over recent months, stay-at-home orders have led to a temporary plunge in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, as much of the population stayed home more and traveled less. however, as governments gradually lift social distancing orders, more and more people are leaving their homes and transitioning back to old routines. 

yet, some aspects of the quarantine routine have the potential to translate into long-term lifestyle changes. in particular, teleworking offers a multitude of environmental benefits if continued after the quarantine period. recent research shows that increased teleworking in communities reduces air pollution and traffic congestion. 

in 2018, civil engineer and transportation systems analyst at the university of illinois-chicago ramin shabanpour published a study on the impacts of teleworking on local air pollution. in his study, shabanpour identified the current populations in chicago capable of telework. then, he calculated what percentage of those populations participated in telework at the time. he found that only 12% of individuals who are capable of telework worked from home to some extent. using 12% as the base, shabanpour and his team developed a simulation that modeled a hypothetical “twin city” of chicago. 

“we spent a few years here in chicago developing a transportation simulation platform which, in a nutshell, is a simulation-based twin city. using a software known as the polaris model, we were able to simulate what we have in the real world,” he said.

shabanpour and his team kept all data points constant in the simulation, except for the percentage of the population who worked from home which they increased from 12% to 50%. the simulation did not manipulate the frequency that chicago residents worked from home, only increasing the percentage of teleworkers at the current frequency. 

the results proved to shabanpour and his team how beneficial teleworking can be for the environment. 

“we found that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.7% because of an increase in telecommuting. when you talk about impact, this is actually a huge number because if you multiply 0.7% with current greenhouse gas emissions in chicago, we find that an implementation like this can reduce 500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per day,” shabanpour said.

capable teleworkers do not need to solely work from home to produce these emission reductions. shabanpour acknowledges that most teleworkers only work from home a few days per week, and they likely still drive when they telework in order to run errands. the simulation’s results account for the driving needs of teleworkers, because shabanpour kept the frequency that teleworkers drive to work and run errands in real life constant.

shabanpour’s study was one of the first to analyze teleworking’s impacts on air pollution and the environment. while he only examines telework patterns in the chicago metropolitan area, his findings can apply to any area that suffers from air pollution and has a section of the population that is capable of telework. 

as a result, shabanpour has emerged as an advocate for telework. he believes that current efforts to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle emissions invest in the wrong solutions, instead of cost-efficient solutions like telework programs. 

“we just invest billions and billions of funding into building new bridges and infrastructure – let’s start looking at this soft side of transportation. focusing on these numbers, we can definitely reduce the transportation emissions and congestion that we have at a very low cost, compared to the big infrastructure projects that we have,” shabanpour said. 

as the quarantine period forced many companies to temporarily transition their workforce online, the potential for companies to commit to a long-term telework system makes shabanpour’s research more relevant now than ever. 

in the past, companies have hesitated to allow teleworking. timothy golden, a professor and telework researcher at rensselaer polytechnic institute, finds that companies assume teleworking would decrease employer satisfaction and productivity. 

“because you’re working away from the office, particularly if the rest of the office is still there, that has the potential to make you feel cut off or separated from people,” golden said.

golden asserts that hybrid teleworking programs, which allow employees to split their hours between working from home and in the office, alleviate employees’ concerns of feeling isolated from the workplace. he also recommends that managers assess which employees are capable of telework, meaning they can productively complete their tasks at home. 

“it’s not an all-or-nothing scenario. it’s not a one-size-fits-all,” golden said.

companies who supported teleworking before the pandemic prove that implementing a telework system increases productivity and company savings, in addition to reducing carbon footprints.

dell, headquartered in austin, texas, is one company leading the global movement toward hybrid teleworking programs. since implementing its “connected workplace” program, dell allows employees to design a work-from-home schedule tailored to their preferences. dell cuts 136 million travel miles and more than 35,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually through this program, as calculated in their most recent sustainability report. 

john pflueger, the principal environmental strategist at dell who designed the connected workplace program, told environment+energy leader, “we’re pleased with the flexibility it offers our employees and the positive consequences it has on carbon emissions.”

if the environmental impacts do not incentivize companies, perhaps the benefits in finances and productivity will. dell’s recent sustainability report highlights that it saved $39.5 million from the connected workplace program, which allows the company to reduce the amount of office space they pay for and maintain. dell also hires from a greater applicant pool, with the ability to hire top talent beyond the region of austin.

“when a company is considering a work-from-home program or telecommuting or remote work, sustainability is probably not the primary reason why. the primary reasons are issues related more to work-life balance and being the sort of employer that the 21st-century employee has come to expect, but we found sustainability-related benefits are an important side effect,” pflueger said.

golden is hopeful that this quarantine period will help companies and employees realize the various benefits to teleworking. 

“i think this is a defining moment for telework in that it is likely to be much more commonplace after this pandemic. now that it’s forced on so many people, it’s changing mindsets because teleworking is no longer something that ‘other people do’, it is something that everyone does,” golden said.

shabanpour demonstrated the environmental benefits of teleworking scientifically, while companies such as dell show how teleworking programs foster a more sustainable and cost-efficient workplace. now, the covid-19 pandemic showed many companies already have the means for telework, although they may not have taken advantage of it previously. 

perhaps what helps to flatten the curve of covid-19 cases now just may help flatten the curve of greenhouse gas emissions as well.

when you sign up for a liberal arts education, they tell you you’ll begin to draw connections between disciplines, but they don’t warn you that these connections may change your diet, your life, and, dare i say, the world.

somewhere between freshman year burger dates with the boys and senior year salad dates with the gals, i stopped eating meat altogether. my interdisciplinary course load empowered me to challenge the statement, “i could never be vegetarian.” critical thinking changed my diet, and it could change yours, too. soon enough, going vegetarian might seem even more appealing than the alternative.

looking back at the statement, “i could never be vegetarian,” there is a large assumption being made, one i used to take for granted. in my buddhist philosophy course, i learned about the concept of anātman, or non-self. growing up, parents, teachers, and coaches encouraged me to find my true self. their advice perpetuated the idea that each of us indeed has some intrinsic and unchanging part of our identity. many buddhists, in contrast, see the word “i” as only a convenient designator. clinging too much to the conventional concept of self distorts the ultimate reality that each of us is a constantly changing collection of interdependent processes.

i found it liberating to recognize i was not attached to one identity. i didn’t have to commit to being vegetarian indefinitely in order to give it a try.

as it turns out, shifting my mindset from “meat eater” to “aspiring vegetarian” altered my behavior. before filling my plate, i hesitated, remembered my agency, and intentionally avoided meat.

back in the classroom, behavioral economics explained my transformation. our world is outrageously complex. to cope, our brains rely on shortcuts. dan ariely, an expert behavioral economist, observed significant disparities in countries’ levels of organ donation. upon investigation, individual preference or cultural norms did not explain the phenomenon, but opt-in or opt-out organ donation policies at the dmv did. defaults determined decisions.

what does this conclusion mean for you? it means if you believe you can never be vegetarian, you probably will not be because your brain has dismissed the possibility. however, if you sincerely consider the viability of all options afforded to you, your diet just might change.

admittedly, most of microeconomics went over my head, but marginal decision making was fascinating. in order for a choice to make economic sense, the marginal benefit must equal (or exceed) the marginal cost. out of curiosity, i began to wonder if i operated this rationally?

at first, i thought the marginal cost of eating a burger was its price as listed, but my introduction to sustainability course revealed the detrimental impacts the meat industry has on the rainforest, water supply, and human health, not to mention animal welfare. aha! a negative externality, or a cost to the economy that is not accounted for in any market.

i used to find it really easy to enjoy a juicy burger. now, the marginal benefit just did not seem worth the marginal cost of dismissing my liberal arts education.

the innovation offered here is not concrete, but it is powerful. if you have ever found yourself desperate to combat climate change in some small way every day, like i was, here is an answer.

you’re invited to make a difference for yourself and for our planet – just try it. for as long as the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost, you’re vegetarian, starting now.

the report, completed by a panel of 91 scientists from 40 different countries, found that the threshold for major environmental consequences caused by climate change could be reached as soon as 2040. as reported by the new york times, the scientists concluded that a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees celsius (2.7 degrees fahrenheit) is enough of a difference to cause major environmental consequences, including the die-off of all coral reefs, increased wildfires, global food shortages, and flooded coastlines. this is significantly lower than the 2 degrees celsius (3.6 degrees fahrenheit) benchmark that scientists had previously considered the threshold for severe effects on climate change and that had been the basis of the paris climate agreement.

the findings state that if humans do not drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the atmosphere will reach the 1.5 degrees celsius increase by 2040. preventing this from occurring requires global industry and economy to completely transform itself at an unprecedented rate. it is projected that global action, or inaction, over the next 12 years will be the determinant of whether or not we can prevent earth from hitting the 1.5 degree mark in 2040, the guardian reports.

the findings of the new report are harrowing. when one considers that preventing the destruction of the earth from becoming inevitable requires getting global politicians, including those who doggedly reject climate science, to confront the climate crisis immediately, it is hard not to feel overwhelmingly defeated. but now is not the time to surrender, now is the time to take responsibility for saving our only planet into our own hands. every individual has the ability to make habitual changes that can help stop climate change. what we choose to do over the next twelve years will seal the fate of the planet. here are six changes you can make immediately to start being part of the solution in your daily life.

1. choose alternative transportation. america’s transportation sector creates approximately one-third of its greenhouse gas emissions. whether you walk, bike, or take public transportation, reducing the amount that you use your car is critical in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

2. eat more plants and less animals. globally, animal agriculture accounts for nearly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, and approximately 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from food consumption comes from animal products. this is a major issue that cannot be ignored if we want to stop climate change. cutting meat out of your diet even one day a week is a great place to start.

3. compost. food scraps cannot break down properly in a landfill and end up emitting methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. by starting a compost in your yard or looking for local gardens or compost collection sites you can bring your food scraps to instead of throwing them away, you promote natural decomposition processes and reduce emissions.

4. reduce your home’s energy footprint. keeping your air conditioning off as much as possible, turning off all unnecessary lights, and unplugging unused electronics to prevent phantom energy usage will not only save you money, it will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to power your home.

5. reduce plastic usage. not only is plastic pollution one of the leading environmental threats of our time following climate change, but plastic is also one of the top products made from oil, making it a direct contributor to climate change. julia conley of common dreams reports, “fossil fuel companies including exxon and shell chemical have poured more than $180 billion into the creation of plastics facilities that are expected to create a 40 percent rise in production of the material over the next decade.” by rejecting single-use plastics such as bags, bottles, straws, coffee cups, and cutlery and opting for reusable items instead, you can make a personal stand against these harmful industries.

6. vote. we desperately need people in office who will be proactive, not complacent or counterproductive, when it comes to environmental issues. we must vote people into office that will stand up for our planet. democracy only functions when we participate.

the time has passed for sitting back and hoping that someone else will fix the planet. we all have the ability to make a difference, and we all need to consciously work towards a more earth-friendly lifestyle before its too late. there is no longer an excuse for inaction; it is time to save the world.

sound familiar? welcome to america, where the average citizen consumes a staggering 217.5 pounds of meat each year, a figure that far exceeds the global average of 41.3 pounds per capita. meat is part of our culture; many of us grew up with meat at the center of our dinner plates, under the impression that it was good for us. yet, in recent years, mounting evidence has suggested high levels of meat consumption may not be the healthiest option for our bodies and our planet. so why are we still married to meat, despite the warning signs?

nutrition scientists have been investigating meat for years. in 2015 the international agency for research on cancer (iarc) classified processed meat as a carcinogen, and red meat as a probable carcinogen. the who and american cancer society next urged the public to limit meat consumption. diets rich in animal protein are also linked to increased cardiovascular risks and all-cause mortality, while those high in plant-protein show protective effects.

from a sustainability standpoint, livestock has a higher water and carbon footprint than any other food, emitting significant amounts of methane and other greenhouse gases from their farts and burps. researchers estimate that it takes about 100 times the amount of water to produce animal protein compared to vegetable protein. this all goes without mentioning, of course, the animal welfare concerns many have surrounding commercially raised meat.

with climate change an urgent threat, and historically high rates of chronic, preventable disease, we must put down our forks and assess if we are engaging in best-practice dietary-initiatives for our bodies, the planet, and humanity at large.

seeing as the food system contributes roughly a third of the greenhouse gas emissions, and that 5 of the 10 leading causes of death in the u.s. are diet-related, there’s a real opportunity to better our health and protect the planet.

yet we often eschew this opportunity, allowing convenience and fleeting preference to trump ethical considerations surrounding the food choices we make. we blissfully fail to acknowledge the impacts of meat, drowning out uncomfortable thoughts with the sizzling sound of bacon frying on the stove. the time is now, however, to push for decreased consumption of meat.

a colossal task, meat reduction strategies historically have have been met with deep resistance. when a school in texas attempted to implement a meatless monday policy, offering just one meatless meal per week, backlash erupted, and the measure was seen as overly coercive. and when reduced meat consumption was proposed for the 2015 dietary guidelines, heavy meat-industry lobbying ensured the suggestion did not make the cut.

what opposers who denounce such initiatives as overly paternalistic fail to realize, however, is that their taste for a meat-heavy diet is a result of a preference that has been architected for them. the government uses tax dollars to feed our meaty appetites, spending billions on agricultural subsidies, a bulk of which support commercially raised meat, often incentivized by “big meat’s” hefty political contributions to persuade lawmakers.

and the meat industry’s power extends beyond its pocketbooks. marketing campaigns have established cultural norms that contribute to our meat-heavy mindset, telling us our bodies need “high quality” animal protein or we will become malnourished or anemic, and that eating only plants is unsatisfying and emasculating, all contributing to resistance to shift away from animal protein. after all, believing these notions is far easier than changing something so personal and emotionally charged as our diets.

but if we continue to consume meat at the present rate, we set ourselves on a trajectory for resource depletion, irreversible damage to the planet, and a multitude of preventable health risks. moreover, we jeopardize the right for future generations to food access and a healthful planet.

with momentum growing in the plant-based food movement, there has never been a better time to nudge for reduced meat consumption. incentivization of meatless monday practices, continued advocacy for reductionist messaging in dietary guidelines, and education about meat’s impacts, may prove monumental.

even if national policy is presently out of reach, we can begin by adjusting our own diets and work on changing the social norms around meat. and we don’t have to push the world into veganism overnight to make a difference. by eating a little less, applauding when meat-free options are offered out of the home, and celebrating plant-based meals, we can decrease meat demand and foster a cultural shift where plants become preferential. doing so can shrink our ecological footprint, improve our health, and ensure sustainable food choices for future generations. if there is a true desire to make a positive impact for health of humanity or the planet, it’s time to put the money where our mouths are, and back off the beef.

washington — for americans interested in reducing their carbon footprint, a new canadian-swedish study has a bold proposition: consider having fewer children.

researchers from canada’s university of british columbia and sweden’s lund university analyzed 39 peer-reviewed studies, government reports and carbon calculators from 10 different countries, including the united states, to compare how various eco-friendly measures, such as recycling and driving an electric car, stack up.

after crunching the data, they listed four major lifestyle changes people can make to reduce emissions in developing countries: have fewer children, stop driving, avoid air travel and eat a plant-based diet.

“these actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less),” seth wynes and kimberly nicholas write in the study.

wynes acknowledges, however, that he and his colleagues are not suggesting that everyone should or even could adopt such major and very personal changes. rather, he said the information should be readily available for adolescents as they make lifestyle choices, and might be more likely to adopt these types of behaviors.

“there’s a difference between a 50-year-old suburbanite with an established lifestyle being asked to consider some of these changes, compared to someone who is just starting out on their adult life, and can make decisions like i’m going to live closer to where i work so that i don’t need a car in the first place,” wynes said in an interview.

a former high school science teacher in canada, wynes said students often asked him what steps they could take to reduce their personal impact on climate change.

“at the time that i had those conversations i knew sort of a long list of actions that were positive for the environment, but i had no idea which ones were actually more important,” wynes said.

so, as a ph.d. student at the university of british columbia, he worked with nicholas, an associate professor of sustainability science at lund university, to analyze the data. they also found that canadian textbooks and government documents in australia, the united states, canada and the european union rarely mentioned the four actions with the biggest impact, highlighting smaller steps instead.

“the thing that surprised me the most was the focus in high school textbooks on these incremental actions,” wynes said. “things like recycling and conserving water that are definitely positive steps to take, but once i realized how much more effective some of these other actions were, it was quite surprising to see them often not mentioned at all.”

as an example, they cited data from a canadian textbook that said that using reusable shopping bags instead of plastic saves an average of 5kg of co2 yearly.

yet wynes and nicholas found that in terms of reducing one’s carbon footprint, using recyclable bags is less than 1% as effective as not eating meat for a year.

“examples like this create the impression that the issue of climate change itself is trivial in nature, and represent missed opportunities to encourage serious engagement on high-impact actions,” the researchers wrote.

for those already interested in climate change, knowing how various actions compare is useful for making further lifestyle changes, wynes said.

“a lot of people have been recycling for decades and they might be looking for the next step,” wynes said. “actions like recycling aren’t a place to stop, they’re a place to start and some other behaviors like eating a plant-based diet is four times more effective in terms of climate change.”

read on to see how each of the four major actions stack up.

have fewer children

it may be the biggest ask, but having fewer children can reduce emissions by 58.6 tons of co2 emissions a year, as it also factors in the emissions that children themselves produce. that’s the same impact as 684 teenagers who comprehensively recycle for the rest of their lives.

ditch your car

living car-free can reduce emissions by 2.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (co2) — a term used to describe different greenhouse gases in a common unit — per year. if you’re not ready to completely forgo a vehicle, switching to a more efficient car can still save 1.19 tons of co2 per year.

avoid air travel

one roundtrip transatlantic flight can contribute 1.6 tons of co2 emissions, meaning that skipping one flight is seven times as effective as recycling for a year. “i try my best to cut down on air travel,” wynes said. “it can be tricky sometimes, but i’ve done it (by) replacing plane trips with train rides.”

skip the hamburger

giving up meat entirely for a plant-based diet can reduce emissions by 0.82 tons of co2 a year, making it eight times more effective in reducing emissions than upgrading light bulbs.

when brett towle went looking for vacation plans, he wanted an off-the-beaten-path experience. he didn’t expect to come away with a newfound appreciation for environmentalism.

towle went on a surfing trip led by henry heyman, owner of ecotourism business tres brazos outfitters.

“i chose to go on this trip because i have lived in northern climates for the past 15 years and have been foaming at the mouth at any opportunity to catch some waves,” he said.  “i improved my surfing for sure, but this trip also left me with an immense respect for the natural environment.”

henry heyman, a former intern at panama’s eco-town of kalu yala, started a business based in panama in december taking patrons on vacations with net zero carbon emissions. the goal of his and other ecotourism businesses is to get travelers thinking more about sustainability and conservation.

“it’s less of like ‘here’s a beach resort, hang out here, drink as much as you want, eat as much as you want, relax’ and more of like ‘let’s go on a low-impact adventure where you get a really scenic trip with a really low environmental impact,’” heyman said.  

his trips include everything from short day hikes to picturesque waterfalls and swimming holes in the tres brazos valley in panama to a multi-day scuba diving trip in the historic town of portobelo on panama’s caribbean coast.

while his trips are scenic and fun, they also raise awareness about environmental issues through outdoor adventure.  

“a huge part of every trip i do is really trying to have some kind of educational component and really place-based,” he said. “when i take people rafting on the chagres river in panama, for example, i like to start a conversation about dams that pop up on rivers and how that negatively impacts the ecosystem there.”

but ecotourism is by no means limited to panama, or even central america. mark thomson has spent the past 15 years running whitewater river expedition trips in the canadian arctic. he said the people who come on his trips love exploring parts of the world they wouldn’t normally have the opportunity to see.

“i think often people also leave with an increased sense of national pride, having experienced a part of their country that many others don’t ever get to in a lifetime of living in that country,” thomson said.

a major goal of the ecotourism industry is to reduce strain on the environment imposed by vacationers, but the mission has a catch.   

“the trips themselves have little to no impact on the environment, but it’s hard to ignore the massive carbon footprint of the plane ride or whatever other means of transportation people take to get to the destination,” heyman said.

the thinking is that the initial carbon footprint left by the flight is mitigated by limiting the environmental impact of the stay itself.

“outside of the initial travel, the rest of the trip is typically man powered transportation, causing no environmental strain whatsoever,” thomson said.

he added that most trips, including all of his own, practice what’s called “leave no trace” camping. this method means everything brought in for the trip leaves with the campers including all human, food and packaging waste.  waste generated throughout the trip is typically recycled, composted or reused wherever possible.

care is taken when cooking to ensure food smells don’t linger and camping spots are chosen carefully to protect fragile habitats and ensure animals don’t grow accustomed to human presence.

“ultimately, people aren’t just going to stop traveling because it’s bad for the environment,” heyman said. “the way i look at it, if you’re trying to see central america at least you’re coming on my trip that’s very very low impact as opposed to other alternatives.”

while ecotourism is certainly geared toward nature-lovers, these trips appeal to more than just the environmentally-savvy.  

“each day provides opportunities for reading and relaxation in many of the ways that a traditional resort experience would offer,” thomson said. “my trips are usually situated in remote areas with plenty of opportunity for wildlife viewing, but there are certainly plenty of ecotourism opportunities for folks who don’t want to travel to remote wilderness areas, and prefer a more traditional hotel style ‘home base.’”

these home bases usually include a campsite or a cabin somewhere in nature. among heyman’s many trips, he offers tourists a chance to stay at panama’s kalu yala for a few days, enjoy the food and area economy there and explore the surrounding valley with interns from across the world who come to study there for 10 weeks. they live in tents like the interns and eat many farm-to-table foods.  

but travelers said the best part of ecotourism is learning more about little-known environmental issues and local cultures.  

“the best part of the trip was befriending some locals and exploring the town over, isla canas,” towle said. “we were able to visit the community skate park and learn about their small town culture, and that was an invaluable and priceless experience to say the least.”

and industry pioneers hope the education they spread through their trips will affect meaningful change, one trip at a time.

“it’s the combination of an increased sense of enthusiasm for regions of the country people had never experienced before, along with a new bank of knowledge about the importance of that area and pressures on it,” thomson said. “these things result in a concern for the well-being of these areas that can’t be replicated elsewhere.”

brenda and robert vale, eco-footprint experts from new zealand, concluded in their controversial 2009 book “time to eat the dog? the real guide to sustainable living,” that owning a medium-sized dog is twice as environmentally expensive as making a toyota land cruiser and driving it for 10,000 kilometers (about 6,200 miles), according to an article in the globe and mail. cats, on the other hand, were about one-fifth as taxing on the environment, or the equivalent of doing the same with a volkswagen golf, the paper reported.

and a los angeles times opinion piece said, “plastic bags of poop account for 4% of the municipal waste in san francisco’s landfills, as much as the whole city’s disposal diapers. and every ounce of it produces methane — a greenhouse gas 30% more powerful than carbon dioxide. the city of chicago’s 68 million pounds of annual dog poop creates 102 million cubic feet of unburned methane.”

of course, some people don’t bother to pick up the waste. “it’s organic,” right? the la times article said dog waste, when washed down storm drains into streams and the ocean, fuels toxic algae blooms that suck up oxygen and turn coastal habitats into dead zones. so that’s not the answer, either.

and not all of the pet conundrum stems from actual waste. pets have to eat, too. a lot of what they eat is meat, which we already know comes with a hefty footprint. but beyond that, their processed foods contain “double or triple the protein that studies show animals need,” the globe and mail article reported. so not only are they eating foods with a heavy carbon footprint to start, they’re eating more of it. yes, some pet food companies use ingredients that incorporate byproducts or leftovers from the food chain — which would reduce the food’s footprint — but it’s “not enough to offset the willingness of many animal lovers to pay a premium for pet cuisine,” the globe and mail article said.

this doesn’t even take into account the problems with chemicals used to treat fleas or ticks, or the footprint of producing and importing oh-so-cute outfits for those who take the phrase “babying your pet” to heart.

so what to do about the pet problem? here are a few tips to lessen your pets’ eco-pawprint.

food

perhaps the easiest solution here is to simply choose foods for your pet that have a smaller footprint. that includes chicken and rabbit, according to the la times. that’s still not the greenest of foods, but going vegetarian probably isn’t a great option for your pet. a recent study found that vegetarian-labeled pet food assessed in the study “were not compliant with association of american feed control officials’ labeling regulations, and there were concerns regarding adequacy of amino acid content.” so aim for lowering the footprint, but don’t expect a dramatic decrease.

waste

there are actually multiple solutions here — some which could be scaled up on a city or county level and some which you could easily incorporate right at your home.

— flush it. pick up after your dog, bring it home and then flush it. but don’t flush cat waste. why? the eggs of toxoplasma gondii, a parasite found in cat poop, may survive the wastewater treatment process and contaminate waterways, according to the natural resources defense council.

— bury it. the nrdc suggests using corn-based biodegradable bags to bury the waste, locating your holes away from vegetable plants and ensuring that the water table isn’t too high in your area so the waste won’t get into groundwater.

— compost it — in a special composter. you can either purchase a dog waste composter, such as the doggie dooley, or make your own, using a trash can. with either option you use the same enzymes as in a septic tank to help break down the waste. again, this is not for cat waste, but if you have an herbivorous pet, such as a hamster, rabbit or guinea pig, you can put their waste right in the regular garden compost.

— pick a better cat litter. skip the clay-based litters. instead, go for one made with wheat, corn, reclaimed pine shavings or recycled newspapers. there are lots of options in stores now.

— pet waste digester. you may be familiar with agriculture using anaerobic digesters, which convert manure into energy. this is the same concept, but using dog waste as the methane agent. the la times said an artist at the massachusetts institute of technology created a waste digester for a cambridge, mass., dog park, which powers the lights for the park. 

(image at top: pixabay.)

sometimes, i’m alone – in rhythm with only my breath and my thoughts. other times, i’m with a friend, sharing stories and jokes as our strides fall in step with one another. in either case, this time is sacred.

i’m a runner, and for me, there’s nothing better than a crisp morning, when the air is fresh, the sun is peaking over the horizon, and my legs are light.

but this isn’t always the case.

some days, when the smog is thick and my phone buzzes with an air quality warning, i know running outdoors won’t only be unpleasant; it would be unsafe. when this happens, i worry for the possibility of a day that we reach the point of no return- a day pollution holds us hostage not once or twice a summer, but every day of the year.

that doesn’t have to be the case.

most of us would love to cut our carbon footprint in half – i know i would – but it just isn’t convenient. we want to drive in cars, fly in planes, and eat exotic fruits that only grow on the other side of the world. i’m lucky enough to live in a city with great public transportation and a wealth of eco-friendly ride-sharing options. but many americans don’t have these choices.

census data shows that, in all but 7 states, three-quarters of americans drive to work alone. well, i don’t know anyone who loves their commute, but commuting is a necessary evil. we could demand an increase in public transportation options, but that takes a lot of time, money, and – wait for it – government intervention.

so, if we can’t take millions of cars off the road, what can we do right now, on an individual level, to keep our air clean, and reduce our carbon footprint?

well, everybody eats.

we eat to celebrate. we eat to nurture. we eat to survive.

we also eat selectively – it seems like everyone has a dietary restriction these days. planning a dinner party with my friends is a unique challenge, and more often than not it results in a sort of potluck of new dietary options. i’ve tried a friend’s gluten-free chickpea blondies. they’ve tried my tofu arrabiata sauce. most of these dietary choices were made for personal, health-related reasons, but what i’ve learned recently is that the food we eat doesn’t just impact us; it impacts the planet. big time.

just this summer, a group of researchers in the uk published a study that compared the carbon footprints associated with different diets: meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. turns out, eliminating meat from your diet can reduce your carbon emissions by half. a vegan diet was associated with the least amount of greenhouse gas emissions – 99 percent to 102 percent less than meat-eaters – but even switching from meat and poultry to fish can slash your dietary emissions by 50 percent.

before learning about this study, i never thought about how my diet – i’m a pescatarian; i eat a predominantly plant-based diet with the occasional seafood meal – impacted anyone but myself (and my dates when they suggested going out for barbecue or a steak dinner – awkward). i always figured that what i put into my body was a personal decision, but it turns out that it is quite the public concern.

the good news is, it’s getting easier to find healthy and delicious meatless options. whole foods, as well as schools across the nation, participate in meatless monday. once-hated vegetables, such as brussel sprouts, are making a comeback at dinner tables and on trendy restaurant menus; celebrity chef josé andrés is even opening a veggie-centric fast casual joint in washington, d.c. next year. on the internet, countless blogs and message boards create an online community and endless ideas for meatless fare.

every night, after washing my face and penning a quick journal entry, i climb in bed. i lay there for a moment, reflecting on the day, and, most likely, already thinking about my next meatless meal. and as i close my eyes, i hope for a crisp morning with fresh air, the sun peaking over the horizon, a lightness in my legs. as i drift into a slumber, i get excited for the next day’s run.

cherie gibson of the district department of transportation says the streetcar will stimulate development and rejuvenate economically depressed neighborhoods (such as the h st ne corridor), based on the overwhelming success of portland and seattle streetcars serving as development-oriented transit.

proximity to streetcars will increase property values by $10-15 billion, according to gibson. the expected result is $238 – 291 million in annual new tax revenue after the 37-mile streetcar network is finished. at that rate, it would take only six years for the city to recuperate the full $1.5 billion cost of the streetcars. after six years, the tax revenues would be pure profit.

with numerous methods to travel around the district and the convenience of being able to ride the streetcars with smartrip cards, we all have another reason to avoid sitting through dc traffic.

source: dc streetcar official site

map of the proposed 37-mile streetcar network. the initial h/benning line, shown in red, would extend west all the way to georgetown. additional lines are planned to go north and south through dc. 

sources: interview with cherie gibson (ddot)