Despite my many road trips, I have driven only 8,000 miles over the past year.
During most of the year, I do all I can to avoid driving. There are many weeks when I will only drive one day a week – on Sunday. Where I currently live that is a realistic lifestyle choice, as I have access to public transit and a fairly walkable neighborhood. Even when I could drive somewhere, I often ask myself is there way I could get their on foot or by public transit? Is their an alternative activity I could do that doesn’t involve motoring?
Walking is much healthier then driving. It involves physical activity, not sitting in the plush seat of an automobile. Walking, especially on sidewalks and trails doesn’t pose the health and safety risk that driving around in an automobile does. I used to hike in more remote country, but now I’ve come to the conclusion that hiking in the wilderness – just as a day trip – really doesn’t make sense when you can walk near you home, get all the physical benefits of walking without the carbon emissions or cost of fuel and automobile maintenance.
There is nothing wrong with spending time in the wilderness – you have to go there hunt, fish, camp – but when you just want a carbon-free stroll, nothing beats visiting places you can walk to from your neighborhood. Maybe the woods and trails nearby aren’t as pristine or interesting as the great wilderness, but you save a lot of money, and aren’t producing much carbon by walking.
Sure, I like my big truck with the camper shell. It’s wonderful for camping and doing activities in the wilderness. But I much rather reserve it for special occasions, and use my own two feet and public transit system whenever possible.
I was surprised by these numbers, I would have thought that more large industrial facilities would be located in low-income Census Tracts with a high level of deprivation of the residents, but it's actually more of a mix, as many plants aren't located in the worse neighborhoods but just outside of city limits. Plus, there are a lot of emitters along the ocean shore line and Manhattan, where the income isn't super low. Plus not all Title V Emitters are as significant of polluters as others.
There was a time, not all that long ago, when public records weren’t computerized or easily searchable.
If you wanted to go get the facts about a person, like if somebody had a criminal conviction, you had to drive to court house and file a Freedom of Information Act request, and then either you would get invited in to inspect the records in person or you could pay a few bucks to have photo copies of the records delivered to you. In most cases, employers, landlords and others couldn’t be bothered to obtain a person’s conviction record unless they had good reason to be motivated to find such a record. And you needed a suspicion or information to know which court house to look at to get such information.
Likewise, back in the day, much fewer employers or prospective landlords ever asked the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” Crime fears used to be less back in the day, but also it was less of a test of truthfulness, as a prospective employee or housing applicant could lie on the question and never be found out. The problem is with computerized databases, often accessible for a few bucks, it has become very easy for people to find out that information.
Computers really changed the availability of information on individuals.
That’s a fact that can not be understated.
More information is usually a good thing, but the problem is that old criminal convictions are keeping good people out of the workforce and out of good jobs that they would be good at. While reports of landlords and employers denying people prima facia employment or housing based on old criminal convictions is not only illegal but likely uncommon, many people may voluntarily not seek employment or housing because they face that inevitable question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” And that’s a problem.
The thing is answering “Yes” to “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” is embarrassing, and requires an individual to be confident of their own capacities and able to explain their conviction during the interview or housing application process. This is not easy to do, even if the conviction is decades old at this point. It’s a bar that others who do not have an old criminal record face. Making it so that people can truthful say they don’t have an old criminal conviction makes it easier for them to apply and secure the job they need to succeed. Sealed criminal convictions can truthfully be answered as a “no” for all purposes under law.
Most driving records are only public for 3-years after conviction. If you get a speeding ticket or run a red light, after 3 years you no longer have to disclose to your insurer or potential employer that you got the ticket. Bankruptcy and unpaid debts are only public record for 7-years after bankruptcy or the last payment of a late debt, and no longer impacts your credit rating. We do this as a matter of public policy, because we know that while prior behaviors are a predictor of future behavior, after a certain amount of time, current behaviors are more predictive then old behaviors. Old actions often quickly become dated, things we did yesterday don’t reflect upon a person as strongly as what they’ve done more recently.
As a previously convicted individual from nearly twenty years ago, I am glad I no longer have to have this uncomfortable question with potential employers or landlords. I am not who I was in college, and it makes no sense to be actively discouraging individuals who are talented from seeking to better themselves, just because the embarrassment of a decades old conviction hangs around the their necks.
