Is there a water problem?

Hi Dr. Green ,

I am pretty much into homework and parties but people say there's a water problem developing world-
wide. Should I care about that?

-Party girl

Dear Party girl,

I appreciate your concerns for this issue. The simplest answer to your question would be as a resident of
the world, any worldwide issue is something you should care about. Water in particular, is a substance
that no human being can live without. About 60% of your body, 70% of your brain, and 90% of your
lungs is made out of water. The average kidney needs about 1.5 liters of water to function correctly. The
water problem developing around the world today has two parts: access to water and scarcity of water.

Access to clean fresh water has become more and more limited. Approximately 1 in every 8 people
lack access to safe water supplies; that is about 884 million people. On top of that, each year there are
about 3.575 million deaths attributed to water-related diseases. While cities and slums are growing at
an alarming rate around the world, the ability to get clean water is diminishing by the minute. A five-
minute shower in America uses more water than a typical slum uses in an entire day. Often the people
in the slum end up paying almost five to ten times the price for water than a nearby city resident.

Water scarcity is quickly becoming a very crucial issue. Only 1% of the global water supply is usable for
human consumption. And of that 1%, a large amount of water is being polluted and then deemed unfit
for human consumption. As our population rises, the demand for water also rises, but the problem
is that we do not have an indefinite supply of water. In countries like Bahrain, the use of desalination
plants has already been implemented because of the lack of fresh water. In order to prevent this
problem from becoming any larger than it already is, the key lies in conservation of water.

Water conservation is essential in taking the first steps to solving this issue. Just because the problem
is worldwide doesn’t mean you can’t take measures right here at home. Just start with your own house
by asking yourself these questions: do I use a low flow showerhead? Are my appliances marked with
an EnergyStar label to indicate less energy consumption? If I have a standard toilet, have I managed a
way to either displace the water in the tank or get a water saver flush mechanism? All of these things
are easily manageable at home and save a lot of water! There are also behavioral changes you can
make to your lifestyle. For example, while putting on shampoo and conditioner in the shower, turn off
your shower and then turn it on again while rinsing it out. Cutting down your shower time saves a lot
of water and a lot of money. Try running full load dishwashers instead of hand-washing your dishes and
turn off your tap when brushing your teeth. Altering your lifestyle and the appliances you buy for your
home can do a lot to conserve water in an easy manner. So going back to your question, yes you should
care about the developing water problem because although it may have not touched you yet, it will
spread and grow until it does, and by then it will be very difficult to reverse the effects.

Happy conserving,

Dr. Green
http://water.org/learn-about-the-water-crisis/facts/#water
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html

http://www.treehugger.com/water-crisis/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

Right to Light

The beginning of 2011 marked the start of the phaseout of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs in California. But unlike for the nationwide long-term phaseout of incandescent bulbs, don't expect a lot of talk about black markets or stockpiling.

The new requirements do not ban traditional incandescents, but require that they use 72 watts or less. The new halogen bulbs emit the same amount of light, but use less energy at a comparable price.

Although the California law has not created a ton of controversy, the 2007 federal law mandating the gradual switch to energy effecient bulbs is being challenged by the Republican majority. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is pushing the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," arguing that the mandate is another example of the US "nanny state" limiting consumer liberty.

The bill demands that the GAO (Government Accountability Office) prove that the new bulbs save money, prevent carbon emmissions, and are safe.

So the question remains, do bulb bans - and consumer restrictions in general - represent an important step forward for the greening of America? Or is big government restricting what should be a personal choice? Email your thoughts to drgreensblog@gmail.com or comment below

State of the Union

I just finished watching the State of the Union address, and man, that was intense. Of course, with all the political tension in the air right now, environmental issues tend to get pushed to the back burner. Fortunately, Obama seemed to make environmentalism, at least green energy, a big concern for the next two years. Calling the race to regain technological superiority this generation's "Sputnik moment," the president seemed committed to funding green technology as part of a pragmatic approach to help the economy.

Among Obama's Promises:
-give 80% of Americans access to high-speed railways by 2036
- have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015
- eliminate subsidies to oil companies to fund green technology
- obtain 80% of American energy from clean power by 2035

These goals recall a hope for the future that has been more than a little muddied these last two years. However, their loftiness demands that definitive action be taken to achieve them, action that cannot be taken at a podium, but must be achieved through –dare I say it– bi-partisanship.

The obstacles to making these promises a reality are numerous. The Republican response, delivered by Congressman Paul Ryan, decried big government and wanted less intervention and spending. Leaders on both sides are more focused on curtailing the deficit and making cuts than investing more in new technology. However, hopefully the new sense of cooperation seen tonight will prevail into actual legislating, and meaningful measures can be drafted to turn rhetoric into reality.

Although Obama talked about clean energy and innovation, there was little talk of other facets of environmentalism. Relatively little time was spent talking about foreign affairs, let alone environmental affairs outside of the domestic domain. It looks like, for the time being, environmentalism in Washington will be built not from idealism, but from pragmatism. As long as the promises made tonight can be followed through on, that's nothing to scoff at.
-Dr. Green

DEAR DR. GREEN
Which is more environmentally friendly, a real Christmas tree or an artificial one?

Imitation Christmas trees seem more environmentally friendly. They can be reused, after all, and don’t involve cutting down trees. But the idea that artificial trees are more earth friendly is mainly a myth.

Fake trees, although they can be reused, are mostly made of PVC and polyethylene. Although some claim to be recyclable, most models are not, and end up in the dumpster. Furthermore, 80% of these trees come from factories in China, which greatly increases travel distance and thus carbon footprint. A 2004 study found the many of the older models contain toxic amounts of lead.

Real Christmas trees generally come from tree farms, not forests, so they do not contribute to deforestation. Most cities have in place a tree-recycling program, by which the trees become mulch. Many of the farms are domestic, and production consumes CO2

Between Artificial and cut Christmas trees, the latter is the lesser of two evils. But issues of allergens and pesticides can still deter people from tree lots. For the truly dedicated, potted trees can provide a guilt-free Christmas. Potted trees provide all the benefits of cut trees, with the added benefits of keeping the tree around to continue soaking up CO2. You can pick one up at your local nursery and plant it in your backyard after Christmas. If planting the tree isn’t a feasible solution, many companies are cropping up that will rent out live trees and then collect them after Christmas. For the more artsy among us, making a recycled Christmas tree can show your holiday spirit and your eco-ingenuity.

Happy Holidays and good luck!
-Dr. Green

The Slippery Slope of Green Skiing

Is skiing environmentally damaging?

Skiing is a large, carbon-intensive industry that requires a lot of space, a lot of equipment, and a lot of energy, so it has the potential to be very environmentally disruptive. Resorts that use a lot of snow machines consume large amounts of energy and water. Due to global climate change, chemicals called snow inducers are increasingly used to help freeze snow at lower temperatures. In a way, it’s a vicious cycle: emissions from snow machines fuel global warming, which means higher temperatures and increased need for snow machines. Despite low growth in the total number of skiers, the total acreage of resorts has greatly increased, meaning more deforestation and more energy-sucking ski lifts.

But like any industry, ski resorts are realizing that consumers are demanding a more environmentally friendly experience, and that their industry depends on stopping global warming. Some resorts are investing in green technology, renewable energy, and are committed to limiting devegetation and water depletion.

Luckily, we don’t have to spend hours investigating our favorite ski spots. Ski Area Citizens Commission, an organization dedicated to monitoring the eco-frienliness of the ski industry, gives resorts across the country a letter grade on greenness, factoring in criteria such as habitat protection, energy conservation, and water management. For example, Squaw Valley gets an A, while Heavenly has a C overall, and an F in protecting watersheds.

To see how your favorite spot ranks, visit http://www.skiareacitizens.com/index.php?
nav=report_card
-------------------------------------------------------
I've set up a new email account for the blog, so email me your questions at drgreensblogblog@gmail.com

Have a good Thanksgiving and stay green!
-Dr. Green

Meg Whitman

"After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on - have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear - what remains? Nature remains." ~ Another Whitman

There’s been lots of buzz lately about a certain Ms. Whitman. Amidst talk of housekeepers and vicious attack ads, the environment has gotten less of the spotlight. Whitman claims she will make the environment a top priority. However, she is in favor of scrapping certain regulation to help attract business.

Whitman promises to:
*better enforce pollution laws
*support clean transportation
*cut red tape inhibiting new green industries
*halt offshore drilling until new technologies can minimize environmental impact
*oppose prop 23, a ballot measure that would suspend certain greenhouse gas regulations until *unemployment drops

*suspend AB 32, the law under fire by prop 23, for at least a year
*increase water flow from the delta (albeit with a new system she said will protect the smelt and other wildlife)
*lower environmental regulation to create jobs

Whitman seems to espouse the popular idea that environmental regulation and economic recovery are not only at odds, but perhaps mutually exclusive. California has long been a pioneer in government-backed environmental protection, and it seems that Whitman might not share Schwarzenegger’s environmental zeal. That said, it seems that she has given more than a token commitment to ecological issues.


Who do you support in the gubernatorial race?
Do you think Whitman’s environmental promises are sincere?
Housekeepers: important political issue, or most important political issue?

Comment below or shoot me an email at jessie.kathan@gmail.com

Getting Motivated

As an "environmentalist," I sometimes feel it's my duty to portray being eco-friendly as easy, pain-free, and fun. The sad truth is that in between school, work, and everything else, being earth-friendly sometimes slips to the bottom of the totem pole. It's difficult to care deeply about food waste or unplugging chargers after four hours of sleep. The devil on my shoulder whispers, does it really matter that much if you recycle that bottle?

I realized that in order to continue my environmental fervor, I'd need a little more motavation. Thus, I present to you three simple reasons Why it Matters:

#1: This picture ^

#2:"Sea-level rise will increase risks of erosion, storm surge damage, and flooding for coastal communities, especially in the Southeast and parts of Alaska. Reduced snowpack and earlier snow melt will alter the timing and amount of water supplies, exacerbating water scarcity in the West" -US Global Change Research

#3: It wasn't the Exxon Valdez captain's driving that caused the Alaskan oil spill. It was yours. ~Greenpeace advertisement, New York Times, 25 February 1990 (as true for BP's oil spill as it was for Exxon's)

Nothing like a good old fashioned sense of desperation to cure apathy.

~Dr. Green K