Vegan Kitchen: Lower your expenses, save your well being, save the world, eat vegan!

With food prices rising rapidly, more than ever want to find ways to save money on our grocery bills. I’ve always believed that eating plant-based foods is an important way to control costs, and a recent study from the UK confirms that calculating that vegan meals can cut food bills by up to a third.

the Pricing model studyconducted by researchers from Oxford University and published in The Lancet Planetary Health, examined food costs in 150 countries. Based on 2017 prices released by the World Bank’s International Comparative Program, the study found that replacing plant-based foods with animal-based foods could lower food bills in rich countries, including the United States.

In particular, the study found that vegan diets are the most economical and can cut food bills by up to 34 percent compared to the food costs of a typical Western diet. In terms of budget-friendliness, the vegan diet was followed by the vegetarian diet, with the potential to cut food costs by 31 percent; flexitarian diets that could cut costs by 14 percent; and veggie-heavy Pescatarian diets that could actually add 2 percent to the cost.

The study looked at two types of vegan diets – one with more grains and one with more vegetables – and found that while both saved money, the grain-based vegan diet was the cheapest of all the diets analyzed. According to the study’s authors, fruits and vegetables cost more than grains and legumes worldwide. None of the diets modeled by the researchers contained ultra-processed foods.

“We believe that the fact that vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian diets can save you big bucks will surprise people,” said author Marco Springmann, a senior researcher on population health at Oxford Martin School, in a university report on the learning . “When scientists like me advocate healthy and environmentally friendly nutrition, it is often said that we are sitting in our ivory towers promoting something that most people cannot financially achieve. This study shows that the opposite is true. These diets could be better for your bank balance as well as your health and … the planet. “

The idea that vegan food is more expensive has been regularly criticized for a plant-based diet for years.

Before conducting the price comparison study, researchers at Oxford University noted a growing scientific understanding of the health and climate costs of animal foods. However, they found less research (and what there was was contradicting) on ​​the cost to consumers of animal vs. plant-based foods.

The Oxford study went beyond bills at the supermarket checkout. The study found that taking into account a range of nutritional costs that are not currently included in food prices, the price of plant-based foods would drop even further. These external costs included diet-related health expenditure and greenhouse gas emissions caused by the cultivation and transportation of food.

According to the study, including climate costs in food prices would increase the cost savings potential of a vegan diet to 45 percent compared to a conventional diet, while if health costs were included, a vegan diet plan would reduce food costs by 47 percent. If both types of costs were taken into account, a vegan diet would save 53 percent of food bills, according to the researchers.

“There are many other effects of the food system that are not currently reflected in food prices, including effects on biodiversity and air and water pollution,” the study authors noted.

One significant health expense that could decrease as more people in the US eat vegan is the cost of treating moderate to severe COVID-19 infections. During 2021, a trickle of medical research began to uncover a link between a plant-heavy diet and milder COVID infections.

In June, a to learn published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health Journal, found that among 2,884 frontline healthcare workers in six countries including the United States, those who followed a plant-based diet had a 73 percent lower risk of moderate to severe COVID than employees in health care had to eat more animal foods.

In September, the medical journal Gut a to learn from Massachusetts General Hospital, which analyzed data from 592,571 participants in a smartphone-based study of COVID symptoms and found that those who ate the most plant-based foods had a 9 percent lower risk of developing COVID, and develop a 41 percent lower risk of severe COVID. Study participants came from the USA and Great Britain

For decades, there has been a surge in medical studies showing that plant-based diets protect against many of the leading causes of death in the U.S. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020 (the last year for which statistics are available) is the front runner two Causes of death Heart disease remained followed by cancer, both related to the high consumption of animal foods. The number of deaths from heart disease saw the largest increase since 2012, increasing 4.2 percent in 2020. COVID was the third leading cause of death in 2020.

The deaths from diabetes and Alzheimer’s, two diseases associated with an animal diet, rose 15.4 percent and 9.8 percent, respectively, in 2020. Of the eleven leading causes of death in the US in 2020, only two (accidental injury and suicide) have no known association with dieting. The potential association between developing severe influenza and pneumonia (the ninth leading cause of death) has not been well studied. All others – stroke, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and kidney disease – correlate with animal-based consumption, and all showed improvement or reversal in patients who switched to plant-based meals.

But health care costs aren’t the only burden that current food prices don’t account for. The US meat subsidies also distort prices at the supermarket checkout and around the world.

after a Paper published Last year, the U.S. spent nearly $ 38 billion annually on agricultural subsidies in the Columbia Journal of International Affairs, less than one percent of which went to vegetable and fruit growers. Instead, the lion’s share of government support goes to ranchers and farmers who grow crops that are used to feed cattle or produce highly processed foods. The same paper noted that these US subsidies not only distort food prices in the US, but also depress international market prices for crops, causing many farmers in poor countries to give up farming and forcing their governments to import food, which could be grown locally if the economy was different.

This brings us back to the study by the University of Oxford, which also examined food prices in poor countries. While vegan food in affluent countries can save money for consumers according to the researchers, it is different in developing countries. The current diet there is often nutritionally inadequate. Because the researchers assessed the cost of following a nutritionally appropriate vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian, pescatarian, and western standard diet, residents of poor countries would have to pay more to meet this standard regardless of what type of diet they followed.

After all, while the Oxford University study brings high-quality, much-needed data into the political debates about food costs, vegan and vegetarian shoppers have known about these savings for generations. For the past few months, I’ve spent time in the Portland Room of the Portland Public Library, where, with the help of archivist Abraham Alain Schechter, I’ve found historical evidence of the affordability of vegetarian foods.

For example, half a century ago the Maine Sunday Telegram ran a story entitled “How to Cut Your Grocery Bill 25%”. The article published on August 20, 1972 reports on the frugality of vegetarian food. Reporter Lloyd Ferris compared the price his family of four paid for groceries, an average of $ 25 a week, to that of meat-eaters in a University of Maine history class he was taking; they were spending an average of $ 35 to $ 50 a week.

“After a year of vegetarian life,” wrote Ferris, “I sometimes believe – perhaps a little complacent – that my carnivorous friends are suffering unnecessarily.”

I don’t feel complacent at all. I am sad to find that this unnecessary suffering drags on for much more than 50 years.

Go back even further, for example 169 years to October 6, 1853, when Jeremiah Hacker‘s alternative newspaper, the Portland Pleasure Boat, printed an article from the American Vegetarian Society. “As much food for the body can be obtained for three cents from floury or plant-based foods as can be obtained from animal food for thirty cents,” the article says.

Recent research from Oxford University adds scientific confirmation to anecdotal information known for more than a century. Eating vegan and vegetarian options has long been the thrifty choice in Maine.

Avery Yale Kamila is a food writer who lives in Portland. She can be reached at [email protected] Twitter: @AveryYaleKamila

Invalid username / password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you’ve sent your account email, we’ll send an email with a reset code.

similar posts

Zimmerman: San Jose’s timber enhance human well being and get monetary savings

Anyone who has ever read Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree knows that people take the benefits and gifts of the trees around us for granted. We underestimate how they affect our lives and how difficult it is to protect them.

It seems like we are finally learning the importance of trees not only to the health of the planet, but also to the health and wellbeing of people in particular.

The right trees in the right place

The main pledge from the COP 26 climate summit was the pledge by countries representing 85% of the world’s forests to stop or reverse deforestation by 2030. The United States, as well as other large forest countries such as Brazil, Canada, and Indonesia have all signed this agreement. President Joe Biden also pledged that the US would lead by example, announcing that it would spend $ 9 billion on forest conservation and restoration.

That promise, and the money to keep it, is a significant step forward. Individual countries need to get creative in dealing with climate change as an international agreement becomes increasingly unlikely. Forests and trees and are an excellent option.

Woods absorb around a third of the CO2 produced worldwide every year. Deforestation has made a major contribution to climate change.

The battle for California’s trees

California has 33 million hectares of forest, and we are rightly proud to encourage visitors to see places like the Redwoods. We conveniently forget or don’t even know that since the 1850s, 95% of the California original old sequoia forests were logged.

California can use its forests in two ways. Reforestation is an option, although it can be full of difficulties such as location problems, water availability and loss of biological diversity. It is much better to focus on protecting the trees and forests that we have and letting those areas expand naturally.

“California’s ancient sequoia trees, the tallest and oldest trees on earth, store more carbon per hectare of forest than any other forest in the world – by far,” said Sam Hodder, CEO of Save the Redwood League. “More than the Amazon rainforest or the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest.”

Save the Redwoods League is currently raising funds for the purchase of five miles of undeveloped coastal forest in Mendocino County. the Lost coastal property is a second growth forest between 80 and 100 years and is threatened by accelerated harvest or development. Saving such existing areas and having them expanded and connected to other protected areas is far better, cheaper and requires less maintenance than replanting.

Hodder noted that through accelerated protection and good management in collaboration with tribes, local communities and public institutions, the sequoia landscape can become old again and be a vital part of the fight against climate change.

San Jose trees

Trees in our communities are just as important to human health as large areas of forest hours away. The sheer visibility of green spaces is linked to improved mental health, less stress, and better work and school performance. Put simply, humans need nature, such as trees, in order to thrive.

San Jose’s revised design Community forest management plan cites research that even found that tree-lined streets contribute to healthier lifestyles. Unexpectedly, there are also fewer car accidents. There is even evidence that well-managed vegetation deter crime.

Money doesn’t grow on trees, but trees are rare commodities that become more valuable with age. In fact, every street tree brings nearly six dollars in utility for every dollar invested.

San Joses 2007 Green vision plan had the goal of planting 100,000 trees. Until 2014, the city planted forest in collaboration with Our City 12,289 trees in total which sequestered approximately 479.3 MT CO2 equivalent. The city’s goal was to have all trees planted by 2022; however, an apparent lack of resources has resulted in only 15,000-20,000 trees being planted to date.

Unfortunately, the management plan has also been found The canopy cover of San Jose has fallen nearly 2%, which equates to an area of ​​about 2.7 miles. The main findings of the document are instructive. First and foremost, the city needs to act quickly to meet the trend towards decreasing roofing. The biggest obstacle to this, besides the broken cooperation between the parties involved, is the ubiquitous money problem. The means for planting and cultivating trees are far below requirements.

Maybe we haven’t learned anything from “The Giving Tree” after all.

San José Spotlight columnist Erin Zimmerman is a Climate Reality Director for the Silicon Valley Chapter of the Climate Reality Project. Erin, a longtime environmental and political activist, holds a PhD in political science. Your column appears every third Wednesday of the month. Contact Erin at [email protected].

auditor suggests methods to economize

From 2010 to 2019, annual medical claims for Vermont state employees, retirees, and their families rose 51% from $ 94 million to $ 142 million, according to state examiner Doug Hoffer.

Hoffer released a report on Friday, which explored how the state could save money on health care by incentivizing people to choose cheaper care. Hoffer said the state pays different amounts to different providers for the same health care benefits.

“The price difference paid for exactly the same health procedures under the state health plan for workers is appalling, especially since higher prices do not necessarily mean higher quality,” Hoffer said in a press release. “Our research found that the provider with the highest price for a given service was paid, on average, 3.5 times more than the provider with the lowest price for the exact same service.”

In the case of an electrocardiogram, according to Hoffer, the gap between the highest and lowest costs is “astonishing” 9.3 times.

“When government employees and their families are cared for by the most expensive health care providers, often unaware, it increases the cost of health care for patients, the state and taxpayers,” he said.

Strategies To Save Money In Healthcare

Hoffers said other states facing the same dilemma have developed two strategies to reduce costs:

  • Reference-based prices: The health care buyer, in this case the state of Vermont, sets a maximum price for what they are willing to pay for a service rather than using the price negotiated by insurance companies and hospitals. According to Hoffer, Montana introduced reference-based pricing for its government employees and saved $ 47.8 million in three years. Hoffer estimates that this approach could save Vermont up to $ 16.3 million annually.
  • Incentives for inexpensive care: With this model, employees receive comparative price information and receive a monetary incentive for choosing a cheaper provider. Hoffer estimates that Vermont could save $ 202,000 annually on seven services highlighted in his report. With every additional service, the state would realize additional savings, said Hoffer.

“Other states that are under the same pressure as Vermont have decided to do something about it,” Hoffer said in a press release. “I strongly encourage the Scott administration, legislature and government officials to expand our research and implement a strategy that benefits government officials, the state budget and taxpayers.”

Tools for price transparency in hospitals: The State of Vermont Chartered Accountant touts hospital cost transparency as the key to saving money

OneCare: Vermont spent nearly $ 30 million on OneCare without skimming on health care

More: Vermont is struggling to provide psychological counseling, especially to young people

Contact Dan D’Ambrosio at 660-1841 or Follow him on Twitter @DanDambrosioVT. This reporting is only possible with the support of our readers.

Arizona Privatized Jail Well being Care to Save Cash. However at What Value?

In 2017, Walter Jordan wrote a memo to a federal judge from the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence. “Notice of Impending Death,” it said in a shaky hand.

Jordan told the judge that Arizona corrections officials and Corizon Health, the state prison system’s private health care contractor at that time, delayed treating his cancer for so long that he would be “lucky to be alive for 30 days.” Jordan, 67, had a common form of skin cancer that is rarely life-threatening if caught early, but said he experienced memory loss and intense pain from botched care. Other men in his unit were also denied treatment, he wrote, “all falling, yelling, screaming of pain.”

Jordan was dead eight days later.

Reviewing his medical records later, Dr. Todd Wilcox, a physician hired by lawyers for the state’s prisoners, agreed that Jordan’s death was likely preventable. Corizon’s treatment of Jordan’s “excruciating needless pain,” was “the opposite of how cancer pain should be managed,” he said.

Wilcox will take the stand in a landmark trial that begins Monday in Phoenix, the latest chapter in an almost decade-long struggle to determine whether Arizona’s prisoners are getting the basic health care they are entitled to under the law.

The trial pits Arizona against the people held in its prisons, who argue in a class-action lawsuit that the medical services they receive are so poor, they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The state’s current health care contractor, Centurion, is the latest in a string of companies that have failed to pass muster with the courts.

None of the companies have been named as defendants in the lawsuit, because, the claimants say, the state is ultimately responsible for their care. The suit was originally filed in 2012, shortly before private contractors took over Arizona’s prison medical services. But whether privatization can provide decent care is one of the biggest issues looming over the trial.

The Arizona Department of Corrections declined to comment on pending litigation. Centurion of Arizona and Corizon, based in Tennessee, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Arizona is one of around two dozen states that use a private, for-profit contractor to provide prison medical care, and almost all have been sued. But a trial is rare, as most states settle to avoid this kind of exhaustive public scrutiny.

Health care in Arizona prisons is “grossly inadequate,” the prisoners have said in court papers, with crisis-level understaffing, delayed or denied treatments, and unreliable access to medication.

Attorneys have chronicled a man who died after his swollen legs split open, the wounds weeping pus and swarmed by flies; a man with mental illness who was in such distress that he chewed off parts of his fingers; a man who entered prison with a small bump on his face that went untreated and became a disfiguring baseball-sized tumor; and several people denied access to regular mental health care who later killed themselves.

The trial could spell the end of privatized care in Arizona prisons — or, in a more extreme outcome, the end of Arizona’s control over its prison health care entirely. U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver could appoint an outside official to run it who would answer to her, or she could impose additional financial sanctions against the state. Ultimately, Silver will have to decide: How much cost-cutting is too much when lives are at stake?

Although the trial will not directly affect other state systems, experts say the outcome could show officials across the country that courts are serious about enforcing health standards in prison — and that not providing adequate care can have real consequences.

The case is “a great example of why we have it all wrong,” said Homer Venters, a correctional health care consultant who spent years as the medical director for the New York City jail system. Instead of a judge looking over administrators’ shoulders, “the jail has to stop operations if the conditions are inhumane or if the care is not adequate,” he said.

Few prison health care systems get high marks for quality care, regardless of whether the government or a private company provides services. At least 47 states have been the target of major lawsuits. The judge in a landmark case in California — where health care was not privatized — was so appalled by medical services in prisons there that in 2006, he appointed an outside official to take over the state’s $1.2 billion prison health care system.

But bringing companies with a profit motive into the mix poses additional problems, some experts warn, especially in a setting where patients have so little control over their care. “They’ve got every incentive to delay treatment or provide more minimal treatment, or to count something as treatment when it’s not really treatment,” said Michele Deitch, a University of Texas senior lecturer who studies prison conditions. “It would be so much cheaper to just do the things than spend the money on fighting it.”

Until the 1970s, every state provided medical care in its own prisons. But these services were “inadequately available and frequently primitive,” said Douglas McDonald, a researcher at health consulting firm Abt Associates. There were few doctors on staff, and scant health care standards. Prisoners without medical training were known to pull teeth, dispense medications and perform minor surgery on each other, according to one case in Alabama.

Then in 1976, the Supreme Court found that “deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury” was cruel and unusual punishment, forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. A series of cases in the decades that followed clarified that people in prison are entitled to routine and emergency medical, dental and mental health care that is “adequate … at a level reasonably commensurate with modern medical science.”

These court decisions forced prisons to hire hundreds of medical personnel and pay for hospital stays and expensive procedures. Just as health care in broader society began relying on “managed care” to limit costs, some states started privatizing prison medical care, using small contractors to provide hard-to-hire staff and negotiated rates with hospitals, specialists and pharmacies, McDonald said.

Arizona began contracting out its prison health care in 2012, around the time several of these small companies combined to create the major industry players of today.

The newly merged and fast-growing companies were an attractive investment for private equity, says Dan Mistak, acting president of Community Oriented Correctional Health Services, a nonprofit that helps prisons and jails improve health care. Unlike hospitals and other settings subject to Medicare’s strict quality standards, Mistak said, prison health care is paid for almost entirely from state coffers, which eliminates many requirements that drive up cost — and quality — on the outside.

Medicare provides “stringent accreditation processes and data transparency,” says Monik Jiménez, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In prisons, “we don’t have any of that with these private providers.”

Arizona has employed three prison health care contractors over the past decade: Pittsburgh-based Wexford Health, then Corizon, and now Centurion. Allegations of subpar care and chronic understaffing have dogged all three companies.

The number of medical staff decreased by 11% from 2012 to 2019, despite Arizona’s prison population remaining relatively flat, leaving prisons with hundreds of fewer providers than they needed, according to court documents. During its six-year tenure, Corizon paid the state more than $3 million in fines for failing to hire enough doctors and nurses.

After years of fighting in court, in which the state denied all allegations, officials agreed to settle the case on the eve of trial in 2014. The Arizona Department of Corrections pledged to improve care by ensuring its health care provider met more than 100 benchmarks, including: providing adequate access to counseling and mental health care, providing timely referrals to specialists and following instructions of hospital doctors who release patients.

“When prison officials settle a case of this nature, it’s usually because they recognize that there is a problem, and there’s some commitment to fix it,” said ACLU National Prison Project Director David Fathi, who represents the incarcerated people suing the state.

But the problems have persisted. Two judges have separately held the state in contempt and levied fines totaling $2.5 million for failing to meet the quality standards it had agreed to.

News Inside

The print magazine that brings our journalism behind bars.

In a recent whistleblower account — the latest in a string of such stories — a former prison nurse alleged that the company directed her to lie on a medical report in order to save Centurion $100,000 in court sanctions.

The state has spent years contesting the evidence, pushing back on recommendations from court-appointed experts, and appealing court orders, losing most of them.

Finally, this year, Judge Silver rescinded the settlement agreement and set the case for trial, writing in a scathing order that she could no longer trust the state was making a good-faith effort to meet the terms of the settlement.

Dustin Brislan says Arizona’s failure to meet health care standards nearly cost him his life.

Brislan, 39, who is serving 17 years at the state prison in Tucson on various charges including armed robbery, is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. Among other care issues, he said, medical staff switched him from an antipsychotic medication that helped stabilize him to an anti-anxiety drug he told them had not worked in the past.

As a result, Brislan said, his mental health deteriorated into a yearslong cycle of self-harm: cutting himself, then being placed in isolation for weeks or months as a result of the cutting, which led to additional self-harm. At one point, he almost bled to death.

“They are trying to cut corners and save money,” he said, “rather than give us the medications we need.”

Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh sponsored the 2011 legislation that privatized health care in state prisons. One of the main goals “was always to save money in tough economic times,” he told The Arizona Republic in 2012.

But cost savings have been elusive from the start.

An earlier version of the bill required that privatization save the state money, but when no company could do that, Kavanagh removed the requirement. The legislature pressed ahead with privatization, and the lowest bidder, Wexford, got the initial contract, which cost the state about $116 million a year, about $5 million more than the state spent the previous year.

Since then, costs have increased each year and with each vendor change. For the 15-month period that began in July, Arizona agreed to pay more than $216 million to Centurion. That doesn’t include the more than $21 million the state has spent on attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation to defend its care in court.

A similar scenario played out in Florida, where an outside auditor said privatization both decreased the quality of care in Florida’s prisons and cost the state more money.

In 2017, the Pew Charitable Trusts published a report that detailed how each state structured its prison health care, and how much each state spends.

Centurion’s health care contract was the most common structure. The state pays the company a set amount per incarcerated person per day, creating what critics say is a perverse incentive: If the company spends less, it pockets the difference.

We Are Witnesses

Intimate portraits of people who have been touched by the criminal justice system

Pew’s findings underscore the question of whether privatization actually saves states money. Data from the report showed no meaningful difference in per-patient spending between states with privately-run and publicly-run health care.

Arizona was near the bottom of the pack, spending $3,529 per patient per year, compared to a national median of $5,720. Only five states spent less. Of those, two provide their own care, two have a contractor providing care, and one uses a mix of both.

In 2019, Dr. Marc Stern, a correctional health care expert appointed by Judge Silver to review Arizona’s prison health care system, identified tens of millions of dollars in state spending on privatization instead of health care. The spending ranges from the vendor’s profit margin, to lawyers to manage and oversee the contract, to duplication of services, to the hundreds of hours that staff on both teams spend facilitating transitions from one vendor to another.

“Privatization has not served, and will continue to not serve, [Arizona Department of Corrections] well,” Stern said.

Maria Schiff, a health policy analyst and one of the authors of Pew’s report, said the money a state spends on health care is only one piece in a much larger equation. The state’s oversight of care, high and measurable quality standards, and efficient use of resources all matter, too.

“What kind of care is a state (and more importantly, its incarcerated individuals) getting for the money it does spend?” she said.

The upcoming trial is set to last three weeks. Eight incarcerated people will take the stand alongside state officials and medical experts.

Among the voices who will not be heard is Walter Jordan, who sent notice of his impending death to the court. But his experience — a litany of mismanagement and incompetence that led directly to his death — was “was sadly predictable,” wrote Wilcox, the outside expert.

According to Wilcox, as someone who already had skin cancer in the past, Jordan should have been provided extra-strong sunscreen, but a Corizon nurse denied it. When Jordan developed a scalp lesion, Corizon sent him to a dermatologist, who should have sent him immediately to an oncologist because the lesion had grown so large. But they didn’t.

The dermatologists’ attempts to remove the growth on Jordan’s head “burn[ed] a hole in his skull bone,” allowing the skull to become infected and the cancer to invade his brain. A provider wrote in Jordan’s chart, “THE WOUND IS HORRIFIC.”

One explanation for such poor decision-making, according to Wilcox: The legislature had set unreasonably low caps on how much the state was willing to pay outside specialists, a problem compounded by millions of dollars in bills to outside hospitals and providers that Corizon left unpaid.

“The completely foreseeable result of not paying specialists, or paying them very little, is that there is an ever-shrinking pool of specialists willing to see prisoners, and the quality of those willing specialists can be lower, as was the case here,” Wilcox wrote.

Wilcox warned more people would have similar experiences unless there were drastic changes.

So far, the lawsuit has outlasted lawyers, Department of Corrections directors, the original judge, and even the original plaintiff in the case, known as Parsons v. Ryan.

Victor Parsons had a stomach infection in prison that went undiagnosed for so long it caused permanent damage. After his release, at the age of 42, he was shot and killed by police in Tucson in 2019 after a standoff at his girlfriend’s apartment.

In an interview conducted while still behind bars, Parsons said he was proud to be part of the case. “Even though people forgo their freedoms when they come to prison,” he said, “they shouldn’t have to forgo their lives.”

Do warehouse golf equipment like Costco prevent cash in the long term?

This is just one of the stories in our “I’ve Always Wondered” series, in which we address all of your questions about the business world, no matter how big or small. Have you ever wondered if recycling is? It is worth it? Or how to store brands stack against Name brands? Check out more from the series here.

Listener Anne Prianti from Alpharetta, Georgia asked:

Do warehouse clubs (e.g. Costco, Sam’s, BJ’s) cost more than you save? I run a high school kitchen and when my monthly inventory is high (dollar terms) it has a negative impact on my finances. Wouldn’t buying and storing bulk items also have a negative impact on my household finances?

When Sarah Boling raised five children as a single mother, she recalls being unable to buy household goods in bulk because she didn’t have enough cash on hand.

That meant buying a four-pack of toilet paper for a few dollars, for example, compared to a 16-pack, which cost more but would last a lot longer.

“With all of these kids, you know, toilet paper, paper towels – it all goes through pretty quickly,” said Boling, who lives in Inverness, Florida. “So it would have helped if I could have bought large quantities.”

Now that she has a more stable salary and is married, she can shop in bulk at Sam’s Club, purchase household cleaning items and paper products, and long-life groceries such as condiments, in a two-income household at Sam’s Club. She said she saves hundreds every year.

Boling’s previous experience is reflected the “poverty penalty” – a phenomenon where low-income consumers actually pay more than rich people.

Low-income households typically buy smaller packages from cheaper brands. This undermines their efforts to save money as the unit price is loudly higher than that of items sold in bulk a 2016 working paper by Professor Yesim Orhun at the University of Michigan and Mike Palazzolo, a Ph.D. Student at that time.

Their data showed that low-income households, for example, pay 5.5% more per roll when buying toilet paper than if they had done their shopping like high-income households. These households buy in bulk and use sales more often. Not only do these less affluent households lack upfront cash, but they also don’t have the space to store extra items, so they can’t wait for the products to go on sale.

The study also showed they take advantage of volume discounts and sales when they have more liquidity.

“I was definitely aware that I was basically spending more money than I should have spent,” said Boling. “I’ve been pretty poor for most of my life, and I’ve been a single mother for a long time. So basically you have to get what is cheapest. “

Nicole Dow, Senior Writer at The penny hoarder who focuses on savings and budgeting strategies, said warehouse club shoppers can usually see price breakdowns that help them make smarter decisions.

“If you look in the store, you will find that the store actually gives the price per unit,” said Dow. “And you can use that for comparison. Because there are times when you find that the item you normally buy is better to buy as a stand-alone item rather than a bulk item. “

She also noted that while bulk foods tend to have a lower price per unit, you need to make sure you can consume them before the expiration date.

Borrowing from this point, Kara Grant, assistant professor of economics at Missouri Western State University, pointed out that the size of your family has an impact on how beneficial these businesses are in the long run. For example, buying items like fresh produce in bulk may not be the best option for smaller households.

For non-perishable items, Dow suggested sharing the cost with a roommate or friend.

Shopping at warehouse clubs like Costco, Sam’s, and BJ’s also require a membership fee between $ 55 and $ 120 per year depending on which tier you buy. However, Boling pointed out that warehouse club membership is another thing that low-income consumers typically can’t afford to buy in advance.

One tip from Dow is to find someone who has a membership, such as a neighbor, who can pick up an item for you. You could then refund them for this purchase.

“If you only shop once a month, or if you don’t really take advantage of that purchase, these stores may not be good business for you to shop for,” said Dow. “But you can still buy in bulk from your everyday grocery stores.”

Nancy Wong, a professor of consumer science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said she stopped shopping at Costco because she felt like she was losing money.

“I remember buying things like guacamole,” she said with a laugh. “I realized I could only dent the crowd. I threw the rest away in the end. ”

There are easily taken for granted lifestyle features that come with being able to shop in stores like this. For example, you need a car and a house with storage space to house these items, Wong said.

Costco is “clearly targeting a specific market segment,” she explained.

The typical Costco shopper is a 39 year old Asian American who earns more than $ 125,000 a year, according to data from the analysis company Numerator, which were made available to insiders. The big box retail chain draws a richer clientele than stores like Walmart – hence theirs luxurious offers.

Orhun of the University of Michigan said retailers could provide low-interest lines of credit or manufacturers could run promotions to cut the costs associated with the inability to purchase in bulk.

“There are ways to save money when you have money,” noted Boling. “And you can’t do that if you don’t have any money.”

Save Cash & Earn Rewards

Select’s editorial team works independently to review financial products and write articles that we believe will be useful to our readers. We may receive a commission when you click on links for products from our affiliate partners.

You know the feeling of shopping online and you’ve put all the items in your cart only to find that the total cost is much higher than you expected. Even if you may be baffled for a moment, you reluctantly decide to buy everything anyway because you need the new carpet and vase for your home.

If you find yourself faced with this scenario frequently and don’t want to take the time or effort to look for coupon codes, free coupon browser extensions are an easy way for consumers to automatically find coupons to redeem at the checkout.

Coupon browser extensions Work by searching the internet to find coupon codes or coupons to use when checking out. sweetheart is such a popular service that searches and tests coupon codes on 30,000+ websites. Roar, Choose walks you through using honey and some of the benefits it offers.

Honey rating


  • costs

  • Cashback

    Yes, in the form of Honey Gold points.

  • Coupon codes

  • price comparison

  • App

  • Works with in-store purchases

  • Welcome bonus

  • How to redeem your savings

    Redeem Honey Gold points for gift cards.


  • Offers from over 30,000 participating retailers


  • Redemption of rewards is limited to gift cards
  • You can’t use the app to save to the store

How to use it

Honey is a completely free service. You have the option of logging in with your email address, which gives you access to Honey Gold, the rewards program. Honey Gold is also integrated with Google, Facebook, PayPal, and Apple, so you can sign in with any of these accounts as well.

Honey is available both as an app and as a browser extension that works with Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Edge.

To use Honey on your computer, you need to download the browser extension. Once downloaded, it should appear on the top toolbar and you can use it when you checkout in an online store. Honey will automatically search for codes that apply to your purchase.

With the Honey app, you can browse the top coupons to find deals and earn Honey Rewards on your purchases at specific retailers. When you shop through the app on a merchant’s website, there is a toolbar at the bottom of the app that shows you all of the promotional codes available. Honey will then automatically test these codes and apply them at the checkout.


Browser extensions work by reading and modifying data on websites and returning that information to the developers. So when you sign up for one, you consent to certain data being collected about how and when you use the browser extension.

Honey promises it will not sell or share customer data without their permission, however, collects information about your device, your use of Honey, and information on retail websites.

Users don’t need to enter sensitive personal information like their credit card number to sign up for Honey or Honey Gold. It also doesn’t look at your search engine history, email, or non-retail website browsing.


Honey offers a free rewards program for all users known as Honey Gold. With Honey Gold, users can earn rewards for completing more than 5,500 dealers like Home Depot, Apple and Microsoft. You can then redeem gift card rewards at merchants such as Chipotle, Sephora and Nordstrom.

Honey Gold works by collecting a commission from affiliate businesses. When consumers use Honey in eligible purchases in partner stores, Honey receives a cut and a portion of that money is returned to consumers through Honey Gold.

Honey Gold Awards can only be earned on eligible purchases, so you may not earn awards on all of your items that you order. And it can take you a while to earn enough to redeem a gift card. You need $ 1,000 worth of Honey Gold before you can redeem the rewards for gift cards.

Honey also has price tracking functionality for items on Amazon, Macy’s, Target, and Walmart. You can save your articles on Honey droplist via the app or browser extension. You will be notified via email or app notification when a price drop is detected for the item. You can use Droplist to track the price of items over a 30, 60, 90, or 120 day period.

On Amazon, Honey also compares the same product from different vendors to help you find the cheapest option.

Availability and ratings

Honey is available as a web browser extension and as an app. You can download it from the Chrome Web Store, Microsoft Add-Ons, Firefox Browser Add-Ons, Opera Add-Ons, and Safari Add-Ons.

The app is available in the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store.

Rating on the Chrome Web Store at the time of writing: 4.0 out of 5 (over 165,000 reviews)

Rating on the App Store at the time of writing: 4.8 out of 5 (over 2,400 reviews)

Bottom line

Honey is an easy and free way to save money on your online purchases. While it is available as both an app and a browser extension, most consumers will likely find it easier to use the browser extension because they don’t have to use a separate app when shopping. All you have to do is click the honey icon on your top toolbar to see if it can save you money on your items before checking out online.

Whether you go for the app or the web extension, you can also earn Honey Gold which can be used to earn gift cards.

Our methodology

To determine which coupon browser extensions offer the best discounts, Select analyzed 10 programs. We compared each program on a number of features including:

  • costs
  • User experience
  • Money saving features
  • Customer reviews when available

The cost was the first feature we checked. The coupon browser extension had to be free to make our best of list.

All coupon browser extensions offer automatic coupons and some form of cashback, but those with even more money-saving features link price comparisons that rank higher.

Next, the extensions had to be easy to use and require minimal effort from consumers. After all, a coupon browser extension should save you both time and money.

Customer ratings were also taken into account.

Note to editors: Opinions, analyzes, reviews or recommendations expressed in this article are solely those of the Select editorial team and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by third parties.

You Can Save Cash With Utilization-Based mostly Auto Insurance coverage — However Ought to You?

Peggy Coleman switched to usage-based auto insurance from Allstate. But in return your VW … [+] Bug has been bugged.

Peggy Coleman

When Peggy Coleman’s insurance agent told her about a new way to save money on auto insurance, she knew she had to try it. The solution Allstate called Milewise allowed her to pay only for the insurance she used, thanks to an emerging technology called vehicle telematics.

But there was a catch: Coleman agreed to install it a small device in the onboard diagnostic connection of your 2015 VW Beetle to qualify for the discount. It would track your mileage, speed, time of day and certain driving events like sudden braking.

“The cost of auto insurance was significantly lower with Milewise compared to a standard policy,” said Coleman, a sales director based in Tucson, Arizona.

before Miles at a time, she paid $ 1,750 a year to insure her car. The program – and driving them carefully – lowered that rate to $ 1,056 per year, a savings of 49%.

Sometimes the savings are automatic. At registration COUNTRY finances With the new DriverIQ program, a telematics tool that uses your smartphone, you get a 10% discount for every vehicle for which you are listed as a driver in the policy. Driving behavior, tracked and reported by the company DriverIQ dashboard, gives you an additional discount of between 1% and 25% for every six-month contract renewal.

“The data monitored by the app’s smartphone sensors – which is only shared privately between the customer and COUNTRY Financial – includes acceleration, braking, cornering, phone distraction while driving and overspeeding,” notes Felipe Teixeira, Director of National Auto Product at COUNTRY Financial.

The Allstate Milewise device.


Why everyone is talking about usage-based car insurance

Usage-based car insurance is hot. With more Americans taking road trips rather than flying during the pandemic, they are paying more attention than ever to auto insurance. (The main question: what happens when you go on a long trip? Fortunately, pay-per-mile programs are limited so you don’t end up with a huge bill.)

In one LexisNexis usage-based insurance study, nearly 9 in 10 drivers (88%) said they prefer car insurance prices based on their actual driving habits. In addition, another 71% of drivers said they believe telematics, including driving behavior data, is one of the fairest ways to price insurance when they see an advantage.

“There is widespread consumer interest in participation in usage-based insurance programs, and the growing number of connected vehicles is fueling that interest,” said Adam Hudson, vice president, Connected Car, LexisNexis Risk Solutions.

But how does vehicle telematics work and what does “Pay as you go” mean? What happens when an insurance company looks over your shoulder at the wheel? It turned out that this new technology can bring benefits to both the driver and the environment. But as with any new technology, there is a cost to using it.

What are telematics and pay-as-you-go insurance?

Allstate’s program is part of a new breed of insurance programs that use vehicle telematics to create pay-as-you-go insurance policies. they include Progressive snapshot, State Farm Drive Safe and Save and Nationwide SmartRide. On average, consumers can save between 5% and 50% on insurance with pay-as-you-go insurance.

The ideas behind these programs are enticingly simple: what if you could only pay for the insurance that you use? What if an insurance company could lower your premiums by verifying your good driving behavior in real time?

“Telematics revolutionized the auto insurance industry by providing insurers with real-time, personalized information about their customers,” said Stan Caldwell, Executive Director of Institute for Transport21 at Carnegie Mellon University. He says insurers can now assess risk based on a driver’s actual behavior rather than the demographic and geographic averages of many drivers.

“Customers who actually drive fewer kilometers and drive more safely than the average driver can save money,” he adds.

“Big Brother” questions

So how did it feel to have a bug in Coleman’s bug?

“At first I was concerned – like Big Brother is following you,” she says.

But after switching to Milewise, she saw Allstate gathering and using her data through the website. She could see that it was tracking her speed, whether she was stopping quickly, and whether she was driving after 11pm. She could also see her vehicle health summary on the website, including engine warnings, pending recalls, and location.

After seeing how the program works, she says the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns.

“Besides,” she adds, “our phones are tracking us anyway.”

Allstate says transparency helped allay the privacy concerns of customers like Coleman. The smartphone app provides the driver with information about his car and his driving habits, which is helpful to him – and which he is generally happy to share with an insurance company. The company also says it will never share personal information without the customer’s consent.

In states where Milewise and its Drivewise safe driving program are available, nearly 40% of its new customers sign up for connected plans. That’s double what the company saw at the start of the pandemic.

“More and more people are beginning to understand what telematics is and how it can benefit them,” said David MacInnis, Allstate vice president of Telematics and Usage-Based Insurance. “This is especially important now that driving habits have changed for so many people during the pandemic.”

The advantages of telematics explained

Insurance companies are not promoting usage-based insurance programs that rely on vehicle telematics as a one-size-fits-all solution, said Mary Boyd, CEO of Plymouth Rock Assurance.

“The real advantage of telematics and usage-based driving is the reduction in demands for safe drivers and the associated costs,” she says.

Boyd says that before telematics, drivers had a “set and forget” mentality. In other words, people pay for their insurance and never think about it. But now that your insurance company can reward you for the way you drive, it has become a hands-on experience. And they can even turn the whole process into a game, a process called gamification.

“In telematics, for example, there’s a gamification aspect that gives drivers the ability to strive for the best in order to get rewards like discounted premiums or monetary rewards,” she adds. For example, Plymouth Rock’s telematics program allows users to select a family sharing option. Not only does it allow parents, teenagers, and young drivers to monitor, but it also lets up to 10 family members compete for streaks, badges, and a spot on the top driver leaderboard.

Now there is a video game that all parents can support.

Of course, telematics and pay-per-mile programs are not for everyone. If you’ve had a couple of accidents – or have a reputation as a lead-footed driver – you might not want your insurance company to look over your shoulder. And if privacy is important to you (you carry a blackphone and refuse to use Google) then these programs are definitely not for you.

The economics behind pay-per-mile programs

Experts say pay-per-mile auto insurance has the potential to do more than just help individual drivers. You can help the drivers as a group.

“With more traditional auto insurance policies, safe drivers and low-mileage drivers subsidize mile-long and dangerous drivers to a certain extent because insurance companies ignore this important information,” said Cody Nehiba, assistant professor at Louisiana State University’s Energy Studies Research Center.

Instead, a pay-per-mile policy charges drivers for every mile, which provides an incentive for people to drive less.

“This reduction in driving could alleviate some transportation problems such as pollution, traffic jams and accidents,” he adds. “The inclusion of a telematics device enables insurance costs per mile to vary based on driving data as well, providing an additional incentive for safe driving. This incentive can lead individuals to drive slower and more cautious – again to reduce pollution and accidents. “

In other words: telematics devices and the corresponding pay-per-mile programs are helping safe and low-mileage drivers save money today. But you could also save some money for the drivers as a group and possibly reduce pollution.

The saving has its price

Brogan Woodburn who covers auto insurance for the auto location Detroit office, says he saved money with Progressive’s Snapshot program. His insurance costs dropped from $ 120 a month to $ 65.

“My rate has almost been cut in half,” he says.

But he says the results can vary.

“Remember, I work from home and only drive a few hundred kilometers a month,” he says. “I had a good overall safe driving score, but I think most of the discount was based on how little I drove.”

Woodburn compared several telematics programs and found that mileage was a major ranking factor for most of them.

“With some programs, it can be difficult for a driver to get a discount when they have a long commute to work, no matter how safely they drive,” he adds.

Are telematics and pay-per-mile right for you?

So should you go for one of these new pay-per-use auto insurance programs? Here’s how to find out if it’s right for you:

If you are a safe driver. If you’ve had no recent moving company accidents or violations, pay-per-use might be worth considering. How do you know if you are a good driver? Here is my current USA Today column this will help you answer the question.

When you don’t drive a lot. If your car has been parked in the garage for days, paying insurance by miles instead of a flat rate will likely lower your insurance bill. On the other hand, you may not need a car at all.

When you don’t worry too much about privacy. You share your location information with your insurance company. If you don’t want a third party to know where you are going, skip vehicle telematics and get regular auto insurance.

Coleman says she met all three of these criteria and is happy with her savings from Allstate’s Milewise program.

“I saved money,” she says. “I also like to be able to see how I drive.”

Simple methods to economize the subsequent time you order takeout

It’s easy to pick up the phone to order takeaway food when you don’t feel like cooking, but a full stomach to take away can leave your wallet empty. This is how you can save.

SAN ANTONIO – You may notice it in your own budget: Texans have been spending more money eating out since the pandemic started. Takeaway food is convenient, but it can cleanse your wallet.

“Spending on eating out, such as spending in restaurants or taking out, has increased much faster than spending on groceries,” said Erika Giovanetti, who wrote a take-away report for. wrote Credit tree.

She found that some Texas households are spending nearly $ 440 a month on takeout. It’s a convenience you’ll pay for, but experts say there are ways to keep your stomach and wallet full.

First, try to cut down on your orders.

“If you order takeaway five nights a week, you might cut yourself down to just three nights a week,” said Andrea Woroch, a money-saving expert. “I like to say start small, and when you have adopted and adopted the next habit, you can reduce it further from there.

Groceries for delivery may have higher prices and additional fees. Instead, collect it yourself.

“Just order through your local restaurant and then choose pick-up,” said Woroch. “This is an easy way to avoid these fees. I know there are $ 3 or $ 5 fees here and there, doesn’t sound like a lot and might not break your budget, but if you do this regularly, those little fees add up. Pick up whenever possible and arrange with an errand so it doesn’t feel like you go out of your way just to get the take-away order. “

“Many small restaurants and family-run establishments are having problems right now,” said Giovanetti. “You’d probably really like it if you just called them up and ordered take-away instead of using a third-party service.”

Or save by buying more frozen, prepared foods for quick meals at the grocery store. Woroch always has a frozen pizza close at hand so that a meal can be prepared quickly.

“I also fill my freezer with things that can simply be reheated in the microwave or oven for those nights that I don’t want to order to take away. It still costs a little more than cooking it yourself, but not that much to take away, ”said Woroch. “Have things like frozen vegetables or chicken handy. That way, you have something that is easy to thaw and quick to cook. You don’t have to worry about going to the grocery store. I think that’s usually the main reason people end up ordering takeout. You’re like, ‘Oh, now I have to go to the grocery store and get all these ingredients and then cook.’ When you just have it at home and ready to go in the freezer, it is one less step to take to prepare your own meals and avoid takeout. “

“Everything looks good when you’re hungry,” said Woroch. “If you can make a small appetizer at home, be it humus and carrots or crackers and cheese, it might keep some of that hunger at bay.”

A budget can also help control food spending. Let technology do the hard work for you.

“Budgeting apps for your smartphone can set up automatic notifications when you over-spend in a certain category like restaurants or takeaways,” said Giovanetti.

She recommended using it mint.

Get cash from delivery orders by using coupon codes.

“There are sites like that will have offers on these different order sites, ”said Woroch. “Also, if you hit a certain spending limit, like ordering $ 30 worth of food in a restaurant, you might get a 10 percent discount. In that case, you might order lunch for the next day. Then you get this discount and are prepared for a few meals. “

Cashback apps like Get rewards allows you to get more meals for free.

“This gives you points that are good for free gift certificates,” said Woroch.

Also, make larger meals when you’re cooking and freeze leftovers so they can be easily reheated another night.

If you have an eyewitness question, email us at or call us at 210-377-8647.

Hydrolix Cloud Knowledge Platform Helps Arkose Labs Save Cash and Ship Actual-Time Insights on Hundreds of thousands of Fraud Assaults Day by day

PORTLAND, Ore .– () – Hydrolix today announced the immediate availability of a case study describing Arkose Labs’ migration to the Hydrolix cloud data platform. Arkose Labs’ fast-growing data challenges: The only thing that scaled faster than the company’s triple-digit customer revenue growth was the cost of collecting and analyzing terabytes of raw data per day. They needed an alternative to their existing platform that would improve their margins and future-proof their business.

“The data challenges at Arkose Labs fit our mission perfectly,” said Marty Kagan, CEO of Hydrolix. “They record billions of events every day, each with hundreds of fields of sparse and complex, semi-structured, high cardinality data. They take care of real-time recording, they take care of long-term storage, and they take care of the kind of sub-second interactive query performance that you can’t get with brute force scans of unindexed data. ”

Today, after migrating to Hydrolix and Superset, Arkose Labs’ Security Operations Center (SOC) identifies, investigates and remediates threats at a lower cost than their previous data platform, which is based on market-leading NoSQL and document databases. Additionally, the move to Hydrolix has enabled Arkose Labs to consolidate their data infrastructure by eliminating the need for separate hot, warm and cold tiers.

“Dealing with fraud in real time requires tremendous speed and flexibility. Hydrolix enables our team to process over 100 million events per second / per core, exceeding our performance and scale requirements, ”said Ashish Jain, chief product officer of Arkose Labs.

From a product perspective, a unified data platform with unlimited retention builds on the success of Arkose Labs and enables the product team to expand the company’s capabilities and deliver value to customers on a much broader scale with real-time dashboards, unlimited filters, and visibility offer range of time periods. Complex forensic queries are now completed in milliseconds.

“Running our own copy of Hydrolix in our VPC has allowed us to truly leverage the potential of Amazon’s elastic infrastructure by independently scaling our compute and storage tiers in our data management stack,” said Joe Hsy, CTO of Arkose Labs.

For companies that value data, the answer to skyrocketing costs should never be to store less data. To learn more about how Hydrolix can help your business, check out the Arkose Labs case study at today

About Hydrolix

Hydrolix is ​​transforming the economics of big data so that organizations can ingest, store, and query petabytes of data without impacting performance, discarding data, or struggling with costs. Hydrolix’s patented technology is delivered cloud-on-prem, with no maintenance or egress, so customers stay in control of their data, reduce security and compliance risks, and no longer have to spend money on other people’s cloud infrastructure. Hydrolix is ​​supported by Wing Ventures, AV8 Ventures, Silicon Valley Data Capital, and the Oregon Venture Fund.

For more information, see, Email, or follow us on Twitter @GetHydrolix.

About Arkose Labs

Arkose Labs is ruining the fraud business model. Recognized as Cyber ​​Defense Magazine’s 2021 “Hot Company in Fraud Prevention”, its innovative approach determines true user intent and resolves attacks in real time. Risk assessments combined with interactive authentication challenges undermine the ROI of attacks, provide long-term protection while improving good customer throughput. Arkose Labs is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices in Brisbane, Australia and London, United Kingdom. For more information, visit or on Twitter @ArkoseLabs.

How A lot Cash Every State Can Save by Switching to Clear Power

Clean air, green jobs, healthy children, energy independence … a 2009 editorial cartoon by Joel Pett shows a climate summit and one participant says, “What if it’s a big joke and we’re making a better world for free?”

So what if we phased out fossil fuels and not only had cleaner air, but also Saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – enough money to fund more clean energy infrastructure in the country, like solar and wind farms and charging stations for electric cars?

Moving to cleaner energy can save the US $ 3.5 trillion by avoiding the health effects caused by air pollution from burning fossil fuels. writes Karin Kirk of Yale Climate Connections. The price is based on the value society attaches to preventing deaths from air pollution.

Use data from Net zero America, a 2020 report examining what it takes for the US to meet a macroeconomic goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Yale Climate Connections has the benefits of phasing out fossil fuels and moving to demonstrated cleaner energy.

Can solar and wind parks pay for themselves? How much each state could save varies, with the greatest compromises in the most polluted places. California, the largest state with the worst air pollution, could save $ 607 billion, most of it from traffic pollution. Pennsylvania could save $ 234 billion, most of it by phasing out coal burning. With that money, Pennsylvania could build nearly 85,000 2-megawatt wind turbines for power generation.

According to Yale Climate Connections, using data from Net Zero America, how much money each state could save by reducing fossil fuel pollution and the clean energy infrastructure they could use the money to build. (Wind turbines are 2 megawatts, solar parks 5 megawatts. No data were available for Alaska and Hawaii.)

Total money saved by reducing air pollution: $ 607 billion

The money is enough to build:

  • Wind turbines: 219,942 or
  • EV fast chargers: 12.1 million or
  • Solar parks: 121,408