Thinking Green @goinggreen48 - Tumblr Blog

Pedal Down

I chose a song called, "Pedal Down," which is about global warming and the anxiety it causes Reid Genauer, who is the lead song writer and singer of Assembly of Dust. I feel this song is important because it touches on the feelings some people have about Global Warming, but are often kept to themselves. For example, the first lyric in the song is, "I feel so helpless in my car, I put the pedal down and drive through connected tar." This is an important lyric because it describes the possible guilt people experience when driving knowing it could be contributing to climate change. Then Genauer goes on to say, " I can't help but feel no one is steering this thing." I feel this is a powerful line that is referring to the anxiety some people may have about global warming, and the lack of attention it receives. Following that line, Genauer sings, "tie your courage to a stake and hope the water subsides." Here the artist is addressing the issue of rising sea levels, and how if climate change is not delayed, we can only hope for solutions.Lastly, he ends the song with, "hold on tight, no one is steering this thing." I feel lyric is trying to make people cautious of climate change, and aware of the uncertainty of the worlds future. Overall, this famous song is important because he discusses the anxiety he feels about global warming, and possibly this feeling may be mutual for many people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knfygYzhIDs (Pedal Down by Reid Genauer)

Climate Change is Happening Now

On May 6th, 2013 the United States Government released a report that stressed climate change is currently happening, and is already disturbing the United States (Liptak, Mullen and Cohen). The National Climate Assessment report was created by 300-plus experts guided by a 60- member Federal Advisor Committee panel (Liptak, Mullen, and Cohen). Unfortunately, the experts firmly believe the climate will only worsen if serious action is not taken. Personally, after reading the report, and analyzing the data, it made me anxious that climate change is happening as we speak. One of Barack Obamas top priorities is climate change, and as a result, he is facing harsh criticism. People who are disagreeing with Obama, would rather see Obama focusing on the economy, jobs, or health care (Liptak, Mullen and Cohen) However, I feel some people are not fully grasping how grave the situation is. People need to be aware climate change is something that has the possibility to affect everyone. In addition, climate change could cause catastrophic weather, resulting in lots of money being spent to repair damages(Liptak, Mullen, and Cohen). I agree with the experts, and Obama, that if we focus on climate change now, we could avoid huge economic loses in the future (Liptak, Mullen, and Cohen). Also, I agree with Obama, and believe climate change is an issue that should be treated as a top priority. Overall, I am pleased to see the President of the United States making a serious effort to focus on climate change and the environmental concerns associated with it. Obama's efforts are hopefully making more people aware, and educated on climate change, and the implications we could encounter in the future.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/politics/white-house-climate-energy/

Why Do most Republicans Not Believe in Global Warming

Republicans are known for not believing global warming and climate change and that it is a natural process. Why is this? One theory proposed is explained by Al Gore, former vice president. Al Gore claims, republicans deny human activity is the cause of global warming and climate change because they will loose political funding from "megadonors" like the koch brothers (Reilly). Al Gore says, "...They will face primary opponents financed by the Koch Brothers, and others who are part of their group, if they even breathe the slightest breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science. It's not really that complicated"(qtd. in Reilly). Also, Gore states "...anyone who wants to set his or her aspirations on the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 already knows that they can't possibly cross the Koch brothers and the others that are part of that group..."(qtd. in Reilly). Al Gore's theory explains republicans do not want to show any support to advocates of global warming because it will cause a loss of funding by the Koch brothers.

My theory on why Republicans do not believe in Global Warming is because they do not like the side effects of solving global warming. For example, if the government were to get involved in solving global warming, it would require the government to have more power and intervene more in peoples life's. This is exactly what Republicans don't want to happen, because they want the government to have little control as possible. The republicans refuse to accept Global Warming as a problem because it will give the government more power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/al-gore-republicans_n_5313028.html

5 controversies

5 Controversies

Is going green worth the extra cost for consumers?

This issue is controversial because while some feel going green is necessary, for others the economy is still not up to par, and consumers have difficulty believing the expensive green products will save them money in the long term.

There are two sides, yes it does pay off or no it doesn’t. People who support going green believe the extra spending is worth it. Advocates argue, while the products are more expensive, the products will last longer, and you end up using fewer resources. As a result the consumer saves money. In addition, supporters feel the consumers are receiving health benefits by investing in green products.

People who oppose going green feel the money you save does not compensate for the extra money you spend on green products. Also, people who oppose buying green feel the extra money that would be spent on green products could be used elsewhere.

Going paperless, is it worth it?

Going paperless is controversial because in this day and age people are trying to be more resourceful by using less, but people argue going paperless is not practical.

Advocates argue going paperless is beneficial to the environment by reducing the amount of trees that cut down (Hariss). Additionally, supporters say businesses could save tremendous amounts of money on ink, paper and labor costs associated with paper (Harris).

http://www.workingre.com/paperless-appraising/

People who oppose going paperless argue certain people are not capable of using only technology in their lives and there should be other options (rein). Also, not everyone has access to the Internet and still rely on paper daily.

http://www.newsandtribune.com/community-news-network/x1783675340/Go-paperless-One-group-lobbying-against-it

Water Bottles

This issue is controversial because people believe it is time to get rid of the plastic water bottle due its environmental hazard whiles others feel the plastic water bottle is necessary.

Supporters of getting rid of the plastic bottle feel it is a waste of plastic because many plastic water bottles are not recycled. For example, plesa states, “in 2008, 38 million plastic bottles were produced for bottled water and over 80% of those bottles never made it into a recycling bin”(plesa). Another reason they dislike water bottles is because there are alternatives ways to get water that do not require plastic water bottles. Also you save money not buying water bottles.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-many-controversies-surrounding-bottled-water

Advocates of plastic water bottles, say the dislike the taste of tap water. Supporters also believe bottle water is high quality and cleaner. Also, some feel the plastic water bottle is more convenient than have a Nalgene water bottle.

Should businesses go green?

Some feel businesses should go green because it is good for the environment and saves the business money. However, some argue it is more costly and not beneficial.

Supporters of businesses going green believe businesses can save money, and help save the environment. Also, some advocate going green can improve your company’s reputation.

People who argue against going green feel it is too expensive, and could eventually cause the business go into debt. Some feel the savings you receive in return is not worth the time the company invests to transition to green practices.

Should climate change be a top priority for the president?

This issue is controversial because some voters feel there are other priorities that should be considered more important like jobs, while other voters feel climate change should be our number one focus.

People who advocate climate change as our number one issue, feel if the government does not address it now, it will be to late to solve the damage that has already occurred.

People who argue against climate change, and feel jobs or health care should be our number one priority feel putting food on the table is a bigger concern for everyday Americans. Also, some people don’t believe in climate change making it the last priority from their perspective.

Why Go Green

In this journal Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, the article, "Why Go Green? The Business Case for Environmental Commitment in the Canadian Hotel Industry", Sonya Graci and Rachel Dodds claim that green practices are crucial for running an efficient and successful hotel business. Graci and Rachel support their claim by sharing real life experiences of several hotels, along with several studies, that demonstrate the benefits of going green in the hotel industry. The authors purpose is to identify the reasons for going green in the corporate world, specifically hotels, in order to help them run more efficiently. Graci and Rachel are writing to an audience who want to learn about transforming their businesses/hotel in an eco-friendly establishment.

After reading this article, I feel it is significant because it educates and makes people aware of the benefits of going eco-friendly. By showing real examples of hotels saving thousands, it could help convince other business to do the same. For example, the article states, a hotel in Toronto saved thousands of dollars per year by installing low flow shower heads which decreases the amount of water used, but doesn't sacrifice your shower experience. One question that I keep asking is why wouldn't hotels implement these low flow shower heads. Your customers would not be able to tell the difference and you save money. Overall, I have difficulty understanding why hotels/business are hesitant to go eco friendly, knowing it could save them tremendous amounts of money. I feel if businesses and hotels were more educated about adapting eco-friendly practices, more of these changes would occur.

A Green Movement

Cities Going Green (2011) by Roger L. Kemp and Carl J. Stephani is a guide aiding and exposing cities to a new green way of living through specific practices and programs. The programs or practices help educate and improve the cities outdoor surroundings by promoting green living. Cities going green is intended for community leaders, city officials and city managers who are interested in learning new ways to implement green practices in their town or city. The average person would find this book useless and mundane. The book includes over 50 examples of how cities transformed from polluting monsters to efficiently practicing green living. This book is a great way for cities to improve there overall quality of life and help improve there surroundings.

http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Going-Green-Handbook-Practices/dp/0786459689

The Governments Need to Show the Way

In this article, "Show us the way to go green; Businesses need to know what goals they will have to aim for" Sunday Times Journal (London,England 2011), David Derbyshire argues that international governments climate regulation or lack of regulation causes businesses to not invest heavily in green technologies because of the uncertainty of government policies in the future. Derbyshire uses the "United Nations summit in South Africa", an international conference discussing climate change, and several other examples to explain the struggles of reaching a global deal on climate regulation, and shows the lack of progression of the global green movement. His purpose is to make readers aware of the implications associated with the lack of government climate regulations at a global level in order to help them understand the effects it has on business heavily investing in green technologies. Derbyshire is writing to an audience with an interest in business, global politics, and environment, who interested in the future of climate regulations.

Before I read this article it did not even occur to me that international climate regulations was an idea. However, I have learned countries agreeing on universal regulation proves to be difficult. For example, Derbyshire states, "environmentalists, politicians and even the organizers concede that a global deal on new carbon dioxide targets is years away." I agree with Dahlberg, that until countries can agree on climate regulation, businesses will be reluctant to implement any green technology because the uncertainty of policies in the future.

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=udel_main&tabID=T004&searchId=R4&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA273473386&&docId=GALE|A273473386&docType=GALE&role=&docLevel=FULLTEXT

#blog 13

2 Green Thumbs Up

The first thing I noticed about this image is the suit the gentleman is wearing. This stood out to me because it goes against the traditional way of thinking that business are not concerned about being environmental friendly. Going green is not just good for the environment; it’s also good for business. The thumbs up gesture is universally known and is associated with something positive. The thumbs up gesture conveys a positive experience of going green and its wonderful impact on businesses. The message is implying that going green is a beneficial experience to businesses, and other businesses should follow. The use of the green thumb is a great way to grab the attention of the viewer. Also, a green thumb is term that implies someone is good with plants and gardening. It used to symbolize the effort of going green. The image is trying to change the negative attitudes and views of businesses going green and turning it into something businesses should support the effort.

IMAGE from http://www.ways2gogreenblog.com/2012/11/15/guest-post-going-green-a-noticeable-roi-for-leaders/

10 easy ways to go green

http://www.bhg.com/home-improvement/remodeling/eco-friendly/easy-ways-to-go-green/

(Picture taken from Better Home and Gardens link above)

Bill Nye on Making his house environmentally friendly

http://youtu.be/H5s1ia50-aw

Bill Nye shares his own experience about how he made his house energy efficient and explains how he is saves money.

#bill nye

Companies Should Get Punished for Pollution

Professor Eric Dahlberg of Stanford University explains, companies all over the United States are now purchasing exchangeable pollution permits, "a free-market solution to the problems caused by negative externalities." For example, a negative externality would be pollution caused by the production of a good. Producers do not take into account the external costs when calculating their costs of production (Dahlberg). Unfortunately, corporations that pollute create a cost to the surrounding communities but the companies don't experience any damage directly. Dahlberg explains, "Tradable emission permits allow the government to give companies licenses to pollute at a certain level." Companies can purchase, auction, and advertise these permits on the market. If the company goes over limit of what the permit allows, the companies can just buy more permits (Dahlberg). Essentially it is allowing companies to pollute at a small price.

One problem experts with tradable pollution permits is that companies would deal with the cost of pollution, rather than diminish the amount of pollution they emit. I feel most companies are concerned profit. Critics feel we should tax companies on the amount pollution they create instead of permits. Some companies will still continue to pollute heavily if it means just buying extra permits. Also, Dahlberg states, "tradable permits, however, are only effective if the government doesn’t suffer from information failure at any stage of the process." For example, the government might fail to correctly calculate the number of permits it should issue. If they issue too many, too much pollution will occur. Lastly, the cost of this policy is very expensive allocating permits, policing the companies, measuring the output etc.(Dahlberg). Overall, this may be the best to limit pollution now but it not the solution. In the near future we are going to need to have stricter regulations on pollution.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/trade_environment/law/hpermits.html

The best way to go green

The best way to start going green is to stop buying plastic bottles. According to Food and Water Watch.org, "In 2009 us consumers bought 8.45 billion gallons of bottled water." Also, Food and Water Watch.org say, "US consumers spend 10.6 billion dollars on plastic water." Bottled water wastes resources during the assembling and shipping process. For instance, Food and Water Watch.org explain, "Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007—enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year." Why is the best way to go green? Because it is so easy for people in america to stop buying plastic water bottles. Most people have access to clean water from other sources like a faucet. Food and Water Watch. org states, "the average person spends 600 dollars per year on just water." A Britta water filter only cost $30, and could save you large amounts of money that would have been spent on plastic bottles. It is a no brainer, you save money, and save the environment. People think bottle water is cleaner, but the Natural Resources Defense Council found after years of testing, "10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants." There is no down side to removing plastic water bottles from your life.

Overall, the best way to start going green, is to stop buying plastic water bottles. It is as simple as buying a water filter.

P: Plastic water bottles are bad for the environment

P2: Plastic water bottles cost a lot of money

P3: It is easy for people in the United States to get access to clean water through their tap

P4: Plastic Bottles waste energy

C The best way to go green is to stop buying plastic water bottles

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/bottled-water-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qbw.asp

Getting Nowhere

In this op/ed article "Going Green but Getting Nowhere," Gernot Wagner claims individual action towards saving the environment will little impact if any because the problem is too big. Wagner supports his claim by providing examples from prominent scientist and climate specialist of how we need to cut current greenhouse gas emissions and get people educated and excited on the going green to have any significant impact. His purpose is make people aware and admit the need to end planetary socialism in order to determine the safety of our future. He is writing to the people who interested in environmental consumerism, who also have the willingness to do more as a collective action.

After reading this article, I first disagreed with Wagner because I am a firm believer in contributing anyway you can, whether that is recycling or buying a hybrid car. He is saying that will not do anything to save our future. After taking a second, I realized what he was getting at. I agree that this movement to saving our plant is going to take a collective action and not just an individual. I like when Wagner says, "The changes necessary are so profound and large that they are beyond the reach of individual action." I think this really puts the problem in perspective. Also, I agree with Wagner when he explains we as people all want to something, but in the end it distracts us from what we need to do collectively. This is a problem we need to take on as a world, not us individuals. Overall, we need to educate more people, and admit to the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinion/going-green-but-getting-nowhere.html

Good Intentions

How far should one go to protect one species? Thats the question we should ask. The podcast talks about protecting an endangered bird, Kirtland's Warlber, and how important is it to protect this species. To protect this bird they caused an intentional fire to create a new habitat for the bird, as a result it led to a death of a 29 year wild life technician , James Swiderski. However, the fire worked and the population of birds is now 4,000. This relates to my topic because environmental consumerism's is an attempt to save the earth, and preserve its resources as long as possible. My comparison is the earth is like the bird and how far should we go to protect our earth.

How far should the humans go to protect the future of our planet? If we do not act promptly the future of our planet is in grave danger like the bird. Should we go as far as giving up vital things we use everyday to protect the life of our planet. For example, is it worth it for consumers and businesses to spend an unfathomable amount of money to save the planet? In the "Weighing Good Intentions" show a man says, "is the life of a man worth 4,000 birds." Is the cost of spending millions of dollars, worth extending the life of earth. I believe it is. Unlike the example above where a death occurred, spending hundred of millions is still taking drastic measures to solve an issue. If its worth a persons life to save birds, is it worth it to spend millions of dollars to save the planet?

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91723-weighing-good-intentions/

My Story of Going Green

A year ago, a relative of mine purchased his first house last year in Colorado and realized how much money he was wasting on bills, especially electricity and water. He wanted to change this immediately. One of the first things he did was change his light bulbs. As a result of changing from incandescent light bulbs and using compact fluorescent light bulbs he saves energy and saves money on his lighting portion of the bill. Colorado in the winter requires a lot of heating, and noticed heating his house was too expensive. Instead of complaining, he purchased double paned windows, almost cutting his heating bill in half. This purchase was one of his most expensive, but he is already reaping the benefits. Lastly, the house has a solar collector for hot water, and is heated by the sun. His hot water bill is a measly 100 dollars a month, compared to the hundreds of dollars he was paying before that.

When people say it is to expensive to live green or to complicated, I think this story is one argument against that. Everyone complains about their bills being to high, so why not do something about it. If someone can transform his house, by simple buying a different light bulb or putting sky lights to use less energy throughout the day, anyone can. I just want people to see how easy it is to save money by going green. My relative has saved thousands by consuming environmentally friendly. I think it is a no brainer. I know when it comes time for me to buy a house, I am going to take the extra time to make my house a green one

The house in Colorado.

#living green

Caesars Hotel Saving Water, Money, and Energy at the Same Time

The article, "Hotels Save Energy With a Push to Save Water," by Brain Howard claims that Caesars Hotel has saved tremendous amounts of money by cutting back on water usage. Howard supports his claims by providing examples of how the hotel saves water, energy and money by sharing the easy ways to cut back on your water. The authors purpose is to make the reader to make us think more cautiously about how we use water in order to save water, energy and money. Given the topic being discussed, the audience seems to be people who are interested about being environmentally cautious.

Caesars Hotel in Las Vegas has finally felt the benefits of going green. By simply cutting down on water usage on washing, lawn sprinkling, and plain old waste. In addition to saving water they also saved energy! One statement in the article that I agree with is when Eric Dominguez corporate director of engineering, utilities and environmental affairs for caesars says, water is undervalued... because the pricing of here does not reflect it true value. I could not agree more with this statement, I believe if we increased the price of water, consumers would use less water, money and energy. The United States uses water as it is infinite and that is a problem in this country, hotels in particular. One thing i found interesting is restrooms in hotels has the biggest impact on water damage! Caesars Hotel has started saving money and water by using new shower heads that use less water and low flow sink aerators. It amazed me by just this simple things, they save on average 50.5 million gallons per year. Think about the impact this could have if every hotel did this in Nevada, were water is a very useful resource. The benefits are only up because in addition to saving money and water, they are saving on energy. By using less water, the less water that has to be heated. It amazing what simple steps companies, like hotels could do to save money. Some question to leave you with. Why do you think Hotels or Businesses do the same steps as mentioned as above? Do you think hotel are too lazy or do not believe the benefits? I know if I had the opportunity to save money, 10 out 10 times I would do it. Do you think Hotels should take these steps?

Link for Hotel Saves Energy With a Push to Save Water (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/140224-hotels-save-energy-with-push-to-save-water/ )

#Saving Water #Caesars Hotel #Saving Energy

Introduction Thinking Green

(http://newhiteboard.com/2011/03/17/think-green-make-green/)

Just in the last several years there has been more stress on the importance of protecting our environment. Why do we need to think green? The average person does not think about the large amounts of energy they use every day. They do not think twice about recycling. They do not think to turn off the lights when they leave the room. Many people are to caught up in their daily routines to think about the consequences they may have on the environment. Americans consume 21% percent of the worlds total energy, putting USA at number one. If citizens don’t try to make the world more sustainable, there could be grave consequences.

My blog is going to focus on environmental consumerism. Primarily the impacts on the business world, common household, and the future environmental consumerism. I want to expose the short term and long term benefits one can experience by living green.

#thinking green #enviorment #envirormental consumerism

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Thinking Green