just sharing my opinions with you and updating you on Public Citizen activities, I want to talk about things we can do as consumers to address some of our biggest environmental problems. As the educated westerner that I am assuming you are, your consumption is the engine driving the modern economy. Much of the greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are emitted these days have been done so to make our lifestyle possible. But  many people in the developing world are also aspiring to live our lifestyle, putting us in a great position to lead by example.

I know that some will say that I am trying to guilt trip our readers into feeling bad about their success or their consumption. That is not the case at all. If anything, I am simply trying inform you of the influence you have in the global economy as consumers and the ability you have to shape the modern economy into a more sustainable version of its current self. Let’s face it: our country has not exactly taken a proactive stance on global warming, so it is up to us to be proactive while our government gets its act together. Our influence as consumers will also influence countries like China and India, who produce a lot of pollution making and shipping consumer goods for American consumers.

There are a lot of things consumers can do to reduce their impact on the environment. For example, my concern about pollution caused by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has led my giving up industrially produced meat. Since CAFO-style operations are also a cause of much deforestation and emissions from shipping from refrigeration, this measure alone can make a huge impact. I’ve also, like many other Americans, chosen to buy a smaller more efficient car — or use no car at all when I get the opportunity. I personally advocate and support public transportation measures where I live and have chosen to use them instead of using my car multiple times.  I avoid using Styrofoam and disposable products, often at great inconveniences to my self. Since discovering the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement I will now make a point to influence the city governments of any city I live in to join if they have not already.

Not all of these measures are doable for all of us, and some people will be able to do things others will not. The point is that we the consumers have the power to shift the global economy into a more sustainable direction and influence our local governments to take more environmental initiatives. Fortunately there are numerous books and websites dedicated to differentiating between products and practices that are environmentally friendly and those which are not.

Consumer activism works: the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group subsidiary Eco-pledge (an environmentally motivated consumer boycott group), was successfully able to influence Apple into recycling ipods, and Dell into better management of its E-waste. They also contributed to Conoco-Phillips and BPs withdrawl from Artic Power, an industry group set on opening the Artic Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

Economists tell us that for markets to function properly buyers need to be fully informed to make rational decisions. What could be more rational than making purchase decisions that will preserve our environment? Hopefully we will see more people willing to fight for environmental justice in their communities and with their purchasing decisions.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

This is an issue that has been bothering me for some time, but does not get as much play in political discourse I think it should. In my opinion the high cost of education and my generation’s huge accumulation of loan debt are likely to be one of the biggest problems that ordinary people in this country face.

The increased integration of the global economy is dictating that we have a highly educated workforce in order to remain competitive. To get this, high-quality post-secondary education needs to be available to all who want it, and people who have received secondary education need to have the freedom to meet their potential.

Unfortunately, this is not the way the situation looks currently. The cost of post-secondary education has grown to unprecedented heights, and more than half of college graduates are indebted to student loan providers by the time they graduate. It has become commonplace for college graduates to be saddled with anywhere from $50 to over $100 thousand in debt.

I admit that I may be a little biased, being that this issue hits very close to home for me. I am a recent graduate myself and have seen many people in my age group saddled with unbelievable amounts of debt. As is reflected by my work at Public Citizen, I am an aspiring government reformer whose primary ambitions are in the nonprofit sector. I love the fact that I am able to work for an organization that makes efficient use of its funding and fights for the things I value, making a genuinely positive impact. This type of thing is not an option to many of the people I graduated with, because they are forced to work jobs that pay enough to pay off their accumulated debt.

While many of colleagues may not have chosen this career path anyway, it is unfortunate that it is not even a viable option for them. One cannot help but note the irony of many people my age being unable to fight the status quo because they are so heavily indebted to companies that want to preserve it.

The costs of education have continued to rise in this country, and government assistance has fallen heavily. Over the last few decades the amount of tuition costs paid for by Pell grants for students in need of financial assistance has dramatically declined from covering over 60% to below 30% of students. In 1997, amendments added to the Higher Education Act deregulated the student loan business and made it possible for lenders to charge huge interest rates and massive default penalties fees. Companies are now able to forbid refinancing and use of bankruptcy protections for debtors. Worse, they are now able to garnish wages and social security, as well as prevent debtors from obtaining professional certifications and use their influence to terminate debtors employment. Sally Mae and other companies are able to see to it that their debtors are unable to pay off their loans and accumulate enormous amounts of interest — and of course they have spent millions of dollars lobbying and donating to the campaigns of their allies in congress like House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senator Mike Enzi.

Much like the sub prime loans that led to the mortgage crisis last year, these loans are sold to incoming students as being much more affordable then they are in reality. They are not warned of the astronomical amounts of interests that these loans often accumulate, or how quickly interest rates can jump. Defaulted students loans have become a huge industry and this legalized loan-sharking has made the executives and share holders at Sally Mae and other lending companies very well off. Unfortunately this boon to their fortunes has done considerable harm to our current generation of college graduates and our country’s ability to compete in the world economy.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

picture-201Over the past several months, researchers at the Good Company have been compiling a report to measure our own University of Texas’ emissions.  Last week the results were announced…. We’ve got big feet.

Thereport showed that UT’s total carbon emissions were a 292,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2006.  Emissions sources not required by the traditional registries are estimated to be an additional 238,237 metric tons.  The vast majority of these emissions were from natural gas consumption, which totaled 233,839 metric tons of CO2.

The release of this information is an important step to be accountable for our greenhouse gas emissions. Says Assistant Director of the Campus Environmental Center and Public Citizen’s own, Druscilla Tigner:

It was exciting!  This was a fantastic opportunity for the University of Texas to really stare its problems in the face, and pinpoint exactly what they need to do to reduce its impact on the environment.  It’s a concrete jumping point for the campus sustainability movement.

picture-151For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the report was a measure of the green house gasses emitted by a typical UT student to determine the per student carbon footprint.  The report offered two general categories of students. (more…)

Read Full Post »

picture-14

The first step towards greenhouse gas regulation is underway! On Wednesday, the EPA proposed a rule that industries measure and report their greenhouse gas emissions. The rule would apply to 13,000 facilities nationwide, including manufacturers of chemicals, oil, cement, iron and steal, automobiles, electricity generation, and more! Green Inc reports that this will cover 85%-90% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and not just carbon dioxide emissions. The reports will also include emission amounts of those other things we hate to inhale, such as methane, hydrofluorcarbons, and nitrous oxide.

If put into action, emissions tracking will begin in 2010 for reports to release in 2011. Of course, this program would cost a significant amount of cash—$160 million in the first year and then $127 million each year thereafter.

The reports will allow us to pinpoint exactly how much greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere, and from where. Though some firms are already participating in voluntary reporting, this kind of industry-wide reports will provide comparative analysis. With such detailed (and presumably accurate) information, we will also be in a better position to make informed decisions about how emission regulation should be formulated.

CNNMoney.com also reported that this information could be important to investors. For those ill-prepared companies, emission regulation could drastically affect their earnings.

Mindy Lubber, the Director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk stated:

The SEC needs to protect investors from the risks companies face from climate change, whether from direct physical impacts or new regulations. Shareholders deserve to know if their portfolio companies are well positioned to manage climate risks or whether they face potential exposure.

Public release of information would be a powerful tool to prepare companies, especially those that are energy-intensive, to be held accountable for their energy emissions. Or a good kick in the pants to take the next step to become ecologically conscious!

Read Full Post »

This just in from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – Author and activist Van Jones will be a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation in the Obama administration.

Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a release Monday that Jones will start work next week to help direct the administration’s efforts to create jobs and help the environment. Sutley said Jones will work on “vulnerable communities.”

Jones founded Green for All, a national organization that promises environmentally friendly jobs to help lift people out of poverty. He wrote the New York Times best-seller “The Green Collar Economy.”

Anyone who heard Van Jones’ keynote address at our Texas Energy Future conference knows what fantastic news it is that this man now has the ear of the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.  At the conference Van Jones gave an amazing speech to a packed house on the potential of the new green economy.  For a taste of the kind of green jobs messaging the Obama Administration will hear from now on, check out this trailer — courtesy of Texas Impact.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGRWZDShPc]

For the full speech, check out the streaming google video after the jump.  (more…)

Read Full Post »

Austin City Council will soon deliberate on the recommendations from the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force: a group of stakeholders charged with coming up with ways to make more homes and businesses in the city more energy efficient.

The central recommendation of the Task Force is to require energy audits to be performed on all commercial and multi-family (think apartment buildings) properties within two years of implementation of the ordinance. Single-family homes would have a similar requirement, but it would take effect when a home is put up for sale.

Energy audits (which cost about $200-$300) are performed by Austin Energy certified professionals and include a visual inspection plus duct testing to analyze a building’s energy efficiency. Building owners or prospective buyers could then take advantage of a voluntary program of energy efficiency upgrades, that are loaded with rebates and incentives provided by Austin Energy.

This is good news for Austin consumers because Austinites have a right to know about the energy efficiency of a home, and ways they can save money. Housing affordability is not just the mortgage. It’s utilities too. For example. if you were a prospective home buyer, which house would you choose if these were the same price and right next to each other?

Which one would you choose if you knew that the first house paid $200 in monthly utilities and the second one paid $100? Energy audits make this information available so consumers can make more informed decisions like the one you just did.

But what about renters? Renters can’t make energy efficiency improvements beyond changing a few lightbulbs because they don’t own the property they live in. Concurrently, apartment building owners, don’t have a great financial incentive to make energy efficiency improvements because they don’t pay the utility bills.

That’s why, if after two years multi-family building owners are not taking advantage of the energy efficiency incentives from Austin Energy, City Council should make efficiency upgrades a requirement for multi-family properties. By strengthening the task force recommendations this way, Austin will be acting in the best interests of ratepayers…

…oh yeah, and reducing greenhouse gases.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Our cohorts at Citizenvox had this to say about the recent scandal breaking at the Department of the Interior.  I think this follow up well what they wrote about the recent GOP and Dem conventions, asking “Who is paying for the Hookers and Blow?”

And these are the people who will be put in charge of the leases if we decide to expand offshore drilling? Insert your own “Drill, Baby, Drill” joke here.  ~~Citizen Andy

Read Full Post »

Sneezing, sniffling?  The culprit may be global warming according to this report. Experts are also warning us that allergy season may be extended or aggravated as the climate warms.

An article in the Austin American Statesman also discusses how climate change is spreading previously exotic diseases to places like Texas.

While you’re at it, watch out for your 401(k) and retirement savings, as some of Wall Street’s biggest funds and companies are not preparing adequately for climate change and may end up losing your money!

As if that weren’t enough, climate change is also affecting growing seasons, decreasing the pollination window for corn from 10 down to only three or four days.  This will eventually mean higher prices on everything from ethanol to beef or anything that contains corn-byproducts.

So what do we do?  Thomas Friedman, the noted economist and best-selling author, talked about how dealing with climate change is a huge economic winner with none other than Dave Letterman earlier this week:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVmJpM_UFVs]

Meanwhile, Google’s CEO Eric Scmidt has some ideas of his own, saying the United States could save $2.7 trillion dollars by switching to smart grids, efficient buildings, and renewable energy. So when’s the beta test coming out for “Google House”?

Read Full Post »

CPS Energy stakes its energy planning credibility on the fact that it has the lowest energy bills in Texas – even lower than those Austin people who get energy from hugging bunnies.

But WOAI crunched the numbers and last month, Austin Energy beat ’em. Check out the write-up and video here.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

In July, Netroots Nation, a network of online progressive voices, hosted a panel including scholarly authors, film directors, and lawyers with the topic:

“How Corporations and the Politicians they Fund are Fighting to Take Away our Legal Rights … and Convincing Us it’s for the Best.”

The speakers highlighted how corporations and conservative think tanks have framed personal injury law suits. Many people in America believe we are a nation of frivolous lawsuits – both in quantity and quality. Yet in reality, the number of lawsuits has been declining over the last 50 years. And if you would like to debate the quality of these suits, you better take it up with the system we have in place. Our elected system gives power to judges and juries who decides who gets what. So why all the complaining?

Propaganda produced by “you know who” has produced the image of lawyers as money-hungry sharks and injured people as whiners who are living irresponsibly. The campaign against lawsuits has been largely successful, yet now our tendency to buy into this propaganda may cost us our rights.

The Bush Administration wants to leave it up to the US Food and Drug Administration to approve our drugs and medical devices and forfeit give up our right to seek compensation through the courts if we are hurt. While some may argue that the FDA has rigorous tests that its products must pass before being put on the market, many companies slide through (some knowing the harm their product may cause, and others not).

If we take away the company’s fear of “getting sued,” what will be their motive to ensure that their product is completely safe? Not to say that everyone in these companies are evil, profit-seeking jerks; there are good people working there too who have a code of ethics and who believe safety comes first. These are the good people who use the possibility of a law suit as the hovering consequence of failing to take safety more seriously. Why would we, as consumers, want to take this argument away from them?

We ought to think about the rights we are relinquishing by doing away with our access to the courts, as well as our safety, which we are leaving up to drug companies and the imperfect FDA to decide.

Dennis Quaid testifies before Congress earlier this year

Dennis Quaid testifies before Congress earlier this year

Take a look at Dennis Quaid, who says he has always thought of himself as a Republican. Even he is combating the process of preemption by giving testimony in Washington DC after a near-fatal overdose of heparin because of faulty labeling and medical devices that involved his newly-born twins. If Dennis Quaid is this concerned about what is going on with our legal system, we definitely should be!

Even worse is that these same problems continue to plague Texas hospitals, with a near fatal oversdose of heparin being given to 12 premies in a single Corpus Christi hospital last month.

~~Intern Anna

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts