Category: Important Stuff

Bottling water

We stopped buying bottled water about a year ago. Here’s a few good reasons why:

From Think Outside the Bottle:

Worldwide, consumers spent $100 billion on bottled water in 2005.

Making bottles to meet Americans’ demand for bottled water required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil last year – enough fuel for more than 1 million U.S. cars for a year – and generated more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Each year more than 4 billion pounds of PET plastic bottles end up in landfills or as roadside litter…

Studies have shown bottled water is on average no safer than tap water and can sometimes be less safe…

To visualize the entire energy costs of the lifecycle of a bottle of water, imagine filling up a quarter of each bottle with oil.

 

Although the water from our tap is pretty clean, we do filter it for taste.

If you need to take it further than your living room, think about picking up a cheap, reusable bottle or thermos.

Think about this: how many other things can you do that are better for the environment, will save you money (both in the short term and long term), and you can start right away… without any effort? Hell, I could argue drinking from the tap takes less effort. Water is friggin’ heavy! Imagine not having to lug it home from the store.

So when you pass by that water at the store, give in to your inner slacker. Think about how heavy it’s going to be. Give those back muscles a break, and feel good about it.

/ 1 Comment

Thinking about electric cars

Not long ago I was having a group discussion with my family about electric cars. Cheryl and I had just seen the movie, “Who Killed the Electric Car,” which prompted the long follow-up discussion.

We were all over the place… taking about the differences between emissions from autos versus power-plants (one of the nearby power-plants in Tampa has long been considered one of the worst polluting plants in the nation), to the trade offs associated with electric cars. Chief among the tradeoffs we discussed was range, and the time it takes to recharge batteries. One of us brought up the possibility of replacing (or augmenting) gas stations with battery-swap stations. Granted, the batteries would be heavy (and there’d probably be a number of them), but if they were accessible and standardized you could probably work out some mechanism for swapping them out. Then driving an electric car would be virtually indistinguishable from driving gasoline fueled cars. Well, besides the fact that electric motors tend to be more reliable than internal combustion engines, so they wouldn’t need service nearly as much.

There’d be another advantage to battery swapping. One of the concerns about electric cars is the cost of replacing the battery, when it eventually reaches it’s discharge/recharge cycle limit. (It may take a long time, and you may be saving a lot of money on gas in the mean time, but it’s still a valid concern – well sort of.) If you were swapping batteries when they’re close to fully discharged, like you put gas in your car, you wouldn’t need to worry about the up-front cost of buying batteries. Instead, the price would be spread out – factored into the cost of swapping.

Well, imagine my surprise when I saw this article on Treehugger this morning…

George Monbiot: “We Need 100% Cut in Carbon Emissions” (TreeHugger):

Monbiot also tackled the challenge of making our vehicle fleet entirely electric. Suggesting that instead of owning our own chargeable batteries a product service system could be set in place where we could lease batteries. Instead of stopping to fill up with petrol we would stop to pick up a newly charged battery and continue happily on our way, allowing us to travel great distances by electric car.

I think that’s a pretty nifty idea. The beauty of it is that it doesn’t rely on technological advances that may or may not happen soon, like perfecting fuel-cells. (Well, maybe it’s not that far off after all.) This seems possible right now. If we could then just clean up our electricity production we’d be in like Flynn.

I’ll admit that I’m no expert. I haven’t done a lot of research on the subject. There may well be a problem disposing of all those batteries when they’re no longer usable (if they don’t lend themselves to recycling). I wonder if anyone has looked into it closely (besides, perhaps, Mr. Monbiot). If we’ve thought about it, surely someone else has.

/ 1 Comment

Bettor, Better or worse?

There’s an editorial in the November 5th issue of The New Republic which addresses a few of the global warming doubters out there.

The article mentions researchers who were surprised to find evidence that the world’s oceans are no longer absorbing as much carbon dioxide as they used to. (Just in case you missed the memo, that’s potentially a very bad thing.) The editorial mentioned another study which found that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions seem to be growing at a rate that is even faster than the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projected “worst case scenarios.”

While global warming skeptics often scoff at the IPCC’s projections on the grounds that climate science can be uncertain, that uncertainty, to the extent it exists, cuts both ways: Things may ultimately turn out to be better than the IPCC predicts, but they also could turn out to be worse.

Are you betting on better; and if so, what are you willing to bet?

Science according to Bush

I’ve heard time and again about the White House censoring government reports to fit their view of the world, so I shouldn’t be surprised by this…

Dr. Julie Gerberding is the director of the CDC, and she was in front of Congress to give testimony about the potential impact of global warming on our health. According to the AP, her testimony focused on the CDC’s action plan… without giving any details on what the health risks might be. Apparently, it was not what her draft of the prepared testimony looked like (prior to White House review and revision).

Newsvine/AP:

Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review in advance of her appearance.

“It was eviscerated,” said a CDC official, familiar with both versions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process.

…

Gerberding, who could not be reached late Tuesday for comment, was said to have been surprised by the extensive changes. Copies of the original testimony already had been sent to a number of associated health groups representing states, county and city health agencies that the CDC routinely coordinates with, a CDC official said.

Parched

Why does California trend liberal on environmental issues? Is it possible that they see their future, and it makes them thirsty?

Bush’s EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters

Bush’s EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters – washingtonpost.com:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third, according to Justice Department and EPA data.

The number of civil lawsuits filed against defendants who refuse to settle environmental cases was down nearly 70 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2006, compared with a four-year period in the late 1990s, according to those same statistics.

None of this is a surprise to me, it’s pure Bush as far as I’m concerned. I’m just glad it’s being reported on the heels of Condi Rice’s dubious claim last week at a a global climate change conference.

“I want to stress that the United States takes climate change very seriously, for we are both a major economy and a major emitter.’’

Yeah, we take it so seriously that we let polluters regulate themselves. That is, after all, the real reason new investigations and prosecutions are down at the EPA. We’re following the bold leadership of the Bush administration on environmental issues.

I read an article someplace this week where the author compared setting voluntary guidelines for emissions to making speed limits on the highways voluntary. I think that’s an apt comparison. Picture the highways if we had “speed guidelines” instead of “speed limits.” How fast would you go? Would you stick to the guidelines? Think about the other limits in your life, like your budget. Do you save as much money as you should, or like most of the rest of us, do you tend to spend about 105% of what you make? The truth is, as a society, we’re pretty lousy at self-control; even when we recognize that limiting our behavior is in our best interest.

/ 2 Comments

Here I go again – lets talk about health care

Twice in two days! That’s how many times someone said (to me) some variation of: “don’t people who live in countries with universal health care have almost half of their pay taken in taxes, to pay for their health care?”

If this was just one person who said it twice, or even one person who was relaying it from someone else, then I wouldn’t be writing this post. But no… I heard it from two people who didn’t know each other, were not involved in the same conversation, and would have no idea what the other said.

Naturally, I’m going to take it out on you, the (mostly) innocent.

I’m going to throw out some statistics and I’m going to tell you why I think they’re important. The conclusions I make from these statistics may be total crap, but I’m counting on you to let me know (I promise I don’t bite). Some of these stats will be referenced, and some will not. Those that are not come from several sources which, unfortunately, I can’t readily recall or locate. However, almost all of them are covered in a book: Sick, by Jonathan Cohn.

First of all, I can’t argue what kind of taxes (or how much) are taken out of people’s paychecks in other countries; I just don’t know. However, even if they do pay more in taxes, I don’t think it tells the whole story – not by a long shot. Most of our health care cost is not attributable to health insurance premiums deducted directly from our paychecks (by a wide margin). Health insurance premiums for families in the United States (and by that I mean total insurance premiums) averages $11,480 per year, or $956.67 per month. I don’t know about you, but that’s not what shows up on my pay-stub every month. I’ll bet it doesn’t show up on your’s either. In fact, the average amount that people pay directly is $2973 per year, or $247.75 per month. Employers pay the difference, but they don’t do this out of the goodness of their heart. It’s part of their total cost of employing someone, and it’s part of the reason that some private contractors (or consultants) are “paid more” for doing the same job that a salaried person might… because the employer isn’t spending a chunk on benefits. If your employer could pay you more money if they didn’t pay for those benefits – then in essence, you’re paying for it. You know what else? We pay taxes too. Federal Income Tax ranges somewhere between 10 and 30 percent, with payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) adding up to another 7.65 percent. Then, depending on which state you live in, you may pay an additional percentage of your paycheck for state tax withholding.

Ah, but $900 – $1000 per month in health insurance premiums, Federal Withholding, payroll taxes, and state income taxes don’t add up to half my paycheck. (Remember, I don’t know what they pay in taxes in other places.) Well… what we pay for insurance premiums doesn’t add up to our total health care expenses either. Consider that the U.S. spends A LOT more per capita on health care than ANY other country. If I recall, the next closest country spends something like 65-75 percent (per capita) of what we do, with many countries spending even less (and they all have universal care). Now you may be thinking to yourself, we’re a wealthier country… if we’ve got more money, we’re probably going to spend more money on things… because we can. Well, I think there’s a way to control for wealth… look at what countries pay for health care as a percentage of GDP.

In the U.S., we spend about 15% of our GDP on health care.
figure-1.jpg
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-10.html (figure 1)

Compare that with Germany (less than 12 percent), France (around 10 percent), Japan or the UK (both around 8 percent).
figure-2.jpg
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-10.html (figure 2)

Forget about how much people in other countries pay in taxes. You’re looking at apples and oranges. Any way you slice it, we’re paying more in the U.S. for health care (per person) than any other country… period.

Some of you will argue that you get what you pay for, and we’re paying a lot… for superior care. Well, I’m afraid I’ve got to burst that bubble too. By most measures of quality… infant mortality, life expectancy, diagnosis rates, and how long we live after being diagnosed, our care is not superior. In fact, there are some measures which suggests it lags behind other countries with universal coverage. (There are other measures for quality of care, which are complicated, and supposedly are more independent of quality of life issues. They’re explained better in that book I mentioned.) I’ve heard some conservatives in the media say that prostate cancer has a much better diagnosis and prognosis record in the U.S. than in other countries (with universal care), suggesting this is proof of the superiority of our care. This is both true and misleading. While the statistic is accurate, it’s misleading because the same CAN NOT be said for almost EVERY other type of cancer.

Someone suggested to me that the U.S. already has universal health care. Anyone who’s on death’s doorstep is guaranteed care. Due to death or bankruptcy, many of these people don’t pay for this care. But make no mistake, someone pays for it (and it ain’t your employer, out of the goodness of their heart). I think it’s pretty safe to say that if you pay for insurance and your own care, you’re paying for it – just too late to do any good. Many will claim that people have to wait longer for non-emergency procedures in countries with universal care. First of all, I’m not sure that’s true of all universal health care systems; but let’s assume it is, for argument’s sake. Imagine the uninsured person with diabetes who can’t afford their medication, and loses their sight, an appendage or two, suffers all kinds of associated health problems, and dies prematurely. Or, imagine the uninsured adult that doesn’t have that lump checked out, in part because they’re in denial (worrying about the financial ruin that would follow a cancer diagnosis), and subsequently dies a painful, horrible and avoidable death. Imagine all of the illnesses people suffer, and in some cases die from, because they don’t have insurance. Wouldn’t eliminating these things be a fair trade for longer waiting times for non-emergency procedures?

As I see it, we pay more for the care we get, we don’t get more for the money, and some people don’t get any care at all (until they die, or are near death).

Is this really the best way to provide health care? Is this really the best way to spend the vast sums of money we already spend?

Health insurance and mental health

One of the supposed hallmarks of the U.S. system of providing health care is choice. “Don’t let the socialist boogeyman come and force you to see a doctor trained in Guatemala!” You may not realize it, but that’s pretty funny (not the bit about Guatemala… the part about choice). Well, it doesn’t quite rise to the level of expelling fluids through your head’s secondary and tertiary access points, but it’s still funny.

Come on, ask me why it’s funny. You know you want to. You think you may know, but your dying to know if your right (yes, I’m nothing if not a little presumptuous).

My mother is on the verge of being sent back to the (medical) hospital again. She’s gone back to not eating, drinking, or taking her meds. One of the nurses says she’ll probably have to go back (possibly as soon as tonight or tomorrow). In the mean time, they’ve scheduled a hearing (again) to decide on long term commitment at one of the state psychiatric hospitals. A couple of the possible facilities (there are three where she might be sent) are the same place they send people who are unfit to stand trial (for all sorts of things). My dad asked the social worker if there were any choices.

“No, not if you don’t have insurance coverage.”

See, that’s when you were supposed to laugh. By U.S. standards, my father is not wealthy, but he’s well above average (in terms of salary). He’s highly paid, highly trained, and employed by a large company with loads of lucrative defense and aerospace contracts (among other things). If anyone was going to have good health insurance (besides a government worker), you’d think it was him – and it always seemed like he did – until now. My mother was in the hospital for just under two months earlier this year, in a locked-down psych ward… and that ate up all the benefits for the year. There’s no more coverage left until next February.

So here’s the choices, under the U.S. system of health care:
1. Accept a commitment to the state mental hospital.
2. Sell the house, cash in the retirement savings, borrow from the kids, sell some organs on the black market, and go to a private hospital.

I hate to be down on a state run operation, but experience tells me that facilities in this country which are operated for the benefit of those who can’t pay are rarely top notch, and have the reputation of being substandard. After all, politicians get elected in this country for cutting back on welfare, not for maintaining the status quo (or – gasp – expanding it).

I could be wrong. I pray I’m wrong. I fear I’m not.

You gotta love those choices.

Broken

Earlier this week my mother was hospitalized involuntarily under the provisions of a Florida Law known as the “Baker Act.” When the legal requirement for the hospital to hold her expired, and they determined that her benefits (through her health insurance) had been used up, she was shipped out to the first facility that would take her. It was an assisted living facility, which primarily deals with elderly adults who can – to some degree – care for themselves. My mother could not, but what choice did we have? The hospital staff advised us they called the non-profit, inpatient facility that is familiar to me because of my wife’s work in the criminal justice system, but they turned her down, allegedly because of her age (too old).

She was at the assisted living facility less than two days before my dad got the call this morning – the one where my mother was destroying property – the one that resulted in the police being called – the one that resulted in my mother sitting in the back seat of a police cruiser, handcuffed.

When my father arrived on the scene the police waived him over to let him know where they were taking her. The hospital – the place where all of this started earlier in the week – would not take her back, based on the health insurance situation. I’m not sure what was the deciding factor, but the non-profit that turned her down two days ago took her (perhaps due to a contract with the sheriff’s office for Baker Act cases?).

This episode rises to a level of obscenity that defies description. It is accepted as unquestioned truth that no American goes without necessary health care, even if he or she has no insurance. “No one dies on the hospital doorstep,” or so the saying goes. The trouble with our system is the lengths one must go before the care is given. In this case it took the destruction of private property, (essentially) an arrest by the local police, and an involuntary commitment under the least ideal circumstances.

Is this really how we want to take care of ourselves? Health care reform is low on many people’s list of priorities. The reason? Even though an estimated 40 million don’t have health insurance… approximately 260 million do. Of those that do have insurance, most of them (at any given point in time) are in relatively good health, and have no need to test the limits of their coverage.

In the mean time there is a silent, growing minority who are being failed by our health care system. The poor, the chronically ill, and the self employed are the most obvious victims of our system… the ones who can’t afford private coverage. What’s truly insidious about our system is that even those with coverage… and pretty good coverage, by most objective standards, are at risk. My mother’s coverage was pretty good, in that it has covered mental health at all (even when there weren’t laws mandating it). Still, she had to be put in FUCKING HAND CUFFS before we could get her placed in an appropriate inpatient, mental health facility. HAND CUFFS! This for a person who was too squeamish to kill bugs when I was growing up… for someone who didn’t believe in corporal punishment (for her kids)… for someone who didn’t have a violent bone in her body.

What is wrong with us as a society, that we would deny our own people basic care? Think of all the things government pays for… subsidies to grow four times as much corn as we can eat, and fuck all knows what else. I am sick with disappointment in my own country, with my own people. You may not have made my mother sick, but you put the cuffs on her. You gave my father an ulcer. You broke that furniture at the assisted living facility. You broke my heart, you stole my hope, and you took what remained of my mother’s sanity.

YOU can vote.

YOU are the “people,” in a country governed by “the people.”

YOU ultimately decide who gets health care, and who does not.

YOU have failed my mother.

YOU have failed me.

YOU may have ultimately failed yourself.

YOUR decision makes me sick with despair.

/ 2 Comments

Coverage caps

There’s a law in Florida called the Baker Act; a law which gives law enforcement and medical professionals the authority to hold people with mental illness – specifically those who show signs of being a danger to others or themselves.

There are few (if any) public facilities to provide this emergency care, so patients are cared for in private facilities… usually a floor set aside at the local hospital (the so called “psych ward”).

Since these institutions often are not publicly funded, “Baker Acted” patients are expected to pay for their care. Since most health insurance policies in the U.S. have unconscionable caps on the number of days covered in a 12 month period, and because mental illness can require extended periods of hospitalization, patients usually pay through the nose.

Because patients without coverage can not easily bargain as a group for the prices paid, patients without coverage usually pay more than insurance companies (for the same services). In fact, hospitals have been known to make up financial losses from insurance contracts with the fees charged to the uninsured.

As it happens, someone close to me is in the hospital, and she used up her hospitalization coverage (which only covered a percentage of the cost anyway) earlier this year. If I’m not mistaken, the bill submitted to insurance earlier this year was in excess of $60,000.

Imagine you had a really good job, with what was considered above average health benefits. Imagine what your finances would look like after paying 20% of a 60k hospital bill, plus 100% of what ever happens from here on out (which looks to be worse this time). Then ask yourself if you still like our health care system as it is.

With all the stress that undoubtedly accumulates in direct proportion to the accumulation of medical bills, it’s a wonder anyone recovers from a hospital stay.