Why Go Green?

If you took a quick look at the small town of Greensburg, Kansas, you might not notice anything extraordinary. The town of 900 residents was ravished by a tornado in 2007—almost the entire city was flattened, and the few buildings that remained standing were damaged beyond repair. Despite having lost everything, the people of Greensburg that decided to stay and rebuild are doing so in a way that has never been done before: they’re remaking the town into a totally green city. Some of the improvements include eco-friendly buildings and homes that meet the U.S. Green Building Council’s highest certification for energy efficiency--more than half of over 250 rebuilt homes in Greensburg use about 40 percent less energy than a typical home built before the storm. “It's an opportunity to think about energy when rebuilding after a disaster,” says Lynn Billman of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL), which has been advising the town during their rebuilding project.

Before the calamity, Greensburg was a rural town, barely hanging on to its population of 1,500 that was steadily declining by 2% every year as agricultural jobs slowly-but-surely died out. Not only was the project to rebuild Greensburg as an almost entirely green city an opportunity to do something for the environment, it was also the chance Greensburg needed to revive its dying economy and dwindling population. Mike Gumee, one of the city planners, said that “…we're working towards…a place where young professionals will want to come to…to be part of our movement.” City officials and residents working on the project hope that the city and what it represents will attract younger minds and both newer and well-established companies who will not only help in the rebuilding efforts, but stay in Greenburg, bringing their ideas, research, and jobs, boosting the economy and increasing the appeal of the small, eco-friendly town. Although the town benefited greatly from outside funds, both from the state and federal government, major companies like Frito-Lay, and celebrities like Leonard DiCaprio, many of the residents had to take out loans to finance the rebuilding of their homes. However, as 4-decade resident Ruth Ann Wedel says it’s “exciting to think of the possibilities”. Despite costs, most of the city’s residents have come around to the idea of living in a “green town” and are hopeful about the future. “The costs [of rebuilding] might go up a bit, but energy savings go up more,” says Billman, making the new eco-friendly town a good idea for everyone, including the environment. (Gertz, 2009).

Talking about going green involves a host of heated debates, facts that have been used to death, a gamut of emotions that range from passion on both ends of the spectrum to total apathy. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue, especially in the political arena. Terms like “Global Warming” and “greenhouse gases” are enough to make anyone’s head spin and the endless debates among politicians, interest groups, and activists are dizzying. The Shelton Group, an advertising agency and market research company, did a study in 2007 that showed that consumers were between 22 -55% less likely to buy a green products than in 2006. While the slipping economy was a contributor, “message overload” proved to be a major factor as well. Most people don’t want to hear “another green message” (Williams, 2008). This is due in large part to the fact that everyone seems to have an opinion about Global Warming and its effects, and they all seem to have proof to back up their statements that they are trying to shove down our throats. Who is right? Where should we align our actions and values? And what are the implications of “going green”, especially on Utah’s economy?

The Issue

The issue at hand here is not whether Global Warming exists. There are myriad websites that have been created that do a good job of arguing for or against this point; however, we will not discuss the topic further on this website. Instead, what we are addressing is the issue of living a “green” lifestyle. Now, we all have our own opinions about what living green means. There are some who say or think that living green means that everyone sell their home, cars, and clothes and begin living in the woods, eating berries and becoming one with nature. Others think it means adopting some sort of pro-vegan, pro-Democrat, and pro-PETA lifestyle. While there is no shortage of people who align their lives to these paradigms, they are the extreme of what it means to be green.

In reality, being green simply means being aware that certain habits are harmful to the environment and choosing to change those habits, exchanging them for ones that will improve current conditions in your surroundings. Whether you accept the Global Warming argument or not, it doesn’t take more than a look outside to realize that Utah, especially more the heavily-populated areas like Salt Lake and Utah counties, is suffering from poor air quality. The thick layer of smog that sometimes hovers over Utah Valley or around downtown Salt Lake City didn’t get there by itself; and although government reports show air quality improving in Utah (Utah DEQ, 2009), this and other environment problems won’t go away by themselves. Living green means making an effort to return nature to its purest condition; and although we will never be able to have an environment that is as it was when it was free from human influence, there is a lot we can do to reverse, or at least stop, the effects of an energy-consuming society.

Why Should This Affect Me?

At this point, you may be wondering what this has to do with you. You may even have the desire to begin living green, but for some reason or another, you haven’t taken that first step. Living green does not have to mean making drastic changes to your lifestyle. In times like these of economic want and instability, saving the planet is often the last thing on any of our minds, especially when we have children to feed, a mortgage to pay, and/or a business to run. However, going green does not have to mean spending green. The reason that many people are hesitant to make the switch to going green is because the initial costs can be more expensive than their current way of living. However, a well-kept secret of living green is that it will actually save you money, your family, and your business, money. The long-term benefits of going green heavily outweigh the short-term costs.

Going green is a way for us to appreciate the beauty and majesty of Creation. There are some who believe that the only way for us to appreciate Nature is to use up her resources. While there are so many resources available to us from nature, many of these resources, when in human hands, have devastated the environment. It seems that the most heavily-used resources are the ones that also do the most harm, like burning fossil fuels such as gas, diesel, and coal to power our cars, homes, and businesses. The technology to transform these resources is truly amazing and has benefited mankind; however, the proliferation and wide-spread use of these energy resources has taken its toll on our environment, our health, and our wallets. In February alone, Utah generated 2,697 Mega-watt-hours (MWh) from coal burning, while only 61 MWh came from nuclear, hydroelectric, and “other renewable” resources (Energy Information Administration, 2009). Poor air quality is increased by burning fossil fuels; polluted air also contributes to poor health, which in turn leads to increased visits to the doctor and poor performance at work and in our daily responsibilities. And what happens when the price of gas soars above 4 dollars/gallon, like it did last summer? It is clear that current consumption habits do not show any appreciation for nature or its Creator, they also affect our personal lives in more ways than one. Of those arguing so passionately for appreciating nature by using it up, where is the argument for using resources that nature will never run out of, like wind or solar power? Not only do these and other renewable energy sources generate clean, effective energy, they also are available in unlimited supply, unlike fossil fuels, which are quickly running out.

What About the Economy?

Another argument against the green movement is that, while it may save individual families and businesses money, a capitalist economy thrives on the exchange of money for goods and services. If people are not putting as much money into the economy, the economy suffers. However, while a capitalist economy entails spending money, it also implies that participants in such an economy are able to choose the ways in which they inject their money into the economy. All of us who watch helplessly as our paychecks quickly disappear to pay the mortgage, insurance, gas and electricity bills, food, childcare, retirement funds, and taxes know that we have very little freedom as to where our hard-earned money goes. By switching to a greener lifestyle, we can all stop watching our money disappear and start spending it the way we need and want to. By spending money the way we want, and not on the electricity bill, we will also be investing in our economy, making it thrive and increasing job security.

There are many levels of going green, starting at the individual level and moving up to a wider range of social and governmental reforms. This website is intended to inspire those of us who are wondering what to do to make our sector of the country become cleaner. Doing so will not only improve our personal quality of life, but bring about more lasting change in a world of increased interconnectivity, technological advancements, and growing concern over protecting what’s ours and preserving it for future generations.

Exploration

The ingenuity of man has reached phenomenal heights and yet has a vast expanse of unexplored potential. The discovery of fossil fuel as a viable source of energy was just such an example of a fantastic achievement reached by mankind. But the question is this: do we stop searching for better and more efficient sources of energy just because we already have one good option? Our answer is this: of course not. The Earth has an enormous amount of untapped resources and mankind the intelligence to develop these resources into feasible energy solutions.

Utah is a state dedicated to the business man and committed to the ideals of capitalism embraced by the Founding Fathers of this country. What we are putting forth is that the exploration and use of alternative energy sources can actually thrive in a capitalistic economy and can serve as an economic stimulator. We will investigate several different energy source options, examining the economic impacts of incorporating each option into a liberal market and the questions that discussion of such an action raises, while arguing that such options are economically stable and beneficial to natives of Utah, American citizens and residents of this great planet.

Nuclear Power

The term ‘nuclear’ has developed a particularly negative connotation due to events surrounding WWII and the Cold War. And, more specifically, ‘nuclear power’ generates a negative reaction in public thought because of events such as the explosion in Chernobyl. When people think of nuclear, they think of mass destruction, radiation sickness, and general awfulness. Many are prone to completely ignore the option of nuclear power as a solution to our energy problem simply based on the negative connotations that the term ‘nuclear’ has acquired, while they don’t consider the many advantages, including economic ones, that are to be had in such a resource. What many don’t understand about nuclear power is that as technology advances, safety advances. At the time of the horrific events in Chernobyl, nuclear power was still relatively new and the methods used were still relatively primitive. Since this awful disaster, safety procedures have increased while organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have become much more proactive in promoting safer and more secure nuclear power plants. When working with energy producing machinery, there is always a risk factor to be considered, but there will always be risk factors in the development of any new technology power source.

Many people believe that building nuclear power plants would be economically pointless if they are not safe enough to last without causing mass destruction, destruction that would cost even more to repair. But in reality, nuclear power plants exercise enough safety precautions that they are no more likely to cause a disaster than any other power plant. One incident in which safety precautions were not taken and regulated procedures not followed, is not enough to form a permanent bias against nuclear energy on. As Grigory Medvedev puts describes, “Chernobyl demonstrated the ignominious failure and the sheer insanity of the administrative-command system” (x). It was not the technology that created the disaster in the case of Chernobyl, but the failure of the communist Soviet Union.

Another major concern leveled against nuclear power is that creating such facilities would be too expensive and would require significant government subsidies and support. For many native Utahans this means greater government control which many view as damaging for the economy and infringing on rights that we have to live and trade in a free market. But research has been done to show that such concerns are ill-founded. According to the World Nuclear Association, “nuclear power has now become less expensive than fossil and any other form of electricity generation” (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf). The WNA asserts that initial financing costs are decreasing as standardized designs are being developed and that operating costs are continually lowering as capacity factors of plants have steadily increased with further optimization of the technology used in nuclear power plants (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf).

Nuclear power has clearly become a safe and economically sound option for energy. With the added benefit of producing negligible amounts of green house gas emissions, nuclear power plants should be considered as a viable source of energy to be capitalized. “New nuclear plants are robust, secure long-term investments as part of a portfolio of environmentally sound technologies that make the world less dependent on damaging carbon emissions” (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf).

Hydropower

Hydropower has been utilized for centuries, powering such things as watermills, textile machines and cranes. “Hydropower is based on water driving the turbines. The primary energy is provided by gravity and the height the water falls down on to the turbine” (Forsund, 2-3). The primary benefit of hydropower is that it obviously emits absolutely no greenhouse gases in the generation process. It relies solely on natural processes, simply utilizing the potential kinetic energy produced by gravity. Now, how is this economically beneficial? One of the great advantages of hydropower is that no mining or drilling is required. This can cut costs of production down, eliminating one step in the process of generating electricity that is necessary for methods such as nuclear power or coal generators.

Some people may argue that the elimination of this step in production is actually bad for the economy in that it also eliminates jobs. In our current economic downturn, this is a very valid concern as unemployment rates keep rising. But in reality, using hydropower to supplement current energy sources can only add jobs to the market. By creating another industry niche, it is creating more opportunity for economic growth. We are not proposing completely eliminating the mining industry, but rather we are suggesting adding another market option and thus adding job opportunities in a more economically efficient system. With this lower cost of production, adding significant hydropower sources will help lower the costs of energy for the consumer. It will accomplish this by offering more competitive prices to the energy market, forcing fossil fuel based providers to lower their prices at the benefit of the consumer. This lowering of prices will provide affordable power to urban areas, promoting population growth and economic development in diverse businesses. In Utah specifically, cheaper power to operate businesses such as hospitals, offices and warehouses in the hot summer months can only boost operating capital of these businesses as their cooling bills are lowered, leaving them with more money to use elsewhere, circulating economic movement.

In addition to the benefits seen in the electrical industry, the agricultural industry will see many benefits from the use of hydropower. In the example afforded by the Hoover Dam, we have already seen many agricultural users that benefited by the controlling of the Colorado River and the water transported to them by the dam for the irrigation of their farms (http://www.usbr.gov/history/hoover.html). As in the case of the Hoover Dam, additional hydropower plants can offer the chance to manage water flow and optimize growing potential in dry areas which would naturally be difficult to farm, thus creating more potential cropland. This increase in viable cropland will only lead to the creation of more jobs and more food and capital circulation. Hydropower has such incredible economic potential with the added benefit of being one of the cleanest processes currently available for the generation of electricity.

Biofuels

“The term bio-fuel is referred to as liquid or gaseous fuels for the transport sector that are predominantly produced from biomass” (Demirbas, 1). The biomass referred to is created from foodstocks such as corn or sugarcane that are grown in general cropland. The advantage to such a source of energy is the renewable nature of this source. New crops are grown every year, with the lifecycle continuing on regardless of how much of the energy source has already been used.

One argument frequently levied against the use of biofuels to supplement our energy consumption is that it is taking food away from the poor and starving people of the world. But what we ask in reply to this criticism, is if the people are starving, then why isn’t the land already being used to help feed them? People are starving throughout the world, not because of a lack of natural resources, but because of personal situations and limitations. People aren’t being nourished, not because they don’t have food but because they can’t afford food. Claiming that the use of biofuels will take food from the mouths of the hungry is simply ludicrous. We live in a country that thrives on capitalism and capitalism thrives on the competition of those participating. Those that find themselves without the necessities to live cannot blame their pitiable situation on a lack of natural resources. Their situation is simply the outcome of their effort in industry. If we are so concerned with feeding the hungry then we need to fork over the capital required to support them, not the land or natural resources, because they are ready and available. The incorporation of biofeuls into our energy solution will simply create more job opportunities and more market opportunity for farmers and in effect, stimulating the economy.

It is also worth considering the combination of hydropower and biofuels. The construction of dams serves to control water routes and can lead to the development of more viable cropland because of the availability of water in dryer climates. This increase of potential farmland can be utilized by allocating it to the production of crops specifically for biofuels. If managed properly, biofuels can be an economically beneficial supplement to our energy solution.

Wind Power

Some may argue against wind power as a viable source of energy for purely cosmetic reasons concerning the wind turbines themselves: they are too ugly, they are too loud, they are too big. People complain that the ungainly windmills are blight upon the open fields and grasslands of the great United States, lowering property values and wasting workable land. But are they really that unseemly juxtaposed with a power plant run on coal? Are the clean, sharp designs of the rotating blades really that ugly next to the blackened towers emitting plumes of smoke? Do they really take up more space than the acres required for coal or nuclear power plants that not only require production space, but also mining and drilling space? Is the noise really greater than that produced in any other major production facility? Of course not.

Spanish Fork, Utah, offered an interesting resolution to these complaints, however superficial they may be. The wind farm built in the Spanish Fork Canyon is built on what used to be a gravel pit and land that is now considered unfit for residential or commercial use. These turbines were placed at the mouth of the canyon, generating power 80% of each day (http://www.wasatchwind.com/sfwp.html). The people of Utah have already found a way to use unsuitable land and make it profitable to the community. The land that was already an eyesore now sports the technologies of man, while being utilized to power homes and businesses. This sort of optimization of resources is what conserving energy and saving money is all about.

Just a Thought

We are all on this marvelous planet that offers so much potential for energy sources. We have the capability and the technology to explore the options for energy solutions around us. Through this exploration we will be able to expand the energy market, making it more diverse and competitive. This competition will lead to larger industries, lower prices and more options for the consumer which will help stimulate the economy and benefit all involved. Humans have never been ones to sit by and let opportunities for advancement pass them by. We must continue to stretch ourselves, ever striving to improve our human condition—socially, economically, technologically. It has been shown over the centuries that as new advances are made, new industries are born and the economy is expanded. Alternative energy sources will not be an exception to this historical trend.

Sources

Biello, David. “Carbon capture and storage: Absolute necessity or crazy scheme.” May 2009.

Carey, John. “Obama’s Cap and Trade Plan.” BusinessWeek. Mar. 2009.

Carlson, Frederick. Costs and Benefits of Electric Vehicles. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. Volume 37, Part 1, January 2003, pp. 1-28

Chiras, Dan. Make Your Home Energy Efficient. Mother Earth News. October/November 2008.

Martin, Dan. Stay-at-Home Green. Sierra. January/February 2009.

Fahys, Judy. Utah is going green (and why it matters) Salt Lake Tribune. April 21, 2009 http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12183850

Fuel Economy. <>
El-Ashry, Mohamed. Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update.

Energy Information Administration. (2009). Official Statistics from the U.S. Government. From State Energy Profiles: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/stat/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=UT

Gertz, E. (2009, June 12). “Putting the ‘Green’ in Greensburg: A Tornado-Ravaged Town Reinvents Itself”. From Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=greensburg-green-revolution&page=3

Hong, B.D. “Energy Information Administration.” Quarterly Coal Report. Jan. 1994.

Jenkins, Jesse. “Clean” Coal and “Healthy” Cigarettes – Coal Industry Huckster Won’t Admit Burning Coal Causes Climate Change.” Mar. 2009.

Karltorp, Kersti. Environmental Impact of Mining Industry.

Martin, Dan. Stay-at-Home Green. Sierra. January/February 2009.

Medvedev, Grigory. The Truth About Chernobyl. Trans. Evelyn Rossiter. New York: BasicBooks, c1991.

Moench, Brian. “Coal-powered Electricity Increases Air Pollution Levels.” Deseret News. Apr 2007.

Ott, Hermann E. “Emissions Trading in the Kyoto Protocol.” Oct. 1998.

US Census Bureau: http://census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_ DP4&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&geo_id=04000US49

Utah DEQ. (2009). Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from Utah's Report on the Environment: http://www.deq.utah.gov/envrpt/air.htm

UtahGasPRices.com http://www.utahgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Western Resource Advocates.

Whybuyhyrbid.com: http://www.whybuyhybrid.com/Utah-Hybrid-vehicle-purchase-Tax- Incentives.htm

Williams, A. (2008, June 15). “That Buzz inYour Ear May Be Green Noise”. From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/fashion/15green.html?scp=1&sq=that%20buzzin g%20in%20your%20ear&st=cse

Conclusions

Although we live in a world that seems to change constantly, it can be hard to adapt to this change. This is due in large part to the fact that it can be difficult to discern actual change from a fad—is this something that will eventually become the new “normal” or will it just die out in a few years like every other trend? Not to mention that most real changes seldom affect one sector of our lives—major adjustments are usually just that—major. Not only do we have to accept the change, we must rearrange our lives to accommodate for the change. The green movement and the push to be more eco-friendly has proven to be a significant change that will not only affect the way we live our lives, but affect the quality of life for us and for future generations. Although going green implies big changes, our individual actions need not be colossal adjustments. There are so many simple things that we can do to contribute to a cleaner world. These changes, if nothing else, will help us save money in a world where so much instability comes from the economy. By living green, we can have the security that comes from spending money wisely and making our part of Utah and the world a better place for us and our families.

Improving Current Energy Use

Improving Current Energy Use

We all know that energy is expensive. In our technological world, it seems difficult to accomplish daily tasks without the use of fossil fuels. We rely heavily on electricity and gasoline. As you step inside your house, your first order of business is to turn on the light. Most people can’t make it to school or work without the use of gasoline. With the flick of a switch or the touch of a button, the room around you is filled with light, the temperature in your house is under control, and your television set is filled with entertainment. We are bombarded with reminders of the high costs of energy each time we fill up the tank in the car or pay a monthly utility bill. We hear stories about energy on the television and read articles about it in the newspaper. Fossil fuels can cost you a large chunk of your paycheck. For the planet and for our wallets, there must be a greener way to produce and use this energy.

Whether or not you are concerned with the consequences of greenhouse gases, we are all concerned with the green in our wallets. Efficiently used energy is less costly; by harnessing energy from natural resources, we can use that power to save money with renewable energy resources (El-Ashry). With fuel efficient vehicles and appliances, we can save money on energy and benefit the economy overall. As our society begins to realize that energy conservation is beneficial to everyone, there seems to be a movement towards alternative energy resources (El-Ashry). As we make this transition to renewable energy sources, we should take action to improve our current sources of energy to save money and improve the economy until we are able to completely rely on alternative energy resources.

It will take decades to completely convert from a society that uses primarily fossil fuels for energy to an environmentally friendly, renewable energy using society (El-Ashry). While we are in the process of transferring to renewable energy resources, there are many things that we can do to make the fossil fuels that we are using currently, more environmentally friendly. The benefits that come from making the environment cleaner will also benefit the economy.
By being aware of ways to limit carbon emissions, we can ensure that our environment is a healthy place to live. Many people believe that environmental conditions do not affect them directly or personally, but a healthy environment allows maintenance of personal health. It has taken decades to finally realize that breathing toxic chemicals from cigarette smoke is harmful; it only makes sense that breathing pollution from fossil fuels is also harmful to your health (Jenkins). Smoking is a personal choice, but large companies that emit toxic chemicals into the air that we breathe, make the decision for all of us to breathe toxic chemicals. Health is essential for working and earning a living. Healthcare bills heavily outweigh the lower cost of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels may be cheaper initially, but it is sure to cost you in the long run.

Do you know where the electricity from your house comes from? Ninety-five percent of the electricity used in Utah is powered by coal (Western Resource Advocates). Coal is an inexpensive energy source, but it may be more costly in the long run. Coal is used widely in Utah because it is a common resource in the state. Utah has two major coal mines and three active coal plants (Western Resource Advocates). With this fossil fuel so close in proximity, it only makes sense to use coal for energy, right? There are several reasons why someone would not want coal used as a primary source of energy in their state. If coal is cheap and easy to come by, what is the problem?
If you don’t have your health, then you don’t have anything. Many people are not concerned with the air quality within the state because they do not believe that it has any effect on their health or way of life. Coal emits carbon dioxide when it is converted to energy (Hong). Salt Lake City, Logan and Provo are ranked in the top 10 most polluted cities in the country, according to the American Lung Association; coal plants in Utah emitted approximately sixty-six percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the state in 2006 (Monech). For each person in Utah, the state emitted 25 tons of carbon dioxide (Moench). Utah could have improved air quality without coal plants in the state.
Coal plants in Utah emit tons of toxic chemicals; products of coal combustion including sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, mercury, arsenic, uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and lead are emitted into the air that we all must breathe (Karltorp). While you may not be concerned with global warming, you should be concerned with the health risks associated with coal. Carbon emissions from coal affect the air quality and the asthma rate (Karltorp). Air quality and asthma rates have a strong positive correlation (Karltorp). Consequences of health issues from the low quality of air should be factored into the price of using coal as an energy source. The use of coal and pollution from carbon emission thereof could cost billions of dollars in healthcare (Monerch). We don’t know all of the health consequences of carbon emissions now, but by looking to the past, it is apparent that we do not want to wait to find out what the consequences will be.
If only there was a way to have the best of both worlds. If only we find a greener way to use this inexpensive fossil fuel which is an abundant natural resource in Utah. As it turns out, scientists have discovered a way use coal and without emitting harmful chemicals (Biello). With a process call carbon dioxide capture and storage or CCS, carbon dioxide emitted from coal when used for energy, is captured and stored underground before it can be emitted into the atmosphere (Biello). Carbon capture and storage decreases pollution and prevents damage to the environment (Biello). Less pollution in the air leads to a healthier society; a healthier society leads to a thriving economy. Carbon capture and storage does increase the cost of coal powered energy, but this cost is significantly outweighed by environmental and health cost benefits (Karltorp). When you take a look at the big picture, carbon capture and storage is beneficial for your health, the environment and your wallet. Nothing is more valuable than your health. A healthy environment leads to healthy people. Healthy people pay less for healthcare. The economy would benefit greatly from a healthier society and less healthcare costs.
Whether or not you believe in global warming, we all believe in saving money. Energy conservation is about more than just keeping the Earth green, it’s also about keeping green in your wallet. The state of Utah is in a great position to take advantage of carbon capture and storage and other ways of limiting carbon emissions. In a state that uses coal energy for ninety five percent of its electricity, Utah has the power to change coal emissions drastically with carbon capture and storage (Western Resource Advocates). The state of Utah has the power to improve the health of the people, the environment and the economy.

Large companies are responsible for a majority of carbon emissions. People are often weary of government regulations, but consumers would benefit from a policy that set limits on commercial carbon output. A cap and trade policy would cost companies with a greater carbon output and benefit companies with fewer emissions. Companies would have a “cap” on the amount of carbon emissions that they could release into the atmosphere, and would have the option to “trade” carbon emission limits with other companies for a profit (Ott). A cap and trade policy benefits businesses that are responsible enough to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. It would also penalize companies that put consumer’s health at risk with pollution. Consumers would benefit from cleaner air, and therefore, better health. Cap and trade policies have been implemented in European countries (Ott). The pollution that is emitted into the atmosphere now, not only affects our environment and health, but it also affects the future generation’s quality of life.
Some people believe that a cap and trade policy would increase energy prices. President Obama is planning ahead for this increase in prices; profits made from this policy would be used to counteract energy cost increases for families (Carey). Energy costs would be paid for in part by the big companies that are carelessly emitting pollution without any concern for your family’s health.
The plans in Europe have not found complete success yet, but their cap and trade policies have only made it to phase one (Ott). It will take several attempts for any new policy to find success. It is worth the consistency that this plan will require to make the big companies responsible for their actions. It will be worth the economic and health benefits associated with cleaner air.
Automobiles are powered by gasoline; gasoline is another fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide. By making your vehicle more fuel efficient, money can be saved each time you fill up at the pump. Fuel efficient vehicles use less gasoline and therefore emit less carbon dioxide (Fuel Emissions). Carbon dioxide in the air is not good for the environment or for your health (Karltorp). Just as health costs from carbon emissions from coal can outweigh the benefits of inexpensive energy, carbon emissions from gasoline can also cost your health and your wallet. The less fuel we use, the better our environment will be. Not just by taking the bus or a bike, but by understanding the consequences of carbon emissions, we can become better prepared to limit our carbon footprint. Carbon emissions are damaging to the environment, your health and your wallet.

Hybrid cars use two or more sources of energy; most hybrid cars include some form of electricity. Hybrid cars may be more expensive with the initial investment, but will save you money in the long run (Fuel Economy). Throughout the life of the vehicle, hybrid cars have a lower cost of ownership; maintaining a hybrid car is no more costly than maintaining a gasoline automobile (Fuel Economy). The 2010 Honda Insight Hybrid averages 43 miles per gallon, while the 2009 Honda S200 averages 25 miles per gallon (Fuel Economy). The money saved on gasoline alone is enough to make your hybrid purchase worth your money, along with health benefits from a cleaner environment.
Our economy does not thrive on money paid for with gasoline. Much of our gasoline is imported from overseas. Each time you fill up your tank, your hard earned money benefits a foreign economy. Saudi Arabia exports an average of 8,200,000 barrels of crude oil each day. Money spent in the United States benefits our economy. Our economy doesn’t benefit much from oil bought overseas.
The economy thrives when people are spending money. Many argue that whether it be paying for a utility bill or for traveling expenses, it is better for the economy for people to be spending money on something. With alternative energy resources, people would still spend money on energy, but consumers would have a little extra cash to invest in small businesses or to pay for other living expenses. The government assists citizens who cannot pay for utilities on their own (Carey). With lower costs of energy, the price of utilities paid for by the government would decrease, thus decreasing taxes for everyone (Western Resource Advocates). Energy conservation saves money so that you can buy the things that are most important to you.

In our society, we just can’t seem to survive without energy resources for our computers, lights and automobiles. As we rely on these resources, it is our responsibility to find the most economically efficient and healthy way to use and produce energy. As we move to renewable sources of energy, it is still our responsibility in the meantime, to find ways to improve our current sources of energy.

What can I do?

The current economic crisis has many Utah residents looking for ways to cut back and save money. It’s no coincidence that the “going green” movement is also in full swing. Because Utah is a generally more conservative state, and the “green” movement is considered a leftist movement against global warming, some Utah residents feel hesitant to join the movement. It’s not that residents are against the environment, I believe it’s because there are some who are simply unaware of the possibilities to conserve energy and the rewards of doing so on an economic scale. There are numerous ways that each person can contribute to saving the environment and saving money by conserving energy in their daily lives, right here in Utah. What are the consequences of “green” lifestyle changes on Utah’s economy?


Transportation
In 2007, there were nearly 806 million cars and trucks on the roads, worldwide, burning over 260 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel each year! As of 2006, there were nearly 251 million cars in the United States, making America home to the most amount of cars in the world. About 90 percent of Americans own cars, and in Utah alone, there are approximately 665,671 households with at least one car (US Census Bureau)! With so many cars on Utah’s roads, each one burning fuel, cars are one of the main contributors to pollution and wasted energy. If Utahans modified their cars and driving habits, not only would the environment benefit, but they would see the personal and statewide economic benefits as well.
Hybrid cars are an excellent way that we can all conserve energy. With the “going green” movement, nearly every car company has released at least one version of a hybrid car. The difference between these cars and conventional cars is that hybrid cars run on two sources of power. Instead of running solely on fuel, most hybrid cars run on fuel and electricity, drastically reducing the amount of energy used, making them both environmentally friendly and economically valuable. The amount of emissions produced by a hybrid car is significantly less than that of a regular, petroleum fueled car. The average passenger petroleum fueled 1996 model car emits .89 VOC g/km. (Carlsonn) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) is any substance emitted into the air that participates in photochemical reactions. These emissions are not only environmentally harmful, but are also unhealthy for all who breathe them in. Likewise, the average 1996 passenger car emits .26 g/km of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), while a brand new hybrid car produces only .01 g/km of this environmentally harmful compound (Carlsonn). When NOx and VOCs combine together in large quantities, the result is smog, which not only pollutes our air, but makes it harder for us to breath because it decreases the quality of our air.
Poor air quality as a result of high traffic areas is extremely prevalent in urban areas, such as Salt Lake City. Because of the valley shape of Utah and Salt Lake counties, this polluted air becomes trapped and remains longer than it would in an area with different geography. Utah often experiences several days at a time of smoggy air. Poor air pollution patterns are hard on many Utah residents. Those suffering from asthma or other respiratory conditions may have a more difficult time breathing because they do not have access to adequate sources of high quality air. Those without pre-existing conditions also suffer from the polluted air. Poorer air quality means shorter recreation times, difficulty breathing, and, over time, can damage the respiratory system.
Some people may think that pollution has little effect on the economy; however all of these repercussions have negative economic consequences. Cleaner air results in healthier people and healthy people are more economically beneficial because they forgo doctor visits, pricey prescriptions, and can more fully enjoy the opportunities around them. Utah is usually ranked as one of the healthiest states and its residents pride themselves in their active lifestyles, so decreasing the amount of pollution in the air would only enhance the outdoor activity market of the state. Tourism is one of the leading economic boosters to the state. Thousands of people travel to the state each year to enjoy time outdoors at one of the five national parks, biking, hiking, or skiing. If the quality of the air decreases, so will the amount of tourist and Utah’s economy will take a big hit.
Hybrid cars may seem impractical and unaffordable, but this is not true. Hybrid cars are affordable and accessible to nearly every Utah resident. The brand new 2010 model of the Toyota Prius, one of the first hybrids on the market, retails starting at $22,000, a very reasonable and competitive price. The Toyota Camry, a non hybrid model, starts at $19,395. The Ford Fusion Hybrid starts at $19,270, which is less expensive than many petroleum fueled cars! Hybrid cars have recently appeared on the used car market, making them an option for people on a budget. For those who do not want to sacrifice luxury for practicality, companies such as BMW, Lexus, and Acura, all have hybrid versions of their cars.
Not only are these cars competitive in pricing, but they also save money on gas. A hybrid car generally gets 50 mpg, while a more conventional car receives about 30 mpg. More mileage means less money at the pumps and more money in your pocket, and with gas prices back on the rise (2.13-2.54 $/g in the last month alone according to Utahgasprices.com), Utah drivers are no doubt nervous that prices will again sore above 4 $/g. Utah families who travel many miles a day, working and running errands, will be able to save money on filling up their tanks and put it into savings or other expenses.
One of the reasons hybrid cars are so fuel efficient is because of the compact size of the cars. For many Utah families, a compact car is simply impractical. There is no way that a mother of five is going to be able to put two car seats, football gear, and soccer balls, into a compact hybrid car. Fortunately for larger families, as hybrid technology has developed, many car companies have begun to offer hybrid versions of popular SUVs, making the opportunity to switch over both practical and affordable. Although these hybrid SUVs don’t maintain an EPA-estimated mpg average as low as a compact hybrid, they do significantly increase the mileage of an SUV up to 10 mpg! This makes it easier for mobile families to reap the economic benefits of a greener lifestyle. Hybrid trucks are also available for companies who may need to haul or deliver equipment. Cutting the cost of gasoline prices will also benefit these companies which will therefore benefit families and the entire Utah economy.
In order to incite Utah drivers to buy more eco-friendly cars, insurance companies and government agencies are offering incentives to consumers who purchase hybrid cars. The Utah government offers up to $3,000 tax credit to those who purchase a hybrid car. Salt Lake City offers free metered parking to cars who receive at least an EPA- estimated 50 mpg. Hybrid car owners can also receive access to the HOV, or carpool, lanes on the freeway, regardless of the amount of passengers in the car. All of these benefits save hybrid car drivers time and money, making them an economically beneficial investment.


Home Improvements
Homes today have become pods of energy consumption. With so many appliances and toys, it’s no wonder that Utah households spend so much money on energy each month. Although Utah has enjoyed lower than average electrical costs in past years, a recent bill proposed by President Obama is expected to increase monthly electrical costs. Utah will be one of the hardest hit states with an estimated $300 a month increase for the average family’s electrical bill! In an already economically tough time, this drastic spike in electrical prices will burden many Utah families. In preparation for these possible price increases and to develop money saving habits, Utah families should begin to practice energy conservation in their very own homes. There are many ways you can conserve energy in your home that will be economically beneficial in the long run.
In order to ensure that you are getting the most out of your heating and air systems, it is vitally important that your home is properly insulated. Insulation delays heat flow in and out of the home, consequently making the home more energy efficient because heat is not escaping from the home. With proper insulation you will not need to use as much energy to heat your home. The price of insulation is about .99 per square foot, and while properly insulating your entire home may cost a lot of money up front, the savings will be worth it in the long run. “If extra insulation is combined with airtight home design and cost-effective, passive-solar heating and cooling measures, one can greatly reduce, even eliminate, the need for additional heating or cooling,” (Chrias). Insurance companies may cover a portion of the cost to properly insulate your home, and some even offer special discounts for homes that are more eco-friendly.
Switching from the standard incandescent light bulb to the newer more energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs, is another great way for families to cut energy costs in the long run. While incandescent lights are much cheaper at the stores (about $3 for a pack of six) than the CFLs ($8 for a pack of four) the CFL lasts about ten times as long and uses about 50 watts less of electricity. The average household could save about $100 a year by switching to CFLs, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. CFLs are a much more environmentally friendly and economically beneficial form of lighting that will help save Utah consumers money.
Upgrading appliances to newer, more energy efficient models is another great way to cut costs in the home. About 40% of all the energy used in the home comes from appliances such as the stove, refrigerator, and washer and dryers (Martin). Upgrading to more eco-friendly models will drastically cut monthly energy bills (Martin). It is true that these appliances are expensive, and especially during these economically difficult times, people may have a hard time coming up with the money to purchase one, even though they will be beneficial in the long run. Home owners could begin on a smaller scale, replacing one appliance at a time as they save up the money to do so. Each change will make a difference in monthly energy bills. Insurance companies may also offer incentives and the government does offer tax breaks on these appliances. Rebates and specials offers are other great incentives to purchase these appliances, which will pay for themselves in the long run.


Recycling
Many Utah residents are hesitant to recycle because it costs extra money. Most Utah residents are simply unaware of the economical benefits of recycling. According to the Recycling Coalition of Utah, trash services cost tax payers more money yearly than recycling. The US spends an estimated $10 billion a year on trash disposal. Recycling lowers the amount of trash dumped into landfills, extending the life of each landfill and reducing the amount of landfills necessary. The fewer landfills, the more money Utah residents save. Recycling is also energy efficient. Recycling an old product is always more energy efficient than creating a new one. In fact, recycling an old aluminum can uses 95% less energy than creating a new one from scratch (Recycling Coalition of Utah). Saving energy saves gas, fuel, and coal, which therefore saves consumers money. The benefits of recycling are unfortunately unknown to many Utah residents even though they outweigh the initial monthly cost.


So What?
Living a green lifestyle is much more than a stand against global warming. Greener lifestyles are also more economical than traditional ways of life. Utah residents should begin to follow the lead of other states and live more “green”. Some residents are already beginning to do so. "People are starting to come around and see how green can help them personally," said Tim Kenyon, a market analyst for the consumer survey called Green Gauge 2008 (Fahys). Living a “green” lifestyle saves consumers money, and saving money encourages provident living, an idea that has been encouraged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has a very strong and prevalent presence in the state of Utah. Changes such as buying a hybrid car, recycling, and making changes around the home are all “green” ideas that each one of us can incorporate into our own lives. When we do so, we will see the economic benefits. These simple everyday changes are economically beneficial for Utah’s economy, and therefore will help save consumers money. In these tight economic times, “going green” proves to be a bright idea for everyone.