Conserving Water for the Future

My colleague S. Singh recently wrote and article titled, "Xeriscaping for the future" that addressed the issue of water use in Texas. It emphasized that water used in lawn care is unnecessary and offers a possible solution through the use of xeriscaping.

I find the idea of water conservation vital to the future of the state and the people that live here. Singh points out in his post that it takes a lot of water to maintain a green fresh lawn and a large portion of household water is used in making this happen. I completely agree with this point and have even witnessed this first hand in many neighborhoods. Water is more scarce than people think, many companies and house holds will set up automatic sprinklers that go off even when raining or water in the middle of the day when most of the water will evaporate and do little good to a lawn anyway.

Another point Singh made was the the use of xeriscaping to replace a lawn with native plants and gravel or pebble ground cover instead of grass. The expense at first would be high but would lead to cost savings later on and help with water conservation. While I agree that a solution should be met with lawn cares intensive water use the appeal of replacing ones lawn with native plants and rock overlay does not work for everybody. Singh also suggested the requirement of new residential developments to use xeriscaping for their lawns to further decrease water use but I also feel that this is not a good solution.

I believe the best way to promote water conservation in Texas would be to provide incentive to take part. As I mentioned before many people may not like the idea of xeriscaping and so alternatives like native Texas grasses that can handle the heat without water might be better. Further informing the public about water conservation might also be a viable solution as many people don't know the true seriousness about Texas drought. Even when intensive fails I don't believe the forcing of lawn conversions in new neighborhoods is the way to go nor is this really helping the overall problem. Many companies have the ability to pay for as much water as they could possibly need so water conservation of any kind might not a top priority. In cases like this laws limiting water use on lawns would be more effective and would effect a lot more people.

Conserving water in Texas is of great importance and is a must if we want to continue to have water in the future. The upkeep of lawns takes a lot of water and needs to be met with a solution that works for us all and allows us to play an active roll in water conservation.

Texas Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions in Texas is a growing problem that raises health concerns and environmental issues for the future of the state. Since this problem is caused by every day use of vehicles for tasks like getting food and going to work and power consumption needs like electricity for homes and companies it will continuously be a problem until something is done. Air that is not clean to breath is something that affects us all and will only lead to more pollution and additional spending especially on health care.

According the US energy information administration Texas ranks number one in carbon dioxide emissions. There have been acts addressed to emissions such as the federal Clean Air Act which allows the EPA to establish air quality standards for all of the states. The act also required that states have implementation plans so that they can reach these goals. Unfortunately setting standards and making a plan isn't enough. Texas is having a hard time keeping up with these standards because of its lavish energy consumption.  The US energy information administration also provides data on this showing Texas as number one in total energy production in the US. Power plants are burning more fuel to keep up with the demand for energy and thus  produce much of the states emissions and also keep it from getting any better. Emissions from vehicles have become increasing less of a problem unlike the power plants. Tighter emission testing and regulation have taken many older cars off the road and made the newer cars more efficient.

 Although I am glad that Texas does at least have some laws and regulations on emissions I believe the only way to truly do something about carbon emissions is for Texas to invest more money in renewable energy alternatives. This may be expensive at first but will solve two crucial problems in the future, air pollution and spending. Standards will only get stricter and this will mean putting older power plants and means of energy out of commission or spending more money to conform them to standards. Pollution will also never get better if we are still using power plants that run on oil and natural gas but never bothering to move to cleaner energy. Texas needs to think of the future and how its actions now can make up greatly later on.

Helping or hurting the environment?

I recently read an article by Nirmal Mulji called "Paper or Plastic?" that addressed the issues of environmental harm due to the use of plastic and paper bags. I found many of the statements and facts very relevant to his argument. It was basically about the fact that plastic bags cause a lot of harm to the environment and how paper bags are not the solution to this problem.

One of the points that Mulji made in his article was that plastic bags degrade very slow at a rate of 20 plus years. This coupled with the fact that very few people recycle them makes plastic bags a horrible environmental option. This is a prim example of how many people simply don't care about the environmental effects or possibly don't see the effects right away. If people really cared about the environment yet liked plastic bags over other types of bags then recycling would be higher than it currently is but this simply isn't true.

Another point Mulji brought up was how paper bags are no better than plastic. This is not because of the rate of decomposition but because of the heavier resources needed to make them. This includes more trees being cut down and more fuel burned to transport and make these bags. This makes a lot of sense and shows how easy it can be to think that just because something is biodegradable it can have underlying consequences.

Mulji mentioned one more point that I found interesting in is article and that was the banning of environmentally harmful bags all together. I agree with his point of bringing in government  although I think it might need to be handled in a different way. Banning of paper and plastic bags would mean the only alternative, reusable bags. Reusable bags can be costly and many people might not want to pay or even use them. Instead I think a gradual decline while informing the public of the dangers of plastic and paper bags would be best. This is already something that is going on in the smoking industry with the raising of cigarette cost and mandatory warnings on all cigarette packs to deter the use of tobacco.

To sum things up, plastic and paper bags are by no means helping the environment. The law is a necessary tool for cracking down on the wide spread use of these bags and promoting better alternatives for the future.