Posted by: John S Kiernan

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

Then there’s climate change. We’ve already seen a rise in powerful land-bearing storm systems and extreme droughts, with New York and New Jersey spending $71.4 billion to rebuild from Hurricane Sandy. But that’s just the beginning, as storm surges and other bad weather are expected to cause more than $500 billion in 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.

In the meantime, we can all try to do our part to save the world for future generations. In order to highlight the greenest states and call out those doing a poor job of caring for the environment, WalletHub’s analysts compared each of the 50 states in terms of 17 key metrics designed to illustrate each state’s environmental quality and the eco-friendliness of its policies.

1. Main Findings
2. Red States vs. Blue States
3. Ask the Experts
4. Methodology

Main Findings

Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/11987/ecofriendly-geochart.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2oHeM0s;  

Overall Rank	State	Total Score	‘Environmental Quality’ Rank	‘Eco-Friendly Behaviors’ Rank	‘Climate-Change Contributions’ Rank
1	Vermont	78.67	2	2	10
2	Washington	74.88	3	3	24
3	Massachusetts	73.28	6	10	7
4	Oregon	72.77	9	1	28
5	Minnesota	70.93	1	12	30
6	Maine	70.40	13	5	9
7	Connecticut	70.02	5	23	2
8	New York	69.34	16	8	8
9	New Hampshire	68.67	30	7	3
10	New Jersey	68.42	26	9	5
11	Maryland	66.46	20	14	6
12	California	65.89	44	4	12
13	Rhode Island	65.64	18	22	4
14	Florida	65.17	19	19	11
15	Wisconsin	64.36	7	28	25
16	Michigan	63.73	8	39	18
17	North Carolina	63.45	23	21	17
18	Pennsylvania	63.09	27	16	20
19	Hawaii	62.68	50	6	13
20	Illinois	62.55	11	29	22
21	Nevada	61.94	35	20	14
22	Georgia	60.95	37	25	15
23	Colorado	60.58	28	15	31
24	Delaware	60.36	42	31	1
25	Ohio	60.21	24	27	26
26	Tennessee	60.06	29	32	19
27	Arizona	59.93	39	18	21
28	South Carolina	59.57	21	36	23
29	Virginia	58.98	43	26	16
30	Missouri	57.95	12	37	33
31	Utah	56.73	15	45	27
32	South Dakota	56.68	4	13	45
33	New Mexico	56.11	40	11	39
34	Mississippi	55.86	25	42	29
35	Alaska	54.75	10	34	42
36	Texas	53.45	38	38	34
37	Alabama	52.74	34	44	32
38	Indiana	51.65	31	48	35
39	Kansas	51.30	17	33	43
40	Iowa	50.29	14	30	44
41	Idaho	50.27	47	24	40
42	Arkansas	49.28	49	35	36
43	Kentucky	48.10	41	40	41
44	Louisiana	46.44	45	50	37
45	Oklahoma	45.48	48	47	38
46	Nebraska	42.76	32	43	47
47	West Virginia	42.68	33	46	46
48	Montana	42.27	46	17	48
49	North Dakota	39.20	22	41	50
50	Wyoming	37.35	36	49	49

 

Red States vs. Blue States

 

Ask the Experts

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. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and thoughts on the following key questions:

1. What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly?
2. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth?
3. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving an electric car; recycling; lower water consumption; installing solar panels on the home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others?

< >

• John Clinton Founding Chair of the Graduate Program in Environmental Policy, and Associate Professor of Environmental Policy & Sustainability Management at The New School
• Mary F. Evans Jerrine and Thomas Mitchell ’66 Associate Professor of Environmental Economics, and George R. Roberts Fellow in the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College
• Nancy Engelhardt Furlow Professor of Marketing at Marymount University
• John Hayes Founder of the Center for a Sustainable Society at Pacific University
• Ernest R. Blatchley III Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University, Lyles School of Engineering
• Charles D. Kolstad Senior Fellow in the Institute for Economic Policy Research and in the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University
• Eban Goodstein Director of the Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College
• Peter Maniloff Assistant Professor in the Division of Economics and Business, and Affiliate Faculty in the Payne Institute for Earth Resources at Colorado School of Mines
• David A. Vaccari Professor and Director of the Department of Civil, Environmental and Ocean Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology
• Deborah Branson Associate Professor of Environmental Management and Director of the Environmental and Occupational Management Program at Methodist University
• Melinda Storie Assistant Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Northeastern Illinois University
• Spencer Banzhaf Professor of Economics at Georgia State's Andrew Young School of Policy Studies
• Tracey Holloway Professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Douglas Noonan Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Director of Research in the Public Policy Institute at Indiana University
• Malcolm J. D'Souza Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean of Interdisciplinary/Collaborative Sponsored Research at Wesley College
• Ramses Armendariz Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Commerce at Monmouth College
• David Tyler Charles J. and M. Monteith Jacobs Professor of Chemistry at University of Oregon
• Daniel J. Sherman Luce-Funded Professor of Environmental Policy and Decision Making and Director of the Sound Policy Institute at University of Puget Sound
• Kirsten L.L. Oleson Assistant Professor of Ecological Economics in the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at University of Hawaii Manoa
• Carey W. King Assistant Director of the Energy Institute, Research Scientist in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and Lecturer in Business, Government and Society in the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin

John Clinton Founding Chair of the Graduate Program in Environmental Policy, and Associate Professor of Environmental Policy & Sustainability Management at The New School What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? Cities and states long ago took the lead in fostering environmentally friendly policies and sharing best practices through such city networks as ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability, begun some 25 years ago) and C40 (Cities Climate Leadership Group); regional cooperation among states via agreements like RGGI (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce carbon emissions) and state-level and regional cooperative initiatives to protect the Great Lakes basin; and even city-country collaboration like the Catskill Watershed Corporation to protect New York City’s water supply from the harmful byproducts of rural upstate New York development (like contaminated waterways) while providing economic assistance to those same rural communities. Following on these success stories, cities and states recently (Fall 2015) joined together in the “Under 2 MOU” — an agreement among “subnational” governments worldwide, initiated by California Governor Jerry Brown (and launched at my own institution, The New School in New York City) to reduce CO2 pollution, share diverse ideas about how to do so, and exert collective impact to achieve these results. States and cities have shown that their flexibility and ability to engage local community participation is a key to successful environmental policy. The latest wave of such initiatives include cities like Newark, NJ, which has established an environmental commission to assess needs and develop policies suited to its own specific priorities, while, at a global level, the 100 Resilient Cities project of the Rockefeller Foundation helps cities worldwide develop strategies and practices to become resilient to 21st century issues. Perhaps the most important factor in devising environmentally friendly policies at the state and local level is identifying their own greatest risks (lead in the water system? sea level rise threatening coastal communities? a lack of healthy food markets contributing to Type 2 diabetes?) and crafting policies that address the issue, communicate about the hazards and remedies, and thereby gain broad community support and participation. Public policy is only as effective as it is popular with the public. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? The idea that protecting our environment means we can’t have economic growth is what’s called a “false dichotomy”: we don’t have to have either one or the other. We’re still in the early stages of a transition to greater energy efficiency — a key economic driver. So what’s called “alternative energy” today (solar, wind, geothermal) will soon be mainstream, affordable, effective, renewable and zero-carbon, once technology, profitability, and public policy (and acceptance) converge. Not so long ago, it was acceptable that city streets were covered in horse manure (a principal energy byproduct!). Just as we wouldn’t tolerate that in any American city today, before long technology and peoples’ expectations will reject our current energy solutions in favor of those that don’t pollute the air we breathe or jeopardize the climate that makes our world friendly to life. And while growth is vitally important to lift up people in poverty, in time we will set a priority on economic well-being rather than economic growth for its own sake. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The best answer to a question about prioritizing environmentally friendly activities is: “all of the above.” Driving an electric car is still a pretty remote choice for most people, and reducing fertilizer and pesticides use is important in farm and suburban settings — but not too relevant for urban dwellers. But all such factors are related, and interact in complex ways in our ecosystems. Addressing each, while understanding their connections and promoting comprehensive strategies, is a wise course for policymakers and for public education campaigns. That said, a high priority is that we value appropriately our relationship to our environment so that the greatest shared virtue is conservation, reduced impact, and giving future generations a chance to enjoy what we have now. Without that commitment, it’s not just the polar bears and the people of 2200 who will lose out, but kids growing up today who won’t recognize the world we know in 2016. The top priority? Do all we can to let the next generation experience the environment we take for granted. Mary F. Evans Jerrine and Thomas Mitchell ’66 Associate Professor of Environmental Economics, and George R. Roberts Fellow in the Robert Day School of Economics and Finance at Claremont McKenna College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? With little prospect for any new legislative action at the national level, states and local authorities are likely to play an increasingly important role in safeguarding the environmental health of communities. These authorities can ensure that the state and local agencies responsible for enforcing environmental regulations have the resources to do so. They can also empower local communities to act in their own interests by encouraging companies to provide transparent information about their environmental records. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Economies can grow without sacrificing environmental quality. However, during the 20th century, the engine of economic growth was the burning of fossil fuels. In recent years, some countries, including the U.S., have seen increases in their GDPs without increases in carbon emissions. This suggests the potential for growth without reliance on fossil fuels. However, for many countries, in particular developing countries, growth remains linked to the burning of fossil fuels and therefore to carbon emissions. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? It’s difficult to prioritize the various actions people can take to contribute to environmental quality as the benefits (and costs) of actions are likely to vary across individuals and geographic locations. For example, someone in Los Angeles who installs solar panels on her home and lowers her water consumption will have a different impact than another person who takes the same actions but who lives in Chicago. Nancy Engelhardt Furlow Professor of Marketing at Marymount University Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? It shouldn't be either, but rather it is possible to have both. If you look at examples in Fair Trade sourcing or EcoTourism you can find cases where economic growth was a result of protecting the environment. There are examples of social entrepreneurship also that focused on environmental solutions which led to economic growth. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? All of these activities, as well as many others, are critically important, but their priority will differ depending on the situation and location. For example, in California, lowering water consumption is a high priority, but in states near the Chesapeake Bay, responsible use of pesticides and fertilizers are a high priority. Solar panels may be a great option in the West, but not as popular in other areas. I believe states that have the potential to see the economic benefits from solar panels, such as Florida, should take full advantage and promote their use. The Tampa airport is an example of this. Education is key. The activity may differ depending on the location, but environmental education is essential. The challenges for each location are different and unfortunately there isn't a one size fits all solution. John Hayes Founder of the Center for a Sustainable Society at Pacific University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most pressing environmental issue — and possibly the most pressing issue of our time — is climate change and what that portends. It seems that every week a new, more dire warning is issued: melting of Greenland ice at catastrophic rates; disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet; record warm temps in the Arctic; disappearance of the world’s glaciers; unprecedented warming, and therefore increased volume, of the oceans; increased flooding of Florida, with south Florida streets inundated by high tides; persistent droughts in spite of a strong El Nino; etc. The question is, what can states do? Oregon has taken a leadership role by mandating an increase use of renewable energy and a phasing out of coal for generating electricity, the first state to do so. The 550 MW Boardman plant, the sole remaining coal-fired plant in Oregon, is slated to go off line by 2020. Oregon will also eventually stop purchasing out-of-state coal-fired electricity. These measures will dramatically reduce Oregon’s already low electricity-generating carbon footprint (low because of abundant hydropower). Oregon also passed a clean fuels bill that will take effect in 2017, mandating use of biodiesel, electricity, natural gas, biogas, etc. for transportation. According to Oregon’s DEQ, transportation accounts for about one-third of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, which should be reduced substantially as this law takes effect. The U.S. Green Building Council, which authors the LEED program, began in Portland before moving to Washington, DC. Oregon has loads of LEED-certified buildings. Before retiring, I worked at Pacific University here in Forest Grove, OR, first as Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, then for 3 years at half-time, when I started up the university’s Center for a Sustainable Society. Pacific University has built 7 buildings in the last 10 years, one LEED Silver and six LEED Gold. They represent about 40% of the university’s square footage. Here in Forest Grove, we have undertaken several new programs (all but #2 below address climate change). Some of them are: 1. Grove Link. This is a free intra-town bus that links outlying areas and the high school to the downtown area. Ridership has greatly exceeded expectations. This reduces single-occupant, within-town transportation. 2. Plastic bags. Several Oregon cities — Ashland, Corvallis, Eugene, Portland — have banned single-use plastic checkout bags. The FG Sustainability Commission (I’m a member) has proposed to the City Council that Forest Grove also enact a ban; we expect the City Council to rule on this before the summer. 3. Trails and bikes. FG has developed most of what is termed the Emerald Necklace, a paved hiking and biking trail that encircles the city. It is also working on establishing a north-south through-trail that would link other cities with FG. There are also bike lanes on most heavily traveled streets. 4. Energy conservation. The FG School District built a new LEED Gold elementary school. The city is in the process of replacing street lights and city-owned indoor lights with LEDs. Pacific University is in the process of switching over to all LED lighting. At least one elementary school is switching to LEDs, and it is expected that others will follow soon. In terms of microeconomics, it makes sense for businesses and consumers to invest in energy-saving measures if they have relatively short payback times. Short payback times exist for many measures, for example LED bulbs and attic insulation. When buying new appliances, the best Energy Star-rated appliances often cost the same or even less than less-efficient ones. Most people do not buy vehicles based on cost. When gasoline prices are low, as they have been, SUVs and light trucks fly off the lot. Every one of those vehicles costs more than a Prius, and rarely do people need the hauling capacity of Ford 150s or large SUVs. I own a Prius that routinely gets 45 – 50 mpg, and as I have found when trading in a previous 6-year-old Prius, it retains its resale value at a high level, and it needed almost nothing beyond routine maintenance. When I needed to haul 2 x 4s, I just put the passenger seats down and slid in boards up to 10 ft. long. If longer or if hauling 4 x 8 sheets of plywood, I put on a roof rack. So, my Prius cost less to buy than all of those SUVs and I get way better mileage, pay little for maintenance, retain resale value, and can haul reasonable loads. Pacific University goes for LEED Gold even though it costs money to gain the rating. It could just invest in the same energy-conservation measures — which make good economic sense — and call it good. It would save the university the same amount in terms of gas and electricity, but it goes for the LEED rating for 2 reasons: 1. It displays leadership, telling the world that it’s important to walk lightly on the planet; 2. It’s good publicity, which gains donors and more prospective students for the university. And the city, the school district, and the university invest in LED lighting because it makes excellent economic sense, even without any government or utility incentives. In terms of macroeconomics, everyone is going to be penalized by global warming as goods and food become more scarce, resulting in price increases. As some regions become even hotter, human health will be negatively affected, which will cost society money. It seems, also, that every week there is more news about unhealthy air in the world’s city. The public pays for this, both in terms of healthcare costs (for the individual and for everyone in more costly insurance premiums) and of lost productivity, resulting in higher cost food and goods. There are already climate refugees, and that is about to get much worse as sea levels rise and as storms become more potent. Those refugees have to go somewhere, and they will have to be supported by the rest of us. Because of the huge increase in burning of coal — China has been adding a coal-fired power plant every week for years — the imbedded mercury is being spread across the planet. This has resulted in having normally very healthy fish eating being unhealthful. If you go to bodies of water just about anywhere in the U.S., you could see warnings about eating the fish. The state of Connecticut, for example, says not to eat striped bass, bluefish, and swordfish, amongst others. The state of Oregon says not to eat walleyes and smallmouth bass out of the Willamette River. There have always been scares of mercury in tuna fish. Etc. This is an economic penalty only indirectly linked to global warming. Ernest R. Blatchley III Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University, Lyles School of Engineering What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? In a general sense, Americans have become accustomed to rates of resource (water, energy, etc.) consumption that extend well beyond our true needs. When one compares per capita resource consumption in the U.S. with countries that are our economic peers, we observe that our resource consumption rates are well in excess of these other countries. Moreover, as these other countries have reduced their resource consumption rates, they have observed benefits. The U.S. is in position to do the same. Elected officials and other policy makers should first take the time to educate themselves about the realities of resource consumption and resource needs. They could then use this information to inform policy decisions. As an example, we (the U.S.) consume fossil fuels at alarmingly high rates. Opportunities for reductions in this area are easy to find, but almost all require changes of habits. Our habits have been formed by a period of resource abundance in which we had little motivation to consider resource conservation or environmental impact. Humans are not the best at adapting to habit changes. On the other hand, this shortcoming of human nature could be overcome by policies that reward those who make changes to reduce consumption of fuel and other resources. Similarly, there are obvious opportunities to reduce water consumption rates, or to implement policies that promote more efficient use of water. Some communities in water-starved areas of the U.S. have implemented these policies out of necessity. Other communities who may be on the fringe of water shortages should also consider such measures. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? That is a common argument and a traditional view. The argument has merit, when considered from the perspective of how environmental protection limits human activity. However, there are other benefits of environmental protection that do not register immediately on the “bottom line”. For example, the quality of our environment plays a critical role in the monetary value of property. Areas that have undergone substantial environmental degradation are less desirable, and therefore are valued less. Similarly, communities that adapt policies that promote or encourage environmental consciousness tend to be desirable places to live. Though more difficult to quantify, the attitudes that emerge in communities that take these approaches also tend to favor community pride, which also can be desirable. Also moving against the traditional view is the perspective that environmental protection may actually provide economic growth opportunities. For example, a clear need exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our country. Perhaps the best opportunities to realize this goal are related to reductions in the rates of fossil fuel combustion. Creative, forward-looking people and businesses will seek opportunities to pursue new or alternative forms of energy. Here, again, opportunities exist for (creative, forward-thinking) policies to be implemented that promote economic development in these areas. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I wouldn’t prioritize them. They are all important. And they don’t define the list of measures that we, as a country, should pursue. I would argue that a more useful approach might be to educate the public and people in administrative and elected positions about the realities of environmental issues. An informed public is likely to demand changes that would encompass all of the measures listed above and more. Informed politicians will be in a strong position to develop rational policies to ensure sustainable use of resources. Charles D. Kolstad Senior Fellow in the Institute for Economic Policy Research and in the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? This is a very broad issue but is one where local action can make a big difference. State and local authorities are taking the lead in the US on climate policies though climate is more appropriately a national issue. California is certainly a leader in climate change with its cap and trade regulations. But local and regional environmental protection is also important. This includes zoning, water conservation, and infrastructure provision. One needs to be wary of actions which feel good but has little impact on the environment, such as banning or restricting paper bags. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? If done right, not at all. Worthwhile environmental protection makes people better off, even after paying for it. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? In descending order of importance (though all are important):

• Installing solar panels;
• Reducing pesticide use;
• Recycling;
• Lowering water consumption;
• Electric car driving.

Eban Goodstein Director of the Center for Environmental Policy at Bard College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most critical sustainability challenge we face today is human-caused climate change. The year 2015 was, by far the hottest on record, and 2016 figures to be even hotter. We have to stabilize this trend. At the same time, a transition to clean, renewable energy is cheaper than ever, and promises to reduce oil spills, mountaintop removal, fracking, and asthma rates in our cities. I just put solar on my roof for no out of pocket cost: I swapped out my electric bill for loan payments on the solar system, and after 15 years, I will have free electricity for the life of the solar system. It’s getting to be a no brainer. So the most important polices are the ones that promote community and rooftop solar, energy efficient buildings, and the move to electrify the vehicle fleet. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? No. In 1999, I wrote a book called “The Trade-off Myth: Fact and Fiction about Jobs and the Environment”. I showed that in the USA’s then 30 year history of cleaning up the environment, there had never been the kind of wide-scale layoffs predicted from plant closings due to environmental policies. And in fact, many jobs had been created in the process of cleaning up the environment. This has become even more evident since I wrote the book. Now there are more solar industry workers in the US, 209,000, then in the oil and gas sector. And 65% of these jobs are blue-collar — in installation and maintenance. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The first priority is to spend a few hours making phone calls or knocking on doors for clean energy candidates, whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, in the upcoming fall elections. Sustainability challenges require political solutions. Second priority is to join the green team at your local business or place of worship, and make a difference at scale in your community. Then, of course, walk the talk as far as you can in your every-day life. Peter Maniloff Assistant Professor in the Division of Economics and Business, and Affiliate Faculty in the Payne Institute for Earth Resources at Colorado School of Mines Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? We need a broader conception of "economic growth' that also includes human happiness (or as economists say, utility). If we think of the economy as providing happiness, then some choices will promote employment, some will promote environmental quality, and some will promote other good things like time with family. In this framework there's no tradeoff - there’s just a question on how to ensure that people are as well off as they can be, broadly construed. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Prioritizing different environmentally friendly activities is really hard. Which uses the least water? Which uses the least landfill space? Which contributes the least to global warming? And if one uses the least water, but another contributes the least to global warming, which goal is more important? That's why economists think the most important thing we can do is to get the prices right - to ensure that environmental impacts are part of the prices that consumers see at the store. Then consumers can choose environmentally friendly products and activities rationally and easily, without having to bother learning about the relative impacts of all of our household choices. David A. Vaccari Professor and Director of the Department of Civil, Environmental and Ocean Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? The most general principle would be “let the polluter pay.” This is not to single out industrial sources – people pollute also, by their choices as well as their actions. In economic terms: negative externalities should be internalized. One concrete policy action that this translates into would be a carbon tax, with the goal of controlling global warming. Further, this tax should not be “revenue neutral.” That is, the revenue from a carbon tax should not offset other taxes currently levied, as has been done in some locales. The revenue should go to benefit those hurt by global warming, including future generations. How could this be done? By dedicating carbon tax revenues towards investing in zero-carbon energy technologies. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Mostly yes, but with some exceptions, so growth is possible without environmental harm. Growth comes from various sources, including technological change and from population growth. There is an inherent tradeoff between economic growth from population growth and environmental protection. This kind of growth inherently consumes more resources, in a world in which resources are already strained. Growth from technological change in some cases conflicts with environmental protection, and in some cases not. When the technological change involves more intensive use of resources, then the answer is yes. But some technological change can reduce our use of resources; in this case the answer would be no, and this would be a source of growth without environmental harm. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Reducing resource use is far more effective at conservation than are recycling efforts. Therefore, actions such as reducing water consumption or installing renewable energy such as solar panels can be very effective. Electric cars are beneficial (I own one), but not as much. I think reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use is further down the list mainly because, when carefully used, they are not associated so strongly with resource depletion. Not mentioned is what I consider the “master variable”: population. I think the world is already past its “carrying capacity,” and cannot sustain the current population indefinitely, let alone the large increase that is expected over the next century. Deborah Branson Associate Professor of Environmental Management and Director of the Environmental and Occupational Management Program at Methodist University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly?

• Strong support of recycling and visible trash and recycling bins placed side by side.
• Education throughout the school years will create an informed public.
• Active support of such events such as Earth Day and Arbor Day.
• Cities need to design for green space and for better management of stormwater, allowing it to infiltrate rather than run off. Pervious pavement parking lots would be a major step forward. Trees and green areas on playgrounds for children.

Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? The debate on this topic is ongoing; in the press, among consumers, in business and in the classroom. Companies have managed to be sustainable such as the zero land fill achievement of Subaru. Unfortunately, businesses have merely moved to countries that do not have as stringent environmental regulations as the U.S. or other developed countries in order to create their product more easily while not worrying about complying with laws. Corporate Social Responsibility has become quite an issue as buyers have become aware of materials produced in "sweatshops" using child labor. Nike and Apple are two that made headlines. I believe that the tradeoff can be minimized if innovative technologies are used and companies, and shareholders, are willing to make less profit in the short term. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others?

• Greening of cityscapes and green roofs, gardens - not lawns; more edible landscapes.
• Not using artificial fertilizers or several of the more hazardous pesticides and herbicides would be first for me.
• Next, lowering water consumption.
• Soil conservation.
• Recycling, composting, reducing use of packaging and materials that cannot be reused.
• Solar panels, ground source heating, passive solar modifications to houses can all be helpful.
• Electric cars still require energy that could be produced from coal fired power plants. At least the stationary source of pollution (CFPP) is much easier to control than the mobile source (cars).

Melinda Storie Assistant Professor and Graduate Coordinator in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Northeastern Illinois University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? It's a matter of authorities paving the way for community-established sustainability initiatives. Top-down approaches may not be as effective as getting communities involved in what they would like to see in terms of environmentally-friendly options. Establishing a baseline for how communities interact with their environmental impact is an important first step. Then, examining options for both high and low impact environmental initiatives that will serve the best interests of the residents of each community as well as the municipalities and states as a whole. Thinking and practicing sustainability in all its aspects (environmental, economic, and social justice) is a much needed goal. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? There doesn't have to be. Economists have examined this issue in great detail. It's more of a matter of reexamining the way in which we value natural resources and the complex systems in which they exist. Natural resources and economics will always be intricately connected because they both deal with what we value. However, in order to reach a point where we can approach any level of sustainability, we really need to revise our economic systems and counteract the general assumptions of neo-classical economics. For example, when we buy products, the "external" costs, such as the carbon footprint or inherent value of the natural resource, are not taken into consideration. We need to factor environmental consequences of resource use into the equation. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Environmental impact differs depending on where you are located and what types of natural resources are available to you. In that way, our overall impact is greatly defined by our geography. One helpful way to see your overall environmental impact is to take the ecological footprint assessment. There are calculators online that you can plug in your various behaviors and see the impacts of behavior changes. Overall, there are low-impact, medium-impact, and high-impact behaviors. All are necessary and important and in many ways can lead to behavioral shifts in other aspects of life. For example, recycling is a low-impact behavior; however, it can sometimes lead to a higher-impact behavior when one sees how much they recycle and then simply stops purchasing water bottles and begins using a reusable bottle instead. In developed countries, some of the highest-impact behavioral changes are changing the way that you eat (eating local, lower on the food chain, organic, etc.), the way that you travel (reducing your carbon footprint), and the way that you buy (purchasing less and purchasing environmentally-friendly products). Spencer Banzhaf Professor of Economics at Georgia State's Andrew Young School of Policy Studies What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? We can — and should — do more at the state and local level. Especially in the west, states can further adapt their water laws to allow groups like Trout Unlimited to buy instream flows, to conserve water. State and local governments can improve transportation routes to reduce traffic and improve flow, reducing air pollution. In particular, they can adopt more congestion pricing and fund cost-effective transit, like bus rapid transit. Cities can relax zoning restrictions to allow more urban density, reducing sprawl, which is good for the air and which reduces urban heat islands (a local way to tackle climate change). Local governments can make streets more pedestrian friendly. And school districts can retrofit school buses with pollution controls. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? It depends on what we mean by economic growth. If we mean the production of more material goods, then, yes, there is no escaping the inherent tradeoff between production of material wealth and the environment. Production always comes with waste byproducts. Claims about a green economy and green jobs are fundamentally bogus, because those jobs come at the expense of others. That said, there is another way of thinking about this question. The economy is a social system for bringing about the goods and services that people want. That includes many intangible services – gardening, music and the arts, and so forth. It can also include preserving natural environments. Viewed this way, protecting the environment is consistent with a more efficient economy. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? There are many ways individuals can act individually to reduce pollution. Minimizing the use of fertilizers and pesticides is a good one. About 10% of nutrients polluting our streams come from residential lawns. Households can plant (or keep) large shade trees, which clean the air, reduce urban heat, and reduce air conditioning costs. They can turn down the thermostat in the winter and up in the summer. And they can reduce water use, especially outdoor water use for lawns and gardens, where the water is not recaptured by urban water systems. Other activities may be virtuous in themselves but are largely symbolic when it comes to the environment. Although people often think of recycling, with the exception of aluminum and steel, it probably does little to reduce pollution or otherwise help the environment. Electric cars replace polluting gasoline with polluting electricity generation. Tracey Holloway Professor in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? There are a lot of different ways that policies, technology, and voluntary action can support the environment. Right now, there are major gains to be made around energy - electricity, transportation, as well as the energy used to create food and other products. There are proven policies to reduce the energy we consume, and the money we spend on energy. These include energy efficiency standards, land use planning to support walkable and bikeable communities, and public transit, to name a few. There are also policies that can promote renewable energy, or reduce the cost of energy efficiency investments, financing for solar panels, or tax credits for making homes more energy efficient. By reducing fossil fuel consumption, we get a double-win for the environment. First, burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a gas that absorbs heat (a.k.a. infrared radiation). Because it traps heat near the earth’s surface, carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas,” and is a big player in climate change. Second, burning fossil fuels releases a range of other gases that make people sick and shorten life expectancy, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. These invisible gases are unhealthy on their own, but they also react in the atmosphere to form other air pollutants like ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Policies that reduce fossil fuel consumption act to slow climate change and making our communities healthier. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Not at all. Since 1980, the U.S. population has grown, the economy is way up, and the number of miles we drive has doubled. And, at the same time, average air pollution emissions have gone down by over 60%. In fact, the air we breathe gets cleaner almost every year. That said, there are some policies and technologies that are expensive - like advanced scrubbers on power plants, or cleaner-burning engines on cars. Even for these investments, clean air is a good deal - economists have calculated that the U.S. gets about $10 return in health savings for every $1 we spend on air pollution reduction. Moving forward, there are a lot of policies that are win-win for the environment and the economy. Energy efficient homes save money on heating and cooling, and protect the planet. Cars with higher gas mileage require less gas at the pump, and release fewer emissions per mile. Even our diet can be a win-win: meals with less meat and more vegetables are required less energy to produce per calorie, not to mention being healthier and cheaper. These are savings that directly show up in consumers' pockets. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I would prioritize anything that reduces waste - whether that’s wasted energy, wasted water, wasted food, or anything else… including wasted time. A lot of people drive 20, 30, even 45 minutes or more each way to get to work. This type of commuting wastes gasoline, money, and time, while inadvertently creating air pollution with every mile. There are a lot of ways to reduce our dependency on the car - from telecommuting, to more advanced bus and train systems, to cities that allow people to live closer to work and schools. Of course, most of us would still drive when we need to - but we’d just need to drive less. Douglas Noonan Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Director of Research in the Public Policy Institute at Indiana University What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? State and local authorities can practice a ‘polluter pays’ principle, promoting policies that hold environmentally unfriendly behaviors accountable so that things cost more to the extent they are environmentally harmful. More locally, providing greener, public infrastructure can help. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? There are tradeoffs inherent whenever we’re having competing interests and there’s no “free lunch” out there, but we do not always have to trade off between the environment and economic growth. Often, and importantly, there are real opportunity costs to protecting the environment, many of which are well worth making. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? I’d place “lowering water consumption” at the top of this list. As long as driving electric cars implies retiring a conventional gas guzzler, then this also rates highly. Less outdoor chemical use can help also. I’d rate residential solar and recycling as lower priorities on this list. Some of the highest priority items households face occur at rare, crucial moments when we make decisions about where we live, where we commute to, and what kind of car, home, furnace, etc. we buy. Malcolm J. D'Souza Professor of Chemistry and Associate Dean of Interdisciplinary/Collaborative Sponsored Research at Wesley College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? Nutritional Choices:

• Home water testing kits should be made available (for free) and folks need to be educated about the efficient use of water filters and reusable water-bottles.
• A small charge (tax) should be levied at producers for plastic bags and plastic water bottles. Once this charge is passed on to the consumer, customers will (then only) begin using reusable cloth bags and will rethink their use of (plastic) bottled water.
• Remove sugar subsidies.
• Encourage community Farmer’s markets and Produce Junctions.
• Promote the use of healthier protein staples such as sea-food in place of animal protein.
• Reduce food waste by educating the public about cooking smaller portions, revamping of leftovers, and encouraging community composting.

Social Empowerment and Healthy Communities:

• Commitment to the alleviation of poverty through participatory processes (with transparency), social justice, freely-available quality education, health-care, and job-training services.
• Commit to the development of personal skills for health promotion.
• Educate the public on the detrimental factors of unsustainable population growth.
• Utilize community-based management of the natural resources to conserve biodiversity.
• Catalyze the community to reduce their carbon footprint.
• Incentivize community recycling programs.
• Incentivize sustainable (green-technologies) transport and energy use.

Sustainable Community Developments:

• Employ spatial strategies for effective land use.
• Discourage social exclusion with inclusive green-space pedestrian (& pet) friendly landscape designs.
• Encourage use of native plants for sustainable landscapes.
• Design well-planned affordable and subsidized mixed family-housing units with direct involvement (including cost-sharing) of owners/tenants in the security and unit management.
• Encourage local store structures within walking or bike-riding distance.
• Encourage use of energy efficient technologies for water and electricity.
• Encourage stronger cyber infrastructure-networks, the use of sustainable construction materials and implement uniform sustainable hazard mitigation.

Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? No! In my opinion, the economy and environmental health have a direct correlation. Protecting the renewable and non-renewable resources (environment) has (direct) positive impacts on public health, biodiversity, and the sustainability of our natural resources. So, any improvement will increase allocative efficiency and optimal resource use that benefits the output of the nation’s economy. Also, it is my belief that imposed regulations for the benefit of the environment should result in new innovations (technologies) to better society. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? There is significant ecological interdependence in our global environmental problems. Hence to reduce the per-person footprint, one should follow a sustainable pathway to achieve higher levels of education and literacy, control population growth, improve public health and life-expectancy, and lower energy consumption and the depletion of natural resources. Ramses Armendariz Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Commerce at Monmouth College What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? One reason (and, maybe, the main reason) why authorities do not achieve environmental goals is due to lack of planning. Environmental goals are long term plans, because they are all based on sustainability (i.e., long term preservation). Therefore, to become more environmentally friendly, there has to be long term plans, and this is where problems arise. Authorities change quite often; and, therefore, the necessary long term planning cannot happen. Instead, given this long term commitment necessary to obtain environmental friendliness, I propose that authorities set apart long term resources for NGOs to develop projects that will potentially achieve sustainability. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? This question has two sides: the theoretical side and the empirical side. And I will attempt to address both. In theory, every production process has some sort of waste as a byproduct. This result leads some economists to believe that there is a positive relation between production and pollution. And, as a consequence, a trade-off between protecting the environment and production growth. However, now, some economists have a different opinion regarding this point. A byproduct should not be considered pollution automatically. Pollution is having too much of one particular byproduct that causes "adverse" change in the environment. Therefore, the new answer is to diversify the production processes. So, instead of having too much of one single byproduct, we produce "little" of many different byproducts. Thus, by increasing the diversification of productive processes, we can achieve long term production growth without "harming" the environment. In the empirical side, well, most developed countries quickly achieved their high levels of "development" polluting. This is important to consider because we (humans) know how to increase production quickly with highly polluting processes, but we do not know how to increase production quickly diversifying production processes. Therefore, in order to diversify the production processes, we need to give up on fast production growth. Therefore, in the short run, there is a trade-off between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The most important priority is to diversify production processes in order to get many different byproducts instead of too much of a single one. For instance, in these terms, projects like this meet these criteria. Furthermore, these projects are more likely to induce economic growth in the long run, because they reduce the probability of generating too much of one single byproduct. And the second most important element is to find multiple uses for the same product, because, by reusing goods, we can obtain more production with the same amount of inputs. For example, often, peanut butter comes in a jar. When we buy peanut butter, if we reuse the jar, then, the final consumer obtains two services with the same amount of inputs (the service provided by the peanut butter and the service provided by the jar). Something as simple as this generates economic growth. In these terms, reusing is better for economic growth than recycling, because recycling involves applying more resources to let the glass jar provide a service again. For example, when we recycle, we put the glass jar in another container so it can be taken to a recycling facility. All these are resources that could be saved and employed at producing other goods if we reused the container. David Tyler Charles J. and M. Monteith Jacobs Professor of Chemistry at University of Oregon How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? With regard to any of the topics you ask about and how life-cycle assessments (LCAs) fit in, I would just say that decisions we make about the environment need to be based on data, not what we think is best or what we read on some unrefereed website. If done properly, LCAs can help provide us with the appropriate data on which to base our decisions. A second major point is that what product (or thing) is best for the environment depends on what environmental problem you think is most pressing. Of course, this is where the disagreements come. Light bulbs filled with mercury use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint than regular incandescent light bulbs. But, if you care more about public health than carbon footprint, you probably wouldn't choose a mercury-filled compact fluorescent light bulb. In the comparison of nearly any two products, LCAs typically find that one product is better for the environment in some ways but worse in others. So, it just depends on which environmental problem you are most interested in mitigating. Daniel J. Sherman Luce-Funded Professor of Environmental Policy and Decision Making and Director of the Sound Policy Institute at University of Puget Sound What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? Most policies that impact the environment are administered at the state and local level. Even federal laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and major laws dealing with hazardous waste disposal are delegated to state environmental agencies in most cases. One easy way to differentiate degrees of environmental commitment amongst states is to look for differences in administration and enforcement of federal laws and regulations. For example, President Obama's recent EPA rules governing CO2 emissions from power plants (known as the Clean Power Plan) has inspired very different responses across the states. Some states (like Kentucky) have sued to block implementation. States with Republican legislatures and governors (like Georgia) are not acting to implement it. States with Democratic state governments like Washington and Oregon are taking initiative to put the rules in place. And states with divided government like Colorado are locked in battles amongst the various branches of government on this issue. Most land use and water use policies are wholly determined at the state level and state governments most often delegate these issues to local governments. The greenest states tend to have land use management laws in place at the state level to ensure that environmental concerns factor into development decisions. One example would be the Growth Management Act in Washington. Many states like Minnesota, California and Oregon routinely enact more stringent regulations for hazardous chemicals, various products, and waste disposal practices. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? Not necessarily. Building a more environmentally friendly economy entails economic growth and job creation. California is among the states with the most stringent environmental regulations across a wide range of issue areas, yet it continues to show impressive economic growth. Most notably, California has the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction and energy efficiency targets in the world. As it has made impressive gains in GHG reduction, its GDP has outpaced most other states. The solar industry in California now employs more people than all of the traditional utilities combined. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? The size and location of your home or apartment has the biggest effect on your resource use. The closer you live to where you work and carry out your other daily needs, the less energy of any kind you need to get around. The smaller your living arrangement the less stuff you accumulate and the more you come to depend on shared resources. All of the other practices you list follow from there. Recycling is a great practice if it is a part of lower use of materials over all. Reuse is even better. Driving an electric car is wonderful if the ultimate source of the charging is clean power. Combining this with solar is a good idea. Lowering water use is always a good idea as is any reductions in hazardous materials. Kirsten L.L. Oleson Assistant Professor of Ecological Economics in the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at University of Hawaii Manoa What policies can state and local authorities pursue to make their communities more environmentally friendly? There is no end to what states and local authorities can do -- from statewide green accounting indicators that steer policy towards a more sustainable path, to public education, to taxes for socially undesirable behavior and subsidies for socially positive behavior, to setting up environmental markets, to enforcing existing good laws, etc. Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? No. In fact, protecting the environment is necessary for promoting long-term economic growth. Economic growth based on an erosion of natural capital is a precarious strategy that cannot be sustained for long. How would you prioritize the following environmentally friendly activities: driving electric car; recycling; lowering water consumption; installing solar panels on home; refraining from using fertilizers/pesticides; others? Prioritizing activities should be done by weighing the relative social benefits and costs of each activity. Social benefit will moreover depend on the environmental objective, which will likely depend on the context - are people being most affected by water quality concerns? Are we discussing actions in water scarce areas? Are we worried about impacts from global climate change? Carey W. King Assistant Director of the Energy Institute, Research Scientist in the Jackson School of Geosciences, and Lecturer in Business, Government and Society in the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin Is there an inherent tradeoff between protecting the environment and promoting economic growth? In general, I do think there is a tradeoff between protecting the environment and what we currently measure as economic activity or output (e.g., GDP). This is more demonstrated in other economic metrics like Genuine Progress Indicator. In particular, I believe this also for assessing energy technologies, even though most discussion of renewable energy doesn’t really acknowledge this (because it is not really that much of a factor for current levels of integration of renewables). The reasoning is not so much because of the “pure” environmental characteristics of renewable energy versus fossil energy, but more of the “pure” structure of renewable technology (e.g., a high proportion of the costs are for capital and thus it pays back slower even at the same lifetime cost). Thus, renewables pay back more slowly, and this means the economy grows more slowly.

Methodology

In order to identify the greenest states, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states across three key dimensions: 1) Environmental Quality, 2) Eco-Friendly Behaviors and 3) Climate-Change Contributions.

First, we compiled 17 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was given a value between 0 and 100, wherein 100 corresponds with the most eco-friendly and 0 with the opposite.

We then calculated the overall score for each state using the weighted average across all metrics and finally ranked the states accordingly.

Environmental Quality – Total Points: 35

• Total Municipal Solid Waste per Capita: Full Weight (~7.00 Points)
• Air Quality: Full Weight (~7.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the average exposure of the general public to particulate matter of 2.5 microns (PM2.5) or less in size.
• Water Quality: Full Weight (~7.00 Points)
• Soil Quality (Median Soil pH): Full Weight (~7.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the median soil pH level.
• Energy Efficiency Score: Full Weight (~7.00 Points)

Eco-Friendly Behaviors – Total Points: 35

• Green Buildings: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)Note: This metric measures the number of LEED-certified buildings per capita.
• Percentage of Energy Consumption from Renewable Sources: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)
• Energy Consumption per Capita: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)
• Gasoline Consumption per Capita (in Gallons): Full Weight (~4.375 Points)
• Water Consumption per Capita per Day: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)
• Number of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles per Capita: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)
• Green Transportation: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)Note: This metric measures the percentage of the population who walk, bike, carpool, take public transportation or work from home.
• Percentage of Recycled Municipal Solid Waste: Full Weight (~4.375 Points)

Climate-Change Contributions – Total Points: 30

• Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Capita (“Carbon Footprint”): Full Weight (~7.50 Points)
• Methane Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~7.50 Points)
• Nitrous Oxide Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~7.50 Points)
• Fluorinated Greenhouse-Gas Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~7.50 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create these rankings were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Chemistry Council, America's Health Rankings, County Health Rankings, International Plant Nutrition Institute, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Green Building Council, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Geological Survey and the World Resources Institute.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress