{"id":3988,"date":"2015-05-06T10:33:45","date_gmt":"2015-05-06T16:33:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/?p=3988"},"modified":"2015-05-06T10:36:42","modified_gmt":"2015-05-06T16:36:42","slug":"indiana-and-kentucky-near-the-bottom-of-eco-friendly-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/valleywatch.net\/?p=3988","title":{"rendered":"Indiana and Kentucky near the bottom of “Eco Friendly States”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SANYO<\/a>May 6, 2015 – by John S. Kieran on WalletHub.com<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Eco-friendliness and personal finance are essentially cousins. Not only are our environmental and financial necessities aligned \u2013 providing ourselves with sustainable clean drinking water and nutritious sustenance, for example \u2013 but we also spend money on both the household and government levels in support of environmental security.<\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s climate change. We\u2019ve already seen a rise in powerful land-bearing storm systems and extreme droughts, with New York and New Jersey recently spending $71.4 billion to rebuild from Hurricane Sandy. But that\u2019s just the beginning, as storm surges and other bad weather are expected to cause more than\u00a0$500 billion<\/a>\u00a0in property damage by the year 2100. Climate change will also have a direct impact on our military-industrial complex, as nearly all of our East Coast air and naval installations are vulnerable to sea-level rise.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, we can all try to do our part to save the world for our kids, grandkids and future generations. In order to help highlight this important issue as well as all states taking steps to care for the environment and call out those doing a poor job, WalletHub compared each of the 50 states in terms of 14 key metrics designed to illustrate each place\u2019s environmental quality and the eco-friendliness of its policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Overall Rank<\/b><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

State<\/b><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Environmental Quality Rank<\/b><\/p>\n<\/th>\n

\n

Eco-Friendly Behaviors Rank<\/b><\/p>\n<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1<\/td>\nVermont<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nOregon<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nNew York<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nMinnesota<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nMassachusetts<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nWashington<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nNew Hampshire<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nRhode Island<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nConnecticut<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nHawaii<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nSouth Dakota<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nMaine<\/td>\n22<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nMaryland<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nPennsylvania<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nCalifornia<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nNew Jersey<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nWisconsin<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nArizona<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nMichigan<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nNevada<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21<\/td>\nColorado<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22<\/td>\nNorth Carolina<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23<\/td>\nFlorida<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24<\/td>\nNew Mexico<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25<\/td>\nVirginia<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26<\/td>\nGeorgia<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27<\/td>\nIllinois<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28<\/td>\nSouth Carolina<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29<\/td>\nKansas<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30<\/td>\nAlaska<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31<\/td>\nIdaho<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32<\/td>\nUtah<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33<\/td>\nIowa<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34<\/td>\nMontana<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35<\/td>\nMissouri<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36<\/td>\nOhio<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37<\/td>\nTennessee<\/td>\n29<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38<\/td>\nNorth Dakota<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39<\/td>\nNebraska<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40<\/td>\nMississippi<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n49<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41<\/td>\nWyoming<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42<\/td>\nOklahoma<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43<\/td>\nDelaware<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44<\/td>\nArkansas<\/td>\n48<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45<\/td>\nWest Virginia<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
46<\/td>\nAlabama<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
47<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\nIndiana<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n43<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
48<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\nKentucky<\/strong><\/em><\/td>\n49<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
49<\/td>\nTexas<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n37<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
50<\/td>\nLouisiana<\/td>\n47<\/td>\n50<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


\n\"Most-&-Least-Eco-Friendly-States-Artwork\"<\/p>\n

Red<\/a>\u00a0States vs. Blue States<\/h2>\n
\"Most-Least-Eco-Friendly-States-Blue-vs-Red-Image\"<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ask<\/a>\u00a0the Experts<\/h2>\n

For more insight into eco-friendliness at the household, government and global levels, we posed the following questions to a panel of leading environmental and economic experts. You can check them and their responses our below.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more eco-friendly?<\/li>\n
  2. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth?<\/li>\n
  3. What are the most important things residents can do to reduce their impact on the environment?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    <<\/a>><\/a><\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n

    <\/a>Timon McPhearson<\/h3>\n
    Assistant Professor of Urban Ecology and Coordinator for Environmental Science in the Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \"Timon<\/div>\n

    What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more eco-friendly?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

    There are a number of ways local and state authorities can support more ecologically friendly development. For starters, encouraging, incentivizing, or even regulating new developments to include green roofs, walls, or other ecological elements could provide critical benefits for urban biodiversity and increase the amount of green space where people work and live.<\/p>\n

    Ecosystems have been shown repeatedly to be critical to human mental and physical health and linking ecosystems with built infrastructure through both new development and renovation would go a long way toward making our cities more livable and sustainable.<\/p>\n

    Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

    There is not inherent trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth. In case after case, protecting the environment, investing in green infrastructure, and making development ecological can provide enormous cost savings and economic gain. Scientists and practitioners have not incorporated the benefits of ecological spaces for human mental and physical health into cost-benefit decision-making. When we do, we\u2019ll realize that there are even more economic gains, especially through decreased health care costs, to be had by investing in ecosystems and green infrastructure in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities.<\/p>\n

    What are the most important things residents can do to reduce their impact on the environment?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

    Though we need governments and the private sector to invest in environmental protection and to continue to advance sustainable business practices, every person can make adjustments in their lifestyles that can protect the environment and help move our planet along a more sustainable development pathway.<\/p>\n

    Perhaps the most important thing everyday citizens can do to be more sustainable is to decrease their consumption of energy and goods. We all know we have too much stuff. Every day people are buying more products made with toxic chemicals, produced in factories with poor labor practices and that subject humans and animals to environments we would never consciously condone. A simple way to improve the world is to buy less stuff. Similarly, using less water, less energy can also have a massive impact. Our total energy use worldwide could be cut in half if we all were more conscious about our energy use. The same goes for water. The drought in California is just the current water crisis in the U.S. but I hope this will help develop a national conscious around why we cannot take our natural resources for granted and with a world headed to 10 billion people, we must all use less.<\/p>\n

    In my experience and that of many others though, less is more. Happiness increases, not decreases with less consumption.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    \n