Food Tip: Make a Pizza Pot!

February 23, 2011 by / 16 Comments

One of the biggest factors for our “carbon footprint” is the food that we eat.  When just shopping for some food, meat has often traveled a long distance to get to the store shelves.  It’s almost impossible to know how far it has actually gone (given the way they mix meat, specifically ground beef), but I’ve heard that it can average up to 1,500 miles!  That’s quite a long way to travel, just to get it on  your plate.  One of the easiest ways to lower your carbon footprint is to produce some of your own food, but to do that on a scale big enough to feed yourself (and your family), you’d need some land, and it’d have to be pretty fertile to produce as much variance as you’re used to seeing in the store.  Obviously, not everyone can just go around and plunk down a nice chunk of change for a large amount of land, so if you’re interested in local food, what can you do?  (as an aside, watch this local food clip from the show Portlandia).

Knowing that you’ve got no garden, and little time what can you do to start growing some of your own food?  If you want to get started now, you can.  Just grow a Pizza Pot!  For those unfamiliar with a Pizza Pot, it’s exactly what it sounds like: a pot of vegetables/herbs that you can put on a pizza!  As you’re surely aware, you can’t grow everything on a pizza in a pot, but you can try.  Here’s what you’ll need:

  • A large pot to grow your pizza ingredients in
  • Soil (or, you can use your home-made compost!)
  • Plant food
  • Your Favorite Pizza Toppings! (Make sure they can grow in your area

So, once you’ve got everything, here’s what you need to do.  Put your soil in the pot, and leave about 1-1.5 inches at the top.  Now, you’re ready to plant your favorite pizza toppings.  Here are some ideas:

  • Tomatoes (I like Roma), but you can use any type
  • Basil
  • Oregano
  • Curly Parsley (I don’t use this, but you can)
  • Garlic Chives (I don’t use this either)
  • or anything else you want!

Now, there is a certain order to this, so that everything will grow to its fullest potential.  You need to plant the tomato first, and it needs to go in the center of the pot.  Once that’s done, you can plant everything else that you want in your pot around it.  Once everything is in, put it in an area that will get a lot of sun.

You can also put a stake in the pot for the tomato, but it’s not necessary right away – however it will still need to be done.  Now, the fun starts – You can watch your plants grow, then enjoy some pizza in the fall!  You’ll have fresh ingredients to put on your pizza (I’ve found that this really lends itself to the construction of a margherita pizza that could rule the world).  So, enjoy your pizza, and enjoy the fact that you’re doing the environment (and even your pocketbook) a favor.  Then you can start plotting your next pizza pot, or if you’re feeling extra crazy, you can move on to a small garden.

Filed Under: Environment  / Tagged: , , ,

Guilt Tripping To Save The Environment?

February 9, 2011 by / 12 Comments

I’m really into the point where good ideas/behaviors/habits meet reality.  In other words, how can you compel a person to do something that will provide them with a direct and indirect benefit.  Today, I’ll try to make a case with 1 thing that really gets my goat: leaving the lights on. Leaving the lights on isn’t a crime or anything like that, it’s just something that really, really bothers me.  It’s probably because resources are being wasted, mostly money and energy.

First off, I know that I’m not completely immune to this.  I occasionally leave the lights on, and I think part of this is caused because I find the light switches to be in sports that are inconvenient to shut off when I’m leaving.  Though still, this is no excuse.  So how can I get my behavior to change so that I’m doing something that saves me money and stops wasting resources?

When I was in undergrad, I went to a relatively progressive university that has deep environmental roots.  (Eric from Narrow Bridge Adventures went there too).  During class one time, someone from the university came to talk to our energy class about how the university was able to save money by getting students who lived in the dorms to turn the lights off when they left the room for class or whatever.  They found three dorms and put them each in a group.  1 group got nothing – they were the control group.  The next group got stickers to put under their light switch that said “When Not in Use, Turn off the Juice” and had a light bulb on them.  These stickers cost about 2 cents each.  The final group got the stickers, and had to attend a two 1 hour long classes talking about how to lower energy use and some tips on why lowering energy use is better for the environment and the university.

After their study, they found that the group who got the stickers were able to reduce their energy consumption (I don’t remember how much), but the amount that they reduced their energy use was about 3-5% different than the ones that got the stickers as well as the class.  Obviously, the best way for the university to proceed moving forward with the rest of the dorms was the stickers: the cost was infantesimal compared to the cost of the sticker and the class.  Given the fact that the reduction was almost equal, it would be unwise (at best, and an irresponsible use of taxpayers funds at worst) to continue to offer the classes.

Using all of this information, I am thinking of placing a sticker above my own light switches, in the hopes that my roommate will be affected by this picture near the switch.  My roommate cares about the environment very deeply, and doesn’t feel it is appropriate to inflict unnecessary damage on the environment.

The first thing I needed to do was find the picture that would resonate, and my roommate was very concerned with the following image (the  cover of TIME magazine a while back). As you can see from the image, it paints a very bleak picture of the polar bear habitat up north.  Given the fact that less ice makes it hard for polar bears to hunt, and the fact that increased carbon in the atmosphere has been linked to ice melt, it seems that wasting energy can be linked to this imagery right here.  So, my roommate feels guilty when this images is shown, and will most likely feel even more so if it’s plastered all over the house.

So, what I’m thinking of doing is putting this picture right next to the  light switch, in hopes that when the light switch is flipped on, images of the polar bear will stick in the mind of my roommate and prompt the turnoff of the switch when use is finished.

What I’m wondering is if this is going too far.  Sure, the ends justify the means, but is it too much in this situation?  I’m playing against known fears in an effort to accomplish  a simple behavior change.  Have you ever tried anything like this?  Is it worth the effort, or should I look for other ways to get my roommate to form a habit of turning off the lights?

Filed Under: Environment, Finance  / Tagged: , , , ,

Saving the Environment with Thin Plastic

July 22, 2010 by / 3 Comments

I am volunteering for the local rodeo this year (its my first time) and I’m pretty excited. Last night, while helping others build a fence around what will be a parking lot, someone brought us over a case of bottled water (it helped, it was almost 90 degrees). I looked over and saw a small trailer with at least 4-5 cubic feet of bottles on it (this is a big rodeo). I opened mine, sat down and started reading the label. The label pointed out some nice design changes they call “eco-shape”, which include a bottle made from lighter plastic for easy recycling, a smaller label that uses less trees to make the paper, and a smaller cap that uses less plastic as well. They tout all these as being “good for the environment”

And they are, in a sense.  Yes, using less paper and plastic is a good thing for the environment.  It will help our resources last longer, less pollution, blah, blah, blah.  The problems that I have with this are:

  1. They are not getting to the root of the problem
  2. People are buying it

The root of the problem is…

Consumption.  Plain and simple.  Instead of carrying around a water bottle (to save money or for your health), they want you to buy theirs.  It”s ok though, because they’ve done all they can to minimize the impact of the bottle, except ask you to get a re-fillable bottle that will end up in a landfill once every 3-5 years (just a guess) instead of after a few uses (at the most).  To get people to stop thinking about the fact that you’re still wasting things, they just design/sell eco-friendly bottles that you can still throw away.  Everyone wins! You get your water from a bottle and they get your money.

However, in typical american fashion, the real issue (using a crap-ton) of resources is more or less ignored, but some short and medium term issues are brought up (and resolved).  For the short and medium term, it’s still ok to buy and drink the water bottle and it’s actually good for the environment because it’s made with less plastic.  So instead of using a crap-ton of resources, we are now using .94 of a crap-ton of resources (which according to the ICUWOM – the International Committee for Unstandardized Weights and Odd Measures – a sister institute of the ICWM is exactly 1 butt-load), and consumption can now resume its  break-neck pace  unabated because we are considering the environment when buying this water — Just look at the package — it says its good!

Everyday, we (the american consumer) fall for this nonsense.   We go on thinking that we are doing right by the environment as we guzzle water from 1 time use bottles that are made from thinner, more earth friendly plastic so it’s ok.  It’s not.  According to the Food and Water Watch we are using 47 million gallons of oil to produce this plastic, and 1.5 million tons of waste.  Couple this with the fact that 2 of the largest bottled waters  (Pepsi’s Aquafina and Coca-Cola’s Dasani) are just filtered municipal water, we are putting a lot of resources into making (and moving) this bottle of water.  Despite all this, we still gravitate towards the bottled water company that claims to be better for the Earth.

Unfortunately,

And this is really the rub, is that basically anything that you buy that says “we are a green product” is most likely not true.  Consuming anything (the way the current system works) is inherently not green.  Buying something means you are trading your resources (your time, in the form of cash) for the resources of something else.  There is not really a way for this to be friendly for either party unless it is held in check.  Consuming the stuff is bad for your wallet (many some  go into credit card or other types of high interest debt for it) and you’re depleting the resources used to make it.

The best way to ensure that resources will be there in the future (aka  sustainable) is to not use too many of them in the first place.

Getting to the root of the problem — We want our water in a bottle, but we want that bottle to be environmentally friendly. Even though arrowhead spent time/money engineering a bottle with thinner plastic and a smaller cap and are now calling it “green” it’s still not as green as buying a water bottle.

They are missing the point. You cant consume a crap-ton of stuff and still be green.  You cant spend in a frivolous manner and stay out of debt.  You can’t TV watch your way to good health.  All of these things are common goals of mine, and a lot of others.  Many times, we find our that our habits don’t line up with our goals.

They are in an inherent battle with each other.  Which will you choose?

Filed Under: Environment, sustainability  / Tagged: , , ,

Green Washer Fluid

May 19, 2010 by / Leave a Comment

Today I was at wal-mart searching for, among other things, some new wiper fluid for my vehicle.  I typically dont give much thought to purchasing washer fluid, but something struck me when I was looking at the 5 or so different choices.

There was an eco-friendly alternative for wiper fluids.

Of course there was, why wouldn’t there be.  It seems that going eco-friendly or “green” is in vogue, and consumers will gladly pay a premium for eco-friendly products.  Such consumers typically buy and give  little thought going into whether or not the product was actually produced as they claim. (I do this on occasion)  At first thought, I figured this was just a well disguised attempt to separate me from my scarce financial resources.

Does the Earth Really Look like this from Space?

Upon further investigation, wiper fluid is typically hefty stuff, as the majority of the wiper fluids have some sort of anti-freezing agent in them.  It used to be methanol, but due to its known harmful effects (blindness, among other things) now they typically use ethanol and ethylene glycol (more commonly known as antifreeze).  So, did getting the green product really matter in this case?  The antifreeze is a key ingredient in the fluid in the winter (quick tip: if there’s frost on the windshield in the morning and you don’t have time to wait for the defroster to heat up, spray some wiper fluid on it.  It will melt the frost), and removing the things that make the wiper fluid not freeze would drastically decrease performance, and ultimately, my satisfaction with the product.

So, what’s a green conscious consumer to do?

Well, as mentioned before, the eco-friendly wiper fluid only went down to 32 degrees.  I bought two gallons to use for the summer time, and when the winter time comes back (in 3 months) I’ll use the eco-unfriendly stuff unless I can find an alternative.  Not only did I get the eco-friendly product, it was also 50 cents or so cheaper than the regular washer fluid.

Questions:

  1. Have things gotten too “green”?  You can find green things everywhere these days, but who really cares if your wiper fluid is eco-friendly or your superman underwear contain 100% organic cotton
  2. Would you sacrifice performance to stay green?
Filed Under: sustainability  / Tagged: , , , , ,

The $4 Loaf

September 24, 2009 by / Leave a Comment

I just got back from the local bakery, and I need to confess, I love it there.  It always smells so good, and they have the freshest bread!  It’s called the Bread Basket Bakery, and it’s great for the area.  It always smells so good in there, and the breads are GREAT! Anyway, without further ado, the reasoning.

This bread is good, but is it really $4 worth of good?  That depends on whom you ask.  Many of the loaves of bread at the larger super markets (kroger, safeway, etc) costs around $2.  However, there is more to the cost than meets the eye, and you have to choose if the lower cost is truly worth it.

The ingridents on a standard loaf of Roman meal are as follows:  Coarse whole wheat flour, water, enriched flour (wheat flour, malted barley flour, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, iron, folic acid), high fructose corn syrup, yeast, vital wheat gluten, whole wheat flakes, contains less than 2% of the following: soybean oil, honey, calcium carbonate, whole rye flakes, defatted flax, salt, molasses, yeast nutrient (calcium sulfate, ammonium chloride, azodicarbonamide), dough conditioners (ascorbic acid, sodium stearoyl lactylate), calcium propionate (mold inhibitor), soy lecithin. Allergen information, contains: wheat, soy.

That is alot of stuff. This is just bread we are talking about, too.  Do you even know what azodicarbonamide or sodium stearoyl lactylate are?  Or do you know what sort of effects they have on your health?  And what is High Fructose Corn syrup doing in your bread?

For each two slices, there is 5 grams of sugar.  That’s alot, for just the slices of bread.  According to mypyramid.gov (the sugars/sweets category has completely dissapeared and is now part of your “discresiionary calories”)  But if you follow a typical 2,000 calorie diet, 1,735 of these calories would need to be for essential nutrients, and the final 265 would be leftover for sweets, fats or beverages. If you are picking up 5 grams of sugar just from the bread of the sandwich, How much are you picking up in other foods you are eating?

The bread I get at the bakery (9 Grain Bread) has the following ingreidents:  Whole weat flour, unbleached wheat flour, sunflower seeds, rye, barley, corn millet, oats, flax, buckwheat, yeast, water, honey, molasses and salt.

I dont know about you, but i dont see anything in there that I cant pronounce, and even given my limited knowledge of grains, I dont see anything that I am not sure exactly what it is.

So, do you enjoy picking up your “dietary allowance” of sugars in odd places like bread, instead of neat places like candy bars?  Personally, when im eating candy, I know that im ingesting sugars, and will have to work them off, or watch my consumption, but things like sliced bread, I just dont think about sugar when I’m eating it.

Aside from the health benefits of the bread, it’s also produced locally, and doesnt need to be shipped in any from one location to another.  Yes, the grain may not ALL come from Wyoming (although I hope some of it does) it still is not being shipped as a finished product from anywhere but the store to my house.  Good for the environment and good for your health.

Trying to stay healthy by lowering your sugar content and getting submarined by sliced bread doesnt sound fun to me.

Ways to get more from the Sustainable Life Blog

  1. Subscribe Via RSS – Click on the orange icon under the top posts on the side bar.  Aren’t familiar with RSS? Its like a news service.  Whenever the blog updates, it will take it to your feed reader (I use google reader) and you can view the article there.
  2. Email me at info [at] sustainablelifeblog.com
  3. Follow me on twitter @sustainlifeblog
  4. Have a Comment Party – I would love to hear your comments on my articles, and the things I talk about.
  5. Email an article to a friend, then ask them to join in the comment party.  The more the merrier
Filed Under: Health  / Tagged: , , , ,

The Five Eco Principles – Healthy Environment

September 8, 2009 by / Leave a Comment

While in Chicago in April, I had a chance to visit the museum of science & industry.  The experience was great, and my friend and I thoroughly enjoyed the museum.  We were both intrigued enough to pay the extra ~$25 or so to see the smart house.  We were not disappointed, and left with some good ideas about things to re-use and things to purchase made from re-used items.  Recently, I thought it would be a good idea to share the principles with the readers, and figure out how you can best take advantage of them.  Today is the fifth one, focusing on a Healthy Environment.

Ensuring that you live in a healthy environment is paramount.  You are in your residence a significant portion of time, so if something potentially harmful to you (or your loved ones) has the potential to cause problems at best, and can be lethal at the worst.  There have been some spectacular incidents that can illustrate this problem perfectly, and show you a few:

  1. Asbestos - This used to be used in multiple products in the home (floor tiles, roofing, fire retardant) and elsewhere around the home (brake pads).  Asbestos poses no threat until its been disturbed.  During a home remodel or other disturbing event to the asbestos, the fibers can become airborne and inhaled.  This is obviously not good for you, and can lead to serious lung problems in the future.  Asbestos is no longer common in building materials, and is currently regulated by the EPA.
  2. Lead – This used to be found in gasoline and paint.  Poses huge risks to our children (those six & under), and can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems and possibly death.  This is also something that you dont want floating in the air in the place where you spend most of your time.
  3. DDT – Probably one of the most infamous products ever used in or around the home.  Typically, it was used to kill mosquitos carrying malaria.  This chemical became very popular around the home, and was eventually linked to multiple problems, such as appearing in humans, thinning eggshells of wildland creatures and showing up in the fats of fish.  It was one of the first major environmental campaigns, and was brought on by the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

There are also plenty of modern day examples.  One of the current ones is VOC Paints.  VOC (aka Volatile Organic Compounds) are in some paints, and can seep out after the wall has been painted.  Something else that could pose a problem is your granite countertop.  Some granite countertops house uranium, which is not only radioactive, but can release radon gas, which can cause lung cancer. The amount of uranium that is most likely contained in your countertop is not suspected to be enough to pose a significant risk to your health, but are you willing to find out the hard way if that ends up not being true?

Now, think about how much time that you and your loved ones spend inside your home.  There are a few things to think about when it comes to these type of pollutants.

  1. How worried do I need to be about these products? No one really knows what the long term effects of these chemicals will be.  Do you want to be one of the first to file a lawsuit because you found out?
  2. To what degree do I want to protect myself and my loved ones? – Many of the things that can mitigate potential sickness cost more.  How much more  are you willing to pay?

Want to get more out of the sustainablelife blog?  Here are a few tips.

  1. Subscribe Via RSS – Click on the orange icon under the top posts on the side bar.  Aren’t familiar with RSS? Its like a news service.  Whenever the blog updates, it will take it to your feed reader (I use google reader) and you can view the article there.
  2. Email me at info [at] sustainablelifeblog.com
  3. Follow me on twitter @sustainlifeblog
  4. Have a Comment Party – I would love to hear your comments on my articles, and the things I talk about.
  5. Email an article to a friend, then ask them to join in the comment party.  The more the merrier
Filed Under: Health, sustainability  / Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Hunting and Synthetic Hormones

August 25, 2009 by / 1 Comment

Yesterday, I wrote about some of my observations from hunters safety.  If you missed it, you can check it here.

Also while at the hunters safety, I was thinking about other implications of my impending hunt (Im going for antelope this season).  As I’ve gotten more into writing about sustainability, I’ve found that alot of it can be boiled down to self-reliance (which I wrote on here).  The more stuff that you are able to do for yourself, the more you can vouch for where it comes from, how it’s produced, and the effect it has on the health of you and your environment.  While some claims of  ’organinc’ may be misleading at best or close to an outright lie at the worst, if you do as much for yourself as you can, you can vouch for how it’s made.

Which brings me to my hunt.  If you harvest your own game, you know if it was not put through a painful process before it died or kept in inhumane conditions, as some animals are before they are turned into food.  When hunting, you are taking the shot, and know when you have the opportunity to end the life of the animal in a humane (and quick) way.  You can not be sure of this if you are getting your meat at the super market.  You also are not taking more than can be replaced at a reasonable rate (unless you’re poaching, which I wont get into).

When harvesting your own game, you can also be sure there there is not any unwanted hormones in the meat.  Cows are often injected with hormones (specifically estradiol, see image below) when in thier last days for fattening.  This hormone is linked to increasing cancer risks in the reproductive organs in humans, and can severly change hormone ratios in little kids, because thier hormone leves are lower than adults.  Estradiol has also been linked to infertility in females.  Infertility can lead to treatments, and then multiple births (after watching “octo-mom” and the Jon & kate + 8 disaster) Im hoping this could be a reason not to over indulge on synthetic hormones.  While these risks are not 100% certain at this point, when do you begin to worry about them and your future health?  When do you say “well, this could cause me severe health problems in the future, so I shouldnt consume as much now”

800px-Oestradiol-2D-skeletalCredit: Wikipedia

Currently, there is no FDA regulations on the hormones, however the article linked earlier states that they are present occasionally in 20 times the normal amounts.  While the choice of eating (or not eating) the hormones is yours to make (and yours alone), the same goes for hunting.  Just ask yourself,   “Are the risks of the hormones worth it?”

Thats something that I cant answer, but would love to hear comments!

Questions? email me at info@sustainablelifeblog.com

Follow me on twitter @sustainlifeblog

Filed Under: Health, sustainability  / Tagged: , , , ,

Friday Links

August 21, 2009 by / Leave a Comment

Below are the articles i’ve found most relevant to sustainable living this week.  Ill break them down into categories, and get 5 or so of the best articles from each category.

Financial Sustainability

  1. Plan Ahead When you Spend – The Simple dollar has boiled down some rules for personal finance.  This is number 10.
  2. Top Ten Most hated Saving money tips At free money finance.  This is saving money tips, but has a great deal of healthcare tips.
  3. Are you Insured at Punch Debt in the Face.  Great post on insurance

Environmental Sustainability

  1. Throwing out the Throw Away Economy -@sustainablog.org  This is a great article about the amount of garbage generated by our current economy.
  2. Sustainability is About Permanance – Also from sustainblog.org  Talks about the high cost of multiple moves, and higher divorce rates.
  3. Travel Matters: Sustainable tourism and Paid Vacation Law Great article, plus, who cant use a vacation.  from worldchanging.org
  4. Boston Mayor Envisions World Class Cycling City Article on the new bike-sharing system in Boston, MA also from worldchanging.org
  5. Cap and Trade: Lessons from History This article talks about the cap and trade program created for Acid rain in the early 90s

Enjoy your weekend.

Questions? email me at info@sustainablelifeblog.com

Follow me on twitter @sustainlifeblog


Filed Under: Finance, Health, sustainability  / Tagged: , , , ,

Speeding and Sustainability

August 19, 2009 by / 1 Comment

I have a confession to make: My work commute is approximately 50 miles EACH WAY! Believe me, I dont really like it, but due to circumstances currently outside my control, it’s what I do.   Every morning.  So as I was returning home recently, I was trying to figure out  how I can save on my monthly gas bill (which has gone from buying ~2 tanks of gas per month ($40) to buying 5 tanks per month.  This represents an approximate increase in monthly cost of $160!  I wish this was not the case, but it is.

After reading the speeding post on the simple dollar (here), I got to thinking about it more.  He comes to some conclusions at the end of the article, with one being that each mile is more expensive than the one before it.  For instance, going 77 is more expensive than going 76.  Along with this, speeding doesnt really get you there that much faster.  If you are taking a longer trip, there may be some time savings, but those can be quickly erased by stopping at interesting way points along the way (such as the center of the nation).  If you want to make it to your road-trip destination significantly faster, you’ve got to go a good amount over the speed-limit for a prolonged limit of time.  Pit StopAlong with the increased cost of speeding through uneconomical use of fuel (government estimates you lose 1% of fuel efficency for every mile over 65), there’s the risk of speeding tickets, increased maintenence costs caused by hard wear on the engine, as well as other costs assoicated with your pocketbook.  However, as I like to point out in the blog, speeding wont only cause harm to your pocket book.  It can also harm the environment.

According to fleetnews out of the UK sppeding has a high environmental cost as well, and is partially attributed to increasing fuel costs, and they estimate you can save 2.1 tons of GHG emissions by simply observing the speed limit.  Germany, long known for the speedlimitless autobahn, has begun regulating the limit on the autobahn to lower greenhouse gases emitted.  This first happened in april of 2008, in one city with 37 miles of autobahn and the speed is fixed at 120 kph or 75 mph.  The chancellor has said “no” to imposed speedlimits on the highway by the european union.

This may be a cheap way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (posted signs and additional officers are basically all that is needed), but is it the best?  Autos dont admit nearly the pollution that industry does, and are “moving targets”, as opposed to factories.  However, on the other hand, factories are constantly being targeted for thier polluting ways, and can make a legitimate case when saying that automobile fuel efficiency could be raised (it had not been raised since the first CAFE in the 70s, but average fuel economy was recently increased, and will take effect in 2016.

Questions to the readers

  1. Do you speed?  Are you just worried about getting to your destination faster, or is there another reason
  2. Did you consider your actions impact on the environment (I have, but have not really acted on it yet)
  3. What do you think about possible GHG regulation?  How should it happen (there was a vote in the US House already.  The bill will never pass the senate, but it’s worth a look.  You can find it here

Thanks for reading!

Filed Under: Finance  / Tagged: , , , , , ,

Cash for Clunkers…sustainable?

August 10, 2009 by / 1 Comment

When I decided to being writing this blog, I wanted to write about how there is an intersection between most of our daily tasks and sustainability.  I was seeking to highlight that link, and exploit it, with the prime benefactors being you (the reader) and your friend, mother earth.

I have been kicking around the idea of a cash for clunkers analysis and have decided to start.  For those unfamiliar with the program, you trade in your old car (clunker) for a newer one that gets better gas mileage (shouldnt people be doing this anyway, if possible?), courtesy of up to $4500 from the federal government.  Wow, they sure are nice during recessions.

The goal of the program (according to cars.gov) was to “This program helps consumers pay for a new, more fuel efficient car or truck from a participating dealer when they trade in a less fuel efficient car or truck”

They

They can save the world from GHG and stimulate the economy by getting people buying new cars and trucks.  Most importantly, they can help the american tax payer keep up with the joneses.

So, according to analysis, the most popular car to be traded in is the ford explorer (1996-1999 models), not surprising given its popularity when produced and low gas mileage.  So  according to the EPA they get a combined city and highway mileage of….. 15 mpg!!!!  As you know, that’s not very good, but during times when gas was cheap(er) not too many people considered the gas bill.  They estimate that there will be 12.20 tons of greenhouse gases  (GHG) per year removed with each explorer taken off the road.  Sounds good, right?  Well, not entirely, with everything, there are ramifications to this deal, and we cant quite predict what they are…..yet.

So, lets move on to the cars that people were trading in these explorers for.  According to KTAR.com the highest selling car is a ford focus, although some reports point to the toyota corolla as the highest selling new car.  This, according to the epa returns an average of 28mpg, and emits 6.60 tons of GHG per year.  This also has the advantage of stimulating the economy, as ford has corporate offices in the state that has gotten hammered by the recession (michigan).

So, this has basically cut the net GHG emissions by half, to 6.60 tons per year.  So, there is economic stimulus going on, and GHG has been lowered.  But wait.

This sounds ok from an environmental perspective, but what about the fiscal solvency of the federal government?  Paying out $4500 per car may not be suitable for the budget in the long run.  It will increase corporate tax revenue in the short term, but what about during the long term?  How will this help or hurt the federal budget…. Coming tomorrow.

Filed Under: Finance, sustainability  / Tagged: , , , , , , ,
Next Page»
Loading...
Join and get free sustainability tips in your inbox