The Green Bike

Two days ago, I was biking along the Capital Crescent Trail from Bethesda to Georgetown when along the way I stopped in at my buddy's workplace, Big Wheel Bikes. There I saw the hybrid electric bike. This new age bike can use battery power or manual pedaling to get from point A to point B. I took it for a spin myself, and found it was quite fun. You would be surprised to find that it has quite the get up as well with no manual input. Its battery has a range of 15-22 miles per charge with top speeds of 20 MPH. The battery can be charged by taking it off the bike and plugging the battery in at home or at work. A basic hybrid bike costs about 1400 dollars. For me, the college kid who is about to enter the real life in a year, my eyes lit up. This is a great alternative to a car which would set be back at least around 10,000 dollars. The up keep costs include a bike tune up about every year or two and charging the battery at home. A car costs approximately .91$ per 10 miles while the electric bike costs .02$ per 10 miles. The bike also does not need insurance or a license and registration to drive. The bike saves thousands of dollars in up front costs, and hundreds if not thousands per year after that in upkeep and costs for fuel. If you live close to work and have bike paths between work and home, the electric bike would provides a great alternative to a car trip. It is fun, saves money on gas, and saves green house gases as well. In all, the bike seems like a great green investment that will have paybacks for years.

Here is a basic hybrid bike which is priced at 1399$ and has all the features listed above. If you are looking for a longer range option with a higher price tag, here is another bike with a range of 35 miles per charge and that can go 20+ MPH that costs 3499. Still, both options are greener than the new electric car at around 1/10th the price and even the most expensive bikes are 1/5th the cost of a new, traditional gas car.

Benefits of Going Vegetarian and Some Tips For Those Who Love Meat

I love meat just as much as the next guy. But I hate to say that going to a vegetarian diet is good for the environment and apparently a lot better for your health. Here is an article from Grist.com that points out that industrial meats are laced with toxic chemicals and antibiotics. By limiting intake of meats and dairy, pesticides and other toxic chemicals in the body dropped dramatically when urine samples were studied. One of the chemicals of concern are phalates which are considered the "other BPA" because of their prevalence in common consumer products and their effects on the body. We will leave phalates for another day.

A few tips to reduce exposure to chemicals and help the environment without having to go vegetarian:

Eat organic-Not nearly as many chemicals used and less exposure to pesticides
Limit red meat and processed foods-These foods have a much higher fat content which dissolve many of these chemicals. Not to mention, studies have shown that reducing these meats helps to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease.
Try to buy meat with minimal packaging-The plastic that wraps around meats can seep in endocrine disruptors and chemicals that cause hormone changes. This will also help you go green.
Eat more fish-Although some fish have high levels of some chemicals (mercury, PCBs) fish have high levels of Omega-3 fatty acids that boost your heart health and other functions of the body

A vegetarian diet is a good idea, but is not ideal for all of us. Simply limiting your meat intake is a good idea for reducing exposure to chemicals and reducing you carbon footprint.

The Degrading Diet that Food Labels Don't Tell You About

In the developed world, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other preventable diseases have risen dramatically. Many of these diseases have been linked to an over abundance in food and specifically a dramatic increase in simple sugars(glucose, fructose, dextrose, and starch), saturated fats, and sodium in our diets. The food industry labels their products to make you believe you are avoiding these problems by eating foods fortified with vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids with positive effects. In reality, you are still consuming large amounts of unhealthy nutrients that cause problems simple vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids cannot fix. To add on to the trouble, vitamins can have trouble being absorbed outside of their natural source proving to be just a number on the box and may have little to no effect at all.

The best option is to avoid processed foods as much as possible and create a diet containing lots of fresh fruits and vegetables to avoid falling into this consumer trap. Try to avoid premade meals and make as much of your food from scratch. This will also help you cut down on your carbon footprint by reducing the amount of packaging used in processed foods. You even have the option to buy local and organic produce to reduce the GHGs that are used in the transportation and production of these foods. This may be time consuming, but pays off in the long run for your health and the environment as well.

Here is an interesting article I found from The Daily Green to help you look beyond the labels of processed foods.

9 Food Label Lies

Gulf Oil Spill: Blessing in Disguise?

With a new health care bill passed and ready to be implemented and now the possibility of a climate change bill being ratified with increased attention brought on by the oil spill, this could be a monumental term for Congress. But keep the emphasis on could.

Last summer, the house passed a version of the infamous 'climate change' bill that environmentalists only dreamed about and coal and oil feared. The bill seems to be making progress as a compromise bill was brought forth on Wednesday in the senate. The major problem is that it is only supported by the democrats along party lines. They will need support from a few of their fellow GOP members in order to get the 60 votes needed to get the bill through the senate without being filibustered. But even after the senate, this bill will have to go back to the house to be ratified as it has some different terms.

This climate bill kicks to the curb the national standard of emissions, instead focusing on emission standards for each individual sector. And even with the big oil spill in the gulf, it aims to encourage offshore drilling. The kicker is that it requires an investigation to take place, carried out by the Department of the Interior, to determine if a state will be economically or environmentally affected by a spill and leaves the final decision up to the state. On top of all this, billions of dollars of federal money would make its way to clean coal technologies and improving the national transportation infrastructure and efficiency.

Regardless of what the bill entails, there are still two sides that are very opinionated. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) stated that "Whatever its intentions, this bill is little more than a job-killing national energy tax". Greenpeace has found the bill to be "a hand out" to big oil and coal and opposes the bill believing that it is not strict enough on carbon emissions. On the other side, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) is optimistic in the bill and finds that reaching 60 votes is "doable" because of the support of big business such as Duke Energy, Honeywell, Dow Corning, and the Edison Electric Institute. These businesses make up the republican base.

Whatever the case, the new oil spill may be an environmental blessing in disguise. It has instilled a new hope into a climate bill that was once seen as dead on the senate floor. It may take a few more compromises, but this bill could make this year in congress one of the most important and memorable years in the past few decades.

More on the issue from the Washington Post

Carbon Footprint in Perspective: Developed Nations vs. Developing Nations

When a country considers carbon footprints, only the amount of carbon a country produces is taken into account. Looking at a carbon footprint by production often leaves developing nations in between a rock and a hard place. Developing countries are often outsourced for the production of cheap goods and as a result bear the brunt of the carbon footprint by burning CO2 and producing carbon that is needed to manufacture these goods. Wealthier and developed nations end up consuming the outsourced goods leaving behind the carbon emissions to poorer, developing nations that have trouble mitigating them. Goods and services that are outsourced to other countries can contribute up to a third of the carbon consumed by a developed nation. This is termed 'Emissions Outsourcing' and results in disparities in the carbon footprints of developed and developing nations. Below is an interesting article from March on businessgreen.com that helps to show the ramifications this has on global climate policy.

Carbon Outsourcing