How Many Earths Does it Take to Support Me? More than there are out there....

Well, we took this quiz in our Sustainable Development Class and I seemed to have gotten the same results. About 4.5 Earths. However, I argue that every American will at least need 4 Earths. We are just, just, used to living large.  The results are on par to what I thought they would be: Energy Resources as well as Services (Cars, Planes ect…).  I do use a lot of energy, but so do you, and so does Little Tommy Walker. We, as humans, tend do that. We are in a building for roughly, what 20 hours a day? While in that building we have lights, TV, radio, microwave, AC/Heat, water pumps, and so much more. All of that is using energy, and we are benefiting from it!

Not too sure I’m going to change because of this. I don’t think I live nessicary ‘outside’ of the norm, but I do think I consume a lot. However, my aurgument, is that all that I do, I need to do.

Car Driving: 1-50 Miles a Week: I drive to and from school every day, as well as to work. To and From school is about 25-30 minutes, and to work is about 15 minutes. If I gave up my driving, well how would I get to school? Public Transportation?! Please, our country hasn’t invested enough in mass-public transit for that to be reliable and timely.

Electricity:  Here, I ‘spose I could try something different, but in all actuality I have, Lights, cell phone, computer, refrigerator, oven, microwave ect.. Sure, I could give up—well—let’s not lie to ourselves, I couldn’t give up any of that (haha) I mean, could I go without a cell phone? I guess, people do it, but it’d be a major inconvenience. Plus I’d have to get Home-Phone, which would be more expensive than just my 60 bucks a month for my cell phone plan. The others seem to be much more ‘basic need’ in nature. Without a fridge how am I to keep my food cool? Without the oven how can I cook? Open flame? Nah, that sounds like a little too much work for my dinner.

Thus, I don’t think I can really ‘change’ perhaps limit what I do, or even lower consumptions, but I think even that would be difficult.

We can all agree that Americans, on average, consume the most. We are just used to it. Most Americans who move overseas are shocked by the small living spaces, lack of driving, and general simple way of life. We were conditioned for it. I, personally, believe that it follows the American Dream: House with a white picket fence, 2.5 kids, and a dog. Now it’s more so: Mansion, with an Iphone, 2.5 kids with Iphones, a Hummer, ect… it’s all about status. Making a statement if you will. Even going back to that [very very very] liberal video we watched in Sustainable Development: Go forth and buy! BUY ALL THE THINGS!  Consume everything cause it’s all made for you.

The general attitude towards the environment seems to be one of convenience. “When it suits me to be ‘green’ then I shall, but if I have to go out of my way to do so…well…eh.”—Everyone in America.  So the question becomes: Can we change THEIR attitude? Nope. I’m going to be pessimistic and realistic in this. As I stated earlier Americans are just generally consumption happy.  Thus, if we truly wanted Americans to use less, and consume less, then we would have to complete change our society ideas and wants. I truly think we are conditioned to consume. We must break that conditioning, which I think is just a little out of touch with reality.

Perhaps we could change, slowly. Very slowly. Very, Very, Very slowly. It would take a while, and I believe that even if that change does happen, it will only be negligible. Perhaps we should look at the economy as one of the ways to change the entire system. In our Sustainable Development class we spoke about our economy and how it plays it’s part in sustainable development. Mostly about device failure, and the need to keep buying. I think if we want to change our habits, our Economy must change first. I offer these three ways to fix this problem:

1)      Invest in Green Technologies

2)      Use high-grade materials that will make products last longer

3)      Keep the ‘tech’  curve just slightly ahead so device outdating is slower

First, Invest in Green Technologies. In my Discussion group I discussed the fact that no matter what, it seems, the people are just not all that into Green Technologies. I think it’s because it’s so new. We aren’t exactly sure what the investment will bring or what exactly we will get out of this. It’s also expensive; any new technology is really, but it seems that green-energy/tech is the most expensive. Not too long ago I remember the energy efficient light bulbs were quite expensive, but as more and more were produced and demand went up the prices fell. I believe that is one thing we will have to do with the other green technologies. We will need to work and wait for the demand to go up, to bring the prices down.

Second, Using high-grade materials that will make products last longer. Now, the aurgument here is that either the company is using cheaper materials so that the consumer will A) have to buy more of them, more frequently or B) to save on money. I think the latter is truer than the former. However, in today’s world we really can’t rule anything out can we? I think companies just want to use products that are cheaper, thereby, their profit margins are extended. It may just be an added plus that they tend to break six to eight months down the line and the consumer must buy more.

                Third, keeping the ‘tech’ curve just slightly ahead so device outdating is slower.  We all know device outdating is the new thing in technologies. Case and point: Apple. Once you buy the Apple Iphone 4 they already announced the Iphone5. Then, people with perfectly good, working, wonderful Iphone 2-4s had to run out and buy the Iphone5. All the waste from those phones has to go somewhere and thus the cycle does not end. I believe that companies should always be researching and developing, it’s what the company is there for. However, I think companies should keep the curve only slightly ahead, this way device outdating would be slower. Perhaps give the device a  two to three year life instead of a six month to a year.

I believe that if companies would take these three simple steps into their business practices I think we could very well Green our Economy. And once we green up our economy, I believe that people may be able to change their practices and perhaps even slowly turn the tide of how many “Earths” each of us need to live on. 

Ohio Energy's Resources: Project to combat CO2 and Green House Gas Emissions

Ohio has begun to tackle a very serious problem in the world: CO2 emissions and climate change. They’re website: http://www.ohioenergyresources.com/ is the go to site for all information regarding this blog entry. I shall be referring to it frequently, so I will not be citing it.

ALL CONTENT COMES FROM: http://www.ohioenergyresources.com/

Ohio declares three main forms of emissions:

Stationary – Factories, plants, ect…

Mobile – Cars, and non-road vehicals

Area Sources – these are from county-level estimates of heating water or cooling water ect..

Wherein the whole idea of this project is to cover those three sweeping fields and help create a better future. The project goes through 5 tasks to help decide its course of actions. I have already talked about Task 1: Take an inventory of Ohio’s Main Emissions. In this task I believe that Ohio has done a pretty good job.  They have looked at Stationary modes, as well as mobile. Even County-to-County searches at what exactly are emitting CO2.

     Task 2: Look at Federal Policy and how it interacts with Ohio’s policy. In this respect the project took a close look at all aspects of climate change legislation; from Off-Balances in Agriculture to Manufacturing Sectors, and business growth opportunities. In the Off-Balance section (referred to as Chapter 3) the article is about how Ohio is trying to offset what farms are doing (whether it be deforestation or biological carbon pollution) and how farms can also off set the CO2 levels by using something called Carbon Sequestration, or having a lot of trees that can take in the CO2 and release O2 into the air. In the Business Growth Opportunities (referred to as Chapter 7) it tackles the myth that with legislation businesses will fail. It tells us instead that we would be able to invest in markets that are all about being Green! From Advanced Energy to Aerospace and Aviation.

In this aspect Task 2 is very well done. They offer many examples of how Ohio can use such legislature in favor of Ohio businesses as well as CO2 emissions. It offers a broad overview for someone who may not even understand what legislature is, or how it works to effect a state and it’s businesses.

     Task 3: Share the information with the public, investors ect... (Not much to really talk about here)

     Task 4: State Policy Options. In this task we take a look at what exactly Ohio could do to help off-set the CO2 emissions and climate change. Referred to as Chapter 7. It mentions first as the criteria for how the policies would be judged. 1) How directly a policy is targeted at climate change. 2) Locus of author for design, adaptation and implementation. 3) level of resources required from Ohio Government. The chapter then goes forward and discusses different ways to combat climate change. Mostly Taxes and Caps, Green requirements, Standards, and conservation programs.

Once again I think Ohio is doing an excellent job.  It’s very comprehensive. I’ll be honest, I didn’t write out all the information contained within that section, mostly because it was A LOT. Each ‘option’ was then put to the test by the 3 criteria that was offered at the beginning of the chapter. I really don’t think Ohio could do much more with that, they’ve done great so far.

      Task 5: Model Scenarios.  Finally Ohio begins to look at possible scenarios for climate change. Using the data from 1,2,4 The Millennium Institute and The Ohio State University came up with these models. Referred to as Chapter 9. The scenarios go from what exactly the federal government could do, to what the Ohio government could. It calls that Ohio could in fact start placing restrictions on levels of CO2 emissions.

     Now, in this task, well…I don’t think caps and trade work. It just doesn’t. What should make the business want to tell the truth about their emission levels? I mean, if Factory is A is polluting 300tons of CO2 every day, but they really can only pollute 200tons of CO2, which means a cut in production, and perhaps a cut in money. If the factory gets a cut in money…well they’ll have to lay off workers, when they lay off workers people become poor and yadda yadda yaddda. Further, if Ohio alone comes up with these caps, well, other states won’t exactly be holistic. So from state to state it would be completely different. I just think there needs to be more sweeping change. Total reform maybe. I think the federal government needs to pull up their big boy pants and start actually putting real holistic measures on capping emissions. I think once that is done then we can really start looking at the future of emissions.

     All and all I am very happy with this effort. It is very well done and thought out to a T. All the models and forecasts are done precisely and in a real-world effort. I am quite impressed and cannot wait to see if any of these limitations or rules will actually go into effect. I believe this effort isn’t lofty like some are.  The goals aren’t crazy, but very attainable and when goals are attainable and when they want to be met (which I think America/the World is still in a GREEN GREEN GREEN phase) I think Ohio will be successful. Only, however, if they actually stick to this plan; because it’s a GOOD plan.

The Coffee Problem

I knew that coffee growers in South America had to deal with poor conditions, who spend all their lives working through horrible conditions and usually low pay. Now, I always knew that we overpay for the coffee that these big companies push on us (Starbucks, Dunkin’ Doughnuts, ect…). It really is a fine aged wine in many aspects. How much work and thought goes into a bag of Coffee beans. Importation, well…wow. I did NOT know how much importation was done on Coffee alone. Let alone the problems faced by those in Columbia.  10 million bags/year? Wow. That is quite a number, and a lot of cups of coffee. Especially when you think about how much those workers are getting paid, at that big of a discrepancy between payment and what we pay for that cup.

I am all for free trade. It should be done. Why should the company get $3.40 for everycup and the grower gets a whopping 50 cents of those profits. It isn’t fair (Of course life isn’t very fair to begin with, but I digress).  There needs to be some sort of balance, right? Perhaps they could split things more equally. Even a 55% v. 45% profit margin would be better than what they are getting now. Companies from the US and other first world countries should accept a lower profit margin, so those in the poor countries can at least get by.

                The IMF and World Bank seemed to play a hand in this over supply. I don’t think they did this out of bad or ill-will toward Columbia. Just that they wanted both countries to become financially secure and have an ability to develop into first world countries. Now, the question becomes should they be forced to make less coffee? Should we ask them to stop their production so that we can get rid of the oversupply of the coffee? Perhaps if we did the issue of underpayment would be clarified and stopped. On the other hand, it could result in economies in those towns to crash. Unemployment would run rampant, thousands of people without jobs.

Will I stop drinking coffee? No. Sorry, I can’t. Can you? I know you very much enjoy your cup of Starbucks everyone morning during class, so could you stop? Lets be honest here. I don’t think any of us could stop. Coffee is addictive, and with Starbucks we can have coffee seven-ways-to-Sunday. Now, perhaps we could slow our drinking of coffee. Or, only buy from certain countries. Even then though, that doesn’t seem like the best idea. It’s like asking someone who smokes, well now that you know you will get cancer will you stop? Wanna know how many people stop? Not too many. It’s the same thing in this respect. We just can’t stop drinking coffee, it’s like Crack.

                Now when it comes to how exactly we can fix this issue, I’m not too sure. It’s a very complex issue. It’s not just us, but the growers as well. Like I pointed out earlier, when the IMF World Bank told Vietnam to start planting coffee beans, it was going to lead to over production.  However, I mean we drink a lot of coffee, I have friends whom go to Starbucks at least 2 times a day. That’s a lot of coffee and money. So can the issue be all that bad? I think the real is issue is the fact that most coffee bean farmers are paid almost nothing to every dollar the big box houses are making.  So I think the issue here is the need for reform in how exactly people get paid. I think once we work out that solution, we’ll have the exact solution to the problem. Perhaps if we pay the farmers more, they will be able to invest in more property. Even then maybe we can solve the ‘over-farming’ problem by allowing some companies to sell their assets to Columbia. Of course, the problem becomes who says Columbia should be the ones to keep their farming? What gives them the right to it? However, that is another issue that we will have to solve when we get there. 

The LEED Platinum Certification Seal awarded toward Green Cincinnati Education Advocacy in 2007

Green Cincinnati Education Advocacy

                Green Cincinnati Education Advocacy (herein referred to as GCEA) is Cincinnati’s leading group to help teach the public about becoming green. Through Seminars, tours, hands on projects, green thinkers ect… they teach the public about how to make a green life and keep it that way. Starting in 2007 the LEED program began in the office of Lohre and Associates, Inc.  Passing the AP LEED exam and through their work with Fernald Preserve Visitors Center (A Nuclear Facility used in the 80’s that closed and needed expansive cleanup efforts), in which they worked with chemists and scientists to decide the best way to go about cleaning up the site in the most clean and green way possible. 

Through all of this work they slowly, but surely, established themselves as the leading group in Cincinnati for Green Initiatives and Green Technologies.

                The GCEA produces literature about Green Initiatives as well as offering programs to teach and inform the public about being Green. One program they offered (actually on Wednesday) was a symposium on Green Landscapes. Having speakers from all over Ohio who study Civic Garden, Green technology, Biology and Botany they lectured on how to better approach landscapes for engineers, landscapers and gardeners.

                Not only do they offer education for business, they also over education or home owners. In the below video they offer an explanation and guide on how to install Smart Foam into the Boulter House.

One interesting program offered to the public are Tours. The tour that was just offered  is a show case of proposed green building at City Hall. A short list of the buildings were: NKU College of InfoMatics, Steger Student Life Center here at UC.

http://green-cincinnati.com/latest-newsletter/

                I think this program is very good. I mean, how many other Cincinnati Green Organizations make such an effort to inform the public. You can even sign up for a news letter where they send out information about events, about current Green Technologies being developed and much more. Over all I would give the GCEA an A on effectiveness. 

The Grey Area Between Federal and State Env. Policy

West Troy Contaminated Aquifer

                In West Troy Ohio there is an aquifer that supplies water to the citizens.(Herein known as WTA) The problem? It’s been contaminated by Tetrachloroethene (Herein known as PCE), which according to ASTDR’s article, “[it’s] a chemical used primarily in dry cleaning and metal degreasing products (ATDSR 1997). According to the EPA’s website they still haven’t found where exactly this contaminates is coming from. Which is very interesting, if you ask me. Now, the next question is who is handling this? Who should be handling this? Whoever is handling it, is it being done successfully?

                Who is handling this? According to the EPA’s website both the Federal EPA and Ohio’s EPA are working on a solution AS well as finding out the source of this contamination.  The Federal EPA has added the WTA to the Superfund list, which is a list of environmental problems/disasters and then lists them on by-severity level, WTA was added in September 2012 ("Region 5 Clean Up Sites: West Troy Aquifer" 2012). So at this point we can see that the Federal EPA seems to be making the larger impact upon the WTA contamination problem. Further, in regards to ‘waste water discharge’ there are actual permits that allow dry cleaners to discharge their waste into the water shed. The permit is called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems. The permit allows dumping certain chemicals into ditch drains or sewers. One can argue that if said WTA contamination came from a dry cleaning facility that dumped their chemicals into a sewer system, and for argument let’s say that said sewer system over flowed and dumped into a feed system of the WTA. So by federal mandate, was the dry cleaning company in fault? This is when National/Federal rule becomes more difficult over the State Rule.

                So in this instance, I think, that the states should decide how to handle this matter. State regulation should take precedent because this is the state’s land. The state’s should have a say in how their water/lakes/streams ect… to have the ability to come in and say yes, dumping is allowed, but it must be regulated to extents is, in so many words, crazy. This is the time that I believe States should have complete rule over waste-dumping.  Further, the federal mandates and bills and what not, are not an effective way of fixing such solutions; all they provide are blankets to cover everyone, but what happens when the blanket starts to rip? Or the blanket is too short and loop holes begin to shine through?  What does the Government know about this small town in Ohio? (We can even argue that most politicians are nothing but career politicians that don’t care much about constituents, just their lobbyist groups)

                However, This is where it gets a little tricky. The Federal Government has added the site to the Super Fund. Thus, they will get some federal help and funding to help clean the site up. This goes back to the conversation we had in class on Friday, States don’t have the funding to actually deal with the problems they are faced. States can ask the Federal Government for the money (Grants, Loans ect…) but even then, why not just cut out the middle man and let the Federal Government run the cleanup processes? However, I just completely contradicted myself. But, that’s the point I am trying to make (at least that’s where I’m going with it) this is such a grey area. Who should regulate what? How should it be regulated? In one instance it should be the States to control everything within their own borders. Then again, the Federal Government should regulate the states so that they will be able to actually fund the clean-up process.

                So now we’re back to base one. What do we do? Who should regulate this kind of stuff? Well, I think It should be a hybrid. Both the State and the Federal government should work together to find/solve the problems.

PROBLEM

State                           Federal

Identifies Problem        Backs State Findings

Decides how to precede       Sets funds aside to help

                           Clean Up                           Funding for Clean-up/small assistance

EDUCATION TO PREVENT THIS PROBLEM AGAIN

Clean up                          Funding for Clean Up

PROBLEM SOLVED

                In this little graph I break down how I believe problems like the States and federal governments should go about cleaning messes up. At the beginning the state identifies the problem. The Federal level will back the state findings and make sure the state did a correct job at evaluating the problem. The next level is leaving the States alone to decide where they will go to clean up the problem. The Federal level is on its own to set up funds to help the States clean up their issue. The next stage is the actual clean-up process, the State will work to clean-up the problem. The Federal level however, will provide the funds and even perhaps some assistance to the State to help clean up the problem. The next stage involves both the State and the Federal. This is education. Education for both the public but as well as private sectors so that a problem like this will be less likely to happen in the future. Once again we are back to cleaning up and funding. The final outcome is that the problem is solved through a collaborative effort of the State and Federal levels.

                Should we adopt these measures, a collaborative step-by-step problem solving initiative by both the State and the Federal Governments, I believe that most environmental issues will be solved in a much more timely matter. As we talked about in class, State governments are quick and nimble. They’ll be able to pass agendas much quicker than the Federal Government. Also, the State government has a better ability to read the land. They are right there. The land is right in the back of their yards. Federal Government does care, but at the same level of a State government? Well, that’s debatable. While I believe the ATW problem should be solved BY the state, it should be funded and backed up through the Federal Government. This way, both the State AND the Federal are making a cohesive impact on the problem.

Works Cited

ATSDR, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ToxFAQs, "TETRACHLOROETHYLENE…”

Federal Environmental Protection Agency, "Region 5 Clean Up Sites: West Troy Aquifer." Last modified 2012. Accessed February 22, 2013. http://epa.gov/region5/cleanup/westtroy/.

On Genetically Modified Salmon

You may not be able to read this, actually in fact I know you won't be able to. SO I will paste what I said below:

::To whom it may concern: 
     I find genetic engineering of anything to be good. This way we can crop out the genes we don't like. We can make them stronger, fatter, more plentiful, more docile, more aggressive. The possibilities are endless. So I am all for this. However, we must be careful with HOW we approach this. Sure, we can modify as many genes as we wish, but as they said in Jurassic Park, "Chaos Theory" it will win out. (at least in my perspective). I am sure down the road we'll have these perfect fish! Strong, large, docile ect... and yet some rare fish disease will develop and Salmon levels will drop. So I find my self in this dilemma. Should wee continue on with this experimentation/implementation or should we air on the side of caution. 
      Further, what is the environment impact of these 'fish'? How much are we trying to change? Are we trying to completely change the fish? Or are we trying to select certain traits to get the best yield? Are we concerned with the health of the fish either? What if, in an adverse effect, the longevity of the fish is compromised by 2-3 years? The fish end up dying out early, before they can even be matured and caught? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of GMing?
     I also bring up this point: Humans are top (at least we think we are) the main reason, as to my understanding is for the humans. Thus, if this messes up and the fish end up dying off, well then haven't we just turned full circle and we are back to square one. So if I may sum up pretty much my entire response: Let us proceed, but proceed with the greatest of cautions.::

     Now, as to why I picked this topic. I love GM. I do, I find it fascinating  Take a gene from X and insert it into Y and BAM. It's freeze resistant. That is why I chose this topic, and also why I am all for it. However, I also recognize the risks associated with GM-food and animals. Disease. Disease. DISEASE! One new strain of a disease could, in theory, completely wipe out the entire population. I used the Chaos Theory to point that out. Or perhaps even Marshals Law: IF it can go bad; IT WILL. So we have to be careful with this things. However, the clarity of what exactly shall be going on this these fish is still left unknown. I believe they are GMing them to produce higher yields and stronger fish. So with this whole article, like I said, let's go for it, but let's go for it cautiously.

Cincinnati Zoo and Their Green Initiatives

     

     I chose the Cincinnati Zoo because, almost everyone in Cincinnati, knows about the Zoo's commitment to not only Animals but the environment.  The Zoo is the leading Cincinnati company/organization to be converting its self into a Green Machine. From just one look at the website we can gather how much work the Zoo is actually doing to become more green, and further, more sustainable.

      Green Energy:

     The Zoo began thinking about how to create alternative uses of energy, they turned to solar energy. The question with solar panels is where do we put them? There needs to be enough sun to beat down on the things to convert the heat energy into electric energy. They answered that question with another questions: "What can we do to improve guest experience?" What is the one thing a guest hates more after being in the hot summer sun all day? Getting to an even hotter car. Thus, the answer become apparent: Put the Solar Panels OVER the parking lots. Thus, guests cars will be in the shad for their entire stay, and also the sun hits that parking lot from morning till night.

http://cincinnatizoo.org/conservation/go-green/green-initiative/
"Green Energy" 2.7.2013"

In this picture you can see that the panels are put over hte parking lot affording shade to the cars and a mass amount of potential energy to be created.

http://cincinnatizoo.org/conservation/go-green/green-initiative/ "Green Energy 2.7.2013"

     The Zoo also looks toward Wind Energy to help their reliance of fossil fuels and the electric grid. Wind Turbines are quite simple. The uneven heating of the earth causes wind, the wind moves across the blades of a turbine making it spin. The spinning turns a motor that "generates" electricity from a magnate and positive and negative coils. Now, I am not exactly sure of the effectiveness of wind energy, because for the most part it takes a whole lot of them (usually in "Wind Farms" Like those in Illinois) to make a difference. But every small bit helps, at least theoretically.

     Now, I would like to analyze the two of those alternative energies and decide which one is better. With Solar you generally need one thing: The Sun. We can't really escape it. It's there, it's part of our day to day life. I think Fiddler ON The Roof said it best: "SUNRISE! SUNSET! SUNRISE! SUNSET!". The only time we are given shad is when it is cloudy, but even then it doesn't seem to last too long. With Wind Energy however, you need Wind. I even argue that you need strong winds to actually turn the turbines. Wind isn't as much of apart of our daily life as I would say Sun is. So, in this simplistic view I think that the Zoo should, perhaps, invest more into solar energy and use Wind energy as their back up source.

Water Conservation at The Zoo

     Water is such a scarce resource, and it should be protected. Run off of water is a very serious threat (especially where Animal Habitats are concerned) The Zoo, for the most part, is a place to walk around. It's black top or concrete which is where Run Off happens most. However, the clever people at the zoo figured a way around this. Here they have made pervious pavement that allow water to fall through and soak either into the ground (Zoo 2010).  Or in some cases basins which will slowly allow water to drain back out into the system. (I know in some cases companies will reuse this water to water plants ect). 

     Another simple (and very effective) way of conserving run off is by rain barrels. (My family did this to save on the Water Works Bill in summer). This method involved simply having a (or in our case a rather large Rumpke Trash can) that is connected to the gutter system of a building. Then, once it begins to rain, the water runs from the gutters and collects in this storage bin. (Albeit if it's a rather large storm the barrels tend to over flow). I found this very basic outline of one on very helpful website:

Sample of Rain Barrel
http://www.minnetrista.net/blog/2012/06/22/general/rain-gardens-swales-and-barrels-3-ways-to-combat-stormwater-issues/

     According to this website: Rain Barrels aid in the relief of backyard flooding, saving on water and sewage bills (Vandoski, 2012). 

     All and All I think the Zoo is doing a wonderful job at becoming "Green" of course this sort of thing will take time, and I think in the very near future they may be able to sell BACK their electricity to Duke and even turn a profit. The Zoo has always been a leading edge in Green Initivatives, in 2008 they received The Greenest Zoo in America Award.  They have even made a commitment to working with the local neighborhoods as well as the entire community on how to make a house "green" or just taking small steps to reduce our foot prints, and as noted above The Metro system of Cincinnati (Cincinnati Zootube). 

Works Cited

Cincinnati Zootube.. Go Green Metro Zoo PSA-Cincinnati Zoo. Posted 7.30.2008. You Tube. compact disc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH264JfBkP8.

http://cincinnatizoo.org/conservation/go-green/green-initiative/

Vandoski, Paige. "Rain Gardens, Swales, and Barrels: Three Ways to Combat Stormwater Issues." Minnetrista (blog), 7 22, 2012. 

Zoo, Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, "Pervious Pavement: When it Rains, It Drains." Last modified 2010. Accessed February 6, 2013. http://cincinnatizoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Rains-it-Drains.pdf.