# data[].attributes.body
https://wlos.com/news/local/cleanup-mudslides-road-washouts-rain-lake-lure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
With our beautiful mountain slopes comes a lurking curse: the landslide | OPINION

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than three-fourths of the land in Western North Carolina has a slope of greater than 30 percent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Franklin, NC - Landslides & Flooding April 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ecosystems and the Environment Grading Rubric

# data[].attributes.body
Visit to local Water Treatment Facility with guided tour explaining where water comes from, methods of water treatment, and consumption rates for our community.

# data[].attributes.body
mystorybook.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create your own storybook online. Make writing and publishing a book more fun with our picture book making tool!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TO PLACATE shareholders and shoppers, American companies are promising to use more recycled materials in their products. It's a nice idea, but surprisingly hard to achieve. Coca-Cola committed to using at least 25% recycled plastic in its containers by 2015, but revised this downwards owing to scarce supply and high costs. Walmart is struggling to find the material to meet its goal to use 3 billion pounds of recycled plastic in its packaging and products by 2020. "The problem is supply," explains Rob Kaplan of Walmart.

Most recycled materials should be cheaper than virgin commodities, but America throws too much stuff away. Low landfill fees and a fragmented waste-management system have kept the country's recycling rate at around 34% for two decades-far lower than most rich countries. This waste comes at a cost. Making cans from recycled aluminium, the most valuable container material, requires 95% less energy and creates 90% less greenhouse-gas emissions than virgin stock, yet more than 40 billion aluminium cans hit America's landfills every year. The country chucks away $11.4 billion worth of recyclable containers and packaging annually, according to As You Sow, an advocacy group.
Get our daily newsletter
Part of the problem is that America's approach to waste is a mess of incompatible local systems. Around 9,800 different municipal recycling plans operate around the country, and they all follow different rules. Most recycling facilities were built in the 1990s, and the machinery is often ill-equipped to handle changes in the country's waste stream, such as the decline in paper (newsprint has fallen by half since a 2000 peak) and the swift rise in plastics. Diverting recyclable materials from landfills can save some money; cities spent about $5 billion on landfill fees in 2013. But this requires big capital investments, which cash-strapped governments are often disinclined to make. As a result, a quarter of Americans lack access to proper bins for collecting recyclable material, and another quarter go without any curbside recycling at all.

Some companies are starting to invest in recycling infrastructure. Walmart, Coca-Cola and eight other big companies have created a $100m Closed Loop Fund, which offers zero- and low-interest loans to cities and recycling companies for everything from better bins to more efficient sorting plants. The loans are repaid with the profits from diverting waste from landfills and selling the materials. "If a programme doesn't work, we don't get paid," explains Ron Gonen, who created the fund with Mr Kaplan last year.

Private investors have waded into America's recycling problem before, but the Closed Loop Fund is the most ambitious scheme to date. "I've never seen consumer brands put that kind of money in recycling in 20 years," says Paul Gardner of Recycling Reinvented, an advocacy group. In principle, the business case should be there: revenues for the recycling-facilities sector are expected to grow by 5.7% a year over the next five years, reaching $8 billion in 2020, according to IBIS World, an industry analyst.

But proving the value of recycling is not easy. Although $100m is a good chunk of change, industry analysts say $1.25 billion is needed to fully modernise America's recycling infrastructure. Another challenge is aligning the incentives of the different players. Companies may demand more post-consumer material, but the supply still relies on the whims of municipalities and consumers, and "there's no real incentive built in to maximise recovery or material value," says Kate Eagles of NAPCOR, a trade association for the plastic packaging industry in North America. Neither municipalities nor residents see much benefit from dutiful sorting. Even green-minded folks will throw away a soda can if a recycling bin isn't readily available. Cities can boost recycling rates with higher landfill taxes or "pay-as-you-throw" plans, which charge households for the waste they create. But collecting and sorting this material is still a costly, complicated business, and the value of the goods does not always cover the cost of collection.

It is also hard to increase the quantity of recycled goods without compromising quality. Many cities now give residents bigger bins and demand less sorting, but the often-contaminated results are a costly headache for recycling companies. "We get soiled diapers and dead animals on the line," complains James Devlin of ReCommunity, which operates 35 recycling facilities in 13 states. One recycling bin ended up holding a six-foot shark.

This is a particularly tough time to be telling businesses that using more recycled materials makes good economic sense. Falling oil prices have lowered the price of virgin plastic against the recycled stuff, which has put off manufacturers and hurt recycling companies (plastic makes up a growing share of their waste feed). Without a price on carbon, using recycled commodities does not necessarily help a company's bottom line. "People aren't going to pay more for recycled plastic just because it's recycled," says Tom Szaky of TerraCycle, which makes consumer products from waste.

The Closed Loop Fund will be an interesting experiment. But it is unclear whether market forces and a few public-private partnerships will be enough to fend off legislation to saddle companies with the full recycling bill. In nearly 50 countries, including the entire European Union, a policy called "extended producer responsibility" shifts the burden of waste disposal from taxpayers to companies. Such schemes are all over the place when it comes to costs and effectiveness, but they boost recycling rates and save cities money. Thirty-two states already force companies to handle discarded electronics, batteries, mobile phones and other products. Lawmakers in Rhode Island recently introduced a bill that calls on companies to recycle at least 80% of packaging by 2020. If Walmart hopes to prove that voluntary measures will be enough to raise America's stagnant recycling rates, it will need to work quickly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TO PLACATE shareholders and shoppers, American companies are promising to use more recycled materials in their products. It's a nice idea, but surprisingly hard to achieve. Coca-Cola committed to using at least 25% recycled plastic in its containers by 2015, but revised this downwards owing to scarce supply and high costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Recycle Across America, Standardized Recycling Labels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recycle Across America, Standardized Recycling Labels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycle Across America (RAA) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to making it easier for people to recycle right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News about climate and energy legislation. Commentary and archival information about climate and energy legislation from The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress has debated climate change for nearly 30 years with varying results. Laws and congressionally approved funding have led to new programs to reduce emissions and incentives to speed the deployment of clean energy. Other efforts to address climate change more holistically, including by using market-based approaches, have not advanced.

Some major milestones on climate in Congress include:

1992: Senate approves U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The process of designing a global agreement to tackle climate change began in the early 1990s. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which committed all nations to take action and laid the foundation for future agreements. At the time, President Bush declared, "The United States fully intends to be the world's pre-eminent leader in protecting the global environment." The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to the treaty in October 1992.

1992: Renewable energy gets a boost. To help support the fledgling wind industry, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added the renewable energy production tax credit to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, which has been critical in the rapid expansion of the wind energy industry. The tax credit has been extended in short stints - with occasional lapses - since then. An investment tax credit for solar energy installations was later added to the tax code through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

1997: Senate pre-empts Kyoto Protocol. In June 1997, six months ahead of a U.N. climate conference in Kyoto, Japan, the Senate adopted a nonbinding resolution introduced by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and 44 other cosponsors, stating that the United States should not enter into any international climate agreement that did not include comparable emissions commitments by developing countries or that "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States..." The Clinton Administration proceeded to negotiate and sign the Kyoto Protocol, which set emission targets for developed countries only. But the agreement was never submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, and in 2001, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not join it.

2003-2007: Bipartisan bills in the Senate. By the 108 th Congress (2003-2004) significant bipartisan efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions started to gain traction. Among other bills in 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) offered The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 to institute a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions from electricity, manufacturing, commercial, and transportation sectors of the economy (representing 85 percent of U.S. emissions). The bill had a House companion and was reintroduced in the 109 th and 110 th Congresses.

2007: Congress mandates emissions reporting. As part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law in 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was ordered to publish a rule requiring public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program database provides comprehensive nationwide greenhouse gas emissions data (electric power companies were already reporting their carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990). Over 40 source categories are now covered by the reporting program.

2008-2010: Cap-and-trade legislation passes the House. Shortly after being elected, President-elect Barack Obama declared a comprehensive climate and energy bill among his top legislative priorities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a vote of 219 to 212 in June 2009. The legislation, written by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), would have established an economy-wide greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and critical complementary measures. The Senate failed to pass its own comprehensive climate and energy bill, and the measure died.

Other major climate legislation was proposed during this period:

The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 would have established a renewable energy standard and addressed several other energy-related issues.

John Kerry (D-MA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) worked outside of the committee process in an attempt to broaden the base of support for climate legislation within the Senate. Kerry and Lieberman released a draft discussion of their American Power Act in May 2010 that would have established a cap-and-trade system for utilities and industry, and a fee for transportation fuels.

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced a Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act, which would have capped carbon dioxide emissions while allowing very limited emissions trading, and rebating the revenue from this system directly back to the public on a per capita basis.

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act to enact a tradeable energy standard to reduce emissions in the power sector.

Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced the Practical Energy and Climate Plan, intended to reduce oil imports, improve and create new efficiency standards, and establish a clean energy standard.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was expected to combine elements of the climate and energy legislative proposals into a comprehensive climate bill. Citing a lack of bipartisan support in the Senate, however, Reid announced in July 2010 that upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on greenhouse emissions. This effectively ended action on climate legislation for the 111 th Congress.

2012: Shoring up flood protection. Funding the National Flood Insurance Program, established in 1968, is important for the many communities likely to face increased flooding from sea level-rise and more frequent and extreme downpours. In May 2012, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act reauthorizing the program for five years, ending a series of short-term extensions. The bill was a major step toward actuarial pricing and full accounting of climate risk, ensuring that climate impact projections are factored into future calculations of flood risk. Although the word "climate" does not appear in the text, the bill directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use "the best available science regarding future changes in sea levels, precipitation, and intensity of hurricanes" - likely projected impacts of climate change - as it updates flood maps and sets insurance premiums.

2015: Extension/phasedown of renewable energy tax credits. After more than 20 years of regular extensions of the production tax credit for wind power and investment tax credit for solar power, Congress agreed in late 2015 on a multi-year extension and ultimate phase-out of the incentives. The tax credits have been critical in making renewable energy cost-competitive and continue to help reduce carbon emissions from power sector in the absence of federal regulations. The production tax credit will phase out through 2019. The investment tax credit for solar will end in 2021.

2016: Formation of the Climate Solutions Caucus. In February 2016, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) launched the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House of Representatives. The caucus describes its mission as educating members on "economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and public safety." The caucus has been adding dozens of members in Republican-Democratic pairs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress Climate History - Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress has debated climate change for nearly 30 years with varying results. Laws and congressionally approved funding have led to new programs to reduce emissions and incentives to speed the deployment of clean energy. Other efforts to address climate change more holistically, including by using market-based approaches, have not advanced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond.

Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.

This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward.

How is Climate Change Measured?

Although we can't look at thermometers going back thousands of years, we do have some records that help us figure out what temperatures and concentrations were like in the distant past. For example, trees store information about the climate in the place where they live. Each year, trees grow thicker and form new rings. In warmer and wetter years, the rings are thicker. Old trees and wood can tell us about conditions hundreds or even several thousands of years ago.

Keys to the past are also buried under lakes and oceans. Pollen, creatures, and particles fall to the bottom of oceans and lakes each year, forming sediments. Sediments preserve all these bits and pieces, which contain a wealth of information about what was in the air and water when they fell. Scientists reveal this record by inserting hollow tubes into the mud to collect sediment layers going back millions of years.

For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill cores through the Earth's polar ice sheets. Tiny bubbles trapped in the gas are actually pieces of the Earth's past atmosphere, frozen in time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Computer models help scientists to understand the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns. Models also allow scientists to make predictions about the future climate. Basically, models simulate how the atmosphere and oceans absorb energy from the sun and transport it around the globe. Factors that affect the amount of the sun's energy reaching Earth's surface are what drive the climate in these models, as in real life. These include things like greenhouse gases, particles in the atmosphere (such as from volcanoes), and changes in energy coming from the sun itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years, global warming has been the subject of a great deal of political controversy. As scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond. Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Trajectory

Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound

The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones. Credit: left - Mike McMillan/USFS, center - Tomas Castelazo / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0, right - NASA.

Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth's climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.

Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.

" The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change - modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

A Degree of Difference

So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?

Read more

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900. The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.

What's the difference between climate change and global warming?

"Global warming" refers to the long-term warming of the planet. "Climate change" encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet, including rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.

detailed answer

The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

" The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future." ²

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Future Effects in the U.S.

U.S. Regional Effects

U.S. Regional Effects

Climate change is bringing different types of challenges to each region of the country. Some of the current and future impacts are summarized below. These findings are from the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Is it too late to prevent climate change?

Humans have caused major climate changes to happen already, and we have set in motion more changes still. However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.

detailed answer

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose increasing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not cost- or risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed by a changing climate. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of peak flows in rivers and streams are reducing water supplies and worsening competing demands for water. Sea level rise, erosion, flooding, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire incidence and severity, heat waves, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread forest die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region's economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also worsen a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Climate change has caused increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks. In turn, these changes have made wildfires more numerous and severe. The warming climate has also caused a decline in water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, and triggered heat-related health impacts in cities. In coastal areas, flooding and erosion are additional concerns.

References
References
Header image shows cracked mud stretches across sections of the Panamint Valley. Credit: NPS/Kurt Moses; A degree of concern thermometer image credit: Pixabay/geralt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
intergovernmental panel on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Long-term effects of global climate change in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change impacts nature and people. Explore the most dangerous consequences of climate change like higher temperatures and changing landscape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overall Rank
(1 = Greenest)

City

Total Score

'Environment' Rank

'Transportation' Rank

'Energy Sources' Rank

'Lifestyle & Policy' Rank

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Cities should invest in going green for the following reasons:

Going green means that cities invest in green infrastructure, which reduces storm water runoff, reducing the severity of flooding events, and increases water quality in streams and rivers;

The greenest cities, such as Seattle, are cities that have progressive and innovative companies. These companies attract the best and the brightest, and these employees desire to work with companies that are the most sustainable and willing to reduce their environmental footprint. Also, greener buildings tend to encourage employee performance and reduce absenteeism.
What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck?
Investments in energy conservation produce the fastest return. For example, changing to LED lighting can reduce a company's energy expenses by one quarter. At my university we found that changing to LED lighting in the Parking Decks produced a savings of over $300,000.

How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses?

First, by supporting higher education programs, community colleges and apprentice programs at technical schools that can produce an educated workforce for many high-tech green businesses. Green businesses require the need for workers in everything from green infrastructure to wind turbine and solar panel installers. Also, the most innovative businesses are the ones built on technology and sustainability, and they need employees who can problem-solve and understand systems thinking. Second, communities can use their zoning laws and building codes to encourage buildings to be more energy efficient, and to transition to affordable renewable energy. They can do something as simple as giving a "fast track" to developers who are interested in building more sustainable communities. Generally, people want to live in these types of communities, as they are characterized by good building design, land use diversity, and open green space.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

It is hard to determine at this time, but our environmental protection laws are mandated and many states will pick up the enforcement of these laws if the Federal government falters in its mandate.

What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?

Reducing their individual waste through the proper purchasing of food. Food waste is an issue in the United States, even at a time where there can be food insecurity. Also, each of us can determine to be more energy and water-use efficient. While individuals seek a better environment and better use of scarce resources, certain incentives can be provided that motivates them to be less wasteful. For instance, we can offer renters a reduced rent if they save energy and water use.

In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

Reduction of carbon emissions;

Maintaining green open spaces and green infrastructure;

Development of a strong green business sector;

Development of strong collaborations between business, education, and communities.

Whether a city has a sustainability or green office that can provide vision and lead green initiatives.

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Yes. Benefits include:

Lower costs for water treatment;

Protection against flooding;

Cleaner air;

Better and more human-spaced recreational and social opportunities.

What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck?

Preserving and enhancing tree canopy (stop cutting off most mature trees; add large shade trees along streets and in parking structures). This leads to a much better social environment, a more comfortable city temperature wise (for we Southern folk), and better air quality.

How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses?

Some of it is simply making installation of renewables more economic, providing legal standards which spur renewable growth in a state, i.e., adopting net metering policies and construction policies. Usually the companies follow where the business/customers are.

In terms of green businesses generally, in addition to the local tax implications, these companies tend to look more towards cities with what Richard Florida termed "the creative class" -- generally socially liberal, walkable human scale cities with good public transit.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

Possible slowing of new air standards and killing the Clean Power Plan means air won't improve as quickly as needed, endangering health and adding costs for cities. Killing waters of the United States rules means more wetlands will be lost, which provide flood control and water purification for cities. Less enforcement (less money in the budget) means city populations will be exposed to more health risks through air and water (such as the superfund breaches that occurred from Hurricane Harvey in Houston).

What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?

Best thing of all is to walk or bike more. This helps reduce air pollution and increase the cardiovascular health of the population. Best way to do this is to start small (and easy) -- just decide one instance per week (or day) where you will walk instead of drive (to go to dry cleaners, grocery shopping, to go to dinner, etc.).

Use less bottled water. Invest in water purification at home if worried about tap water;

Adjust thermostat when not home to use less energy.
In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?
Good, well used and extensive public transit;

Walkability (easy to navigate by pedestrians, i.e., wide sidewalks, stores at ground level, etc.);

Extensive and connected separate bike trails that can interconnect with transit and connect employment and residential centers;

Widely accessible public park spaces.

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Absolutely, and I don't want to make the common mistake of burying the lede here. Cities should invest in going green because it is essential for human health and the environment. Green projects of various types can reduce air and water pollution that cause real health problems, and even reduce the impacts of climate change. This is all good for the lives of a city's residents in that it protects their health and makes the natural environment within their city more enjoyable. It is also good because it has waves that ripple outwards to improve the health of people further afield, and to improve environmental conditions in wildlands beyond a city's borders.

I say that I don't want to make the common mistake of burying the lede because many commenters might start by reminding that green investments are not just investments in human and environmental health for their own sake, but that they are in fact good economic investments. Green cities are more attractive, more productive, and more livable. All of this can bring significant economic benefits. That's very real, and very significant, but to my mind it is secondary to the preservation of life.

What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck?

Urban greening can include planting trees, improving the ecology in existing parks and open spaces, protecting watersheds that provide drinking water, increasing clean and renewable energy generation, and using less dirty energy. All of these have important benefits -- including economic benefits -- to recommend them, but investments in energy efficiency and clean renewable energy are among the most economically sensible. When cities reduce their energy use, for instance, by converting their own vehicle fleets to more efficient or cleaner fuels, they first save money by saving fuel. Next, they get the environmental benefits of less pollution locally and, in the aggregate with other thoughtful cities and countries, less pollution, including climate pollution, globally.

A city can, for example, switch its vehicle fleet to electric fuel. The benefits of this are real, but limited, when the primary source of electricity is coal. But if cities are relying more on solar, wind, or even natural gas, the costs can be significantly lower and the environmental benefits are many.

How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses?

Attracting renewable energy and other green business companies doesn't take too much creativity because this sector is already booming. But there is a balance between sending signals and designing policy that will make your city the most attractive to these innovative companies. First, it is important that cities demonstrate a real commitment to environmental protection. This may not seem obvious on its face; in fact, showing a real commitment often means having real, enforceable, legal safeguards in place. In other words: environmental regulations.

The common knowledge is that regulations keep businesses away. But law also sends important signals about the priorities of a community and helps to shape those priorities. Green entrepreneurs want to know that they are in a city, in a market, where the policymakers and the people are interested in their products and services. Laws demonstrate this interest and, when they are well crafted and meaningful, help to build the interest even more strongly among the public. But the laws do need to be well crafted. It is important for states and local governments to work together on this sort of progress. In New York State, for instance, there has been tremendous excitement for more solar power. New York is succeeding in this effort, but people there have realized that some local governments don't yet have the legal infrastructure to really capitalize on the growing demand.

Planning and zoning laws at the local level sometimes need updating to fully embrace smart solar development. By working together at the state and local level, green investments will go the extra mile.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

While things look so positive at the local level, the same is not true at the federal level. To put it bluntly, President Trump's Environmental Protection Agency has been working hard to undo a generation of important environmental protections. Pollution does not obey political boundaries, so even when one city or state makes an effort to go green, the health and environmental benefits can quickly disappear if neighbors, or even those on the other side of the country, continue to spew pollutants. By way of example, the EPA was working for a decade, in the Bush and Obama administrations, to craft a strong rule to prevent pollution from one state blowing into a "downwind" state and impacting that state's air quality. This effort has focused on a market-oriented cap, and a trade program that looks at the level of pollution in upwind and downwind states, sets a cap in the upwind states, and then lets coal plants trade allowances to remain under the cap. The Trump Administration has, however, been working hard to increase coal mining and burning, which undermines this decade of hard work and, more importantly, the environmental health of cities.

The good news is that the Trump Administration has been so outspokenly cavalier about its disinterest in environmental protection that many cities see a political benefit in coming to the rescue. Local efforts alone simply will not solve large-scale environmental problems. With that said, in an effort to counteract Trump's pro-pollution bravado, we may see some good short-term progress from municipal leadership.

What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?

The primary burden for environmental protection shouldn't come down to individuals. Environmental problems are complex, global, and largely the responsibility of a few key industries. Federal leadership is the place to start, and we have to remember this, lest individuals begin to feel hopeless about their own ability to make change. While purchasing decisions and daily habits are important, they are only a small part of the overall solution. We should not let polluters, who stand to make a lot of money from continued pollution, fool us into thinking that the best way to address environmental problems is primarily through individual action, thereby reducing the burden that should land on the big polluters themselves. Having said that, there are a few things that we can do differently.

The one with the biggest impact is eating less meat. Meat production is a major contributor to climate change and water pollution. So just cutting down on beef and pork in particular is a good start. We can also walk more and drive less. Not only does this reduce car pollution, it makes us healthier and, as long as the weather is nice, happier!

In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

Health, public excitement and access, and global impacts are key pieces of any smart city. To that end, the following five urban strategies are the best indicators of green cities:

Affordable and extensive public transit;

Accessible, interesting, and diverse open space;

Safe and well managed water supply;

Thoughtful planning and zoning laws with meaningful opportunity for public engagement;

The presence of a climate change action plan with timelines, enforceable standards, and a process for review and updating.

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Multiple studies have shown that environmental regulations more than pay for themselves. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1970 has a more than 10 to one benefit-cost ratio. These benefits take the form of:

Improved health (and lower medical costs) for citizens;

The spurring of innovations (some regulated companies reported that regulations have allowed them to save money by switching technologies);

The creation of jobs related to environmental protection.

There are also savings from avoided costs associated with pollution (water pollution is the best example of this) and increased resilience (note Houston -- poor planning led to the hurricane being far more damaging). Finally, renewable energy creates far more jobs than the fossil fuel industry for the same kWh. As I am sure you know, there are a slew of jobs in the renewable energy sector now and this is going to keep accelerating.
What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck?

This depends on the city. Cities with insecure water should invest in their water infrastructure and protecting the watershed they depend on. Coastal cities would do well to be a model in reducing greenhouse gases, and improve their building codes to plan for flooding. Cities where smog is a problem should aggressively pursue electric vehicles and renewable electric generation, which is proving to be cheaper than fossil generation in many cases. The Puente gas plant in CA was rejected just today because solar and storage will be cheaper, even without subsidies.

How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses?

This is a chicken and the egg problem, but studies have found that educated people, who can choose where they live, choose cities with clean environments and access to green space. They also choose cities with greater diversity, but that is another topic. In order to attract renewable energy companies, it helps to have laws promoting green energy, such as renewable portfolio standards, so generators will know their energy will be sold. They also need an educated populace, since many of these companies need engineers, lawyers, and finance professionals with experience in the renewable energy sector.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

By removing regulations -- such as building standard regulations related to floods, or energy efficiency standards, or safety standards/regulation -- cities will be less well prepared for catastrophes, and will be less resilient to climate change;

Blocking the Clean Power Plan will make the air dirtier, will make the energy system less resilient, and will cost jobs. This isn't just for cities but this affects cities of course;

Going backwards on reducing greenhouse gases will impact all coastal cities.
What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?
One really easy way to help the environment is to time when you use optional electricity to correspond to periods of low demand and high supply. If possible, run the dishwasher or laundry machine or clothes dryer while the sun is high and take advantage of solar power, or at night when wind power kicks in. There is high demand for electricity at 8pm. The more people can avoid using electricity in the evenings, the less generating capacity needs to be built.

If it makes sense for your family, drive an electric car.

In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

Pedestrian/bicycle friendliness.

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Cities should try to promote healthy, productive environments for their citizens. They should try to conserve resources and construct cityscapes that people want to live in, now and in the future. In many cases, they can do all of these things by drawing on research on how to improve the environment. In some cases, they can even accomplish all these things with little -- or even no -- cost to the city itself. For instance, in some cases, "green" infrastructure is actually more cost-effective than traditional -- sometimes called "gray" -- infrastructure. Municipal water management is the classic example of this.

Does this mean that cities should market themselves as "green" cities? Maybe -- doing so can often pay dividends in improved tourism and increased attractiveness to investment and new residents. It can also provide the basis for partnerships with other like-minded cities, as has happened with hundreds of cities and counties that joined the " We Are Still In " climate change network, pledging to reduce carbon emissions after President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. For other cities, however, particularly in red states, identifying themselves as "green" cities can actually create political pushback. So identifying a city as a "green" city is ultimately a political choice. Fortunately, any city can invest in the quality of its citizens' environments, with or without calling itself a "green city."

What policies or investment offer the biggest bang for the buck?

I can think of at least four types of policies that offer significant return on investment for most cities. Two of these -- air pollution policies and the creation of urban green spaces -- create such significant benefits that they are often worth the investment on the front end, and two -- green infrastructure investments and eco-taxes -- require little or no up-front capital investment from the municipality.

Air pollution policies -- if the city's goal is to reduce harm to their citizens from environmental risks, the biggest bang for their investment is often in policies that manage air pollution. That's because air pollution is the greatest environmental hazard not only around the world, but also for most Americans: over 200,000 Americans are likely to die from air pollution in the next year, and much of that comes from sources that can be affected by local and municipal policies. A nice thing about air pollution policy is that, with good public communication, it provides an opportunity for buy-in across political lines. Many interventions have a very positive cost-to-benefit ratio. And no one likes people to die from heart disease, cancer, and respiratory disease -- all of which can be caused or aggravated by bad air quality. Although children, the elderly, and the poor often bear a disproportionate burden from bad air, air pollution is also an important killer of the wealthy and the middle-aged. In most urban areas, the biggest contributor to air pollution is transportation. The environmental impacts of transportation are also exacerbated by the fact that there tend to be more people in the most congested areas, which also tend to be the most polluted. It's tempting to respond to traffic by building more roads. But modern research suggests that more roads actually encourage more traffic. As a result, even hugely expensive roadway expansions typically fail to substantially reduce traffic. Instead of allocating resources towards new road building projects, cities should typically tackle traffic -- and the pollution it causes -- by getting cars off the road. There are a number of strategies here, including investing in public transit; creating limited-access or pedestrian zones in downtown areas; and making pedestrian and bike lanes safer and thus more attractive. Big, flashy alternative-transit projects -- like San Francisco's Central Subway, or Seattle's light rail -- often get substantial press. This can be valuable for a city who is trying to build a reputation as a green destination, or for cities whose citizens already strongly value environmental reputation. But there are also reasonably-priced public transit opportunities for cities who have less to invest. Basically, the key is to establish transit lines on the highest-need routes: generally, where they will connect a lot of people to a lot of jobs. As a rule of thumb, for example, expensive parking can be a good indicator of where it's most effective to provide transit. While creating so-called "grade-separated" routes -- routes that run on a viaduct or in a tunnel -- can increase ridership, doing so can be politically and financially expensive, and it is not an absolute requirement for an effective transit system. If the routes chosen are good ones, even a few buses can get a significant number of cars off the roads. Fortunately, there are now a number of resources available for cities trying to make decisions about how and where to invest in transit -- see Making Effective Fixed-Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success. On average, research suggests that communities see $4 in benefit for each $1 they invest in mass transit.

Green spaces -- the creation of urban green spaces creates environmental, health, and community benefits that permeate across socioeconomic groups, and which can spread into the far future. Effective urban green spaces reduce air pollution and the "urban heat island" effect; help provide permeable surfaces that soak up urban runoff; provide recreational opportunities that promote a healthy lifestyle; provide opportunities for community and social engagement; can highlight native flora and provide important habitats for native fauna; and provide quantifiable improvements in quality of life. Even six minutes of looking at trees, for example, has been found to detectably reduce urban dwellers' stress hormones. In a recent report, the World Health Organization found that the most effective urban green space interventions are "park-based interventions combined with social promotion activities" and "greening interventions," which include planting trees next to streets; greening vacant lots; and the types of green infrastructure projects described below. Economic analyses of the impact of parks on property values often estimate between $4 and $11 of benefit per $1 invested, in the form of increased property values.

Green infrastructure -- another key category of investment is green infrastructure. Green infrastructure investments often pay for themselves in savings from traditional (or "gray") infrastructure, and/or can be structured as conditions for development. Cost-effective green infrastructure practices include promoting green roofs; planting trees and shrubs; permeable pavement; and water harvesting. Even where up-front capital is unavailable, these strategies can often be furthered at minimal initial cost to the municipality by providing development incentives. Chicago, for example, has been very effective incentivizing green roofs by prioritizing applications with green roofs, and by allowing developers to increase the number of units they may build in exchange for building a green roof in the city. Relatedly, EPA has identified a series of highly cost-effective strategies for reducing stormwater costs through Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and policies.

Eco-taxes -- a final category of cost-effective policy intervention is the eco-tax. Eco-taxes are taxes on products or behaviors that cause environmental harm. When they are set at optimal levels, eco-taxes can force individuals to take account of any harm they are causing to the community or the environment by their actions. As a result, eco-taxes can both reduce costs and, in some cases, generate funds for further environmental investment. Fuel taxes, which are typically set by states (but in some cases also by cities), are one example. Another -- and one within the authority of more municipalities -- is a tax on plastic bags. One reasonable estimate suggests that, for each new plastic bag a consumer uses, it causes an average of 11 cents in environmental harm. Most of that has to be paid by local municipalities, who must fix the problems that come up when some of those bags end up as litter, in municipal water supplies, or incorrectly recycled. And then at least two cents of cost accrue in global harm from climate change, mostly from producing the energy needed to make and distribute the bag. This means that, without a plastic bag policy, cities (and to some extent the whole world) end up "holding the bag" for the costs of plastic bag use. Implementation of eco-taxes need not be complicated to administer: for bags, for example, fees can be imposed at the point of sale, and consumers can choose for themselves whether to pay for the harm their bag use causes. Eco-taxes like bag fees provide incentives for people to consider their impact on the environment, and can help cities manage their costs while producing environmental benefits.
What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?
I think the biggest long-term impact of the Trump administration's policies will come through reduced federal support for environmental research. Less funding for environmental research is bad news for cities, who often depend upon this research to know which policy interventions are most effective and/or most cost-effective. Few cities have the resources to invest heavily in basic environmental research on their own.

What should cities do until or unless the federal government recommits to funding and making basic research available again? Their best options are to do what they can with existing research; to encourage their states to invest, where possible, in locally-important research; to pull on international resources (like those created by the World Health Organization and the European Union); and to work on relationship-building with similarly-situated entities around the country and the world.

Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

Absolutely, cities should certainly invest in going green. Adopting a path toward greening can not only result in a host of economic and environmental benefits, but can also make cities more sustainable and resilient against climate change and extreme weather events. As the infrastructure in a city ages, there is a pressing need to repair and/or replace outdated and less efficient infrastructure to keep up with the needs of the city.

Furthermore, older infrastructure is sometimes more expensive to operate and maintain, making newer infrastructure an attractive, economically efficient option. Using green infrastructure can overcome these issues and provide a long-term solution that is not only aesthetically pleasing, but also economically beneficial. Investments in making cities green can reduce or reverse some of the adverse human influences on natural systems, and help regenerate some of the green spaces, ground water reserves, and improve the overall environmental health of a city. Apart from the direct benefits, there are a wide range of other benefits, such as attracting investments and talented/educated workforce that can boost a city.

What policies or investments offer the biggest bang for the buck?

Research and development investments and green energy options and policies tend to provide the highest returns. However, it is difficult to pinpoint a single strategy as the most efficient; each city is at a different stage of development, and thus the "green solutions" that could be most beneficial for a particular city may not yield the same benefits for another. The needs of cities will vary wildly depending on environment, population and location, and thus each case must be considered individually. For example, in the New York-New Jersey area, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are an important issue, as they can potentially dump toxic wastes, sewage, and industrial wastewater into local water systems. Implementing green infrastructure solutions to address this problem could be extremely beneficial from a stormwater management perspective, and could reduce the strain on water treatment plants.

CSOs, however, are not common in other areas of the country, so green systems to address these problems may be much less helpful in other areas. However, since cities are all huge energy users, reducing energy consumption can be a priority for any city; using smart systems that switch off when facilities or office spaces are not in use can lead to substantial cost and energy savings at an aggregate level.

How can state and local authorities attract renewable energy companies and other green businesses?

By taking into account their natural and spatial advantages, state and local authorities can prioritize certain renewable energy sector companies by offering them well-targeted incentives and prioritizing local technology implementation. Providing a supportive environment and human capital is the key. For example, with a considerable coastline, authorities in the New Jersey administration can evaluate the potential for offshore wind energy development and design policies that attract companies to invest in the region that will not only generate employment opportunities, but also diversify the state's energy portfolio. Similarly, some cities might have specific advantages for solar energy due to high sunlight intensity, and accordingly micro and macro level projects can be encouraged to boost the regional solar energy industry.

What effect might recent changes at the EPA during the Trump administration have on the environmental health of cities?

It is not fully clear how the recent changes might impact the health of cities. However, budgetary cuts will certainly restrict the monitoring and enforcement capabilities of the EPA; specific programs could be streamlined or shut down due to inadequacy of resources. Such factors could expose the public to health issues, but the impacts are likely to be very different across the country and also the community. Minority populations, or economically weaker sections may face higher exposure to these risks in the face of a system with poorer regulatory and enforcement frameworks. In addition, reducing funding for research could result in a slowdown in innovation and technological advancement over the next few years.

Yet, this also presents an opportunity for the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and even private individuals who believe in the importance of sustainability to enhance efforts both through greater action and information dissemination. Even after the government's announcement regarding withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, there were several industry leaders and organizations that voiced their disagreement. As such, we can hold ourselves to higher standards and strive to make our businesses more environmentally friendly. Several businesses see value in doing so, as it allows them to secure their organizations from risks emanating from potential supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, as more and more millennials enter the workforce, it will become imperative for organizations to espouse the value systems that their employees believe in, which can nudge them to adopt practices that are better for the environment.

What are some easy ways individuals can go green without much cost or effort?

From an individual perspective, one has several options. Smart energy consumption, reducing wastage of water, using public transportation whenever possible, driving lesser overall, more sustainable food choices including locally grown products, recycling and reducing trash, choosing a "repair-and-reuse" vs. a "use-discard-replace" lifestyle, reducing the use of plastics, and consuming environmentally friendlier items are all small things that come at a low cost or effort.

In evaluating the most green cities, what are the top five indicators?

Several organizations have performed detailed analysis on green cities. In my opinion, the top 5 indicators for green cities would be:

Clean, safe water and treatment of wastewater;

Recycling and efficient waste management;

Efficient energy consumption for built infrastructure, such as residential and commercial buildings;

A well-developed and time-efficient public transportation network. Some of the other important factors that contribute to making cities green would be improving air quality, reducing the per-capita CO2 emissions and reducing per capita waste, and thereby pressure on landfills and other waste management practices.

Was this article helpful?

Awesome! Thanks for your feedback.

Thank you for your feedback.

This information is really helpful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overall Rank (1 = Greenest) City Total Score 'Environment' Rank 'Transportation' Rank 'Energy Sources' Rank 'Lifestyle & Policy' Rank Should cities invest in going green? What are the benefits?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the first municipal dump program in 500 B.C. to a revolutionary idea in 2014 that could lead to plastics recycling themselves (actually not as outlandish as crediting dinosaurs for recycling), we've compiled a timeline of the most important events in recycling history.

500 B.C.

Athens organizes the first municipal dump program in the western world. Local laws dictate that waste must be disposed of at least one mile from the city walls. And we think we have it rough today having to drag it out to the curb...

1031

Japan begins the first ever recorded reuse of waste paper. All of the documents and paper are recycled and re-pulped into new paper then sold in local Staples across the country. And by "Staples" we mean local mom and pop shops.

1690

The recycled paper manufacturing process is introduced. The Rittenhouse Mill near Philadelphia will make paper from fiber derived from recycled cotton and linen rags.

1776

As America declares its independence from the English, rebels turn to recycling to provide material to fight the War of Independence.

1865

The Salvation Army is founded in London, England and begins collecting, sorting and recycling unwanted goods. The Household Salvage Brigades employ the unskilled poor to recover discarded materials. The organization and its program migrated to the United States in the 1890's.

1897

New York City creates a materials recovery facility where trash is sorted at "picking yards" and separated into various grades of paper, metals, and carpet. Burlap bags, twine, rubber and even horse hair are also sorted for recycling and reuse.

1900'S

Recycling advocates and reuse programs embrace the phrase "Waste as Wealth" to describe the revenue to be earned from sorting and reselling items found in household trash.

1904

The first American aluminum can recycling plants open in Chicago and Cleveland.

1916 To 1918

Due to massive shortages of raw materials during World War I, the Federal government creates the Waste Reclamation Service with the motto "Don't Waste Waste - Save It."

1930'S

Many people survive the Great Depression by peddling scraps of metal, rags and other items.

1940

Goods such as nylon, rubber and many metals are rationed and recycled to help support the war effort.

1955

The August 1st issue of Life magazine offers a two-page article on "Throwaway Living." Consumers are progressively sold on the idea that single-use items are a necessity of the modern lifestyle.

Ease and convenience become the two most desirable qualities in product marketing, inevitably leading to parks, forests and highways becoming littered with garbage.

1964

The all-aluminum can is introduced. Recognizing the value of used aluminum cans as a raw material for making new cans, the aluminum industry will soon begin creating a massive system for recycling and redeeming used beverage containers.

1965 To 1970

The Mobius Loop is introduced as the symbol for Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In the form of a Mobius strip, the symbol was designed by Gary Anderson after a Chicago-based recycled-container company sponsored an art contest to raise environmental awareness.

1970

The first Earth Day brings national attention to the problem of increasing waste and the importance of recycling. Earth Day was founded in the U.S by U.S Senator Gaylord Nelson and globally by entrepreneur John McConnell. Now, Earth Day is supported by over 192 countries on April 22nd.

Every year over 1,000,000,000 people and almost every school-aged child takes part in annual Earth Day celebrations to promote conserving our environment by protecting, recycling, cleaning and innovating.

1971

The first "Bottle Bill" is born: Oregon introduces a refundable deposit (a nickel) on beer and soda bottles as an incentive to recycle. Canadian Government established the Department of Environment, commonly referred to as Environment Canada.

1972

The first recycling mill is built in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Beverage container recycling regulations were first introduced province-wide in Alberta, Canada.

1974

University City, MO becomes one of the first municipalities in the country to offer Curbside Recycling to its residents

Non-profit organization "Is Five" organizes Canada's first multi-material curbside pickup in The Beaches neighbourhood located on the east side of Toronto which encompassed 80,000 households.

1976

The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is enacted to close open dumps, create standards for landfills, incinerators and the disposal of hazardous waste.

1981

Woodbury, New Jersey becomes the first city in the US to mandate recycling.

1983

The first Canadian "blue box" curbside recycling project is implemented in Kitchener/Waterloo with 1,500 residents participating.

1986

A second municipal blue box recycling program was started in Mississauga, Ontario. It is considered to be the largest recycling initiative in North America.

1987

A garbage-laden barge called The Mobro cruised up and down the East Coast of the U.S. looking for a place to unload. This sparked a public discussion about waste management and served as a catalyst for the country's growing recycling movement.

1988

The number of curbside recycling programs in the US increases to about 1,050.

1990

McDonald's stops using Styrofoam containers. The 20th-anniversary theme for Earth Day is recycling.

1991

Germany made history when it passed an ordinance shifting responsibility for the entire life cycle of packaging to producers.

1992

Total number of curbside programs in the US grows to a total of 5,404, a growth of 4,354 programs in only 4 years!

1995

Americans recycle a record 47.6 billion soft drink containers, an increase of 500 million over the previous year. Aluminum cans are recycled at a rate of 63% in the U.S. with the highest state-wide rate in California at 80%.

There are more than 10,000 recycling centers nationwide and at least 4,000 curbside collection programs.

U.S. collection grows from 1.2 billion cans in 1972 to more than 62 billion cans in 1995 through curbside recycling programs and more than 10,000 recycling centers.

1996

The U.S. recycles at a rate of 25 percent; EPA sets a new goal of 35 percent. Meanwhile in Germany, Elopak and SINTEF team up to sell the first infra-red sorting machine.

2000

The EPA confirms a link between global warming and waste, showing that reducing our garbage and recycling cuts down greenhouse gas emissions.

2006

Dell Computer begins offering a free recycling service for their products-no additional purchases required-sparking the movement of E-waste recycling.

2007

Five states pass laws requiring that unwanted electronics be recycled. San Francisco becomes the first U.S. city to prohibit the distribution of plastic bags by grocery stores.

2012

More than 585 million pounds of consumer electronics are recycled-an increase of 125 million pounds (more than 25 percent) over 2011.

2014

A new class of industrial polymers discovered by researchers from IBM may revolutionize materials technology. The newly-discovered materials are exceptionally strong and light, and could find use in a wide variety of applications.

One of the most remarkable properties of one of these new materials is the ability to repair itself. When pieces are severed apart, and then placed in close proximity to each other, the segments begin to "self-heal," reforming molecular bonds within a matter of seconds.

Scientists believe this may be the ultimate answer to drastically reducing waste. We believe that, although excited at the idea, we`ll believe it when we see it!

2015

California enacts the first ever state-wide ban on plastic bags in grocery and convenience stores.

2016

A team of Japanese scientists discovered a species of bacteria that eats plastics commonly found in water bottles. The ideonella sakainesis secretes an enzyme that turns the PET to generate an intermediate chemical which is taken up by the cell, then broken down even further giving the bacteria carbon and energy to grow!

2017

An engineer at Stanford and her team have come up with a new semiconductor that is not only as flexible as skin but is also biodegradable. This new tech could help drastically decrease e-waste in the future.

Considering that the almost 50 million tons of e-waste have been thrown out so far in 2017, a 20% increase from 2015, this is very much a welcome discovery!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief Timeline of the History of Recycling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From the first municipal dump program in 500 B.C. to a revolutionary idea in 2014 that could lead to plastics recycling themselves (actually not as outlandish as crediting dinosaurs for recycling), we've compiled a timeline of the most important events in recycling history. Athens organizes the first municipal dump program in the western world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Go Green Campaigns and Go Green Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The increasing number of environmentally conscious consumers brings about more go green campaigns and a go green movement along with solutions. This gives ordinary people and corporations the opportunity to choose to make this planet a better place to stay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fridays 9:00AM Pacific Time
(Also listen to Past Episodes)
Hosted by: Jill Buck

Please be advised Telemarketing Scam

Please be advised that our organization is being victimized by telemarketers who are using our name fraudulently. We have filed a formal complaint with the FTC. If you receive a call from telemarketers claiming to represent the Go Green Initiative, please report them to the FTC by calling toll-free at 877-382-4357.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Go Green Initiative - Helping the World Go Green

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fridays 9:00AM Pacific Time (Also listen to Past Episodes) Hosted by: Jill Buck Please be advised Telemarketing Scam Please be advised that our organization is being victimized by telemarketers who are using our name fraudulently. We have filed a formal complaint with the FTC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PROTECTING DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES

Composting of manure is of special interest in watersheds that supply drinking water to cities, such as those that serve New York. The parasites Giardia lamblia (beaver fever) and Cryptosporidium parvum cause illness in humans and are shed through animal manure, especially young stock. These organisms are very resistant in the environment and are not killed by chlorination. Composting of manure, however, is an economical option that kills the pathogen and protects drinking water.

Composted material is less bulky than the original material, and easier and more pleasant to handle. During the composting process, carbon dioxide and water are lost to the atmosphere and the size of the pile decreases by 30-60%. In addition, many weed seeds and disease-causing organisms may be killed by the high temperatures in the pile. Unpleasant odors are eliminated. Flies, a common problem around manures and other organic wastes, are much less of a problem with composts. Composting reduces or eliminates the decline in nitrogen availability that commonly occurs when organic materials, such as sawdust or straw, are added directly to soil. Composting is also very useful for recycling kitchen wastes, leftover crop residues, weeds, and manures. Many types of local organic waste, such as apple pumice, lake weeds, leaves, and grass clippings, can be composted.

There is evidence that compost application lowers the incidence of plant root and leaf diseases, as mentioned. In addition, the chelates and the direct hormonelike chemicals present in compost stimulate the growth of healthy plants. Then there are the positive effects on soil physical properties that are derived from improving soil organic matter. These are some of the broad benefits to plant growth that are attributed to compost.

If you have a large amount of organic waste but not much land, composting may be very helpful and may create a valuable commercial product that improves farm profitability. Also, since making compost decreases the solubility of nutrients, composting may help lessen pollution in streams, lakes, and groundwater. On many poultry farms and on beef feedlots, where high animal populations on limited land may make manure application a potential environmental problem, composting may be the best method for handling the wastes. Composted material, with about half the bulk and weight of manure, and a higher commercial value, can be economically transported significant distances to locations where nutrients are needed. In addition, the high temperatures and biological activity during the composting process can help to decrease antibiotic levels in manures, which can be taken up by crops growing on manured land. Compost can also be stored easily, so it can be applied when soil and weather conditions are optimal.

The reasons for composting and using composts need to be balanced by good practices such as locating the pile to minimize runoff and possible pollution of surface waters. Compost piles may produce odors when turned, so it's best to site piles away from where neighbors might get a more powerful whiff than they'd like. Composting in dry regions or under cover may produce composts that contain relatively high levels of salts, and you may need to apply them at lower rates to avoid damaging plants.

Without denying the good reasons to compost, there are frequently very good reasons to just add organic materials directly to the soil, without composting. Compared with fresh residues, composts may not stimulate as much production of the sticky gums that help hold aggregates together. Also, some uncomposted materials have more nutrients readily available to feed plants than do composts. If your soil is very deficient in fertility, plants may need readily available nutrients from residues. Routine use of compost as a nitrogen source may cause high soil phosphorus levels to develop, because of the relatively low N:P ratio. Finally, more labor and energy usually are needed to compost residues than to simply apply the uncomposted residues directly.

Using Composts | Top | Summary and Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PROTECTING DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES Composting of manure is of special interest in watersheds that supply drinking water to cities, such as those that serve New York. The parasites Giardia lamblia (beaver fever) and Cryptosporidium parvum cause illness in humans and are shed through animal manure, especially young stock.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Quality Visual Inspection Fact Sheet

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions
http://lsc.cornell.edu/study-skills/cornell-note-taking-system/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wetlands are found in almost every region of the world and are considered the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems. They provide habitat for a great number of water and land species. They are also an important environment to many migratory bird species. Types of wetlands include swamps, bogs, marshes and estuaries. An overview of some the most important wetlands in the world.

The Camargue encompasses the Rhone River delta in the southeast of France. Approximately a third of the Camargue is either lakes or marshland. It is one of the best places in Europe for bird watching. Its brine ponds provide one of the few European habitats for the greater flamingo. It is also famous for the Camargue Bull and the Camargue Horse.

Wasur National Park is a massive wetland region in the Indonesian province of Papua, on the island of New Guinea. Dubbed the Serengeti of Papua owing to its incredible biodiversity, Wasur National Park maintains a large number of rare animals and birds. The best place for spotting wildlife in Wasur National Park is Rawa Biru Lake, which is part of the wetlands. There are many water fowl species and migrant birds here along with cassowaries and wallabies. Unfortunately the park natural flooded grassland systems are threatened by the invasion of alien species such as water hyacinth and mimosa pigra.

The iSimangaliso Wetland Park (previously known as Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park), is one of the most diverse region in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province. iSimangaliso is well known for its extensive wetlands, sand dunes, beaches and coral reefs. Animals occurring on the park include elephants, leopard, black and white rhino, buffalo, and in the ocean, whales, dolphins, and marine turtles.

The Mekong Delta is the region in southern Vietnam where the Mekong River approaches and empties into the sea. It is a very rich and lush area, covered with rice fields, that produces about half of the total of Vietnam's agricultural output. Subsequently, life in the Mekong Delta revolves much around the river, and all the villages are often accessible by river rather than by road.

Kakadu National Park is a diverse park about half the size of Switzerland located in the Northern Territory of Australia. The park's wetlands provide one of the best wildlife viewing opportunities. The freshwater and saltwater crocodiles sleep on the banks of the many rivers and billabongs for most of the day but can also be seen floating or swimming in the water. One of Kakadu's best known landmarks is the Yellow Water billabong. Located near the small settlement of Cooinda, Yellow Water is home to crocodiles, wild horses, buffalo and other wildlife. The billabong, which floods to join other waterways during the tropical season, also attracts millions of migratory birds each year.

The Kerala backwaters are a chain of lagoons and lakes lying parallel to the Arabian Sea coast in the Kerala state in southern India. The network includes five large lakes linked by canals, both manmade and natural, fed by 38 rivers. The backwaters are home to many unique species of aquatic life including crabs, frogs and mudskippers, water birds and animals such as otters and turtles. Today, houseboat tourism is the most popular activity in backwaters, with several large Kettuvallams (traditional rice boats, now converted into floating hotels)ply the waterways.

Located in the state of Florida, The Everglades are a vast, shallow, slow moving river of grass that extends from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay. During the dry season it dries up except for the deeper places. The region is home to over twenty different kinds of birds and hundreds of other species. Many pets have escaped or been released into the Everglades from the surrounding urban areas. Native to southern Asia, the Burmese python is now competing with the American Alligator, the largest reptile in North America, for the top of the food chain. In 2009 agents removed more than 1,200 Burmese pythons from the Everglades National Park.

The Okavango Delta in Botswana is one of the world's great inland waterways. It is formed where the Okavango River empties onto a basin in the Kalahari Desert, where most of the water is lost to evaporation and transpiration instead of draining into the sea. The Okavango delta is famous for its wide variety of wildlife. Species include elephant, hippopotamus, giraffe, crocodile, lion, cheetah, rhinoceros and zebra. The majority of the estimated 200,000 large mammals in and around the delta are not year round residents. They leave with the summer rains and make their way back as winter approaches.

The Sundarbans is the largest littoral mangrove belt in the world spreading across Bangladesh and West Bengal in India. The name Sundarban can be literally translated as "beautiful jungle" in the Bengali language. Several predators dwell in the labyrinth of channels, branches and roots that make up the region including about 500 Bengal tigers. Unlike in other habitats, here tigers live and swim among the mangrove islands, where they hunt prey such as the Chital deer and Wild boar. The tigers do also regularly attack and kill humans who venture into the forest. Some of the reptiles are predators too, including two species of crocodile, the Saltwater Crocodile and Mugger crocodile.

The Pantanal is the world's largest wetland of any kind, lying mostly in Western Brazil but extending into Bolivia and Paraguay as well. Famous for its wildlife, it is one of Brazil's major tourist draw. Unlike many other biologically intense areas, in the Pantanal you are virtually guaranteed to actually see the wildlife. Capybara and the Yacare Caiman are present in the millions. Other mammals such as the endangered Giant River Otter are slightly harder to spot, but still much easier than in the Amazon. The Pantanal is also the best place in all of the Americas to spot a Jaguar in the wild, given the relatively small amount of thick rain forest cover.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wetlands are found in almost every region of the world and are considered the most biologically diverse of all ecosystems. They provide habitat for a great number of water and land species. They are also an important environment to many migratory bird species. Types of wetlands include swamps, bogs, marshes and estuaries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wetlands are some of the most spectacular, most beautiful, tranquil places on Earth. Home to unique plants and trees, they are are truly outstanding places.

Pantanal (Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay)

The Pantanal is one of the largest and best preserved wetlands in the world, covering a total area of 150,000km2. Its complex system of marshlands, floodplains, lagoons and interconnected drainage lines is home to over 658 species of birds, 190 mammals, 50 reptiles, 270 fish species and a truly outstanding 1,132 species of butterflies.

Camargue (France)

This place definitely has a certain je ne sais quoi! The Camargue encompasses the Rhone River delta in the southeast of France. Approximately a third of the Camargue is either lakes or marshland. It is one of the best places in Europe for bird watching. Its brine ponds provide one of the few European habitats for the greater flamingo. It is also famous for the Camargue bull and the Camargue horse.

Wasur National Park, Indonesia

Wasur National Park is a massive wetland region in the Indonesian province of Papua, on the island of New Guinea. Dubbed the Serengeti of Papua owing to its incredible biodiversity, Wasur National Park plays host to a large number of rare animals and birds, especially around Rawa Biru Lake. There are many water fowl species and migrant birds here along with cassowaries and wallabies. Unfortunately the park natural flooded grassland systems are threatened by the invasion of alien species such as water hyacinth and mimosa pigra.

Kakadu Wetlands, Australia

Kakadu National Park is a diverse park about half the size of Switzerland located in the Northern Territory of Australia. The freshwater and saltwater crocodiles sleep on the banks of the many rivers and billabongs for most of the day but can also be seen floating or swimming in the water. One of Kakadu's best known landmarks is the Yellow Water billabong. Located near the small settlement of Cooinda, Yellow Water is home to crocodiles, wild horses, buffalo and other wildlife. The billabong, which floods to join other waterways during the tropical season, also attracts millions of migratory birds each year.

Kerala Backwaters (India)

The Kerala backwaters are a chain of lagoons and lakes lying parallel to the Arabian Sea coast in the Kerala state in southern India. The network includes five large lakes linked by canals, fed by 38 rivers. The backwaters are home to many unique species of aquatic life including crabs, frogs water birds and animals such as otters and turtles. The area is becoming a popular tourist destination with several large Kettuvallams (traditional rice boats now converted into floating hotels) crusing the waterways.

Okavango (Botswana)

This precious jewel of Africa wants your vote. The Okavango Delta is Africa's largest and most beautiful oasis. The river's mighty waters empty over the sands of the Kalahari. The huge Kalahari desert's thirst is locally quenched in a blue-green wilderness of fresh water, with emerald reed beds and towering trees. This brings in wildlife in huge numbers as they take advantage of this massive watering hole.

Kafue (Zambia)

The Kafue Flats are located in central Zambia along the Kafue River. This unique wetland landscape of grasslands, lagoons, marshes, swamps and reed beds covers some 6,500km ². It is one of the major wetlands in water-rich Zambia and is extremely important for wildlife, fishing, cattle-grazing, sugar-cane farming and the production of hydro-electric power.

Everglades (USA)

The Everglades is one of the world's only rain-fed flooded grasslands on limestone and North America's most extensive flooded grassland. This wetland is one of nature's most efficient water treatment systems where plants filter pollutants out of the slow-moving water, delivering cleaner water to the Florida Bay, the Florida Keys, and nearby coral reefs.

Lower Danube and Danube Delta (Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine)

This area boasts the largest reed bed in the world. It also attracts the largest colony of pelicans outside Africa. The Danube delta hosts over 300 species of birds as well as 45 freshwater fish species in its numerous lakes and marshes.

Sundarbans (Bangladesh)

The Sundarbans is the largest mangrove forest in the world. Sundarbans means 'beautiful forests', but the region may also have been named after the large number of Sundari trees that grow in the salty coastal waters. This area is definitely fit for royalty as it is home to possibly the largest population of Royal Bengal tigers in the world.

WWF's work

WWF works in many areas of the world to preserve the Earth's wetlands. Projects focus on protection of these unique habitats, restoration of healthy river systems and the sustainable use of natural resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wetlands are some of the most spectacular, most beautiful, tranquil places on Earth. Home to unique plants and trees, they are are truly outstanding places. The Pantanal is one of the largest and best preserved wetlands in the world, covering a total area of 150,000km2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wetland is a place where the land is covered by water, either salt, fresh or somewhere in between. Marshes and ponds, the edge of a lake or ocean, the delta at the mouth of a river, low-lying areas that frequently flood-all of these are wetlands.

# data[].attributes.body
Design used by Lauren Fry in Cameroon

# data[].attributes.body
You will learn about the challenges faced by developing countries to obtain clean water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Engineers Without Borders - Washington, DC Professional Chapter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nestled in the mountains of the Cameroon's Northwest region, the rural village of Mbokop is home to roughly 2,200 people from three primary tribes speaking three main languages, and following two major religions. The population of Mbokop is spread across five settlements.

# data[].attributes.body
Introductory assignment to accompany Planet Earth:  Fresh Water video.

# data[].attributes.body
EPA Wetlands Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You may need a PDF reader to view files on this page. See EPA's

Although wetlands are often wet, a wetland might not be wet year-round. In fact, some of the most important wetlands are only seasonally wet. Wetlands are the link between the land and the water. They are transition zones where the flow of water, the cycling of nutrients and the energy of the sun meet to produce a unique ecosystem characterized by hydrology, soils and vegetation-making these areas very important features of a watershed.

Introductory Information

Regulatory Information Clean Water Act Section 404

Other Federal, and State, and Local Programs

Planning and Partnerships
About PDF page to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You may need a PDF reader to view files on this page. See EPA's Although wetlands are often wet, a wetland might not be wet year-round. In fact, some of the most important wetlands are only seasonally wet. Wetlands are the link between the land and the water.

# data[].attributes.body
Link to Planet Earth:  Fresh Water video on Discovery Education
You should complete the 2 page worksheet using the notes booklet provided to respond to the "Classroom Connections" and Vocabulary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright © 2018 Discovery Education. All rights reserved. Discovery Education is a subsidiary of Discovery Communications, LLC.

# data[].attributes.body
Project Based Learning Components Outline for Students