Category: Education

Kermit the Frog had a different “green” in mind when he sang the blues about the perils of his amphibian color on Sesame Street. But for many of us, “being Green” in an altogether different way isn’t all that easy either.

These days, what exactly does “Green” mean?

Basically, it means leading more environmentally friendly and ecologically responsible lives, so we protect natural resources, ourselves and the planet. I’m sure by now, most of us have seen, heard, or read about the many ways this can be accomplished: by recycling, using solar energy, electric or hybrid cars, picking up trash, collecting plastics in our waterways, using alternate energy sources instead of fossil fuels, etc.

The long list of “easy” fixes quickly becomes not-so-easy when it comes to details. For example, in building and development, there is a system called LEED, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It’s the most widely used green-building rating system in the world. It’s also used for virtually all building projects, whether commercial, community, or home.

But is it worth it? And does it really work, or matter? As I have found out, most things in life have no clear-cut, black-and-white, yes-or-no answers, and that is true here as well. To get a building or project LEED-certified, there are courses to study, exams to take and proposals to be shown and accepted. If all of that is completed, a building or project will receive a plaque stating it is LEED-certified. The buildings must show certain levels of efficiency in resource usage such as water and electric, and none of this is cheap. The initial cost is $600 just to register and certification fees can range from $2,250 to $22,500 based on the project size. On top of that, complying with all the requirements necessary can add millions of dollars and hours of paperwork to the projects. On the plus side, LEED certification can mean tax breaks, grants, and the ability to charge higher rents.

Being LEED-certified sounds great on paper, but the bottom line is this: as in many things, reality doesn’t always live up to theory’s expectations. While some LEED buildings have shown lower resource usage rates, others have shown rate increases. LEED certification, after all, is based on proposals of anticipated resource use and not actual usage once a building project is completed. Therefore, is it worth it to have your building or project LEED-certified? A definitive answer remains elusive.

As another, more familiar example: Do hybrid cars produce lower emissions than gas-only vehicles? Obviously. Do they get better gas mileage? Sometimes. But it’s not always a significant difference when compared to the price differential of similar models. Total electric cars use no fossil fuels and produce no emissions, which are great assets. However, since there are not enough of them on the road, there isn’t an accurate way to determine the difference in electric consumption a nation of them might make. The same can be said of solar panels. As for recyclables, there is absolutely no argument of any sort that doing this is a bad thing.

Cleaning up our oceans, lakes, and waterways, plus keeping our landfills limited to those items that decompose and can/will/might be used to produce products that will go back into our soil is great. But what portion of these post-consumer materials will be reused in manufacturing? Again, theory is rosier than reality in answering this question. We have been recycling so much and have shipped so much of it to foreign countries, China being the main importer, that we now find ourselves without places to send these materials. China has stopped importing “foreign garbage,” which includes many types of plastics and paper. We also have run out of recycling plants and are now depositing what is and might be recyclable back in landfills. Recycling, however smart and necessary, remains shot through with problems, beginning with the fact that a lot of us don’t understand whether what we throw in the recycling bin is really recyclable.

So where are we in this quagmire? Does “being green” mean there’s reason for hope and change? Or is it all hopey-changey bunk? What you decide depends on your environmental outlook and what you want and expect of and for future generations. It also depends on your pocketbook. The difference in cost between hybrid cars and their gaseous counterparts can take years of driving to recoup, let alone seem significant. The same with LEED-certified buildings, electric cars and solar panels. No, being Green isn’t easy. But here’s my take in black and white: any steps forward in making this planet more sustainable, keeping our precious natural resources for generations to come, is worth whatever it takes.

Since the introduction of e-cigarettes in 2004, their popularity has grown exponentially, especially among teenagers and young adults.

Initially, e-cigarettes were used as a form of smoking cessation therapy. Though they contain nicotine, they do not have the tar and toxic gasses that are associated with combustible cigarettes. E-cigarettes were an innovative way to get people to quit smoking, and they’re easily accessible. But this accessibility introduced young people to e-cigarette use.

For many young people, vaping is an introduction to nicotine and may be a gateway to traditional cigarettes.

Vaping has become rampant and, for experts, the trend is disturbing. The 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey showed staggering increases in middle and high school students using e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). From 2017 to 2018, there was a 78 percent increase in e-cigarette use among high school students and a 48 percent increase among middle school students, reversing the strides made in recent decades in the fight against youth nicotine addiction.

Since vaping is a relatively new technology, there are still questions about the e-cigarette liquid and its long-term effects. We know nicotine harms the developing brain but have little understanding of the potentially damaging ultrafine particles and heavy metals that also are found in e-cigarettes.

With its increase in popularity, there have been multiple regulations in an effort to curb and eventually eradicate vaping in teens and young adults.

In 2014, a law was passed that bans people under age 18 from purchasing and possessing e-cigarettes and other nicotine-dispensing devices, but that did not solve the youth vaping problem.

More recently, a ban on indoor vaping was passed in November. This amendment makes the use of e-cigarettes and other nicotine-dispensing products allowed only in homes, bars, and hotels that permit it, thus treating vaping like cigarette smoking. However, this ban does not address the youth vaping crisis.

The Federal Drug Administration has been tireless in its attempt to keep e-cigarettes and other ENDS out of the hands of young people. A major component of its plan is to curb the marketing of tobacco products aimed at youth. Many purveyors of e-cigarettes and other ENDS have designed marketing campaigns to appeal to teens and young adults. Bright ads and flavored products are created for and aimed at young people to get them addicted to nicotine.

In compliance with the FDA crackdown, Juul, one of the leading manufacturers of e-cigarettes, announced in 2018 that the company will no longer sell its flavored products in retail stores. These products are now only available on Juul’s website to buyers who are over 21. One puff of a Juul has the equivalent amount of nicotine of one pack of cigarettes.

The FDA released its Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation in 2017 and held a public hearing on Jan. 19 to discuss efforts to eliminate the use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products by young people. The FDA proposes a nicotine product standard that would lower the nicotine in cigarettes to a minimally addictive or non-addictive level. This could decrease the chances of future generations becoming addicted to cigarettes and could make it easier for current smokers and vapers to quit. The FDA is also looking into regulating flavors in e-cigarette and tobacco products, including menthol. FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb has vowed to take whatever action is necessary to stop the harmful trends associated with vaping.