To increase the number of people traveling on two wheels instead of four, Canada has eliminated retail sales tax on any bicycles under $1,000 until November 30th, 2008. This exemption also applies to most safety equipment and accessories, such as helmets and lights. It would be great to see America do the same thing!
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/notices/rst/61.html
This guy has some great t-shirts and patches that really send a message. Click on the picture to visit his site.
It’s amazing to see the press really starting to pay attention to these grass-roots efforts, especially as it pertains to cycling. Click here for a great article in the NY Times about the cycling community in Portland, OR. I was in Portland last year and I can attest that the efforts this city has taken to make cycling a viable form of daily transportation is amazing. It is still far from perfect, but I saw hundreds of people cycling to work and stores in the town. Every road seemed to have sharrows or bike lanes, and there was ample sheltered parking opportunities for cyclists. All cities should be following this model.
Everyday, most of us use some form of transportation to get to and from work. Whether it’s using a car, bus, subway, plane, or train, most of us have commutes that use some form of energy. An estimated 40 percent of American automobile use is associated with daily commuting. While we want to think that getting on the subway to go to work is better for the environment, the bottom line is that subways too lead to environmental damage. The electricity used to operate subways and trains often comes from coal-burning power plants, yet another source of CO2 and these subways were often built at great costs to the natural environment. Read the rest of this entry »
I don’t know where Americans, and for that matter the world, ever got the impression that something which is bigger is automatically better. In America especially, this attitude is pervasive throughout our entire culture. It applies to cars, homes, and anything else we can get our grubby little hands on. The mentality here is that, if you have the money to do so, you should buy the biggest and most of everything. We were driving through Potomac, MD this afternoon, one of the most expensive zip codes in the country, and I was literally nauseous by what I saw. Homes, valued at more than $30 million, taking up huge plots of land and consuming quantities of energy and resources that could probably be used for entire cities. Homes with indoor bowling alleys, movie theaters, 60 car garages, separate houses for the multiple housekeepers, and even a home with its own hotel! Frequently, the owners of the home are only occupying the house a few months out of the year, as they have houses spread out over the country consuming equal quantities of energy. So, you can afford a $30 million home, but does that really mean you should buy one? I keep telling people that we have to take the initiative to moderate our own consumption. Even if we can afford a huge house, it does not mean we should buy one. If we don’t, we are going to soon live in an era where the government does so for us. This means that, regardless of our income or wealth, we should be purchasing homes that meet the minimum basic needs of our family. If you don’t have 15 kids, don’t buy a 15-bedroom house. Take that money and buy up land to keep it out of the hands of real-estate developers. Buy nature preserves and maintain them so that our ecosystem can continue to function. As we drove through Potomac, I could not help feel disgust and pity. Trust me, there was not a single iota of envy floating through my body. I just saw wealth, greed, and people who don’t have a clue as to what life is truly about.
I am constantly amazed at the things we are doing to degrade our environment and endanger our health. The damage to our environment goes far beyond driving cars and cutting down too many trees. Just about every single thing we produce leads to environmental damage in some capacity. Something as seemingly simple as jewelry is no exception. Gold mining in particular can have devastating impacts on the environment. Gold mining damages water resources by raising the acid levels in rivers and lakes, which is harmful to both wildlife nad people. Cyanide, used to leach gold from ore, pollutes water and kills fish and other life. Mine wastes also include byproducts that include mercury and heavy metals, which can work their way into the food chain and cause numerous ill effects for generations. In addition, gold mining pollutes the air because of the dust that is produced in open-pit mines. The smelters used for release the gold from the ore release oxides of nitrogen and sulfur into the air, both of which cause smog and acid rain.
I find it so sad that we’re willing to literally kill other people and living things to obtain jewelry and other gold products. However, there are things that we can do. First, don’t buy gold jewelry unless it comes from a retailer that uses either recycled gold, such as www.greenkarat.com, or sustainable mining techniques (for a list of such retailers, visit www.nodirtygold.org).
We rarely address one of the most serious threats to our environment - overpopulation. For some reason, human life has taken on the presence as being the most sacred entity, more sacred than animals or the environmental cycles that have allowed us to evolve to begin with. We forget that too many people upsets the balance of Gaia; our earth and its systems cannot support an exponentially expanding population. Places such as Rawanda, Suda, and other parts of Africa show that population allowed to grow unabated can have devastating consequences.
It is time that we begin to have open and frank conversations about overpopulation and what humans need to be doing to ensure there are enough resources for humans and that our ecosystems are able to remain stable and safe. For thousands of years, humans kept the population of their tribes in check through various methods. Evidence remains that when food was scarce, women used a variety of herbal methods to either prevent from getting pregnant or terminate pregnancy. Such methods helped ensure the survival of those already living and prevented life from being brought into a situation in which it would suffer.
Unfortunately, we have moved a long way from this. Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, it is clear that most people do not question how having another child will affect the world. A hundred years ago, a severely disabled child died shortly after birth. However, we now live in an era of manufactured disability, where we purposefully bring children into the world who have severe disabilities, or save premature babies who are destined for a lifetime of medical complications and extensive care. In addition, we have children without thinking about whether they will enter a world that will be able to support them when they are our age. We assume that the planet will just always be here, that the ecosystem will continue to sustain us. Unforunately, history has shown that human societies all too often eliminate their means of survival, resulting in a long and horrific decline.
We have to start addressing the issue of overpopulation. I do not ever want to live in a world where a government dictates whether we can have children or how many children we can have or whether we should be allowed to continue a pregnancy after we know a baby has Down’s syndrome. I, like others, believe that these are incredibly personal decisions, despite their impact on society, that should never be dictated to us. However, if we want to keep these decisions personal, then we have to start thinking before we act, before we have that next kid, before we become pregnant. We are on a path to a world in which, if we don’t change our actions, even people living in wealthy nations such as the U.S. could suffer in the way people have in third-world countries. Resources are not infinite. Our population cannot be infinite either.
Here is an interesting post by Richard Black, an Environment Correspondent, from the BBC News website.
news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4585920.stm
Deforestation is a serious environmental issue. It results in habitat loss for species. Moist forest soils lose their shade when trees are cut down, causing the soil to become nutrient-poor and useless. In addition, because trees help perpetuate the water cycle by returning water vapor back into the atmosphere, deforestation causes once-forested lands to become deserts. Sadly, a quarter of the forest lost in the last 10,000 years has been cut down in the last 30 years. Forests are cut down for many reasons; a significant cause of deforestation is logging operations which provide the world with paper and wood products, including the wood that is used throughout our homes. To help stop deforestation, consumers must stop furnishing their homes with wood. Using bamboo in our homes is a great way to make our homes look great without contributing to deforestation. If enough of us demand this product, deforestation rates could be drastically reduced.
Here are some facts about bamboo:
Check out this website:
http://www.bambooliving.co.za/index-2.html
Show your support for a carbon-neutral world. Go car-free on September 18th here in DC. With so many transportation options in DC (cycling, walking, bus, metro, train), it’s one of the best places to do away with a car. And the best part about being car free in DC? You don’t have to find parking! Try it, you might just like it.