Growing Idea of “Compensatory Green Beliefs”

Many people think that a small bad can be canceled out if they perform a small good. For example, there are some people that believe they can leave their lights on if they drive a hybrid. The wasteful energy being used by the lights are being offset by the more environment-friendly hybrid. 

In a study performed in the U.K, a group of researchers investigated these ideas of “compensatory green beliefs”. Some statements that people agreed with were “It is okay to leave the lights on if you use low-energy light bulbs” and “Not driving a car compensates for flying on holiday”, which had the most percent of agreement, 16.2%. However, the researchers also believe these numbers to be smaller than reality because some people have a hesitation to mark their real mindset if it could be taken in a bad way publicly.

Though these numbers cannot totally translate over to the public opinion of the United States, it gives a good estimate about the mindset in the U.S. Many people believe that scales can be balanced if one does a good after a little bad. If that were to happen with green energy initiatives, their effectiveness would greatly decrease. Mainly, people have these beliefs because a bad environment is not staring them in the face. Regardless, it’s not a good mindset to have because U.S would never change its course towards an unhealthy environment unless it realizes the consequences. If many people did believe in global warming, public policy would follow with them, and a grander scale of environmental recovery could start.

-Huy D.

Advertisements

The Air Is Dirty Ha? How About A Lower Ozone Standard?

cartoon-epa-co2EPA is required, under the Clean Air Act, to update air quality standards every five years based on the current scientific research. Doing so will protect the public health and the environment. Not far from now EPA is expected to pass lower ozone standards. As some people might have guess it the states are not happy about this. Lower ozone standards mean the states and companies will spend more money. By “cutting ozone emissions to 70 parts per billion would cost industry about $3.9 billion in 2025, while a stricter limit of 65 would push the cost up to $15 billion.” Doing so would most likely hurt the states’ economies stated by Mike Pence with 10 other Republicans governors in a letter to the EPA.

The state would usually do the “management and not really protection”, Liz Kaaztz Chary stated. It’s true and I do agree with him. States top priority is the management and protection will come later who know when. They won’t move a finger until people become outrageous and protest about it. That is how it how it works, the state won’t do anything until they got pressured by the public. Though the EPA is kind of unreasonable because their studies were based on the current standard in 2008. A Lot changes happened during the last seven years.

-“Ozone compliance depends on toughness of new standard

*Phiseth O.

Water Act of 1972 Proposal Against Beer Business

Water Act of 1972 is a basic regulation to help keep our everyday usage of water clean and safe to drink or cook food. As new proposals are being pass many business owners are raging because of how it will affect their businesses. Because of the proposal, there will more restrictions for farmers to look out for. With that in mind, “one example cited by opponents is potential restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide use.” With more restrictions on farming there will be an effect on the pricing of the crops like grains and hops for instance. With the prices of those crops going up the brewing company will continue the effect and raise their beer prices. It’s a chain effect that will affect the whole country.

It’s good that the Water Act will be stricter because with that it will push people to find other alternative safe resources to grow crops. Also, to develop more technology to fix the problems and advance into a more efficient way of farming instead of staying still in the same process that has negative side effects. Some people are afraid of changes because they are new to and have no experience of it. I afraid of trying new things because I don’t what affect it may have on me. New things can turn into one way or the other, but if people are not willing to try it then they will not advance and that apply to our country as well.

Obama proposal has sparked a water fight in the beer business

*Phiseth O.

New York Set to Ban Fracking

In light of health issues and questionable economic benefits, New York governor, Andrew Cuomo and his administration is set to ban fracking. The decision rests in the hands of environmental commissioner, Joe Martens and health commissioner, Howard Zucker who are ready to make a decision banning the practice after the next environmental impact study.

Fracking has generated billions of dollars and reduced energy bills but there has been great opposition to the practice by people against the air and water pollution that it produces. Also, Marten notes that despite the the great amount of money generated, the economic viability of the project is worse than thought. The factors to that being the low cost of oil, high cost of industry oversight, and water supply protections.

Although the oil industry is disappointed at New York’s ban, they can still look to Pennsylvania for their drilling. However, there is already a noticeable ripple effect in motion as cities across the nation are banning fracking. New York can likely start this same effect among the states so who is to say that Pennsylvania will not follow suit. If environmental impacts (and their cost to clean them) outweighs the benefits of fracking, Pennsylvania would seem likely to ban it as well, then where would the industry go?

As of now, the public seems untouched by the environmental issue and more concerned about their financial status so they will be more willing to support the industry but there will be a time when a new line emerges: How can you argue against global warming; I’m sweating now, today, where I live.

– Huy D.