The fat man on the train

Since September of 2007, I have been riding the commuter rail 5 days a week, 2 hours a day. In September, I could potentially have at least a two seater seat to myself, sometimes even a three-seater. By February 2008, I had to come up with new tactics in order to not have to sit next to anyone. I found that if I sat furthest away from the door that usually opened to let people on, and especially if I sat in a three-seater seat with one large man, more often than not, noone asked to sit inbetween us. A sign of the times, was yesterday, July of 2008, when a woman actually requested to be squished between myself and a man that really needs to lose more than a couple pounds.

The fact that the trains are filling up is another exciting aftereffect of the rising gas prices. The MBTA has even started sensational advertising on its website that shows a picture of a gas station sign with the new prices on it and a line through it with the word "no" above it, as well as a picture of the T sign and "brainer" right above that. The MBTA is a "no brainer" they claim. Now the question is, is it really a simple decision to give up the comforts of your car to sit on the vinyl seats of the commuter rail? To some people, it's simple. The train goes to your destination, you have minimal if any change overs, which you do not mind, and the costs are subsidized by your work. To others, the cost seems high, $250/mo. from the furthest destinations, the timing is off, they have to change trains more than they would like, they might have to walk further than they would like, they can't control whether the train is delayed, and the train simply is not time efficient or it does not go to their destination. While some of these problems involve a change in people's mentality, many of these inconveniences should be fixed by the train companies and by government subsidies.

Before the gas prices rose, the $250 a month it costs to come into the city from the furthest points on the train line seemed excessive. However, now with gas at more than $4 a gallon, many people now realize that $250 a month is a lot less than it costs to fill their tank. Although price has become less of an issue, it seems that if the government is going to take environmental concerns seriously, subsidies should be put into public transportation instead of gasoline.

Two problems that must be evaluated by the train companies are the number of trains that run and train delays. The trains run very regularly during rush hour, but there tend to be large gaps in the schedule that render needing to get home to tend to an unexpected sick child impossible in the middle of the day. This is also difficult for people that do not work the 9-5 shift. People need the choice to get home in the middle of the day without having to wait 3 hours for the next train home, a gap that is very real if you live past a certain point on the Fitchburg line and want to get home after 1:25pm and before the next train leaves at 4:40pm.

Delays on trains is also an issue. Train companies need to understand that as a person's primary transportation home, their riders need to feel a demonstrated responsibility towards getting them to their destination on the agreed upon time. Train companies should discuss what is needed to achieve this whether it its having back-ups to the parts that tend to break down, investing in new equipment, or just providing riders with clear, thorough updates on when they can expect to get home.

On the other hand, it is people's mentality that must be changed when it comes to having to walk further or change trains, and on the need to feel in control behind the wheel. Walking further may feel like an inconvenience, but walking has great health benefits that are clearly needed evidenced from my ease at finding a fat man to sit next to on the train. Furthermore, changing trains can often be avoided by finding walking routes (especially in Boston which seems a lot smaller once you start walking it, trust me). Furthermore, the feeling that people have of being able to control when they get home by driving is actually a false sense of reality. One only has to spend a conscious moment driving during rush hour to recognize that the traffic controls the time you get home just as much as the train would. The major difference is your environmental impact and how relaxed you are upon arriving at your destination.

Until the government becomes more concerned with the environment and begins to take care of the public transportation and until the train companies smarten up and improve their service to improve their ridership, the status quo will remain. As for me, I will continue to take public transportation as it serves my needs and has made me addicted to the sleeping, reading, eating, and just complete lack of attention that I can pay during my train time.

$4.89 and counting

While the average motorist pays a little over $4 a gallon for gas at the current moment if they're lucky, myself and other diesel drivers (including the truck drivers who cart the products we use daily cross country) are paying almost $5 a gallon. Every time I go to pump my gas, I can't help but half be pleased and half be really irritated at the prices. Why would anyone be happy to pay $5 a gallon? Well, simply put, the past couple of years when I tried to tout my reasons for why the current administration NEEDS to pay more attention to alternative energies, many people would say things like "I don't really care about the environment" or they wouldn't be so blunt, but would tune me out halfway through what I thought would at least be a discussion.

Now, people are listening. Their pocketbooks are taking a hit so even those who "don't care about the environment" are being forced to listen to the cries for an alternative to the current state of affairs; while their first thoughts to solutions are still often something I would disagree with, I get more than the previously allotted 5 seconds to state my case. Even more so, I happen to know a few SUV drivers who are now giving me tips on how to be more fuel efficient. For instance you can keep your speed to below 60 mph and make sure your tires are filled to the correct air pressure. Or you could invest in a car that has higher fuel efficiency. And if you really wanted to help change the way our country views oil, you could pressure your state and federal representatives to create more forums for alternative energies and to find ways to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil.

As always, companies are going to prey on our current needs. You are being hurt by the current prices of gasoline, so the car companies are trying to persuade us that their cars are really the best based on miles per gallons. The Honda Pilot, an suv, has been represented in many advertisements, one of which shows a family walking on the side of the road to get more gas for their car that has apparently run out. They get picked up by a man in a Honda Pilot who gets....wait for it....a whopping 23 miles per gallon. Make sure that before you follow the advertisements to the car lot, that you really think about what this means. 23 miles per gallon may sound wonderful to the average suv user, but remember it's not even close to what you could be getting with a hybrid or a sedan. My Volkswagen Jetta TDI gets approximately 50 mpg. There is a list of the best and worst fuel efficient cars produced by the U.S. Department of Energy which can be found at:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/bestworst.shtml. Check out the facts behind the advertisements before purchasing any vehicle.

Green Washing

It was the summer of 2006 and talk of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was all the rage, especially in the heart of Washington D.C. Though environmental activism has existed for decades, this movie added a more serious spin to the problems of Global Warming for those who either voted for Al Gore in 2000 or were apathetic to him in general. For people who could not stand the man, the movie was “fiction.” This refusal to believe in global warming and to change any American behaviors has been characteristic of the problems that followed environmental movements; that is until now.

Driving behind a truck carrying food products, a visible sign claims that their trucks are run on sustainable fuel. Wow, exciting, maybe people are really listening to the cry for help that before only was noticed by people willing to live in trees. Or maybe not. Green washing is becoming tres chic and it is becoming increasingly difficult to make decisions based on whether a product is more environmentally sustainable then another. A phrase such as “our trucks are run on sustainable fuel” could be plastered next to a brand name whether the company has one truck out of 500 running on sustainable fuels or 500 out of 500. When are we, the consumer, going to be able to buy something with a label that reads “eco-friendly” or “organic” or “cage free” and actually be purchasing just that?

Vague statements and unexplained claims run rampant in our culture at the moment. A particular sign that emerges off Rte 95 out of the dense smog that is Newark, NJ states that the company, which will not be named but does fall under the category of a plant, is “environmentally efficient” and “environmentally advanced.” I did not test the air or bring a specialist along to investigate and tell me how environmentally sound this company is; however, all I had to do was look around me at the smog filled sky to recognize that even if these claims are somehow true, the company is not providing cleaner air to the surrounding residents, which is what they really need.

However, there are a few companies that are actually touting the green label and following the philosophy. Companies that make products out of recyclable materials and those that use resources that are renewable (and NO, oil is not a renewable resource) are actually trying to decrease their carbon footprint on the earth and not simply in the minds of consumers. Some of these companies such as Patagonia, TerraCycle, Seventh Generation, and Stoneyfield Farm, Inc. tout the green labels and actually deliver their claims.

It is unfortunate that there are so many companies trying to profit on the label of “environmentally friendly” without actually delivering their promises. However, it is up to us the consumer to try to make sure we consciously choose to purchase products and that we check the background of these companies to make sure they are actually “eco-friendly” and not just using these words in advertisements to boost sales. Stoneyfield Farm, Inc finances one non-profit, Climate Counts, which can be found at climatecounts.org. Its purpose is to try to make it easier for the consumer by providing ratings of many popular companies on their efforts to combat climate change. The rating system consists of a stick figure in a green light for “striding” companies, a stick figure in a yellow light for “starting” companies, and a stick figure in a red light for “stuck” companies. This may be the first of the rating systems that can help the consumer correctly choose which companies are actually doing what their claims say. After all, it would be nice if most of us could buy something and actually receive what we believed we were paying for.