Going backward, moving foward - forest gardening theory and practice in the Pacific NW

Ushering in a new era of writing

2011-11-12T00:10:00.001-08:00

It's time to put this ol' blog to pasture. It's been fun. I've learned a lot by writing here, both about what to do, and what not to do. Unfortunately, I'm writing for such a niche audience that even I ran out of things to write about (as evidenced by my lack of writing here).

These are all topics that I'm passionate about--I'm still rocking my compost bin--but the longer I'm in this tiny apartment, the less I feel qualified to write about permaculture, et al. I'm stuck between a rock and an unsustainable place, if you will.

I'm turning inward. Doing some soul-searching. I'm developing a list of fears I have, and I'm bent on conquering them.

To that effect, I have started a new blog. The design hasn't been botched, as has accidentally been the case here (what was I thinking with this ridiculous redesign?). The tone has not yet become immature, as perhaps it has in places around here. Further, it's not lacking the direction that this blog now is. I have a clearer vision of what it is I need to write about every day.

I'm not deleting any of the content. The purpose of this blog has always been to document my path to self-sufficiency so that myself and others could use that information as a reference. I am still on my path to self-sufficiency, only now, that has less to do with plants and compost, and more to do with developing my mind, body, and soul. Feel free to continue using the information here in any way that suits you. It's my gift to the world.

If, however, you would like to read my new writing--knowing full well that it's a completely different experience--you can find me at http://www.taoofunfear.com.

Perhaps I'll be back when I'm ready to write about plants and compost again. :) If not, live well.

Max After Earth: Chapter Two

2011-04-04T09:41:00.000-07:00

I'm lazy. So sue me. (Though, by lazy, I mean preoccupied.) Here are chapters one and two from Max After Earth. You can also download the PDF via BitTorrent here. Sharing is caring.

If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it. That's the stage I'm at.

Max After Earth - Leaked Chapters

Max After Earth: Excerpt From Chapter One

2011-03-28T20:15:00.000-07:00

This post is going to be short and sweet, given my relative lack of sleep today, and my working at the day job today despite the fact that this is supposed to be my day off. Of course, short and sweet naturally precludes more cannibalism.

Instead, I'll share why I didn't get enough sleep: I was working on my novel. And by "this post is going to be short and sweet," I mean I'm not going to write much that hasn't already been written. I am, however, going to share an excerpt from my book, as I finished the first major revision of chapter one last night.

Max After Earth is a tale of unchecked human expansion and greed, where man's inventions try to save him, in spite of himself. More information about the book's progression, and more opportunities to read excerpts, can be had at the book's Facebook page.

Without further ado, I give you this excerpt from chapter one:

It is the 37th of August, 2032, a day that scientists have warned: Apophis will, undeniably, hit the Earth. As the reports go, the force of one hundred nuclear bombs will be unleashed when the massive asteroid strikes. How many will the impact itself kill? If those same reports are to be trusted, then perhaps only thirty million. Assuming there are thirty million people left to kill. Far more likely, an object of that mass entering the atmosphere will ignite the methane cloud, burning up the Earth’s oxygen, and suffocating everyone; those at the highest elevations systematically succumbing moments before those below them, as though the hand of Death itself were literally coming down the mountainside. Barring such a grandiose and instantaneous of extinctions, there are always tsunamis, toxic gasses, and, depending on where it hits, nuclear meltdown, crumbling global infrastructure, or further upset to the world’s already unstable food economy. It isn’t a question of whether everyone will die—that much is known—it is only a question of how. Read more...

Surrender Your Flesh: Cannibalism As Recycling

2011-03-25T19:53:00.000-07:00

Previously I drew attention to the fact that our good intentions, our desire to improve the quality of life for everyone, can end up having the opposite effect. If we decrease mortality rates, for instance, then we'll stretch our limited resources even further, and this will likely end in more war over those very resources.

I also promised more of my crazy solutions to this problem. On the docket for today? Cannibalism.

Now, most people who are not practicing cannibals (which I presume is all of us) commit the fallacy of conflating cannibalism with murder. This is not inherently the case. Sure, there are sociopaths out there, but there have also been cultures which have eaten their deceased relatives in order to symbolize that, because of a spiritual belief that, or purely because of the nutritional reality that, in some way, if we eat someone they will live on through us. People can die of natural causes before we eat them.

So, the kind of cannibalism I'm arguing for is the "why don't we eat them instead of wasting all of that perfectly good flesh?"

Now, before you drop a "what the fuck" or two, hear me out. Matt hasn't completely gone off the deep end--only nearly.

People donate organs, don't they? Good. So I hope we agree that the general premise--that is, donating parts of our body--is not an entirely strange or screwed up concept.

So let's look at the why behind my suggesting cannibalism as part of a total system of sustainability.

We feed 70% of our corn crop to livestock. There are similar percentages for soy and other grains. All livestock suck at turning vegetable matter into meat. Cows are the worst offenders, and also one of the most popular. For every 30 calories we put into a cow, we get 1 calorie out as beef.

Now, imagine we reclaimed the 70% land that goes to growing crops for livestock. Reclaim the land that's going to raise that livestock. Reclaim the land that goes to graveyards. Our living spaces will literally double as farms if we are the meat we eat.

Additionally, we'd be cutting back on the oil, pesticides, and fertilizer used to raise crops, the antibiotics and fuel used to raise and transport livestock, and reducing water usage all around.

I know what you're thinking. At least, I know what I hope you're thinking. "Eating people is gross." I get it. That's the feeling I have toward factory farmed meat these days. But we generally have that reaction to most new foods that we try. Have I mentioned my reaction to eating insects? Butchering any animal takes a strong stomach, and I think that part of it is what grosses people out the most; pre-packaged ground human probably wouldn't make you think twice if you didn't know it wasn't some other animal, though.

Of course, I'm sure there will be spiritual arguments against what I'm suggesting. We can't defile these bodies, right? We already donate organs, and many people are horribly maimed before they die; if anything, I think it would be an honorable use of our bodies after we no longer need them. And the soul? If there is something called the soul, I don't think it cares much about the state of the body in death. We all rot eventually.

I'm not sold on cannibalism. I mean, theoretically I am. In practice though, I have the same reticence I have about any other new thing I encounter. It makes sense for us to do this, but can we overcome our bias against it?

Photo by Paul-W

The cost of peace: will our good intentions kill us all?

2011-03-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

I love William Stafford's poem "Traveling Through The Dark". As he's standing over the dead doe, he notes that "to swerve might make more dead"--in this case, quite literally. The road is narrow, and if he doesn't push the doe into the ravine, many others run the risk of getting into a fatal accident. And then he feels the fawn inside her.

None of us, or almost none of us, want to kill. That may pertain to people alone, for some, but for others it extends to all sentient beings. But sometimes we're faced with the horrible irony that killing saves more lives. Those of us who cannot over-simplify our experiences, who cannot view things in black and white which present themselves in shades of grey, struggle to fit a peaceful existence within the confines of a reality which demands our death.

A reality which demands our death? Well, we cannot live forever. And even if we had the ability, we do not have the resources. In my previous post I reviewed Dirt! The Movie, in which the filmmakers stress our dependence on an ever-depleting topsoil to produce food. Our dependence on food should be obvious. The French Revolution has its roots in food availability, and recent unrest in places Egypt and Libya are helped along by rising food prices. Add dwindling farm land, fresh water, and rising average temperatures to the equation, and it becomes clear that an increasing population increases the risk that some of those mouths will go without.

War. I don't like it. But as smart as I am, I have to recognize the unfortunate problem that would be created if we woke up one morning and stopped killing each other. If our breeding habits went unchecked, peace would ironically lead to even more war due to it's increasing global population levels in the face of diminishing resources.

Sure, it would likely not happen overnight. In fact, cooperation would likely put more food in more mouths at the offset. But that also means fewer people starving to death, which would further spur on population growth. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't like the tough position this puts me in. While I don't want to support war, and while I would like to put plenty of food in the mouths of every global citizen, I can't in good conscience support anything that reduces the mortality rate unless I also do work to reduce birth rates. Increasing contraceptive use, increasing abortion rates, limiting the number of children a person can have, and increasing education (insofar as education has been linked to lower birth rates) are all options. Some are better than others.

All of this, ultimately, aims to lower the number of children that any given person has, regardless of whether there's an actual limit. And how do you stop a person that is set on having children from having them? Should you stop them? Can you ethically do so?

Perhaps we don't need to do anything. Perhaps as resources dwindle and the prices for said resources rise, people will simply recognize that they can't afford to have children. But will they act on that realization even if they see that it's valid?

Civil unrest will grow if we allow the resources to dictate our actions. The very war we were trying to avoid will result.

I speak as someone who is enamored with the idea of having children, and of raising them to be good stewards of their environment. I know some of my fellow bloggers have had children, and I have no doubts that they will turn into incredible human beings. But I have to wrestle with whether it's responsible to bring another burden on the planet, with whether I will be able to afford the resources to care for any children I bring into the world, and with whether it's a world I want to bring children into.

There are ways to make what we have go further. As is typical for me, I hope to share some of the crazier ones with you. But if all we do is try to stretch what we have, we will only be delaying the inevitable.

That's not to say everything is all doom and gloom. I have lots of faith in our abilities to overcome the adversities that we face. I only question how much we will fill the growing pains later if we take no action today. And if world peace is our goal, are we ensuring that the goodness of our hearts is not ultimately our undoing? Puppies and rainbows are fine and all, but they won't solve our most pressing problems.

We need to act sooner rather than later. "To swerve might make more dead."

Photo by Jayel Aheram

Dirt! The Movie available for free viewing

2011-03-21T16:18:00.000-07:00

I previously mentioned that I'd run across the trailer for Dirt! The Movie. I'm happy to announce that Dirt! is now available for free viewing on Hulu. You can watch it by following this link. Or just click play below.

The movie had some strengths and some weaknesses. It did stress how important dirt is to our survival and how the destruction of top soil has eliminated agricultural opportunities and as a result has caused war. It did this in a pretty powerful way.

I was also touched by the bit about a program that allows prison inmates to garden, and then transitions them into similar landscaping work once they're released.

Some bits were plain hokey, though. As someone that's a little more pragmatic, and not nearly new age enough for a lot of the "hippy talk" it was lost on me. If you're the same way, it'll probably be lost on you too.

It's not all bad though, and even with a slow start there's plenty in here that's worth seeing.

If for nothing else, watch it for the story of the hummingbird. I'm not going to give it away; you'll just have to watch the movie. What I will say is that it's a very powerful parable.

And that's what I'll leave you with.

Any other documentaries I should see? I've cancelled my Netflix subscription on account of them not support Linux, so I haven't been watching a lot of documentaries. If you have any recommendations, though, I'll see if I can get it through the library.

A New Experiment in Entomophagy: Mixed Bugs

2011-03-19T23:13:00.000-07:00

I won't make any promises about how I'm going to start writing regularly. I already (sort of) made that mistake in an effort to keep myself motivated to write through these gloomy winter months, and all I did was crash and burn.

Winter is always tough. Everything is dead and I'm stuck in a cramped apartment where every day I feel more and more disconnected from the things I love and the things I love to write about. Perhaps next year, being a year older and wiser, I won't try to force things that won't happen naturally. If that's at the core of how I want to interact with the world, then I should be able to respect that with my writing.

But, spring is already peeking through. I'm not a big fan of Wordsworth, but as I took a walk tonight and saw the daffodils' cheery faces, I could grasp at what he was trying to teach me. I want to make as much of the sun while I have it these few short months.

Also, I've been eating bugs.

I've written about entomphagy--the act of eating bugs--before. There were mixed results with that experiment. For starters, my ineptitude at preparing insects for consumption resulted in bugs exploding all over my kitchen. And while the taste was actually quite pleasant, there were definitely psychological hang ups. I was eating bugs, after all.

I wanted to expand my experience, though, to see what other culinary options were available and to see if I could get over my bias, as a Westerner, against eating creepy crawlies. This time I allowed someone more competent to prepare my selection of edible critters. Through the thailandunique.com website, I placed an order for their sampler of "mixed bugs". This included bamboo worms, silkworm larva, mole crickets, big crickets, and dung beetles. Given that these bugs made a bit of a trip, and were already cooked, I ended up with more bug parts than whole bugs. For the most part I was guessing which ones I was actually eating.

They were cooked, as I mentioned, and dehydrated for preservation. They were also lightly spiced. And you know what? They weren't bad.

The bamboo worms weren't my favorite. Lucky me, they sent an extra pack of bamboo worms as a "free gift". The problem wasn't with flavor or texture, rather it was because I found them cold to the bite. It was a weird experience. Even sitting at room temperature like all of the other bugs, they emanated a coolness when I bit into them. They struck me as something I would much prefer to have warm. Perhaps freshly cooked and served hot they would be quite enjoyable.

Not all of my finds were duds, however. I loved the crickets. They were crunchy and nutty and more than I could ever have hoped they would be. The mole crickets really do resemble moles (or, perhaps, moles resemble mole crickets). We have bred crickets before when we were keeping reptiles as pets, and I would seriously consider keeping some and incorporating them into my diet. Crickets aren't difficult to keep, and it would certainly be more cost-effective than buying them, live or prepared, whenever I fancied a bite. This could be a real winner.

Unfortunately, I couldn't really make a judgment on either the beetles or the silkworm larva. Both ended up being pretty mangled by the time they got to me, and there weren't really a lot of parts that were identifiable as one or the other. With the exception of the bamboo worms, though, I didn't find anything I tasted to be disagreeable, so I imagine that as distinct entities they would be quite enjoyable.

As I struggle to align apartment living with my desire to live self-sufficiently, I think I will be drawn more and more to raising insects for food. They have a small footprint and relatively few needs, and the benefits they provide to our diets are innumerable.

To this same end, I'm starting to think about renewing my indoor herb garden and perhaps trying my hand at growing an indoor lemon tree. It would be really cool if I could sell lemons on consignment at the farmers market, and I find I'm happiest when my cooking includes fresh herbs. Salt and dried spices just aren't enough for most dishes.

I've been inspired lately and I have lots of things I'd like to share with you. Hopefully I will soon. But for now, I'm taking it day by day as I try to balance a forty hour work week with all of my other passions. No more grandiose promises from me. You'll get as much as I can afford to give, which goes hand in hand with how much time I'm willing to spend in front of a computer during my downtime. Blogging, as with all things in life, is about balance.

Getting my fingers dirt-y

2010-12-30T21:07:00.000-08:00

I think most parents dream that their children will have a better life than they did. If their children don't grow up to become doctors or lawyers, at least they should get a comfy office job where they don't have to put in back-breaking hours day in and day out at a local lumber mill or mine. That is to say, I think my own family would be a little disappointed if I were brutally honest with them and told them that all I really wanted to do with my fancy four-year degree was play with dirt.

But dirt is important.

Next to the sun, we owe much of our livelihood to dirt.We live on it. We work on it. We eat what is grown from it. But do we care of the dirt like we could?

I saw a trailer the other day for Dirt! The Movie, and it looks like it might make an earnest attempt at answering that question. The short answer, however, is no.

There's something that nature does exceptionally well that we, as humans, have historically sucked at. That is, giving back to the soil. Plants pop up in the spring soaking up vital energy from the sun. One might argue that these plants are soaking up vital nutrients from the soil, but that very argumentative person would be missing the larger picture. Those plants are digging their roots in deep and pulling up nutrients that have been leached by the elements. Come autumn, those plants die back or lose their leaves, returning all of those nutrients to the surface again, along with a whole growing season's worth of solar energy. Even that which is eaten will eventually be returned to the earth, either as manure or a decomposing doe.

I will reiterate that we suck at this. The closest we've gotten to respect the cycles of nature has been in keeping meat animals on pasture. Except, in raising a cow, the best we can hope for is to get one calorie out for every calorie we put in. We end up sacrificing variety in our diets and in our ecosystem for a quasi-balanced, but exceptionally inefficient system.

Our grand adventures in agriculture only take us further from the already-less-than-ideal. Slash and burn agriculture: we destroy whatever's there so we can put what we want in its place, and once we exhaust the soil of its resources, we move on. Feed lots: dedicate large swaths of land to growing food for animals that we keep neatly confined, stockpiling an obscene amount of excrement which then finds its way into nearby bodies of water, contaminating it, causing algae blooms, killing off fish populations, and endangering the lives of humans; the manure never makes it as far as fertilizing the fields that grow the food for the very animals in question, because... Chemical revolution: it's faster and cheaper to apply petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, etc. to the fields than to deal with compost or manure, neverminding that petroleum supplies are limited and have untold adverse effects, including the destruction of the microorganisms that make up a healthy soil.

We need to learn how to take care of the dirt so that the dirt will keep taking care of us. Things might be dirt cheap right now, but in a few decades, or a few centuries, we might be talking about how things are dirt expensive.

Which brings me the the whole point of my post. Geoff Lawton, a hero of mine whom I've written about previously has released another DVD all about caring about our soil. Both his food forest DVD and the short video on greening the desert blew my mind, and I have no doubts that his new Permaculture Soils DVD will be equally educational and inspiring. The only problem is that his DVDs are really hard to come by her in the states, so if you want a copy, you may very well have to have a copy shipped over from the land down under.

Can't wait for that? Here's a trailer to hold you over:

What about you? Besides composting, what other ways do you take care of your soil?

P.S. Dirt may even be good for your health!

Photo by cobalt123

Buying green for the holidays? Is it possible?

2010-12-05T13:55:00.001-08:00

Trying to be mindful of sustainability while buying gifts is tedious, if not downright impossible. Have a look at buying locally versus having gifts shipped, as well as five ways to stay eco-conscious this holiday season.

Gift-giving. It's that season again. People are out running around trying to find gifts for their family and friends, and trying to score the best deals on all kinds of products. And lately I've been seeing a lot of marketing hype about so-called "ecogifts" which are supposed to be the best thing you can do for the planet. Are they really?

There are a couple of points of contention. First of all, is the product in question made in a sustainable way? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's a cutting board made out of sustainably harvested bamboo. Or perhaps it's a blanket made out of organic cotton. But just being made in a sustainable way does not a sustainable item make. Where an item is made is just as big of a concern. Is a product really sustainable if it's being shipped halfway across the world? The short answer is no. The fuel used to transport it clearly outweighs whatever laudable techniques were used in its manufacture.

But, like most things, this is complicated.

Do you drive to the store to buy gifts? Do your neighbors, friends, and family all drive to the store to buy gifts? Just think about how many cars this adds to the road. Think about it in terms of numbers. If 500 people in your town or city drive to the store to buy one gift each, a lot of you are probably going to end up driving a a bunch of the same stretches of road. If you load the same 500 gifts onto a truck and have one person deliver them, you might get some overlap, but not nearly so much. In this case, having something shipped is the preferable option. If you have to drive in order to get something, having it delivered is often the better choice. It's like a carpool for your products.

That's the balancing act we have to play.

Chances are you weren't going to go to Vietnam to buy that bamboo cutting board. You probably weren't even going to go as far as the next state. But even if you were just buying it from a local store, chances are it was manufactured, at least in part, on the other side of the world. This can make truly buying local a tricky affair.

Are these ecogifts better than their less sustainably manufactured brethren, all other things equal? Certainly. Just don't buy into the hype that buying these products is somehow going to magically save the world. They are an improvement over they alternative, but they are still products, and they still have an environmental cost.

If you are buying gifts this holiday season, keep these general rules in mind:

1. Buy locally

Things that are made and sold locally by local artisans and craftsmen don't travel and distance and burn quite the amount of fuel as something shipped from far away. These products should be made from local and sustainable materials to boot. And you'll have peace of mind knowing that you're supporting the local economy.

2. Buy services

Eschew products altogether and buy something intangible. A massage or a day at a museum might be just what your loved one needs. If you want to buy a gift that keeps giving to the planet, you could even enroll them in a permaculture class.

3. Make something

If you put some time and energy into a project, your loved ones will appreciate it more than anything that could ever be bought. My fellow blogger over at Get Rich Slowly has a great list of 34 homemade gift ideas.

4. Opt out

As I've grown older and my family has spread out and grown apart, the holidays aren't quite the gatherings they once were. The winter time is filled with holidays and festivals because it's cold, dark, and gloomy. They're an excuse to enjoy each other's company.So do it. Plan your day around activities you can share together other than gift-giving.

5. Community service

Lots of people make the holidays about other people, outside of their immediate families. They donate time or clothing to the homeless, or volunteer in a local animal shelter. This is a great way to give without having a guilty conscience afterward. Have your family volunteer with you and you can still share the holidays with each other.

Do you have any other tips for staying green this holiday season? Any ideas for activities a family could partake in lieu of gift-giving? Share 'em in the comments.

Photo by mmlolek

Going backward, moving forward 3.0... or so.

2010-12-05T02:53:00.001-08:00

I just pushed the new redesign of the site, as you can no doubt see if you're not reading this in a feed reader. There are still bugs to work out and posts to clean up, but it'll get the job done. Hope you enjoy the new look And I hope you find it easier to navigate than the previous iterations. That said, I'm going to bed. I'll catch you all tomorrow.

Photo by su-lin

JYUMF9J6FKF7

Personal Finance and Sustainability

2010-11-28T13:18:00.001-08:00

When trying to do what's best for the environment, our wallets sometimes get in the way. And when our wallets get in the way, choosing between long-term and short-term environmental goals gets tougher. What should we do?

Photo by Steve Wampler

A lot of my focus lately has been on finance, what with my working 40 hours a week and trying to write a novel in order to make a couple of extra bucks. This is coming from a guy that envisions a lifestyle where he provides 90% or more of his food needs, plus many other material needs, all without the use of money. I want to grow what I need. Finance plays a role in sustainability, however, on account of the system we are working inside of. Short of stealing a person's home, I'll have to opt to buy the property on which I wish to develop my eventual forest garden (certainly renting is one possibility, but that adds stress for both the forest gardener and the property owner--the owner will want to know if the gardener is going to leave them with a mess of trees they have to dig out of their once-perfectly-acceptable farm land, and the gardener will worry if the property owner will stop renting to them once the forest garden is about to reach maturity). I've definitely had discussions with some readers about wanting to re-localize our economize to better do away with abstract finance, but we just aren't at that point yet. I think it will take a few mindful individuals who have the means to purchase this land before it's paved over, and then act as stewards of that land for the benefit of their communities. As a writer, and as a connoisseur of film, I appreciate the need for such graceful transitions, whether in the arts or in the socio-politico-economic realms.

So. Finance.

My student loan payments just started coming due, and I made my first payment this week. More of them will start coming due in the next couple of months. My 90-day review at work, and the raise that is supposed to come with it, is long past due. I'm doing okay, financially, but I am living paycheck to paycheck, and were I to lose my job or suffer a major medical expense, I would have nothing to fall back on. Money will only get tighter as more and more loan payments get stacked onto my other bills. I'm also constantly stressing about how long it will be before my unemployed roommate exhausts his savings and is unable to to pay his share of the rent (hopefully there is enough warning that I can move back home if this ever becomes the case).

One way that I could help reduce my financial burdens is, as I've mentioned before, to live within a neo-nuclear family. In less fanciful terms, I could get more roommates--though the idea behind a neo-nuclear family is that there is a bond beyond simple shared living expenses. Although, splitting rent and utilities three, four, or five ways would certainly reduce my personal costs.

The other alternative, or at least, one of the alternatives, is to reign in frivolous spending. Recently I've been doing a lot of that, relatively speaking. In my first month at my new job I probably ate out more times than I had the entire time I was going to school. I worked (and am still working) eight hours a day, coupled with two hours of commuting on the bus each day. Once you tack on the other little things I have to do to get ready for work, and the downtime I face when I get home from putting in a long day, I simply didn't have the energy to prepare meals most of those days.

Last month I finally had a system down. I would prepare enough food on the weekends that I didn't have to cook or eat out during the week (though, it did get kind of old eating the exact same thing every day for a week), and when I did have to make a purchase, I would use services on my phone to track where my money was going as I spent it. I gave myself a very conservative budget for eating out and I stuck with it, even though I had used almost all of it up in the first half of the month. It forced me to be more vigilant in ensuring I was preparing enough food to eat each week when I had the time to do so.

But, it fell apart this month. I decided to write a novel in 30 days. When I wasn't working, I was writing. Easily twelve or more hours a day on the weekends, plus getting up four hours before my shift on weekdays so I could write before I left for work. I've been writing during my lunch breaks, on my commute to and from work, before I left for work, and after I got home. So, now I was working 40 hours a week, and then spending at least an additional 44 hours a week, if not actively writing, at least actively developing the story within my head or cursing my writer's block.

I would rush to get something in the crockpot right before passing out the night before my work week began (I'm really sick of soup right now, by the way), but when the weekends rolled around, I basically ate out for every meal. It's been worse than any other month since I started working. And keeping a budget or tracking spending? Screw that! When did I have the time or energy? When I did eat out, I would stuff the receipt in my pocket and promise I'd put it in my phone later.

I haven't entered a single receipt all month.

When I was first trying to figure out how to track my spending on my phone I had looked into PageOnce.com and Mint.com, both of which had apps for my phone. I ultimately went with the PageOnce app. It was a purely arbitrary decision, based in part on the reviews the software had received, but mostly because I didn't want to enter my already sensitive financial information into two separate pieces of software, thus increasing my chances of becoming of victim of identity theft (although, I pity the fool that steals my identity). There was a problem with my choice, though. PageOnce didn't allow me to create budgets, even though it did track my spending rather nicely. I ended up having to install another app in order to create a budget, and then I had to enter my receipts manually. Hence the problem that occurred when I didn't have the time and energy to enter my receipts.

Finally, yesterday, while there was some downtime at work (yes, I do work on Saturdays, for better or worse), I was turned on to the blog of a fellow Oregonian writer. You may have heard of it. It's called Get Rich Slowly. When the author, J.D., decided to start tracking his spending again he went with Mint.com, and he wrote up a pretty nice review of the service. It allows you to set up budgets and automatically assigns purchases at various stores, etc., to different categories and allows you to tweak to your hearts content. Even though I hadn't wanted to put my details into two separate accounts, I broke down last night and set up my Mint.com account and created a budget which will go into full effect once December 1st rolls around. Everything is automated, and it will email or text you if you try to go over your alloted budget, so hopefully it's an improvement over my previous system.

Also, it allowed me to see that I had been spending nearly 30% of my income on food. That includes groceries, but also a considerable amount of that is the fault of eating out. I did so well last month on avoiding eating out with the help of a budget, and now that my novel-writing is winding down, I hope I will be able to avoid eating out in the months to come.

I also have a goal set up in Mint to save up a small emergency fund, just in case there are any medical expenses, etc., that I need to cover. If my budget works out, I'll be able to meet that goal in six months.

The next step is to call the companies servicing my loans and switch to a payment plan that is based on my income. If I don't do that, when I finally have to start paying on my final loan, my loan payments each month will be between $400 and $500. In short, more than I can afford. I'll be trying to pay off two or three of the smaller loans first so that there are fewer companies/payments/etc. to deal with each month.

I haven't been clear. I know this. What, exactly, does any of this have to do with sustainability?

Three things.

First, if you have debt or any kind of financial obligations to the "outside world" or "the system," then you have to have a way to make money to pay on those obligations so long as they exist.

Second, if you want to own property so that you can start a garden of some sort, you need to have a plan and set goals that will make purchasing that land a reality.

Third, we have to be conscious of how our sustainable choices effect our wallets.

With regard to the first, I have loans that I have to pay off. That is one of my major priorities right now because I can't pay off my debt with apples and plums--at least, not directly. Before I can think of doing anything other than working full time, I need to make sure I have a plan for managing that debt, or to be free of it entirely.

With regard to the second, I'm creating financial goals. These next six months are going to be about creating a financial buffer in the form of an emergency fund. For the 18 months following that, I will be putting half that amount toward growing my emergency fund, and the other half into a fund for purchasing property and developing a forest garden. After that, it's all about the property fund. If I already have a set amount that I'm promising to put away for these projects, then I won't be able to spend that money on something frivolous.

The third one is the real stickler, though. I haven't bought that bidet yet. We have two rolls of toilet paper left. Do I A) Foot the bill and buy the bidet, ultimately saving money in the long run and doing something good for the environment while I'm at it? B) Buy the super expensive 100% recycled toilet paper that we've been using, feeling good about not buying the non-recycled stuff, but realize that I'm spending an asinine amount of money to wipe my ass, or C) Buy the super cheap toilet paper, cringe at the fact that I'm killing the planet slowly, but hope that what I'm saving my money up for balances that out?

There are other options, of course, but these are the most obvious. Each has pros and cons. And obviously, there's no easy answer because there's an interplay of choices here. If I buy the environmentally horrid toilet paper, I'll be saving money for a very environmentally valiant cause. It's about the net effect. If you kill a bunch of trees to print out fliers promoting an environmental discussion panel which ultimately causes a bunch of people to live more environmentally-conscious lives, was it worth the death of those trees. If the net effect was an ultimately positive one, then, barring any extraneous issues, it probably was worth it.

On that same note, growing organic vegetables is dirt cheap, Buying them isn't so much. I can't grow them, especially not this time of the year, so do I buy non-organic so that I can make ends meet? I generally don't have much of a choice as my wallet dictates what my options are. I could commit to buying organic only, or 90% organic, or 70% organic, or whatever, but then I will never get caught up financially, and that forest garden will never become a reality. I did buy almost entirely organic products this past week when I went shopping. I felt violated when I saw the bill. If the farmer's market was still running, I would never pay that much for food in a week. So, I mostly buy bulk bags of non-organic carrots, potatoes, onions, etc., and occasionally buy organic when I can during the fall and winter months. I have to make being financially smart my goal though.

Are your long-term environmental goals often cut short by short-term goals? Or do you opt to make some really crummy decisions in order to ensure the success of your long-term goals?

Right now I'm trying to ensure the success of my long term goals, and that is requiring me to make decisions that I don't want to. But, I am tracking my spending and dutifully adhering to my goals so that it isn't all for nothing.

What about you? How do you deal with the intersection of money and environment, and do you have a plan to make sure you don't stray too far?

In other news, I dug through some of the old comments on the blog after having been away for so long. Someone mentioned creating forest gardens in public spaces, and at about that same time I looked out of my window and saw a small plot of land that presumably belongs to the church next door, and which sits right next to their parking lot. It's a Hispanic church, and I know that a lot of the immigrants in this area work in agriculture. I also know that they're a pretty tight-knit crowd, and have strong communities. It sounds like a breeding ground for a community forest garden. Perhaps it's something I should look into. I think I might have a contact that can help me find who I need to talk to.

The other other news is that I've noticed that the site is running rather slowly/buggily. That tends to happen when I disappear for a few months. Looks like I'll have to work on it in December to get it back into tip-top shape. You're probably sick of me tweaking/completely redesigning the thing on a whim, but I've yet to find that one design that really does the trick. It's getting there. Thanks for the patience.

I'm not dead.

2010-11-22T10:37:00.001-08:00

I'm not dead, as the title clearly states. This is an update to let you know what I've been up to, and why the long silence (hint: it has to do with the novel I've been writing). New posts will follow in December.

Photo by malky

I haven't written in ages, and I really didn't want to leave you hanging. I had a lot of posts that I planned on writing over the summer, but they just never happened. I'm working for the man now, an ungodly forty hours a week. But, I'm also working on the first draft of my first novel: Max After Earth. In my story, the Earth has been so ravished by human activity that when an asteroid (perhaps you've heard of Apophis?) threatens all life on Earth, scientists flee the planet rather than try to find a way to stop the calamity, no longer finding the Earth worth saving. I've written about 190 pages so far, and I'm starting to wrap things up. There's still a lot of editing that needs to be done. No, seriously a lot of editing. But, I'm that much closer to realizing my dream of writing and publishing a book, and it deals with a lot of my favorite topics, including environmental issues, forest gardening, human relationships, and technology. It's interesting to see all of these different thought processes come together in one work of fiction.

To those of you maintaining your own blogs, I'm apologize that I haven't been around to read your, no doubt fantastic, work. Maybe when my book is off to the publishers I'll be able to take a break and do some catching up.

I hope you'll continue to follow me on my journey. Any money that I'm able to make off of my book will be seed money for starting a forest garden of my own, a forest garden which I will be able to use to teach other's forest gardening (both in person and through this blog) and that's something I really look forward to.

Until my next update, which could be some time in coming given the current work load, take care.

Food Stamps at the Farmers' Market

2010-05-15T15:56:00.001-07:00

The Forest Grove Farmers' Market offers a food stamp program for the second year in a row. Here's a look at how that helps both the farmers, and the people with low incomes who might otherwise go without fresh organic produce.

Photo by Steve Bickel

I might have mentioned that I worked at the local farmer's market a few summers ago. My job, among other things. was to process food stamp payments for the entire market. It was the first year that the market had accepted food stamps, and it was a big hit.

The program has grown since then, and I'm glad to see that that's the case. Why?

I'm sure that in one of my recent tirades I've mentioned that corn is in everything. It's used as a binder, a thickener, a sweetener, a preservative: you name it. It's in everything precisely because the government subsidizes the growing of corn. This means it costs almost nothing to use corn ingredients in one's products. People with limited incomes can stretch their dollar further by buying these products, and consequently they have the worst diets in the country. Meanwhile, these buying habits just reinforce the inclusion of corn-based products in virtual everything.

Food stamps at farmer's markets help the good guys win.

First, farmers can sell produce for cheaper while making more money. Farmers lose a lot of potential income when they sell to grocery stores because those grocery stores have to factor in overhead when calculating their buying price. Selling directly to the consumer saves everyone money.

Second, people with limited incomes are able to buy healthy foods which they would often pass up in grocery stores on account of price. Because the money is going from the food stamp program to the local farmers, it's helping to stimulate the local economy.

Third, because this food is local, and often organic, it's reducing the farm-to-fork miles contributed by one of the most offending demographics. Unfortunately, this demographic has very little control themselves, and are jerked around by what they're able to afford. Programs like this help them make healthy choices for themselves, for the planet, and for the local economy.

The unfortunate thing is that it is cost prohibitive for most farmer's markets to start a food stamp program. The necessary equipment costs thousands of dollars. Check to see if your local farmer's market has a food stamp program, and if not, you can help by looking into getting grants to start one, or by organizing a fundraiser to come up with the necessary funds.

On top of the benefits to this underserved demographic, however, is the fact that the same equipment will allow the farmer's market to collect credit and debit card payments as well. The ease of buying that this has created for our market has meant better profits for our farmers, and a well-fed community.

Totally not related, but... my memoir on America's "touch problem"

2010-05-12T01:26:00.001-07:00

Since this blog is about me writing as much as it is anything environmental--that just happens to be what I hone my writing on--I thought I'd share news about my world of academia and what's been keeping me away from the blog.

From my advisor:

"Some lines in here are publishable, Matt. You're smart, have a good sense for telling the story, and aren't afraid to confront the monster. All the makings of a true memoirist."

That might not seem like much unless you're a writer. When you're a writer, you have to learn to compensate for the fact that your mentors will ration compliments to A) keep them from going to your head and turning you into a monster, and B) make sure you never settle for second best. As writers, we have to pretend that those compliments aren't actually 500,000% better than they seem for those very same reasons. In a sense, a good chunk of writing is learning to lie to yourself until your lies are true... or something. I'm actually just caffeinated and exhausted, so none of this really makes sense. If I'm lucky I'll manage to sound wisely ambiguous, so when you don't get it you'll think you just haven't thought about it hard enough.

Anyways...

Photo by Josep Ma. Rosell

I don't think I've shared with you, my readers, what my non-environmental work is. This project in particular is a memoir, if you hadn't gathered from the quote. I've been doing research on touch in America, and especially the tendency for Americans to conflate touch and affection with sexuality. A kiss can't just be a kiss, it has to signify romantic/sexual interest. Compared to other industrialized nations, in this regard, the U.S. seems to be trailing (just like we are in so many other areas.) That doesn't mean there isn't a problem at all in other countries, but the research I've done suggests that we're the worst, and because I'm U.S.American, I can contribute my personal experiences to the discussion of this research. So, that's what my work does. It blends my personal experiences and the experiences of people I know with the research I've been doing in order to appeal both to people who want a compelling story, but also those that want objective facts and a scientific basis.

One piece of interesting research involved a survey of teenage mothers. Most of those teens admitted that they didn't want sex, but rather they wanted love and affection, to feel cared for and desired. This deficit of love and affection, the study suggested, stems from the fact that American parents are made to feel incestuous, or like pedophiles, if they try to be affectionate with their children once they reach puberty and mature sexually. It becomes inappropriate for adults to touch their children in more than just a simple hug or the like. Sex and relationships are a way for teens to fill that void.

And I said that this is completely unrelated to my environmental work, but that's not entirely true. I'm a systems thinker, and it's my "job" to work out how seemingly disparate things go together. It seems self-evident to me that how we interact with others shapes and defines out quality of life and level of happiness. Happy people make better decisions. People with strong relationships tend to rely on material things for their utility rather than as a replacement for human affection, and so are less wasteful (taking a public bus rather than a Ferrari.). Even as a kid growing up, my family had stronger ties with my neighbors than I do now, or than any people that I know have with their own neighbors. As certain resources become more scarce, it will be easy to compete with each other, trying to get more than our fair share, instead of cooperating with each other to preserve that resource. We're a splintered society, and as much as it might be ironic for a blogger to say so, technologies like the internet are part of that problem (though they can just as easily be part of the solution.) We can reach out to someone we barely know halfway across the world, but we never even say "hi" to our neighbors. What if that simple greeting is all it took to make the world a better place?

That, and a good night's sleep... which I hope to get right now. And then I face my last day of classes for the foreseeable future...

Wish me luck, and I'll do the same for you in all of your endeavors.

Baarter: New website links people who have stuff with people who want stuff

2010-05-09T10:48:00.001-07:00

The three R's come in order of importance: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. That said, one can see the important role that bartering can play in keeping things out of landfills. Baarter.com makes it easy.

Being a big fan of bartering myself (every piece of furniture I have was free or traded for) I was excited to stumble across Baarter.com. I haven't made trades through the site yet, but I'm glad the emphasis is on bartering rather than buying and selling. If you have something you want to get rid of, or if you have something you're trying to find, I suggest you check it out.

Of course, the old standbys are Craigslist and Freecycle. The problem with Craigslist is the emphasis is on buying and selling (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just isn't as conducive to bartering). And while it's awesome to nab something free from Freecycle, they don't allow buying, selling, or trading if that's what interests you, and there are quite a few people on there just begging for stuff. I have had considerable success with both of them, both in finding stuff and in finding new homes for stuff I don't need anymore, but I'm glad to add Baarter to my list of resources.

If you have any other good sites for bartering put them in the comments.

Fighting water (consumption) with water: contemplating the bidet

2010-05-05T11:06:00.001-07:00

Bidets are commonplace in other parts of the world, but here in the U.S. they're, well, foreign. The reality is that these devices offer a lot of environmental advantages.

I hate toilet paper. This hatred isn't rooted in any environmental concern, although I know that there are environmental reasons for hating it. No, this hatred stems from the fact that I'm a clean-freak fighting a losing battle: what will I clean today given the limited hours in a day? My ass would be one of them (if you'll excuse my English... no, really... "ass" comes from "arse," which in turn comes the Middle English "ars," and then from the Old English "ears." "Ass," as it refers to a donkey, stems from the Old English "assa," which ultimately comes from the Latin "asinus." See how I take a moment that could otherwise be considered profane and make it educational? But I digress...). As gross as it is to talk about--bear with me here--I think we all secretly hate the smearing action we're perpetuating on our backsides. How could that be considered making us clean? And how much paper do we waste in wiping for perfection?

So yes, my major concerns are and have been selfish. But, being who I am, I latched onto that last question: How much paper are we wasting?

That's a complicated question. I mean, the simple answer is that we're using a lot. But what does it mean to waste paper? It breaks down fairly readily compared to plastics and metals, so when I ask "How much paper are we wasting?" the implied question is "What impact is my toilet paper usage having on the environment?"

Let's take a step back though and think about how much paper we're actually using. I haven't been counting, but I can make some rough estimates that I think will put us in the ballpark. Let's assume a person averages about 20 sheets (that is, 20 squares) of toilet paper per bowel movement (I imagine the number should actually be a bit higher, but let's be conservative, shall we?) Then, let's assume that Americans are healthy (am I funny, or what?) and their exceptional diet and exercise routines have their digestive systems running optimally, and thus they have about 3 bowel movements a day, or once per each of the standard American meals (this is a liberal estimate, but together with the conservative estimate about TP use, I think it balances out pretty well). That means 60 sheets per day. We (my roommate and I) use Seventh Generation toilet paper, and it has 500 sheets per roll. With our (that is to say, my) estimates, that means a person is going to go through a roll every 8.33 days, or, roughly one roll a week. I have a roommate, obviously, so that means roughly 2 rolls a week for our entire household. That seems to mesh pretty well with how often I seem to change the roll, so the estimates seem pretty good. In one review I read about a 4 or 5 person household where they claimed to be going through half a roll a day, which also fits with my calculations. Households in America, then, are probably using somewhere between 2 and 4 rolls of TP a week, or 104 and 208 rolls a year. I can't make any specific environmental claims based on these numbers, but I can point out a thing or two about cost: at these rates, assuming they are typical for an American household, those same American households are paying between between $108 and $217 each year on toilet paper if they're trying to be environmentally friendly and buying a 100% recycled paper like the Seventh Generation brand (and if you're using toilet paper, and you're reading this, one could assume that that's very likely).

Do you want to know what costs less than toilet paper? A bidet. Or, I should say, a bidet attachment, since in many parts of Europe and other locations around the world, a bidet is actually separate from the toilet. But because most American bathrooms don't come with bidets (spell check isn't yelling at me, but I have a suspicion that that isn't the proper way to pluralize "bidet"), there have sprung up several manufacturers that have created bidet attachments that install right on your toilet. There are lots of options, but even one of the most expensive and highest rated models on Amazon comes in at only $99, which means it's still cheaper than the annual toilet paper costs for a two-person household (given all of the aforementioned assumptions). But I'm a pretty simple person and I don't need all of the bells and whistles that come with the more expensive models. The model I'm considering has also received rave reviews, but without all of those bells and whistles it comes in at only $41.50. At this price, even if I was living alone, recycled toilet paper would cost me more.

But what about the environmental costs? I already told you that I can't give you any specific numbers because, as you might imagine, most companies don't advertise how much they waste. I'm not about to fabricate numbers in order to scare you into believing what I do. In fact, if you believe otherwise and have some information I don't, please set me straight. What I can do, however, is describe the paper manufacturing process in general terms, and we'll see if that's sufficient to paint a picture of the kind of waste that occurs.

Have you ever made paper before? I have. You can make paper from virgin plant materials, and you probably would if you took a college level paper making class, but all of the paper I've made has been from reclaimed paper, thus, all of the paper I've made has been recycled just like Seventh Generation toilet paper. Seventh Generation claims that they're saving trees because they're using 100% recycled materials. From what I've gathered, that isn't entirely accurate. Most of the toilet paper that is made from virgin wood is actually made from saw dust, a waste product of the lumber industry. It is possible that were lumber usage to decline trees would be harvested solely for making toilet paper, but that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. No, the real environmental benefits of using Seventh Generation paper are that it requires less water and energy to manufacture products from recycled materials versus virgin materials: all of the initial processing that the wood goes through has already been done.

But creating recycled paper still requires water, and in a factory setting, it's also going to require electricity. To make new paper out of old paper you shred the paper up and soak it in water to make a pulp (I don't know if a blender was utilized the first time I made paper, but it certainly has since then). A bin contains your paper pulp and a fair amount of water, and a fine screen is dipped into the water to gather up some of the paper pulp and allow the water to drain. Excess water is pressed out and the sheet is allowed to dry. Because you're using used paper, most of it probably has pen, pencil, or printer ink, and even the paper itself might vary in color. All of these dyes and inks end up in your paper pulp, so your paper will inevitably end up a nasty gray color. This is fine for a DIYer--the paper is perfectly usable, and the gray color isn't all that unattractive once you get used to it. But paper you buy at a store is a nice, pristine white or off-white color. To achieve this, paper manufacturers have to bleach the paper. Generally, they use the obvious: chlorine bleach. Some companies try to distance themselves from such toxic chemicals and sport labels that say things like "whitened without chlorine," etc. I believe that the most common alternative to chlorine is hydrogen peroxide, but I'm not familiar with how the process works (extra credit to whoever can tell me).

So, now there is chlorine or hydrogen peroxide (or some other chemical) in the waste water on top of all of the inks, graphite, and dyes. Add to this that at least some papers (mostly artsy papers, to my knowledge) also add a glue to the paper to help hold it together. I'm taking a printmaking course right now, and you soak your paper before you print on it. Because some of that glue leaches out of the paper, the water tends to get slimy and nasty after a while--you definitely know the glue is in the paper. So not only is a lot of water being used to produce these paper products, but a lot of other chemicals are thrown out with that water... and that's even with recycled paper. Also add in all of the fuel used to transport the finish product, and then the fuel used to go to the store and buy these products. Even the most environmentally responsible companies, doing the best they can to balance consumer demand with environmental responsibility, are still wasting a lot of resources. That's just the nature of the beast plain and simple.

It does seem counter-intuitive to think that using water would save water, but I do have an edge because I have a sense of how many gallons are wasted to make just a few sheets of paper. And I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion. I found an article on the Mother Nature Network that tackles this same problem. "Use a bidet" seems to be the consensus. The amount of water used in manufacturing toilet paper outweighs the amount that is used in operating a bidet, and the bidet also avoids the use of other manufacturing chemicals. And if I can reduce my environmental impact and feel cleaner, it seems like a winner to me.

It does raise a question about water use in the bathroom, however. In a roundabout way a bidet saves water, but it is still using water. And in a traditional bathroom setup you're flushing a lot of water needlessly down the toilet. As someone who rents a small apartment my options are limited, so a bidet attachment is one of the best compromises I can make. But, if you've been reading for a while, or you've gone back through the archives, you'll know that when I first started this blog I wrote a piece on compost toilets. Compost toilets are a flushless, waterless toilet system for hygienically processing human waste for use as an organic fertilizer (if you have no idea why you would want to do that, definitely read my old post). You can make your own compost toilet, and John Seymour's The Self-Sufficient Life and How to Live It provides plans for doing so, but you can also buy a commercial model. Well, a commenter over at TreeHugger.com suggested combining compost toilets with a bidet (since most people with compost toilets are still using toilet paper to wipe). I vote yes on this idea. Unless you're wiping with leaves, this is the best you can do. And because you're using no water to flush, and significantly less water with a bidet than with toilet paper, it's all kinds of win. Granted, if you want to use leaves, I would certainly encourage it... I'm just not at that point in my environmental evolution yet. Baby steps... baby steps.

Okay. Now back to my torture session. I shouldn't have even taken a break to write this, but I'm having withdrawals. Two more weeks and I'll be free of school, and then barring other time sinks, I'll be able to write more often for your reading pleasure. Until then, if you hear from me, you likely shouldn't.

Yes, I am still alive...

2010-04-23T10:52:00.001-07:00

It's been a mad dash to get my thesis completed. Monday my advisor told me that I needed to rewrite 95% of it. Needless to say, I haven't been in class all week.

Photo by Mutasim Billah

My presentation is Wednesday morning, and then I have a little bit of time to put on finishing touches and submit my final manuscript. There are definitely plenty of things I want to write to all of you about, but it's going to be a few more weeks at least. Wish me luck.

These so-called biodegradable plastics

2010-04-09T11:21:00.001-07:00

There's been quite a bit of hype for a few years about corn-based biodegradable plastics. The simple solution to our throw-away culture was to create better things to throw away... or so they say. But the problems with these corn-based plastics run from the obvious to the not-so-obvious.

Photo by Dan Klimke

For starters, they're made from corn. In many instances, it's GMO corn. Even when it's not, corn is the most chemical hungry crop we grow: fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, you name it. So is it really better than traditional plastic? Maybe. Corn-based plastic supposedly uses less than half the energy that petroleum-based plastics use during production. According to an article by Elizabeth Royte in Smithsonian Magazine, corn-based PLA bags use 65% less energy during production, and emit 68% fewer greenhouse gases than their petroleum-based counterparts. Does that offset all of the chemicals that go into producing the corn as compared to drilling and processing oil? I haven't seen anything conclusive, but oil isn't going to be an option for much longer anyways. If we're going to continue to use plastics (which is another discussion altogether), we have to figure out something, whether corn is that something or not.

My bigger concern is with claims of biodegradability. Companies use this "biodegradable" packaging and present themselves as our saviors. Most consumers, not knowing any better, think this is the greatest thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind. But the fact of the matter is that PLA requires high-temp municipal and commercial composting facilities. These don't exist in most places, and a home compost bin just won't do. Home compost bins are aerobic, and they just don't get hot enough to break down these pseudo-plastics.

There are some exceptions, of course. There are a few producers of bioplastics that claim their products are compostable in a home composting bin. However, of these relatively few manufacturers, I've only found one that has actually been certified as home-compostable. That is Mater-Bi. Mater-Bi was tested by Which?, a UK consumer organization, and found that Mater-Bi composted under normal home composting conditions. The Village Bakery has been using Mater-Bi to package their organic breads since at least early 2008. We could use more companies with that kind of initiative.

Of course, the better solution would be to use no plastic at all. Buy from farmers markets where you can avoid packaging altogether, or grow your own food. Ideally, I wouldn't have a trash bin. I wouldn't even have a recycling bin. I'd only have what I could personally put into my body, compost, or reuse. The prevalence of urban sprawl and the dominance of big agriculture remain major obstacles to this goal. In the evolution to that ideal however, biodegradable plastics have a role to play. Perhaps we start with home-compostable corn-based plastics like Mater-Bi. From there we shift from corn to less chemical-dependent crops. As we lessen our dependence on corn we can diversify the crops being grown on those lands, and perhaps provide all of our food locally. Once foods are grown locally, our excuses for packaging them will disappear.

It's a dream, but a dream worth having.

Eco-documentaries that you have to see

2010-04-03T16:29:00.001-07:00

A round-up of environmental documentaries that are available for immediate viewing via Netflix's streaming video service. See which one's made the cut--and which ones didn't.

This has been my first full week since spring break--if you could call it a break. But, while I was on break, I decided to test drive a trial of Netflix. The awesome thing about Netflix is that you can stream a large number of movies directly to your computer, and with a bit of know-how, to your TV. That means over the break I was able to watch a great number of documentaries without fiddling with DVDs or anything. Here's what I watched and what I thought of them:

The Botany of Desire - Michael Pollan's book has been transformed into a film by PBS. The film follows the domestication of four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes. But have we domesticated them, or have they domesticated us? And while it certainly behooves a plant to be attractive to us, has its attraction ultimately caused its genetic weakness and susceptibility to disease? Especially with apples and potatoes, consumers and producers are looking for specific traits, and as we find them, we end up eating a very limited variety of these foods. As a result, genetic variation declines, and the plants become more susceptible to pests. And perhaps our variety in diet has declined too much as a result of our selecting for certain traits. This film has beautiful cinematography on top of having compelling premises that interesting conclusions. Definitely a must-see.

Food, Inc. - From the man that brought us Fast Food Nation, comes a film that takes us on a tour of the food industry. When we walk into a supermarket, we're met with an illusion of diversity. The truth is that a limited number of companies, like Tyson, own the majority of the food producing operations in the U.S. Not only are we being swindled on variety because of what grows fastest, grows biggest, or stores longest, but the farmer's producing our food have little say in what or how they're growing. Companies like Tyson finance chicken growing operations and tell farmers when and how to do things. If farmers don't play along, they go out of business, often being in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Much the same is true with potatoes. McDonald's is the largest consumer of potatoes in the world. What kind of potatoes does McDonald's want? Russets. And if a farmer isn't selling to McDonald's it likely isn't staying in business. And then there's the business of corn. I knew corn was in a lot of things, but I wasn't terribly concerned until I saw this film. High fructose corn syrup, dextrin, maltodextrin, dextrose, fructose, sorbitol, starch, monoglycerides, diglycerides, monosodium glutamate, vegetable oil, vegetable broth. It's everywhere. Not only do farmer's struggle to meet the demands of companies that own patents on GMO corn, but they're also pressured to grow corn because of outrageous government subsidies on corn. Our diet has become almost completely corn, and without our knowledge or consent. Want to know how far the rabbit hole goes? Watch this film.

King Corn - On the subject of corn, these two college friends and filmmakers decide to get back to their Iowa roots and grow an acre to corn for a year. When it's done, they watch where it goes. Before they even start growing, they're paid by the government just for claiming that they intend to grow. They go through the process of spraying their acre with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and at the end of the growing season they find out that they've actually lost money on their crop. But not to fear, they still have a lot more money to collect from the government just for growing corn. And that's because corn ends up in everything. At the very beginning of the film, the two filmmakers have an analysis done on their hair that shows that their diet is predominately corn. They find out why when they start following their crop. The truth is, the corn they're growing isn't even edible without being processed into high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and other filler ingredients. What's left over goes to feed cattle. The corn-based diet upsets acid levels in the cow's digestive tract, and if they weren't taken to slaughter as soon as they are, the diet itself would kill them. The hamburgers that the filmmakers eat are predominately corn, the ketchup and their burger and fries is predominately corn syrup, and their fries are cooked in corn oil. It's no wonder they analysis was showing so much corn in their diets.

Killer at Large - This film dives into America's obesity epidemic and tries to uncover why its happening. It shows large food companies lobbying for their rights to target advertisements at children, and then asking parents why they weren't more attentive to what their children were eating. It shows the unprecedented amount of corn in our diets and how that's contributing to early onset diabetes. And it shows how teachers were shut down when they tried to get sugar-filled vending machines out of the schools. I appreciated that this film approached the food industry from the angle of its effects on us. It struck home. Even after the other films railed on corn, this one really sealed the deal because it made the link between our unknown obsession with corn and the effects it's having on our health. If you want less enviro and more human-oriented thinking on the modern food system, this is the one to see.

No Impact Man - A lone man takes his family off the grid over the course of a year. What's the catch? They live in New York City. They ditch cars for human-powered bikes and scooters and eat only local food (even visiting the farms they're buying from). He starts composting in his apartment and washing laundry by hand. At the 6 month mark, they turn of the electricity, and for the remainder of the year they do everything by candlelight. It's a long year, and they take at lot of flack, but at the end of the year they've learned something about what they can and cannot go without. Of all of these films, this is the one that most inspired me to get out and do something (or stay in and do something, as the case may be). Even something as simple as using candles at night instead of electric lights can be the big difference. And this year I think I'll actually be participating in a CSA owned by a farmer I know through my work at B St. If you want a really well-rounded film that will give you lots of ideas about how you can lessen your impact on the planet, this is the one.

Go Further - This film was worthless. Don't see it. Woody Harrelson and his band of pot-smoking jokers take off down the west coast in a bus and Woody gives speeches on sustainability at colleges along the way. The only part of those speeches you get to hear is a poorly written poem. The rest of it is just an excuse for them to smoke and have sex. This film fails to be educational, and it fails to be entertaining. It just fails. If there were no other documentaries out there on the subject of sustainability, then it might have some merit for starting a discussion. Instead, it says much less than dozens of other films have already said, and it says it much less intelligently. This is the only film I watched that I really can't recommend.

There you have it: my thoughts on some of the eco-documentaries I was able to watch over break. There are plenty more, but that's what I got around to. You can order any of these films from the links provided. Alternatively, you can try to find them at your local library. And, if you want to try out Netflix for yourself and stream all of these movies for free, click here for your two week trial.

Mentioned on MiniLivestock

2010-03-27T16:18:00.001-07:00

Hey! I mentioned Rosanna and the MiniLivestock blog back when I did my series on entomophagy (that's bug-eating for the uninitiated). Seems Rosanna came by to read what I had to say on the subject...

Hey! I mentioned Rosanna and the MiniLivestock blog back when I did my series on entomophagy (that's bug-eating for the uninitiated). Seems Rosanna came by to read what I had to say on the subject and wrote up a short piece about my blog. The MiniLivestock site has moved since I mentioned it last, so go check out MiniLivestock.org for info on bugs, eating bugs, and recipes for the bugs you eat. It's a great resource for this interesting subject.

How to make an indoor composter for $10

2010-03-27T10:40:00.001-07:00

Want to know how to compost indoors? Here's are the details for the composter I made for my kitchen out of a couple of totes. Best of all, it'll only set you back $10.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on indoor composting. Click here for part 1.

I previously posted on the specific challenges of composting indoors, and from that, I decided to make an experiment out of composting indoors.

Well, I've built my composting bin and it's been going for about a week now.

Here's how:

Find a couple of matching plastic totes. These are 18 gallon bins. That is a bit excessive, but they were on sale for $5 each, which made them cheaper than the 10 gallon bins. If you have old bins, or can find used bins, choose those over buying bins... but remember that they need to have lids.

Drill holes in the bottom of both totes. The holes should be a quarter inch to allow the eventual migration of worms from one bin to the other (did I mention there were worms involved?) My dremel only had bits up to 1/8" so I improvise and used a grinding stone to widen out the holes.

The next step was to repeat the process, adding 1/16" holes around the top of the bins and in one of the lids.

It's probably hard to see since 1/16" holes aren't that big, but there are two rows of holes, about an inch apart, all the way around the bin.

The same with the lid. Only one of the lids though! We'll be using the other one for something else.

Soak enough shredded newspaper and scrap paper to fill the bottom 3-4 inches of the bin. Wring it out so that it's moist but not dripping. Add some vegetable matter to this. Make sure you bury the vegetable matter to keep fruit flies out of it. Let this set for a week or so before you add worms so the food can start breaking down.

Get your worms. If you have red wigglers growing wild in your area, you could just dig some up. I don't, however. Don't use night crawlers. Red wigglers are surface feeding worms that do well in big groups. Night crawlers feed deeper in the soil and are loners. They're not a good choice for a composting bin.

I ordered my worms from woodwormfarms.com. It wasn't the best experience in the world (they sent the wrong shipping confirmation, I had no idea when the worms were supposed to be arriving, worms looked half-dead when I got them). But, this was one of the few places I found where I could place an order for just a 1/4 pound of worms. It only cost $11 plus shipping, and I was looking to start this bin as cheaply as possible. And they all ended up living, so despite the less-than-stellar service, I can't complain.

Add them to the bin! Along with a cupful of dirt, of course. The dirt helps them grind up food, and contains microorganisms to break down food scraps.

Somehow I neglected to take a picture of the completed bin all set up. I'll have to do that at some point. Here's what you do:

Set the lid without the holes on the floor. Rescue four or five paper cups and place them upside down on the lid (I used a glue stick to hold them in place). Set the bin with the bedding material and worms on the cups. Place a piece of cardboard over the bedding. Place the second bin inside the first. And then put the lid with holes on top of the second bin.

When the first bin is full, add moist bedding and food to the second bin and remove the cardboard from the first. This will allow the worms to move into the second bin and start the process all over. Once the worms have all moved into the second bin you can empty out your delicious compost and use it on your plants.

A couple of important things: keep your food scraps covered or you will end up with a fruit fly infestation. Guaranteed. Also, don't feed your worms more than they can eat or it will start to smell. Red wigglers can eat half their weight in a day. That means my small 1/4 pound of worms can eat about a pound a week.

As things start to break down, I'll be watching for odors. If things get out of hand, I'll test the carbon filter theory.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on indoor composting. Click here for part 1.

Naked sustainability, take two: A reply to a reply from Michelle on going green in the buff

2010-03-26T15:47:00.001-07:00

A continuing discussion with a fellow blogger on the pros and cons of going nude for Mother Nature. What are some of the challenges? What are some of the benefits?

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 1.

Photo by SantaRosa OLD SKOOL

I was glad to see someone taking me up on the topic of going naked to save conserve energy and resources. It was Michelle, of course, whom I mentioned in my previous post on illegal yards. I already responded to Michelle's post over at The Clueless Gardeners blog, but I thought I'd recap and elaborate here for my readers. This discussion actually has a lot of parallels to the illegal yard discussion.

Michelle says:

I can't get on board with going entirely without. Partially, this is because I get cold easily, and I sunburn easily. There is only a narrow window of conditions in which I personally would be physically comfortable going naked.

I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. I definitely stay bundled up in the winter. It would be impractical, and sometimes dangerous, to not wear clothes. If you're in Alaska, please wear clothes to stay warm. If you're in the Sahara, please wear clothes to protect you from the sun.

Those are extremes, and it could certainly be considerably warmer or cooler and still be uncomfortable. But what about those places or those days when the weather is agreeable? Not too hot, not too cold. Certainly then we could go naked.

And what about all of the time we're spending indoors? Now, I'm not suggesting that we turn the heat up just so we can go around naked. That's counter-productive. The point, after all, was to go nude to conserve energy. But, that said, it is pretty easy to regulate temperature indoors without using any electricity. Just use passive heating and cooling techniques, such as passive solar. There are lots of green building techniques designed to keep air temperatures comfortable without expending energy by utilizing shade, thermal mass, insulation, air circulation, and more.

So, with thoughtfully designed buildings, we should be able to go nude indoors nearly 100% of the time.

Michelle's other big objection is...

sanitation. We females have moist nether regions. Sitting naked on a chair that has been sat on by another naked woman is like wearing another woman's underwear. Eww eww eww eww eww. Not hygienic!

Simple solution: put down a towel. This is actually a requirement at every nudist resort I've read about, precisely because they're hygiene-minded. Really, this is a side-effect of an industrial society that we can't avoid. In nature, the things we would have sat on wouldn't have been so permanent. They would have been bombarded by sun and rain and animals, and sitting in the same place more than once would have been highly unlikely. But, our chairs are made of wood and plastic and other materials that will often outlive us. Not only do they last a long time, but they're also porous and hold bacteria and other nasties. (If you've ever looked into having wooden earrings, as I have, then you know that it's recommended that you wear stainless steel until your ear is completely healed up, as wood is porous and can hold bacteria that will cause your ears to get infected). Living communally is a recipe for spreading disease, so putting down a towel where you're sitting would be a necessary step. (This is also related to my disgust with bathrooms--in our pre-civilized state, there's not way you would have found so many humans going to the bathroom in the exact same spot. When you think about it, it's gross and a breeding ground for disease. So much for being civilized...)

Michelle's other objections are mainly about physical comfort of the non-temperature-based variety.

Having a toddler, I find that going shirtless is dangerous, because the curious little monkey likes to grab things - such as my nipples. Ow. I don't know how I would be able to wean him without shirt, either.

Speaking of nipples, I am not large-breasted, but even still, I need support. Bouncing flesh hurts.

All of these are very real concerns. I definitely don't go out into a patch of blackberry briers without a pair of jeans to protect my legs. It would ultimately be more costly to get my legs all cut up, and could very well lead to infection. If we're in pain, we're less likely to be productive. And it's just plain not fun. There's no reason we should submit to that thing when we could have it otherwise (unless we really like that kind of thing).

But hey, even if a person wore a bra for support and protection, that would be one piece of clothing versus six or more. Reduce is the first and most important part of the ol' "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle" bit, and there's a reduction already.

I am male, so I can't fully relate, though I do understand pain and discomfort. The only thing I can do is point to African tribes where women don't wear any kind of covering or support, and then point to the history of the human race pre-clothing. Those people don't seem to be too inconvenienced... so maybe we're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Maybe they've figured out how to get by without the support that "civilized" people take for granted. Who knows? I'm just speculating.

Like I said though, a reduction from fully covered to only wearing a bra would make a huge difference in terms for how much clothing is being manufacture, for one, and also how much clothing is being washed.

Which segues nicely to Michelle's point about reducing our wardrobes and buying secondhand clothes.

I propose, instead, going with minimal clothes in the closet, minimal clothes on the body, minimal washing, and maximum clothes use. Most of my son's clothes, for example, come from yard sales. My own pants are worn between washings until they are stained or smelly, and they aren't retired until the knees tear open. And I rarely dress up, so my hoard of clothes is small.

I love yard sales and thrift stores. Why have something manufactured when somebody already has one that they don't need? For the clothes that a person does need to protect them from the elements, etc., I can't recommend enough going this route to purchase them. Also, instead of purchasing secondhand clothes, you could participate in a clothing swap--a group of people drops off wearable clothes that they don't want or need, and then people take anything they want. Anything left is donated to a homeless shelter or other such organization. I got a very comfy jacket this way, and got rid of some old shirts from my "black phase."

But, even if we reduce the amount and frequency of washing, we're still washing. That, as I mentioned, is the big killer. I probably wash clothes once a month or less, and I only wash full loads when I do. If I need to have a particular piece of clothing between washings, I was them by hand. Really, washing buy hand is preferable since it uses less water and energy, and because it extends the life of the clothing. But, it's time consuming. That's why I only hand wash two or three things at a time. If I had more time to devote to it, maybe I would.

So then there's the issue of the machine. It's fast and convenient. Congrats if you're using a high-efficiency washer like Michelle... you're using about half the water. But then we have to worry not about the pollution from manufacturing the clothes, but also the pollution from manufacturing the washer. There's a statistic somewhere, and it might actually be in Stuff, that compares the amount of pollution produced to manufacture a car versus the amount of pollution that car is likely to emit over its lifetime. For the average car, more pollution is emitted in the manufacturing process than in the actual driving. A similar claim could probably be made about washing machines. Even if the manufacturing process doesn't create more pollution, it's likely that it produces a very significant amount.

The problem then is not about how frequently we use it, but rather, about how infrequently we use it. We could have five families using one machine, but instead we've manufactured five machines and each family has a different one. Each of these machines is sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

This is one theoretical upside to laundromats. But laundromats are really only effective in urban areas, and urban areas come with their own unique problems. The alternative is to have multi-family or multi-adult households in order to prevent the unnecessary production of large appliances. This is what I like to call a neo-nuclear household. These kinds of arrangements, in my opinion, would have lots of added bonuses over just preventing the unnecessary creation of appliances.

But even acknowledging that clothed and nude both have their advantages, and that one might be more appropriate in some situations than in others, and then setting aside this part of the discussion, there are still social and moral issues to consider.

Though there's plenty to touch on in this arena, for the sake of brevity I'll stick to the big one: (public) nudity is illegal. Not everywhere, of course, and except for a few local ordinances nudity is legal in Oregon. I'm more than happy to concede that if you're uncomfortable, you should be allowed to wear clothes, despite the environmental impacts that are implicit in the act of clothes-wearing. But, given the benefits of going nude, shouldn't it be legalized?

And where it is legal, shouldn't we encourage people to take advantage of that? "We" shame people into their clothes... and we wonder why people have body image issues?

Of course, a lot of this stems from our religious history (Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, etc.), and perhaps there are still lots of people who think we should be ashamed of our bodies.

On top of this there are fears of pedophilia, or rampant sexuality... things that I sincerely doubt are as big of a concern as they're made out to be. But, I think my reasons for saying so will have to be saved for yet another post on this subject.

P.S. I'm naked right now.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 1.

The New American Tribe: A Proposed Experiment in Modern Nomadism

2010-03-25T23:50:00.001-07:00

I'm literally weeks away from graduating and I'm grinding to a halt--physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. At this point it's just a mad dash for the finish line that isn't accomplishing much of anything. It isn't teaching me any new skills or ideologies. It isn't preparing me for any job I will likely have. It isn't pushing me toward the future life I wish to live or the future world I wish to live in. It's all for a piece of paper that says I survived 4 years.

Whoop.
Dee.
Doo.

I'm not being the change I want to see in the world, as Gandhi famously suggested. I'm bending to the will of a world that I see as broken, a world where everything we eat is corn, where my generation may have a lower life-expectancy than my parents', where sea-levels are rising and islands are being consumed, and where people are forced to stay inside to protect themselves from man-made smog.

I don't want to be here. Do you?

Add to that a lack of community, a lack of connection to food and people. I'm supposed to be on "break" but instead I'm spending hours a day at a computer dreading a thesis I don't want to write. I get nary a text message, email, phone call, or knock at the door (except for a couple of Mormons who meant to convert me, and who I later regretted shoeing away in such a hurry).

Too much time inside. Too much time apart from people. It's frustrating.

Not to mention that I watched The Tribe a few days ago. Certainly it was far from a perfect situation, but I connected with the situation: a modern group of people all depending on each other for their survival while living largely independent of the larger social structures.

Lets face it, we've created a system where it's easy to feel stuck.

If I don't go to school I won't get a good job. If I don't get a good job I won't make good money. If I don't make good money I won't be able to buy any land. If I don't buy any land I won't be able to grow my own food. If I don't grow my own food I won't be able to be self-sufficient. If I'm not self-sufficient I'll never be able to get out of this system which I detest.

We've made it even easier to get stuck by pouring concrete over land that was once abundant with food and by making it illegal to hunt or fish without the proper licenses. Our survival, our very instincts, are regulated.

But what if we worked together? What if we unstuck ourselves? What if we started a New American Tribe?

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, you should fill out this form.

Basically, I want to put together a group of 10-20 people from the Pacific Northwest with a diverse set of survival skills (foraging, hunting, fishing, trapping, shelter construction, first aid, etc.) and head south. And then north. And then south.

Our goal would be to cover all 48 contiguous United States on foot, moving with the seasons to avoid the most extreme weather. We'd forage, hunt, and fish for our meals and trade manual labor (like farm work or yard work) for shelter and food. When necessary, we'd sell handmade trinkets (perhaps you're a jeweler?) to earn money for food. Ideally we'd be eating 100% local food (wild or from local farms) and in turn avoiding additives like high fructose corn syrup which have become seemingly necessary components of processed food. We'd be getting back to our heritage as wholly as is possible in this broken landscape.

So often we're ground down by overwhelming abundance. We don't have to work for food. Surviving becomes trivial. Life becomes boring because we don't have to try in order to survive, but instead we worry about created stresses like phone bills and rent.

This experiment would allow us to be energized by the act of surviving. It would allow us to see the country in an environmentally friendly way. It would allow us to have a community amongst ourselves and to connect with our fellow Americans. Our interactions with different farmers and people with diverse backgrounds will help us develop a diverse skill set in a world where we're forgetting how to do many wonderful things.

Yes, this is a crazy idea. But I'm sick of worrying about what job I'm going to get when I graduate, and about how I'm going to be perpetuating a broken system. I need a break to do something crazy. I think you should do it with me.

If you're between jobs, just graduated from school, or are otherwise unsettled, this might be right for you. If you want to do something crazy, refreshing, educational, and rewarding, this might be for you. If you want to see the country in an environmentally friendly way, connect with others, and be a part of something big, this might be for you. If you have the necessary hunting, foraging, and wilderness survival skills, this might be for you.

If you're interested, fill out this form and subscribe to the blog. If I get enough interest in the project I'll contact people to start discussing details.

Thanks for reading and your continued support. This crazy kid is now off for some shut eye.

Nudity and sustainability: The cost of clothing on oil reserves, drinking water, and our state of mind

2010-03-21T12:29:00.001-07:00

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 1 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 2.

One of the things I like about Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things, is how well it breaks down each item it focuses on. A t-shirt starts out as a huge diamond drill bit, powered by an ungodly amount of diesel fuel, drilling for yet more oil on account of our energy hungry society. Why the oil? Two of the products from the highly-polluting oil refining process go on to be polyester. That polyester is coupled with cotton from highly fertilized fields. The fields are also heavily sprayed with pesticides and herbicides to eliminate any competition the cotton might have. Finally, right before the cotton is harvested, the plants are all sprayed with a defoliant to get rid of the leaves which would stain the cotton balls in the mechanical picking process. Up to half of these chemicals end up in local streams during application and even more end up there when heavy rains or irrigation leach them from the soil.

Once the cotton has been picked and the seeds have been removed it is shipped to a textiles factory where it is combined with the polyester and spun into yarn. From there it is woven into fabric and finished with a combination of chlorine, chromium, and formaldehyde before being dyed. As much as a third of the dye ends up in the wastewater because cotton resists coloring. These are all regulated toxic chemicals.

This fabric is finally shipped halfway across the world to be turned into t-shirts by women making 30 cents an hour in a Taiwanese factory. It's packed in an assortment of plastic and cardboard before being shipped back across the country where it will sit under the glaring lights of a department store waiting to be bought.

But that's not where it ends. A load of laundry in a conventional washer and dryer will use 40 gallons of water. An extremely energy efficient model will still use 20-25 gallons per load. Add to that the bleach and detergent which goes out with the wastewater and the electricity used to heat the water and then to dry the clothes. Over the life of the shirt, washing it ends up being a larger environmental concern than its manufacture, and that's even consider the amount of packaging and transportation that it underwent

The average household, according the Consumer Energy Center, does 400 loads of laundry per year. Thats as many as 16,000 gallons of water per year. 16,000! Based on the fact that experts recommend drinking 64 oz. (1 gallon) of water per day, the amount of water that the average household uses on laundry in just one year is enough to provide fresh drinking water to one person for almost 44 years. And this is in the face of the fact that our supply of freshwater (less than a percent of all the water on earth) is going to struggle to meet increasing demand as the world's population increases along with the standard of living for many parts of the world.

Am I suggesting that we go around naked? Yes. And no. First, I want to know why we wear clothes.

Of course, there's the practical concerns: protection from the elements. But for those of us who are forced to spend more time than we care to admit indoors, how much of a concern are the elements anyways? For those that do spend a great deal of time outside, the extremes of heat and cold tend to be the biggest concerns. But even then, we should be worried about function. Does it keep me warm, or does it keep me cool? The toxic dyes and chemicals are hardly a necessary component in a functional piece of clothing; clothes have been around for a long time, and the industrial use of these chemicals is relatively new. Even when clothing is practical, current manufacturing process are extraordinarily wasteful.

And those of us that don't need clothing to protect us from the elements 90% of the time? What is our excuse?

Shame. Shame is a big part of it, and a lot of that stems from our puritanical history.

I read an article the other day on a nudist website where a daughter found out that she would have to dress down for P.E. in junior high. She openly refused to do so because she didn't "look like a super model." I remember my own days from junior high and high school. I wore my gym shorts under my pants. I never showered. I never saw anybody else shower for that matter.

This is an era in which we are bombarded by airbrushed super models that inform what we're "supposed" to look like. We are made to fear the ways in which we are different from others rather than celebrating those differences.

The small amount of research that has been done on nudism suggests that children that grow up in nudist families and who interact with other nudist families have a much healthier self-image. It might be by accident that we are teaching children to be ashamed of their bodies, but it is clearly happening.

But, of course, there are always social pressures to don clothing. In Oregon, barring certain local ordinances, nudity is legal so long as it is done without the intent to arouse. There are two nude beaches in the Portland area. And even several nudist resorts. These places allow a person to shed clothes in a noncontroversial and nonthreatening environment.

Better for our self-image and better for our planet? I think we can all afford go naked sometimes. And I'm not the only one that thinks so.

Around your house, when you sleep... whenever you can, be naked. Think about the 40 gallons of water you could be saving for every load of laundry you save yourself from doing. That adds up.

And if you want to join a club, the American Association for Nude Recreation has annual memberships for $24.50 for students ages 18-25 years old, and $57 for adults. This provides discounts at various resorts as well as on services like car rentals... which I suppose is better than owning a car.

I just got a confirmation that my worms are on the way, so stay tuned for my post on making an indoor composter.

Until next time...

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 1 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 2.

Downtime

2010-03-17T13:28:00.001-07:00

Okay, so apparently people couldn't comment while the system comments were screwed up. The site isn't going to be very usable for a few hours or so. I'm starting back at square one and adding things one at the time and making sure they're in perfect working condition. Sorry for how sporadic things are going to be... and the fact that the look of the blog will probably be changing yet again... but after that, things should be pretty stable, as I don't have plans for any major renovations as soon as I get all of the current features working properly.

Photo by Dagny Scott

Wish me luck...