In most big cities, “rush hour” is a misnomer- there is hardly any rush during any hour. Driving bumper to bumper has become a standard procedure during any time of the day: morning, afternoon, evening, lunch time, tea time…chances are your commute mph will be turtle paced. And who is to blame? Is it the fact that with over 250 million cars registered in the US, there is almost one car per every American? Is our imprudent purchasing power actually perpetuating our own problems? Maybe, but there is more to the congestion conundrum than American consumerism.

A July 15, 2009, article from the Wall Street Journal¸ details how traffic jams are also fueled by poor construction decisions that create back-ups in residential areas. Lack of government spending in cities that suffer brutal congestion such as Los Angeles and Washington D.C. has also been an issue. The article mentions that Congress allocates transportation throughout a variety of districts, instead of focusing on a few ‘bad’ areas.

So far, the possible solutions lead to no where. If the government spends more money expanding roads, they are only encouraging driving, and in essence re-creating congestion. But if nothing gets done, the jams continue and so do the headaches.

Although expansion seems like the most viable solution, there is another one: changing attitudes. If Americans weren’t as attached to their cars as 4 year-olds were their ‘blankies’, a good portion of the problem would be solved. It seems like we believe we would literally be stranded without our vehicles, incapable of even making it to the neighbor’s house around the block.Lo and behold, there are alternative methods of transportation. Consider: the bus, train, or a bike. Even carpooling reduces the number of vehicles and emissions on the roads.

And there is some promising news out there. It seems like slowly, more Americans are catching on to this ‘alternative’ phenomenon: According to a report by the American Public Transportation Association, between 1995 and 2008, ridership with public transportation increased by 38%.

This increased participation not only reduces fuel emissions, the savings in gasoline, car maintenance, insurances, and other expenses really add up: you can save about $9,000 annually just by taking public transportation. That coupled with the money saved on headache medication, calls for some major savings. These savings can be applied to repair the stress damage caused by past traffic jams. Margaritas, anyone?

While surfing the web, I came across and interesting article on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website – a site specializing in water and soil conservation. In an effort to learn more about these issues, I perused some of the links and I found one that worked particularly well for me. The link was titled “Helping People Understand Soils.” I know, I thought it was for kids at first, too. But, after reading through its ten key messages, I found that, although stated simply, this article contains lessons for anyone. So, here’s what it said (in a nutshell):

Lesson #1: Soils perform vital functions. They sustain plant and animal life below and above the surface. Soils regulate and partition water and solute flow. They filter, buffer, degrade, immobilize and detoxify. Soils store and cycle nutrients and they provide support to structures.

Lesson #2: Soil is the basis of the ecosystem. The living systems occurring above and below the ground surface are determined by the properties of the soil. We often ignore the soil because it is hard to observe.

Lesson #3: Soils Support Life. Organisms like bacteria, fungi, earthworms and more live in the soil and perform important roles in decomposition, release of nutrients, creating pores and stabilizing soils.

Lesson #4: Soil management affects soil quality.

Lesson #5: Soils have unique physical, chemical and biological properties that are important to their users.Traits like color, texture, structure, consistency, roots and pores all all important soil characteristics. Soil is a natural body of solids, liquids and gases with either horizons or layers or the ability to support rooted plants.

Lesson #6: Soil-forming factors determine the location and type of soil. Factors that affect soil formation include parent material, climate, living organisms, topography and time. Within the United States there are 23,000 soil series in various combinations with different slopes and surface textures.

Lesson #7: Soil Survey is a scientifically-based inventory. A soil survey includes maps, descriptions, properties, climate and interpretations. About 3,000 counties in the U.S. have a soil survey.

Lesson #8: Soils have limitations which must be understood. Soil related problems include corrosivity, flooding, rapid runoff, septic failure, soil born disease, contamination, crop loss, erosion, slope failures and much more.

Lesson #9: Just like plants and animals, soils are classified with scientific names using Soil Taxonomy – the highest level is Soil Order and the lowest is Soil Series.

Pretty soon you may be blowing your nose and wiping your behind with a more eco-friendly tissue. The Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a giant in the paper industry, has agreed to begin using more recycled paper in its products. The paper company is finally surrendering to suggestions from Greenpeace to stop using old-growth timber for production of paper products. According to an August 5, 2009, article from the Washington Post, in return, Greenpeace has agreed to end their 4-year “Kleercut’ campaign which attacked Kimberly-Clark’s detrimental practices.

Although the agreement does sound promising, the company stated that only 40 percent of its wood would be from recycled paper or sustainable forests. 40 percent? This may be better than nothing, but it is still not enough. What does KC have to lose from using recycled paper? Forests that have taken hundreds of years of grow? National parks? Backyards? Playgrounds? Trees are not easily renewable resources-they take decades, if not centuries to grow. With millions of Kleenex users around the country, millions of trees are sacrificed for nothing more than convenience. Back in the day, people had to use handkerchiefs and they didn’t drop dead doing so. I’m not saying we go back to horse-drawn buggies and hoop skirts, but we can be a little nicer to Mother Nature and it doesn’t take that great of a sacrifice.

Despite their ‘revolutionary’ announcement, Kimberly-Clark can do more to mitigate their use of old-growth lumber. What is worse is that they do not plan on using 100 percent recycled paper in the future because it would be too coarse for American consumers. Whatever I am relieving my mucus in does not to be a satin pillow. Maybe that’s just me.

Ultimately, more pressure needs to be put on Kimberly-Clark to make their products content include more than 40 percent recycled material. Recycled paper is already there. No trees need to be cut, run through a mill, made into paper. KC pretty much has there work cut out for them. So, although 40 percent is better than nothing, KC can definitely step it up.  If they can’t do 100, let’s aim for something lower. How about 99.9?

Major droughts have, historically, affected regions across the United States. Most recently, drought-stricken areas such as Los Angeles and San Antonio have implemented new procedures to help fight water shortages. From restricted water usage laws to higher water prices, local governments have experimented with options to encourage citizens to monitor their consumption. More drastic measures, it seems, are needed, so, Los Angeles and San Antonio have called on the “water cops” to police their neighborhoods.

Los Angeles is now riding out its third straight year of drought. Beginning with smaller restrictions like mandating that not offer water to guests automatically and limiting sprinkler use to only two days a week, the local government attempted to reduce water consumption. But, it seems that people were not exactly obedient of these laws so, now, the city has hired a team of 15 wandering water cops, formally known as the Water Conservation Team.

The Los Angeles water cops receive tips from an anonymous hotline and patrol neighborhoods trying to catch water code violators. First offenders are given a warning and repeat offenders face a $100 fine.

Repeat offenders are not easy to find, however. Since June, the Water Conservation Team has more than 4,600 incidents, resulting in 834 warnings. Only 23 repeat offenders have been fined. The goal, said the Department of Water and Power, is to reduce water usage, not to raise money.

Similarly, San Antonio  has instated its own team of water cops. Their “Water Wasters” hotline receives more than 200 calls per day notifying them of water violations. In fact, over 1,800 water-violation citations have been handed out since April. Fines, in San Antonio, range from $50 to $100. It seems to be working because aquifer levels there are increasing despite record temperatures and a two-year drought.

Los Angeles has also seen results. In June, numbers indicated that city water usage dropped 12.7% from June 2008. These levels are the lowest overall consumption numbers in 32 years! Although the paranoia of being watched by patrolling water cops and prying eyes of neighbors is bothersome, the initiative seems objectively effective.

Even after the drought ends in Los Angeles, its not likely that all water restrictions will end, too. The city’s goal is to reduce water consumption by %15 and it must meet a state-mandated water reduction target of 20% by 2020.

The future looks bright, but it’s going to be expensive. In an effort to mitigate costs and cut emissions, many cities are switching to more eco-efficient methods of power to light streets and roadways. But this power isn’t coming in for cheap. As the city of San Jose, California, is learning, being nice to Mother Earth comes with a pretty hefty price tag.

An April 26, 2009, Wall Street Journal article details how officials in San Jose are experimenting with LED lights as a way of reducing their energy bill. Their target: street lamps. The city plans on installing 125 LED street lamps by this summer, which could save them 10-60% in utility payments. The main advantage of these lamps is that they can be set to certain conditions, producing fewer or more light on command. This means that at times when less light is needed, the lights can be dimmed. Although these energy savings sound like a sweet deal, are they worth the price? A single LED light costs $600, while a traditional sodium-vapor lamps cost $200; replacing thousands of street can cost millions of dollars. So what should eco-conscious cities do?

Turn to the sun. The use of solar panels has become an increasingly popular solution to sky rocketing energy bills. And with California averaging 160 days of sun a year, it may not be the “Sunshine State”, but I’m sure 50% sunshine year around will suffice. Although there is no guarantee that the installation cost solar power lights will be less expensive than LED lights, they will use solely renewable energy, which will reduce energy bills in the long run. Companies such as OK Solar and Solar Illuminations have a variety of solar street lights available for both residential and commercial purposes.

San Jose is definitely worthy of a high-five for looking for energy alternatives with LED lights in a time when we are ever more dependent on fossil fuels. But despite the LED efficiency appeal, the cost might not be an attractive part of this deal, especially with many cities tightening their wallets. Using solar panels might be a cheaper alternative and will be especially beneficial for sunny states such as California. So, when in doubt, look to the sun. Just don’t stare too hard…you might hurt your eyes.

While reading the June 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal, I came across an article in the Environment section entitled “It’s Time to Cool the Planet,” contributed by Jamais Cascio of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. The headline was accompanied by a clever illustration of the world resting in a bathtub filled with ice and two fans cooling it from either side. Intrigued, I read on and, I have to say, the content of the article proved to be more shocking than the illustration.

The article outlined a new technology called “geoengineering.” Basically, geoengineering attempts to slow the effects of CO2 emissions by extracting atmospheric carbon and controlling global temperatures through sunlight blocking or reflection. Cascio explains that temperature control is the most timely and cost-efficient method and therefore the most likely to be introduced.

Temperature control is achieved by blocking or reflecting light before it reaches the earth. Aside from laying thousands of square miles of light reflectors across deserts (destroying entire ecosystems) or launching millions of tiny mirrors into orbit (deemed unrealistic), the most feasible approach is to increase the Earth’s reflectivity by injecting tons of sulfates into the stratosphere and pumping seawater into the lower atmosphere. The sulfate will, presumably, generate a similar effect to that of a volcanic eruption, scattering light and creating a cooling effect within a matter of weeks. Pumping seawater into the lower altitudes will produce new clouds and thicken existing ones in order to reflect more sunlight. If the phrase, “playing god” hasn’t crossed your mind yet, I compel you to consider the effects of this course of action.

Although Cascio maintains his “reluctant support” of geoengineering, he goes on to list several possible consequences of its introduction. First, sulfate injection, as well as cloud intensification, will have unpredictable effects on global weather conditions.  Unprecedented levels of rainfall or drought could affect areas and studies suggest that, if geoengineering were to abruptly stop, global temperatures could spike. Second, manipulation of the environment cannot be contained to one area. The changes we make in one place will have global effects regardless of political boundaries. So, who decides what the world’s temperatures should be or who is allowed to influence major changes to the environment? This leads to further implications if geoengineering could be manipulated into a military weapon.

Reading these side effects prompted me to wonder how we have come to this point. Are we a world in such environmental disarray that we consider global plans with unpredictable, precarious and highly dangerous implications? Whether you believe in reversing global warming or just reducing your impact and conserving our resources, don’t you think its time to start taking personal responsibility before world leaders are forced to intervene? It’s clear that we are running out of time before drastic measures begin to take place. So here is my cry: do your part, conserve, show the world that we can take matters into our own hands and we don’t need scientists to save us from ourselves.