How much do Americans recycle - Facts

Several recent studies have confirmed that around one quarter of adult Americans do not bother to recycle.

The worst condition looks to be in South and Midwest where more than two thirds of people don't bother to recycle. Completely opposite are areas of East and West coast where close to 90% people recycle on daily basis.

RecycleBank program pays people with coupons to recycle in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

The most recycled items in America are metal cans and aluminium, followed by plastic, paper, and glass.

Americans could recycle much more than they are doing today. The most common excuses for not recycling are that recycling is not available in their area, and that recycling would take too much of their effort, and some even say that recycling is connected with relatively high and unnecessary costs. More than 10% percent of Americans believe that recycling has no purpose because it will make no difference on global level.

Overall situation with recycling in US could definitely improve, but at least there is an ongoing positive trend which shows that more and more Americans are helping our environment with recycling.

Federal government, as well as state and local governments need to continue building ecological conscience of American society so people would care much more for our environment than they are doing today.

Recycling is something each and every one of us could do for our environment, an easy proof to Mother Nature that we still care.

Dead zones increasing in United States

According to the latest report from the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy the number of dead zones increased dramatically in U.S. waters over the last 50 years. Term "dead zones" refers to condition called hypoxia where in areas of estuaries and coastal waters oxygen levels drop so low that there isn't enough oxygen left to sustain life, meaning that fish and other marine life can't survive in such areas.

There are many different factors responsible for creation of dead zones. Many scientists believe that one of the main causes is water pollution but there are also other factors involved such as fishing, climate change, harmful algal blooms, toxic contaminants, etc. The large number of contaminants leads to high concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and this leads to eutrophication, condition characterized by the excessive algae growth. Once algae die and decompose, high levels of organic matter and the decomposing organisms deplete the water of available oxygen, making it incapable to support life.

Such condition can not only cause big environmental but also big economic damage. The last results were very worrying because researchers detected dead zones in almost half of the 647 analyzed US waterways, including the Gulf of Mexico, where scientists discovered one of the largest dead zones in the world.

Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency warned US government by saying that "these growing dead zones endanger fragile ecosystems and potentially jeopardize billions of dollars in economic activity".

Some scientists believe that climate change considerably helped in creation many of these dead zones. Our oceans are becoming warmer due to the climate change, and global climate models predict that the warming of the oceans will cause decline in oxygen levels in deep oceans by 20 to 40 percent in the next century.

Many species that have their habitats in deep oceans are extremely sensitive to changes in oxygen levels, and many of them could go extinct which would create irreversible damage throughout the entire marine food web.

This problem is very serious, and things will become even worse because human population is constantly increasing which means more pollution and bigger climate change impact. The scientists have conclude that "if current practices are continued, the expansion of hypoxia in coastal waters will continue and increase in severity, leading to further impacts on marine habitats, living resources, economies, and coastal communities".

What can United States do against climate change?

Is it really enough that United States just agrees to the new climate deal under which U.S. should significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions so world would have a decent chance to fight against climate change? There is no doubt that this is the important first step that United States has to do, but one step is very rarely enough to reach the final goal, and U.S. will have to make at least few more steps before reaching the finish line in the race to make country's economy greener.

What is the biggest ecological problem in United States?

United States has never been synonym for country that gives lot of importance to ecology. In fact, it is quite the opposite, and many people around the globe will point fingers in United States saying how Americans are the ones most responsible for current ecological condition of our planet. This is because America was for very long time world's biggest CO2 polluter, and was just recently overtaken by China, country that now holds this infamous title.

Great lakes losing ice cover

Great Lakes are a chain of freshwater lakes located in eastern North America, on the Canada – United States border. This group consists of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, and they form the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth. Great Lakes are experiencing serious decline in ice cover due to warmer years. In the last 40 years Great Lakes lost 30 % of its ice cover, which is worrying information because according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this leaves Great Lakes open to evaporation and lower water levels.

Results of their study showed that although the total amount of ice cover can vary substantially from year to year, the overall ice coverage on the world's largest system of freshwater lakes is diminishing, especially in the deepest, middle portions of Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario and Superior.

The reason why deep water is mostly affected is because of the fact that the deeper the water, the greater the heat storage from summer, and it freezes later than the shallow areas. As one of the researchers Ray Assel said: "Now, increase the air temperature and the lake takes in more heat and stores it longer, to the point that many of the midlake areas are freezing over less."

On the long run this could have serious negative impact though there could be short-term advantages because this trend could make shipping possible in the winter months.

Green future has decent chance?

With the Obama as the new US president green future no more looks as some sort of utopia for many environmentalists worldwide. Dark years under George Bush are into its last days, and the whole world eagerly expects Obama to lead the way. Obama once on top will certainly have his hands full, with not only climate change on his agenda but with the financial crisis as well. Obama, and so does the whole world agree that climate change is problem that needs quick solutions, but on the other hand financial crisis could postpone possible solutions.

It is really a difficult task finding balance between current financial crisis and efforts to fight against climate change, because fight against climate change (together with other related ecological and environmental problems) needs huge funds in order to be successful. Financial crisis could inflict severe problems to "green revolution" but hopefully not on the long run, because hopefully financial markets will soon start showing some signs of recovery. Once this recovery happens there would be really no reason for any delay on climate change issue. Climate change is global problem so to solve it countries will need to act on global level; meaning clear goals to reduce emissions in given period for all countries, with as little exceptions as possible. We certainly do not need another failure like it was Kyoto protocol that was neglected by world's top emitting countries. This time all countries (especially major emitters like for instance China, USA) should be included and obliged to follow newer, stricter regulations, with goals to reach certain level of decrease in emissions not being 50 years from now, but five year tops.

Also in order to really decrease the level of emissions world must turn to completely new energy policy, energy policy that would not put emphasis on fossil fuels but on renewable energy sector. This new energy policy would of course require new laws, and what is more important new funds for development and research because renewable energy sector is still negligible on global scale not powerful enough to compete with dominant fossil fuels. We also need to stop current deforestation rate because forests sink carbon, and their role is therefore crucial in fight against climate change and global warming.

Climate change and global warming are the most difficult environmental challenges in human history, challenge that can only be solved on global level. We all know that global actions are always difficult because of many parties involved but this time we should be united as one. Only united world has decent chance against climate change and global warming. You can slowly feel wind of change coming closer and closer giving hope in green future after so many years. Hope that was almost forgotten is starting to wake up. Good morning hope. Finally.

Will United States go green with Obama?

One thing that George Bush really could not care less was definitely environment, and he practically did all what was in his power to prevent US possible turn to renewable energy sector. Will United States go green with Obama? Well if we were to judge Obama's words about "planet in peril", and excitement of many US environmental groups then we could say that Obama could well lead US green revolution in years to come.

However there will be lot of work ahead because Bush left tremendous damage, and environmental challenges for new administration will be enormous. Necessary changes should mean end of fossil fuels dominance, and stronger turn to renewable energy sector like wind and solar energy. However coal and oil lobbies are still very strong so we could expect lot of trouble in changing current US energy policy.

If we are to believe Obama's manifesto climate change plans will be linked to a $175bn economic-stimulus package intended to revamp the US energy economy and bring new life to US environmental policy by creating five million new "green" jobs. Climate change plans also include cutting greenhouse gases by 80 % till 2050. Obama's words if translated into action could well mean "green recovery" of United States and decent chance for clean energy economy in years to come.

It looks almost unreal to see so many optimism among so many environmental groups after almost a decade of dark years with George Bush. However there is this unpleasant financial crisis that could be big problem as many clean technology companies are already in trouble to go out of the business very shortly if current condition on market continues. But despite all potential problems hope has finally gained another dimension. Dimension of possibility. Hopefully possibility will soon turn to reality. If there is one thing that our planet needs then this is new reality. Reality with much less ecological problems.

Related Articles:

• Environmental policy during George Bush
• Presidential candidates not talking much about climate change

Environmental policy during George Bush

What have George Bush and his administration done for environment in the last 8 years, and what will they do for the remaining time they still have in White House? The answer is simple, namely nothing good. Environmental policy during George Bush was, well in fact there was no environmental policy as administration did and still does all what it can to weaken almost all environmental laws that have some meaning.

This especially applies to weakening regulations that promote clean air and clean water and protect endangered species because Mr. Bush holds industry as only important thing, and with this belief Bush and his administration did everything in their power to keep industry happy. Though they do not have much time remaining in White House it is still enough to do a lot of damage to different environmental laws. Like for instance making significant exceptions to regulations that require expert scientific review of any federal project that could harm endangered or threatened species (one consequence will be to relieve the agency of the need to assess the impact of global warming on at-risk species), or trying to remove gray wolf from the endangered species list though their recovery plan wasn't fulfilled.

But hey that's not enough for them, many environmentalists believe how Environmental Protection Agency will soon issue a final rule that would soften a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power. Additional rule also expected, the one that would make it fairly simple for coal-fired power plants to be located near national parks because Mr. Bush (apparently doesn't need clean air as we all know that coal does not only pollute air but also gives more impact to global warming. And there is also this proposal that would make it much easier for mining companies to dump toxic mine wastes in valleys and streams.

The ones like Mr. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Dirk Kempthorne will luckily soon leave the White House, but unfortunately not soon enough as they will still have enough time to additionally weaken already soft US environmental policy. The next president, whether Obama or McCain will certainly have his hands full to clean up this environmental mess that Mr. Bush left. Hopefully sanity will play its role in the mind of the next president, not to continue the same "environmental policy" that Mr. Bush did. There is only thing sure though, environment doesn't need another Bush. Two times was definitely too much.

Related Articles:

• Presidential candidates not talking much about climate change

Presidential candidates not talking much about climate change

As US elections are getting into the final phase there is less and less talk about climate change, and about possible solutions to fight global climate change. At the beginning both McCain and Obama were pointing out the need for aggressive action to reduce US CO2 emissions , but as the election day is getting closer talk about climate change is nowhere to be heard.

It is actually very simple politics as both candidates aim to get as much votes as possible, and with the current financial crisis their talks are oriented only on how to avoid country's recession. And while both candidates (seemingly) agree that country should turn to renewables in order to reduce carbon emissions they refuse to talk further about this new energy policy because renewable energy is still very expensive in short, and even medium run, and of course there is this serious financial crisis and traditional American coal dependence as well. US is world's second consumer of coal, with only China ahead, and there are significant number of US states whose economies are depending on coal (most notably Ohio and Pennsylvania) so presidential candidates are very careful not to say something that could turn votes to other side.

Both presidential candidates used to talk about plans that would include clean coal technologies as a certain middle point between environmental wishes on one side and coal industries on other. These technologies have potential to be successful, but they need much more funds, and of course more time, and as the time goes bye global warming impact will increase its impact.

But of course what is global warming compared to few more votes? At this moment nothing. Hopefully once elections end we will see much stronger turn to renewables because if there is something that this country really needs then this is new aggressive energy policy to tackle global warming.

Chicago to become green city?

Chicago could be one of the first US cities to put serious effort to significantly cut down greenhouse emissions. Mayor Richard M. Daley has announced a plan to dramatically slash greenhouse gases emissions that cause global warming. According to this plan whose main goal is reduce greenhouse gas emissions to three-fourths of 1990 levels by 2020 through more energy-efficient buildings, using clean and renewable energy sources, improving transportation and reducing industrial pollution, Chicago could become one of the greenest US cities.

This plan will require completely new energetic solutions for city, and there was already an agreement between city and two coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions or shut down by 2015 and 2017. City is already working on solution for things like better insulation, heating and cooling systems and windows in all commercial, industrial and residential buildings.

According to officials Chicago emits 34.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year, and if we add the six surrounding counties, the amount of greenhouse gases climbs to big 103 million metric tons per year. Of course these levels of emission are main reason why since 1980, Chicago's average temperature increased approximately 2.6 degrees, and full 4 degrees in the winter.

Of course there is still lot of work ahead of Chicago, but at least this plan means moving in the right direction, and this is really a good starting point that should give example to many other cities, not only in United States but worldwide. Cutting greenhouse emissions is necessary if we want to successfully fight against global warming, and ensure healthy planet for our future generations.

Chicago to become green city?