We could be saving a lot of money by living a cleaner, greener lifestyle — like in the trillions.

Look, I get it: Cleaning up your carbon footprint feels like a lot of work.

What with all the dividing up your plastics and cans and cardboard and glass and dragging that bright green or blue bin out to the curb once a week.

Hell, I'm not even sure what goes where at my co-working space:



Is there a difference between the blue and the green? What about all the biodegradable cups and utensils? Where do I put those when I'm done? I'M SO OVERWHELMED — ooooh, look! Reese's Peanut Butter Pumpkins...

And sure, maybe you'd buy an electric car if there were more options or if they weren't so much more expensive at the lot.

But as cool as your neighbor's solar panels look, you can't imagine that the maintenance and installation costs could really make it worth it. Besides, your standard electric bill is easier, and it's not even that bad anyway. Right?

But what if I told you that clean, green living will actually save you money?

GIF from "The Matrix."

I think it's fair to assume that most people think that greenhouse gases are cheap and easy, so they're willing to go along with the undeniable damage that they do to the planet because, hey, money's tight. I get that.

But guess who benefits from that belief? (Hint: It's the people making money off of it.)

As it turns out, renewable energy is significantly more cost-effective than fossil fuels.

And the price is only going down (which in turn makes the price of fossil fuels rise even more because the market says so — shout-out to all my free-market capitalist homies!)


Clearly Beyoncé was singing about renewal energy and the changing climate, which is decidedly not "chill." GIF via Destiny's Child.

So much so that it has cost us over $300 trillion — and counting! — for not doing the green thing.

A new economic study has valued the cost of our continued environmental destruction at a whopping $326 trillion dollars (over two centuries, but still).

Specifically, the study from the University of Cambridge and the National Snow and Ice Data Center applied theoretical economic models to predict the cost of climate change over the next 185 years on agriculture, air conditioning (to counter the rising global temperatures), human health care and medical coverage for new and evolving diseases, and more.

What's more, their model showed that if we don't find a way to slow the increasing thaw of Arctic permafrost and the resulting carbon emissions, it'll add an additional $43 trillion to that already hefty sum.

It should be noted that these numbers are ignoring the cost of inflation; presumably private colleges will cost $43 trillion per semester in the year 2100, but that's like comparing a nickel today to a nickel in 1830.


GIF from "Eastbound and Down."

"We want to use these models to help us make better decisions — linking scientific and economic models together is a way to help us do that," Chris Hope, one of the authors of the paper, said in a press release. Ya know, better decisions like not destroying the planet while also paying out of pocket to subsidize our own demise.

At the end of the day, the facts are clear: Clean, green living is not a partisan problem. It's actually better for everyone.

"Reducing fossil fuel emissions and stopping climate change is not a stark choice between jobs and the environment," said Kevin Schaefer, another author of the paper. “Rather, we can simultaneously reduce emissions and grow the economy by harnessing the same market forces that created the problem in the first place. [...] This will create an environment where consumers will naturally choose the low-carbon option because it is the best economic choice available."

When you put it that way, it's kind of hard to argue. It is literally a win-win for everyone.


GIF from "Parks and Recreation."

The return on investment for clean energy is worth it — but the benefits are that much better when we all work together.

Time for some real talk: One electric car or residential solar panel is not going to save us from the $326 trillion doom of our fiery future.

But if the world around us keeps going about things as they have been, these small pockets of change will only serve to slightly offset the inevitable — particularly when about 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet come from factories (including their share of emissions from electricity) — the largest contributor of any sector.

So as long as money talks, let's put our money where our mouths are and invest it in cleaner, greener lifestyles.

Let's pledge our support for a clean energy future — we can start by putting a stop to offshore drilling in the Arctic. By coming together and pledging ourselves toward a better future, we can implement greater and more far-reaching changes than me trying to understand the difference between the green and blue recycling bins.

But I'm still going to do that, of course. Because it still makes a difference.

Heroes
True
Natural Resources Defense Council
via Twitter / Soraya

There is a strange right-wing logic that suggests when minorities fight for equal rights it's somehow a threat to the rights already held by those in the majority or who hold power.

Like when the Black Lives Matter movement started, many on the right claimed that fighting for black people to be treated equally somehow meant that other people's lives were not as valuable, leading to the short-lived All Lives Matter movement.

This same "oppressed majority" logic is behind the new Straight Pride movement which made headlines in August after its march through the streets of Boston.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

For most of us, the hypothetical question of whether we would stick with a boyfriend or girlfriend through the trials of cancer and the treatments is just that – a hypothetical question. We would like to think we would do the right thing, but when Max Allegretti got the chance to put his money where mouth is, he didn't hesitate for a second.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
via bfmamatalk / facebook

Where did we go wrong as a society to make women feel uncomfortable about breastfeeding in public?

No one should feel they have the right to tell a woman when, where, and how she can breastfeed. The stigma should be placed on those who have the nerve to tell a woman feeding her child to "Cover up" or to ask "Where's your modesty?"

Breasts were made to feed babies. Yes, they also have a sexual function but anyone who has the maturity of a sixth grader knows the difference between a sexual act and feeding a child.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Instagram / JLo

The Me Too movement has shed light on just how many actresses have been placed in positions that make them feel uncomfortable. Abuse of power has been all too commonplace. Some actresses have been coerced into doing something that made them uncomfortable because they felt they couldn't say no to the director. And it's not always as flagrant as Louis C.K. masturbating in front of an up-and-coming comedian, or Harvey Weinstein forcing himself on actresses in hotel rooms.

But it's important to remember that you can always firmly put your foot down and say no. While speaking at The Hollywood Reporter's annual Actress Roundtable, Jennifer Lopez opened up about her experiences with a director who behaved inappropriately. Laura Dern, Awkwafina, Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong'o, and Renee Zellweger were also at the roundtable.

Keep Reading Show less
popular