MISSION ENVIRONMENT Take Action Now and Save the Environment

So, by browsing Mission Environment’s website for a few minutes, you can see that there are many ways to save money on your energy bill - but some cost money. Now, I like to believe people are intelligent, and realize that a small investment in your home to save energy yields great savings in the future.

But this blog post is for everyone who is too lazy to take that 15-minute trip to Home Depot, or for the overzealous energy saver that is looking to pinch more pennies. In fact, this post is for everyone that has a refrigerator!

1. Take a peak or have a plan BEFORE opening the fridge!
The longer the door stays open, the more energy you are wasting. Everyone, and I mean everyone stands in front of the refrigerator in a semi-daze searching for the perfect food to fix their hunger. The truth is that you already know what is in your fridge, so get in and get out as quick as possible.

2. Do NOT place hot foods directly in the fridge!
Have hot leftovers? Do not put them directly in the fridge! This will waste substantial amounts of energy - you have no idea. Just leave the food on the table or on the kitchen counter until it is cooler.

3. Clean up the mess!
Your refrigerator works by keeping cool air flowing inside the refrigerator. If you have an endless clutter of old, moldy leftovers and foods from the 80s, then you should probably consider starting your spring cleaning early - at least for the fridge! If your fridge is jam packed, then airflow is not optimal, which overworks your fridge and your energy bill.

4. Use the right temperature!
Your fridge should be between 36 and 38 degrees and your freezer should be about 3 degrees. Any cooler and you are just wasting money. Do not have a thermometer? Well, if you take a sip of your milk or juice and it freezes your teeth to the point of pain, then your fridge is probably a bit too cold. Refer to your manual to use the optimal temperature.

Well, there you have it. Four solid tips that you can do literally right now that will save money on your energy bill. After all, your refrigerator is roughly 15% of your energy bill, so get going and Take Action!

During the days following Super Tuesday, we have lost a few candidates - Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, we have seen harsh battles between the two democratic candidates, and we have basically seen John McCain lock up the Republican Nomination. We can safely say that there are three candidates left that could possibly be elected president - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Between the blog article written in January on McCain and the fact that he is practically the Republican Candidate, I bet most people assume he is the best choice for the Republicans for office - but what about the environment?

Recently, there was a vote in the Senate that would ultimately have boosted investment in green technology. It failed by a slim margin. McCain was not present to vote, which now makes his attendance record hovering around 50% since his campaign began - much lower then any of his fellow candidates. Is it old age? Possibly. Is it lack of motivation to help the environment? Maybe. Is he still a good choice for the environment? To a certain extent, yes, but to a much lesser degree.

So who is the best choice between Hillary and Barack? They both have similar plans on the environment, so how do we distinguish who would be the best candidate? We must analyze the details.

Barack Obama has a cheaper and more effective healthcare plan. Not only does this show us that he is more fiscally responsible, but is means he trusts and understands how the market works, which will be very important to become energy independent with renewable energy. It also means he has extra money to pay off our national debt and invest a little more in education and green technology.

Hillary Clinton still received money from corporate interests. How does this effect our decision? Well, think back to the last election. Bush and Cheney received money from interests in the oil industry. During their two terms, we fought a war over oil, price of oil went up dramatically, oil companies produced record profits while at the same time receiving tax credits, subsidies and other benefits. Surprise? No. Do we want this to happen again? Absolutely not. Now, we are not saying Hillary Clinton takes money from oil companies, but it is the principal of details. See the videos in the John Edwards post to see her response to receiving money from lobbyists.

There are many other reasons we feel Barack Obama is the candidate for the environment, just like Grist.org feels, as well as many other environmental groups. We have opened up the comments section in this blog, so feel free to post your opinions.

As the race for the presidency tightens and we near the finish, we start to learn a lot about not just the issues of each candidate, but the background of their reasoning and important, personal issues that they feel are most important to the country. Enters John Edwards.

John Edwards’ biggest issue is pork barrel spending, earmarks, and Lobbyist control of our government. He has never taken money from a Washington Lobbyist his entire career. What is a lobbyist? In a summarization, a lobbyists is a paid official of a corporation to lobby for laws and regulations in favor of his corporation. What is the problem with lobbyists? Basically, they can disregard the public welfare in order to look out for the special interests of his corporation. Think of oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies, etc. We will go more in-depth about lobbyists in a future post.

Sure, Obama hasn’t taken money from lobbyists this entire election campaign either, but John Edwards is making it a central issue to his campaign, most likely to try and derail Hillary Clinton, who is an advocate of lobbyists and vouched to continue to receive money from them.

Why is this an issue of the environment and energy policy? Basically, the more power the oil companies and automobile companies have in Washington, the more pressure they will put on elected officials whom they donated money to to support bills and laws that would not place pressure on their companies. For instance, do you think an elected official who received money from oil companies would pass laws that would increase MPG for cars or increase spending on renewable resources? In a perfect world, the donations they received would not effect their decision, but in reality, it does.

For your viewing pleasure, I have attached a few videos of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on their opinions of lobbyists in Washington.

John McCain is one of the only Republican Candidates that has showed an honest concern for the environment as well as viable solutions to the problem. He is the only Republican Candidate that has supported a Cap-and-Trade system for polluters - in fact, he has cosponsored Joe Lieberman’s Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 - again the only Republican Candidate to do so. This type of action goes against traditional “conservative” economics, but McCain has enough fiscal understanding to make it work, as well as the environmental understanding that it must be done. John McCain also supports raising the standards of automobiles, although he as not yet stated a specific goal. In 2002, he did vote to raise standards to 36mpg by 2016 - this was before everyone else jumped on the environmental bandwagon.

He supports alternative energy, specifically nuclear for the short term, but remains optimistic about wind and solar once the technologies catch up. He also supports biofuels but does not support subsidies for ethanol. He also supports clean coal.

McCain uses a blend of conservative economic plans with environmental protection. The main difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama wants to invest $150 billion in alternative energy to spur economic growth and innovation, while McCain wants to use economic incentives. Depending on your political beliefs, you must choose the right candidate for you. Here at Mission Environment, we fully support Barack Obama, but if you want to vote republican, McCain is also a viable choice and we do approve of his environmental policies. Below we post a few of McCain’s interviews and speeches regarding energy and environmental policy:

Here at Mission Environment, we publicly support presidential candidates in which have proven that they will undoubtedly help the environment and our addiction to foreign oil. Obama has definitely shown he is worthy, as well as John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. We will blog about them all and show you where they stand. We will also show you candidates in which we do not support due to some statements they have made and some actions they have taken.

To begin our review of the candidates, we will talk about Barack Obama, the young, exciting, educated, and intelligent Democratic candidate. Out of all the Democratic candidates, he has vowed to make the largest national investment in alternative energy - such as solar, wind, geothermal - for $150 billion over 10 years. Not only will this help our energy independence and global warming issues, it will also spur economical growth through increase in jobs and markets. He plans to pay for this with the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts, as well as raise the capital gains marginal tax rate. We did fine raising the taxes during the 90s under Bill Clinton, and we will be fine again with Obama.

Obama also supports Cap & Trade to cut emission 80% below 1990 levels by 2020, raising automobile standards to 40mpg for cars and 32mpg for small trucks by 2020, getting 30% of our national energy from renewable resources by 2020, to have 60 billion gallons of biofuel produced each year in the USA by 2030, supports clean coal only if 20% cleaner then current methods, and supports nuclear power. For your entertainment, we have also posted some short videos of Obama speaking at various venues. If you would like to learn more about Obama, you can search YouTube.com or go to http://www.barackobama.com/

Scorecard.org is a great resource to find out how your community ranks with other communities when it comes to environmental toxins and pollution. Just type in your ZIP code and they give you a detailed report on your community’s air quality. They are also a great source for general information about environmental toxics and pollution and offer activist agendas in order to protect our air quality.

In one of my previous posts about The Dangers of Environmental Mercury I clearly show how Mercury can threaten our health in very serious ways. Keep in mind, Mercury is just one of these environmental toxins that you can track at Scorecard.org.

If you happen to live in a very polluted community, you should take in upon yourself to take action. Something as simple as printing out the results, going to the local municipal complex and asking to speak to someone regarding the information would do just fine. Remember, you are doing this for yourself and your family because polluted air hurts everyone.

There has been a recent study creating buzz about how environmentally friendly the Toyota Prius really is. The study compares the Prius to a Hummer - and says the Hummer is better! Not only is this statement absurd, it is downright incorrect. Let’s examine this statement, the study, and the overall picture.

First of all, the most obvious thing that can be pointed out is that this study must be flawed. By looking at the actual report, which you can find here, CNW Research, you can immediately see that this website does not look like the most trust worthy source to begin with. Do I smell possible oil connections? Maybe, but I couldn’t find any significant proof.

Now lets look at the research arguments and figures. The study itself says that just considering mileage (MPG) is misleading because production, maintenance, and disposal of the vehicle itself should be considered as well when trying to make an environmentally friendly decision. I do believe in that statement, but I also believe the CNW Research grossly underestimates the gas consumption and emissions of vehicles in the equation, since those two factors have the most significant impact on the environment out of anything.

CNW Research also gave the Toyota Prius a 100,000 mile lifespan, while giving the Hummer a 250,000 mile lifespan. Their reasoning behind this is a combination of the lifespan of a Prius’ battery pack, which is 100,000 miles but is replaced rather easily and for a reasonable price, and that they estimate that Prius drivers drive less often then Hummer drivers. Because of a theoretically longer lifespan for Prius’ since they are driven less, the longer they last, the more the technology will change and therefor it will not be able to be serviced and must be replaced by a new car. It is true technology changes, but that does not mean we will not be able to keep a Prius on the road if it needs servicing. I would imagine that Toyota, which has a reputation for producing cars with longevity, would produce the Prius with the same quality standards.

Also, comparing the Prius to a Hummer is unfair to begin with. Not only are they two completely different types of automobiles, but the Prius is a baby compared to the Hummer. The Hummer was originally created for the military decades ago. As Hybrid technology and the Prius progress and become more mainstream, the manufacturing and disposal costs should be greatly reduced due to increased production.

Possibly the most important reason to purchase a Prius is not for the immediate environmental solutions, but for the long-term solutions. By purchasing a Prius, or any Hybrid for that matter, sends a message to the auto makers to let them know that there is a demand for hybrid technology and fuel efficient automobiles. This intrinsic value is also overlooked in this study.

So please, ignore this hype and buy a hybrid!

Fossil fuels continue to be our main source of energy. As the global warming debate heats up, many people are focused on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The truth is that there are also other extremely important reasons to stop using fossil fuels, and I feel that those reasons have completely slipped under the radar.

Mercury, an element naturally found in the environment, is also a very serious toxin. “Mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of people of all ages. It has been demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn.” ¹

I found two articles that recap experiments on the correlation between mercury and autism. I am not saying that mercury is the root cause of autism, but it obviously plays a startling role. The first article is from PubMed and can be found here: Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls. The other article is a study from University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. It can be found here: Study suggests link between environmental mercury, autism.

Not only does mercury make its way into the environment, it also makes its way into our food chain. In recent warnings by the EPA, fish may be contaminated with mercury. This news has been reported and accepted, but do you know how it happens? The Mercury, already in the environment, eventually settles in the water. While in the water, microorganisms transform Mercury to Methylmercury, a highly toxic form of mercury that can build up into high concentration in an organism.¹ Everytime the fish eat the microorganisms, they build up their methylmercury concentrations. Every organism that eats these fish is also building up their methylmercury levels.

It is true that Mercury is naturally found in our environment through volcanic eruptions and gas released from under the surface, but in 1999 the EPA identified coal burning power plants as the number one source of environmental Mercury emission in the United States, emitting 43 tons of mercury each year. ² It is true that the EPA has made their Mercury emissions much more strict since then, but coal burning power plants are still the primary source of electricity generation in the United States.

Figure 1: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source:
Total (All Sectors), Year-to-Date through March, 2007

Source: Energy Information Administration ³

As you can see in the figure above, Coal is still the overwhelming majority source of our energy production at 50%. This is not only unacceptable, but irresponsible. We sit at our desks and ponder why numerous medical conditions have become increasingly popular, while ignoring the fact that we continually pour toxins into our environment through power plants.

The EPA has taken numerous measures in the past decade to curb the release of Mercury into our environment, and I applaud them. Directly off of the EPA website, they released certain information and their progress.

EPA has taken a number of actions in recent years to significantly reduce mercury emissions from major sources other than power plants. Those actions include stringent regulations for municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators and hazardous waste combustors. When fully implemented, these actions will reduce total nationwide mercury air emissions by nearly 50 percent. ⁴

It is nice that they are actively reducing mercury from the environment, but only 50%? That means that we will still be emitting roughly 20 tons of mercury per year into the environment. This is acceptable to me as long as everyone understand that even though our coal power plants are emitting 50% less mercury, that does not mean that we should stop searching for alternative and renewable sources of energy. By reducing Mercury emissions by 50% and slowing weaning ourselves off of coal power and onto renewable sources, we can solve our energy problems safely and effectively.

So by building up our supply of renewable and alternative sources of energy, we are also helping secure the health of the future generations. Please support alternative energy by calling your local and state representatives, as well as join or support grassroot organizations. Remember, the 2008 election is the biggest and strongest way to voice your opinion. Be sure to vote for a candidate that strongly supports alternative, renewable, and clean energy. The following election in 2012 could be too late. For more information on how you can take action, visit www.missionenvironment.com for a list of ways you can help, as well as many other helpful websites.

Citations

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Basic Information | Mercury.” Accessed 6 July 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” 6 July 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf
3. Energy Information Administration, “Generation and Consumption of Fuels for Electricity Generation, March 2007.” Accessed 6 July 2007. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” Accessed 6 July 2007. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf

Please be patient with my experimentation with the new header. The content will still be relevant and great, but the aesthetics of the site is a working progress. In the mean time, I would like to impliment a new tradition to be started here. Once in a while, I will post a video that I feel is important and that should be easily available to everyone, especially my audience. So here it goes - the first video ever posted at the Mission Environment blog, brought to you from YouTube:

This is the first blog post from Mission Environment.  From this blog, we hope to grow a community dedicated to changing the environment through many different means, such as personal lifestyle changes and encouraging government to make smart legislative choices.  I will track my personal changes, as well as update the community on important environmental policy going through Congress.  I would also like to say thanks to everyone who is supporting this entire “mission” that we call Mission Environment.