“Green” is in, not actually acting in an environmentally friendly way, or much less thinking about how your personal choices impact the environment, but rather talking a good “green” game.

One would assume (always a mistake) that among the reasons that people voted for Barack Obama was his stance on the environment.  

Thus, it is interesting to note that when 1,500,000 or more of Mr. Obama’s closest friends gathered in Washington, D.C. for his inauguration, they left behind 100 tons of trash which was collected by City and Federal sanitation workers. I assume trash does not include the waste inside the 7,000 portable toilets used during the inaugural festivities.

One hundred tons seems like a lot, until you think about it: 2,000 pounds to a ton, so that is 200,000 pounds; assuming 1,500,000 people, that is about .13 pounds per person; with 16 ounces per pound, that makes about 2.1 ounces per person.

One hundred tons of trash has some impact on the environment, just imagine everyone throwing away a Butterfingers bar.

Green is in – and that is good. 

No matter what your stand on global warming, it cannot be a bad thing to conserve the environment. What 21^st century environmentalists need to be careful of is a new take on the old bait and switch.

The 20^th century version of bait and switch (still in use today), involved advertising a product at a very low price and then when you go to buy it there is only a more expensive product available.

The new 21^st century bait and switch involves advertising a product that is green but in reality only switching the less than green aspect of the product to another location.

Electric cars are a good example. Leaving aside the green aspect of producing an electric car vs. a standard car, let’s just deal with the pollution caused by driving. 

Electric Vehicles (EVs) can be ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). ULEVs release only 45 pounds of carbon monoxide per 12,000 miles. ZEVs produce no tailpipe emissions at all.

According to the Electric Vehicle Association of Greater Washington, D.C.(EVA/DC)(which may or may no be a non-basis source):

Critics proclaim that EVs are simply “elsewhere emission vehicles” because they transfer emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Although there are emissions associated with coal and oil-fired power plants, smokestack emissions associated with charging EVs are extremely low. In fact, EVs can charge from zero emission sources such as nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.

Now, coal, oil, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants, and solar and wind power all have environmental impact. The impact is indeed shifted from where you drive to wherever the power source is located. 

Again, according to the EVA/DC:

In fact, where power is generated primarily from hydro sources, EVs are 98%-99.9% cleaner than equivalent internal combustion vehicles. Even where power comes primarily from coal, EVs are 55%-92% cleaner, depending on which gasses you are measuring.

EVs may be this much cleaner, but what about the concentration of the emissions? 

If everyone in America were driving EVs, instead of dispersing the pollution as they drive, the admittedly reduced overall pollution would be concentrated at the power sources.

Steps might be taken to reduce those concentrated pollution sources, but so far there has been no public mention of the issue or the cost.

Further, is this an economic-class issue? Are power plants, coal mines, nuclear waste storage facilities, etc. located in high or low socio-economic areas?