Green Cross

Safety and Visibility - Biking in Weather and at Night

2011-12-24T04:00:00.000-08:00

Biking is by far the most fun way to commute when the weather is clear, but in the winter you may be biking in darkness both ways and the weather is more likely to be rotten. Safety and visibility should your chief concerns when choosing to commute by bike at night, in the rain or in temperatures below freezing.

Just the other day I took my first spill in years. It was a light rain, and I was going slow, but rounding a corner I crossed a crosswalk, and both wheels touched the painted line at the same time while I was leaning into the turn. Suddenly my tires, which had been gripping the road so faithfully, lost all traction and I found my face in the asphalt. I wasn't injured, but it was a shocking reminder that biking in weather is different: it requires more attention and caution.

I like to ride fast and hard, but when the road is wet you have to slow down, especially on turns: use the handlebars a little more and lean a little less. If the temperature drops below freezing, you can get ice on the road, which is the same problem but much, much worse.

Closer to the planetary poles, the days get awfully short in winter, and many people will find themselves going to work before sunrise and returning after sunset. If you bike, this essentially means biking at night both ways. Some states (Oregon included) have laws that require bike lights, but most urban cycling veterans will tell you to do much more than the legal minimum.

The more lights, reflectors and LEDs you have, the more likely a driver is to spot you before there is any threat of collision. Also, front and back lights are essential but having plenty of visibility from the sides will keep you from getting sideswiped in an intersection. Spoke lights can be as cheap as $5, and they create arcs of light when you are moving.

High visibility clothing and self adhesive reflectors are a must, no matter how dorky you look. I like to wear layers that I can easily take off and stuff in a bag, so the vest my In-Laws got me is perfect.

There will always be accidents. On our last trip to Seattle Courtney's family all admonished us with stories of a cyclist, covered in reflective gear, who was hit by a drunk driver in Kirkland recently. The one thing you can never control is the other people on the road, but the same is true in a car or on a motorcycle. It is best to cycle on routes that other cyclists use. People only look for bikes when they are used to it, so the more there are on the road the safer it usually is.

Artistic Expressions of Waste

2011-12-20T16:44:00.000-08:00

Check out this eerie and beautiful short film (about a minute and a half), a brief metaphor for wasted energy (via BoingBoing): Light, directed by David Parker.

Sometimes a poetic representation like this one can be more effective than repeating facts over and over. Though, I have seen facts represented poetically on occasion as well, as in the work of Chris Jordan, who creates photographs of everyday objects replicated thousands or millions of times in artistic arrangements to visualize a simple fact such as how many plastic bottles are used in America every minute.

These simple pieces of art present the wastefulness of our society in a thought provoking manner, and don't carry the alienation of judgment. Though I think it is implied that we should waste less, it is not explicit in a "you're doing it wrong" kind of way

Changes to my iPinion Column

2011-10-16T15:08:00.000-07:00

At the bequest of the editors of iPinion, my column there is undergoing some changes. Instead of the lengthy, feature style pieces I have been doing for them, I will be contributing a shorter weekly column that takes a more conversational tone. To kick off this new column, I write about Kicking Cars, and discuss the way that many Americans equate their cars to their personal freedoms. Check it out here: Freedom at Last - Kicking Cars

Hope you enjoy the changes, and keep reading!

Dreaming of Less Driving - Car Free Living

2011-09-28T15:41:00.000-07:00

Eugene Area Bike Paths

Driving, as you probably already know, is not fun. Biking, on the other hand, is. Driving is not relaxing, walking is. Driving is not healthy (being essentially sedentary and stressful, it is about as healthy as a desk job), both walking and biking are. I have been dreaming of driving less (or ideally not at all) for a long time, and slowly working to achieve that dream.

Now that Courtney and I live in a highly walkable neighborhood, in the middle of a very bike-able city, we have been seriously considering a car free lifestyle, and how we could drive so little that it would cost less to rent than to own. There would be some bike related expenses (a Burley trailer, e.g.), but the revenue from selling the car would more than cover them. We would need to plan any required car trips carefully in advance, and sign up for a benefits program with a car rental company (Eugene does not currently have an affordable flex-car program). But mostly, we would have to get accustomed to building just a little more travel time into our daily schedule.

Carport of the Future

We have some experience with this already, as we have been biking and walking as often as possible since we moved last April. A little over a month ago, we began keeping a log of how often we actually use the car. So far, the car has been used approximately 2 times a week, and most of those trips could have been avoided with better planning. About half occurred when we were running late and decided to drive to save a few minutes. For the rest, it was logistically easier to use the car (though it would have been possible to make other arrangements for most of them). So basically, most of the time it was laziness or carelessness that led us behind the wheel, which leads us to conclude that if the car just wasn't there, we would be forced to plan better.

As long as we can combine several trips into a day and hold our automobile use down to about two or three days per month, renting a vehicle for those trips is actually much less expensive than paying insurance and maintenance on a vehicle (we pay the gas either way). We also get the added benefit of always driving a car in perfect repair, and having the option to choose more fuel efficient vehicles as soon as they are available. In fact, it might not be long before rental companies are offering electric vehicles. In a way, this means we can vote for the most efficient vehicle as often as possible.

There a number of problems that having a car seems like the best solution to, but car ownership brings a whole mess of problems of its own. By avoiding the need for a car as much as possible, and renting on the few occasions that it is really necessary, we hope to avoid all of the problems of car ownership, save money on insurance and maintenance, and reduce our carbon footprint all in one fell swoop.

The $8 Bike Rack - How to Secure Your Bicycle on the Cheap

2011-07-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

Challenge: find a secure way to lock up our bikes on the cheap. Since Courtney and I moved into the smallest house ever, we can no longer keep our bikes inside. We think they make a pretty tempting treat just hanging out in plain view, so we decided to invest in a rack. Unfortunately, a good rack is very expensive, and a cheap rack is not worth the price tag unless you have additional layers of security (e.g. bikes are already inside a garage). So we decided to hit up our local go to "DIY on the cheap" shop, Bring Recycling. After some deliberation and a lot of poking around, here is what we came up with:

1 staircase handrail
2 concrete masonry units
1 mess of bailing wire

Total price tag: $4

After a quick trip to the local hardware store, we also picked up a bag of Quikrete, $4. I think you can see where I am going with this. We combined these simple ingredients in a pan coated with butter, put it in our easy bake oven for 15 minutes, and this is what came out:

Seriously, though, it was almost that easy. As you can see, we used some cardboard boxes left over from the move to create little forms around the CMUs, put the handrail in the CMU and stuffed the bailing wire in around it (so you can't just take a sledge to it), poured in the Quikrete and let it set. The result is heavy as heck and can't be defeated without some tools and some time (but even the best racks can be defeated with the right tools and some time).

So there you have it, instant bike rack, $8 and about 2 hours total labor (plus 24 hour cure time). It is not the most secure solution ever, but it will deter the average thief pretty effectively.

iPinion Update: Avoiding the Next Mass Extinction - Out Today

2011-07-06T12:03:00.000-07:00

In my latest piece for iPinion.us, I discuss the recent IPSO report which indicates that we may be headed for the first ever global extinction event caused by human beings. Or really, caused by the activities of any one species. I was not particularly shocked by their conclusions -- I have been following most of the research that they sited for their report -- but I was a little surprised by some of the response. Many people are completely dismissive of this report, perhaps because they just can't imagine that our actions could have such a huge impact.

In this latest column, I lay out the fundamental facts behind a few of the major contributing studies, and discuss some well documented strategies for trying to stop this mass extinction event. Avoiding the Next Mass Extinction

Bicycle Security: how to protect your green commuting investment

2011-07-03T00:15:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Commuting by bicycle is one fun way to reduce your transit related carbon footprint, but theft is a huge problem in any metropolitan area. Proper bike security is a must for the urban cyclist, and there are a few simple best practices that everyone should know.

Last month, I got an email from the U of O Transit Group about precisely this issue, in which a former peace officer and current Bicycle Coordinator at the University of Maryland Transportation Services expressed very clearly everything I had ever heard about good bike security. After asking his permission, I have decided to post what he wrote almost exactly (with some omissions, he describes in detail why certain lock types are not very effective, and that is information that we don't need to be spreading through the inter-tubes). This info will be particularly useful for anyone who has just switched, or is considering switching to commuting by bike.

So here is what John Brandt has to say about bike security [stuff in square brackets = my commentary]:

I thought I'd weigh in on the conversation about locking bicycles because I may have some experience and/or information that some of you might not. I was a cop from 1980-2010 and ran a police bicycle unit and a crime prevention unit for a lot of those years. I was also on a cut-team that was responsible for removing demonstrators that locked themselves to things. Lastly, my college is inside the Washington D.C. “beltway” and we’re not too far from Baltimore, either. As a result, our bike theft problem may be more severe than for many of you. Regardless, I believe that as gas prices rise and biking becomes more prevalent, the problem will become greater for all of us. I apologize for the length of my comments, but I hope I can help some of you.

Here’s what we’ve found about cable locks:

· 3/8” to 5/8” cable locks (coated or uncoated) just plain don’t work as a primary locking device. Thinner cables are even more worthless. Cables can be a good device for preventing opportunistic, walk-off thefts, but if your bike is out of your sight, they’re practically worthless. Don’t believe any hype from manufacturers or dealers about how “their” cable is stronger or better than all the “others.” They can all be easily beaten in four ways (two by easily concealable tools):

[Specific methods omitted at John's suggestion]

Cable locks are a nice secondary lock, when used with a u-lock. Most thieves won’t bother defeating them just to steal your front wheel (unless it’s REALLY pricey). There are just too many unsecured front wheels lying around on bike racks.

Here are the key facts we’ve found about u-locks:

· You generally need power tools to defeat a u-lock and that makes them less likely to be attacked, but they’re not a perfect solution to bike theft and the bike owner is still their own worst enemy when they don’t use the lock properly.

[Specific methods omitted]

· U-locks are only as good as what you attach them to and how you attach them.

o The best you can do is to lock your u-lock through both wheels, your frame, and a substantial bike rack.

§ Almost no one does this because they don’t want to take the time to remove and replace their front wheel.

§ When you do this, all this stuff in the u-lock makes it very difficult, even for bike thieves who use ‘spreader-tools’ to defeat the u-lock. There’s no room to get any tool in the right place without damaging what you’re trying to steal.

§ In 30 years of police work, I’m unaware of ANY bike ever stolen on my campus if it was locked with a u-lock, through both wheels and the frame, to a real bike rack.

o If you attach your u-lock through your frame, but not any wheel, your bike can still be ridden off if what you’re secured to can be defeated.

§ People ride around with u-locks hanging from their frames and handlebars all the time. Cops don’t pay any attention to this.

o If your u-lock is through your bike frame and at least one wheel, your bike is less likely to be stolen than almost any other bike around. Every other bike is easier to steal and get away with so that’s where the thieves go.

§ To be honest, I accept this as my best compromise on my campus.

o If you choose to include only one wheel in the u-lock, putting a cable through the other wheel also makes your bike more trouble to steal.

· Yes, an old model of Kryptonite u-lock could be defeated with a Bic pen, but I’m unaware of any new u-lock model that has this particular flaw. Yes, I’ve seen the video on the web. [link here, it's pretty nifty!]

· Yes, you probably can freeze them in liquid nitrogen and then shatter them with a hammer, but I’ve never heard of it actually being done and the ability to transport and use liquid nitrogen is WAY beyond our bike thieves. If yours are this sophisticated, I think you’re better off banning bicycles on your campus except inside secured and monitored facilities. If you have a video-link of this lock-defeating method, I’d love to see it.

Image via Wikipedia

Here are the most common locking mistakes we see:

· Locking only the front wheel allows the thief to steal an unsecure front wheel from a similar, nearby bike and attach it to your bike. You’re left with your front wheel and your lock. Someone else, nearby, has a bike, but no front wheel. [!]

· The front fork is not a frame element. If you lock your bike through the front fork, the thief will remove the bike from the front wheel and pull the fork up and out of the lock. The bike and wheel are then re-connected and they ride away, leaving your lock, alone and empty, on the rack.

· If you lock your bike at an inverted-u rack, but the rack has become loose in the ground, the thief will just pull the rack out of the ground to free your bike to steal. Trust me, they’ll put the rack back in the ground and hope to get more bikes off it in the future. If you have this style of rack, please check them occasionally. If you see someone shaking one of these racks, they’re probably a thief, trying to break a new rack loose for future use. [!!]

· If you lock your bike to something other than a bike rack and whatever you’re locked to can be defeated easily, don’t expect your bike to be there when you return, unless you’ve run your lock through at least one wheel.

o Thieves just rip bicycles up and off of most landscape items.

o If your lock fits over the parking meter head, they can just lift your bike off the meter (or sign post).

o Wrought iron is actually quite weak at each weld-point; you may not even notice that it’s already broken and bends easily.

o Chains that stretch between bollards are horrible. The chain can usually be cut or just pulled out from one end and every bike along that chain is now loose.

o Arms and legs of decorative lawn or patio furniture are easy to separate. Our thieves then push them back together so they look secure for the next bicyclist.

Image via Wikipedia

Of course, most bike thefts could have been avoided if the owner had just run their u-lock through at least one wheel. Thieves don’t want to CARRY a bike away, this attracts unwanted attention, they want to RIDE it away and blend in with every other nearby cyclist. This is why I say that encouraging bicyclists to use a u-lock through their frame and at least one wheel is a compromise that I’ve decided I’m willing to accept. They may not be willing to take off their other wheel each time they lock their bike, but it only takes a moment more to make sure you include one wheel with the frame as you lock up.

In the past few years we’ve given away hundreds of u-locks and sold hundreds more at wholesale cost. The theft rate for bicycles on my campus has dropped dramatically, but the remaining thefts still have one thing in common, around 93% (it varies) of them were only using cable locks. Many of the remaining thefts were unsecured bikes taken from inside buildings, cars, etc. I’m aware that there are probably other factors that reduced the theft-rate, like CCTV cameras, the economy, etc. I can’t factor those into the equation, but it seems obvious to me……lots of good racks and lots of u-locks = less theft of bikes.

I know, I didn’t address component or parts-theft, so here are a few thoughts to ‘minimize’ that problem:

o If it can be removed without tools, it can be easily stolen; fix that:

o Change your seat post quick release to a bolt; how often to you really adjust your seat height.

o You can replace wheel quick releases with bolted axles (yuck) or with locking mechanisms ($$), or you can put a fat zip-tie on the spoon to hold it tight against the frame or fork. It’s not perfect, but it makes it harder to open the spoon. If you carry tools to do road-repairs on your bike, you should have something that can pop the zip-tie if you get a flat. If not, you can still fix the flat with the wheel still on.

o Lights? Buy lights that bolt or screw on, take them with you, or buy cheap enough to not worry about the loss.

o Computer? Pop it off and take it with you. It’s unlikely that a thief wants your old model, but why tease them or provide a target for a vandal?

o Panniers or other bags? Take them with you or switch to a courier bag.

Lastly…….here’s the additional advice we should give to everyone………..please, please, please…….register your bike with somebody, record your serial number somewhere, be able to give a detailed description of your bike, and always report it if it’s stolen.

P.S. If you’re a bike thief, please forget everything you just read; there’s just no way to beat any bike lock. Find another profession. There’s no profit in stealing bikes because the cops recover EVERY bike and arrest EVERY thief; EVERY time.

So there you have it folks, the definitive guide to bike security. Or at least a good gloss. One last note, John also told me via email that in any good talk about security, one should mention environmental security. In other words, lock your bike in a place that is well lit and frequented by pedestrians. Even a fast bike thief will be a little wary of working on a lock in broad daylight, with lots of bystanders. Also good is any area patrolled by bike cops, they tend to be more savvy about bike security and suspicious bike behavior, and their presence can deter theft.

Recap: U-locks are good, cable locks only good as backup/ component protection, and any lock only as good as the rack you are locking to. Don't let thieves make saving the planet harder, secure your bike, and Ride On!

From iPinion - "Making Markets Free"

2011-05-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

In my latest article on iPinion, Regulating Freedom - Making Markets Free, I explore the complex relationship between rules and freedom. Economics has traditionally taught us that a free market is one that is unregulated, but can a system with no rules ever really be free? Check out this latest installment in my series on Sustainability and Economics.

Living Small and Walking Tall - The Big Move

2011-05-20T17:34:00.000-07:00

Moving is never easy, but when you choose to move into a smaller space it is nearly impossible. Courtney and I, in an effort to put our money where our mouths have been, have opted to move into a home that is half the square footage of our last place, in a neighborhood that is vastly more pedestrian friendly. Let me repeat that: HALF the square feet. We now share, with our two dogs and two cats, a 550sq.ft. two bedroom home just west of Amazon Park, which has a Walk Score of 91.

You may think that we are crazy to willingly, and not for monetary reasons, choose to live in a much smaller space (and some days recently I would be inclined to agree with you). But the fact is that most of us, by far, have much more space than we need. As you may remember from my Dream of Less, we have been thinking about fitting our lives into less space for some time. The goal is to find out how much space we really need instead of constantly trying to "upgrade" to a space which is bigger than the last. This time, we upgraded to a home that is better and smaller, so we are really getting a lot more for our money. Why would we endeavor to do this you ask? Aside from forcing us to pare down, keep less junk, live more simply, etc. there is a primary environmental motivation: smaller spaces consume less energy, by far, than larger ones. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (or DEQ for short) recently published the results of a long study on housing types, and living small was on the top of their list of ways to reduce your carbon footprint. To take a look at the whole report, click here. A few other quick take-aways from the report: carpet has the highest embodied energy of any building material and sharing walls, whether in a duplex, townhouse, or apartment, drastically reduces your carbon footprint.

As you can imagine, the process of paring down to fit in a space half the size has been pretty intense. It began weeks before the move, as we went room by room through the house, measuring furniture and emptying storage spaces to sort what we would keep and what we could fit. About a hundred Craigslist posts and one garage sale later, we thought we had done a pretty good job. As we began to bring our stuff into the new place (with much needed help from Courtney's parents, who came down to Eugene just to give us a hand), it quickly became clear that we had not done nearly enough.

We are now about 80% done getting rid of stuff and fitting in the new space, and as soon as it is presentable (currently there is at least one half empty box per room, except the bedroom which is actually coming along quite nicely), I will post some pics with explanations of what we did to fit our oversized lives into this undersized space.

That may sound like a lot of unnecessary stress to you, but there are two things that have made it not only bearable, but actually quite rewarding: one is the sense of elation and freedom that comes from getting rid of something after deciding that it is not adding any value to your life. On the day we had our garage sale, some kids who came by regularly to request the presence of our dogs in the common area came to pick over our wares. Courtney made a decision in that moment about a box of toys that she had been carrying since her childhood. They served no purpose in our life right now, but she couldn't bare to just drop them at Goodwill. She brought out the box and one by one gave her teddy bears and trinkets to the kids as a kind of reward for exercising our puppies so many times. Everyone involved was quite pleased with the outcome.

Second, the ability to walk to everything has been a constant source of joy. We now live across the street from a butcher shop that carries only meat from local, sustainable farms (as well as some provisions like artisan cheese, olive oil, beer and wine, both local and from afar). We are literally next door to a fantastic cafe and deli, which serves delicacies rarely seen on the west coast like knish and bialies. On our block there is a sushi restaruant, a hardware store, a high end kitchen store and, should we ever feel the urge, a knitting store. Just around the corner is a very well reviewed veterinary office, a bicycle supply and repair shop, and a few more boutique shops. Within a 10 minute walk is a dog park, a Market of Choice (like Whole Foods with Ralph's prices, for those not from Oregon), a liquor store, and more restaurants than we could eat at in one week, ranging from McDonalds (which are not likely to frequent) to Rabbit (which we wish we could afford to frequent more frequently).

Living where we do, on the edge of a residential/ commercial zone change, being able to walk to everything, makes both of us immensely happy. We have moved from having to get in the car, for some reason, almost every day, to going for four or five days in a row without starting the car once. I have been promoting small living and car free living for some time; I have been dreaming of having less space and using less energy. Now I really feel that we are beginning to live the dream.

Nuclear Energy is Not a Sustainable Solution

2011-04-03T19:55:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

The debate on nuclear energy as an alternative to coal has gained momentum in the aftermath of the catastrophe in Fukushima. Despite the fact that the damaged nuclear reactors are not yet contained, and it may yet take weeks of hard work to get the cooling systems running again (Reuters), proponents of nuclear energy are already claiming that this disaster is proof of how safe fission energy generation is. The strongest proponents of nuclear energy these days are some of its earliest enemies: environmentalists. Curbing carbon emissions, the argument goes, is more important than anything else, and nuclear power is supposedly carbon neutral.

Claiming that this disaster (which now seems to be leaching extremely radioactive water in every direction) proves the safety of nuclear energy is quite simply absurd. First of all, it is premature since the extent of the damage is yet unknown and the disaster is by no means over. Furthermore, it grossly downplays the role that luck had to play in the narrow avoidance of a meltdown (not to diminish in any way the hard work of those involved in containing the disaster). As Elizabeth Kolbert argued quite elegantly in "The Nuclear Risk," The New Yorker, March 28 2011, the simple fact is that nuclear energy generation has never been as safe as we have been pretending. In reality, we have been extremely lucky so far, and we are ourselves only one or two natural disasters away from a nuclear catastrophe of horrific proportions. Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, provides an excellent case against nuclear energy in this guest post on Green Tech Media, focusing on safety as well as financial feasibility.

Even setting aside the safety argument, however, nuclear energy does not make sense on a purely carbon emissions basis either. First off, nuclear is not carbon neutral: all nuclear power plants must be backed up by another form of generation, because they require backup power to avoid a meltdown during any generation downtime. The embodied energy in a plant is also significant, and is many times more than wind generation. Still, considering only these factors the carbon emissions per kwh are minuscule compared to coal based plants.

But there is one simple fact that really shoots the net carbon emissions of nuclear energy through the roof: nuclear waste is a powerful weapon. My father in law was the first to point out to me that military organizations around the world burn massive amounts of fuel in their efforts to secure nuclear waste and track down any waste which has evaded security efforts. In any honest assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy, we must consider at least some portion of the emissions of the military. When one considers that the US military alone burns about 395,000 barrels of oil every single day moving people and materiel around the globe (and the number one thing by weight that they move is more fuel), that contribution is clearly significant.

Ultimately, nuclear energy is not a good solution, short term or long term, to climate change. The risk to human health in the form of potential radiation and weaponization is always downplayed by nuclear advocates, and the carbon footprint is never accounted for properly. None of the arguments for investing in nuclear energy will stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

The Paradox of Value

2011-03-16T15:06:00.001-07:00

In my second piece about Sustainability and Economics for iPinion, I take up the popular economic puzzle of the Paradox of Value. Simply Stated: why are necessary things like water given such low market value when apparently useless things like diamonds command such high prices?

Find out why and what implications this has for the sustainability movement here: The Paradox of Value

My Column for iPinion

2011-03-09T09:01:00.000-08:00

Since iPinion has upgraded to the new ".us" domain and significantly improved its functionality, I no long feel the need to repost my column at this here blog. Instead, I will be making short "update" blog posts designed to point you to the latest columns as they run on the other site. Like this one!

My latest contribution to the iPinion syndicate is the featured piece this week! Economics and Sustainability, this will be the first is a series of discussions about the colorful relationship between these two complex concepts. In this first installment I attempt to explore how traditional economic models deal with systems that may be unsustainable (spoiler: not well).

GreenSwitch: The Vampire Power Slayer

2011-03-02T14:00:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Whether you call it vampire electronics, phantom loads, or standby power, appliances which draw power when they are "off" can account for a significant chunk of your home energy bill. GreenSwitch LLC, a California based company that operates nationally and internationally, provides a service that can help you dramatically reduce your vampire power use at home, at work, or in any building with significant standby power loads.

Essentially, GreenSwitch is a home automation product, which allows the home owner to control what appliances are getting power and when. GreenSwitch differs greatly from other home automation systems in its extreme simplicity, however. Instead of a complicated remote control or internet based control interface, there is a single physical switch that you flip when leaving the house or going to bed that cuts power to all vampire electronics.

The switch uses a wifi signal to control specialized outlets in your house, cutting power to anything plugged in at that point. You can get a remote control as well as the master switch for more precise control, if you are a tech geek like me, but even the most devout Luddite will be comfortable with the master switch option.

Another difference with GreenSwitch is that their product looks very similar to conventional wall fixtures. The unflattering design and bulk of some other systems will likely turn away the consumer with an eye for design, but GreenSwitch is very low profile and blends right in with the old fashioned wall outlets. In fact it is designed to fit into the existing outlet boxes already installed in your wall.

The specialized outlets and switch have a tiny, minuscule standby power draw, which is an order of magnitude smaller than most TVs, Computers, DVD players, VCRs, etc. When you have several of these appliances plugged into the same outlet, the energy savings really pile up fast. This means, however, that not every outlet in your house should be replaced, just those with a heavy standby power load.

One customer who installed GreenSwitch and got a hot tub in the same month said their energy bill went down significantly afterward. Considering the huge energy load that a hot tubs heating element can generate, that is quite an endorsement for the GreenSwitch system.

But GreenSwitch is not just for the home. It is also an ideal solution for small businesses with high power bills. Most business energy solutions are for large scale operations, but businesses in mid sized offices are frequently playing very close to the margins financially, and saving up to 30% on your energy bills can have a huge impact on positive cash flow. Particularly in offices with scores of computers and printers, vampire power can be a huge drain.

Basic packages start at $415 for home kits, which includes a simple thermostat control as well. That may seem like a pretty steep buy in, but with energy savings from 20-35% (by their reporting), installing GreenSwitch could pay for itself in a matter of months (depending greatly on where you live).

Clean+Green - a Miracle Cleaning Product for Pet Owners

2011-02-09T19:23:00.000-08:00

I don't use the word miracle very often. Truth be told, I didn't really believe in miracles until recently, when I got a package in the mail containing these two aerosol cans of Clean+Green cleaning products [legally, I have to disclose that they sent me free samples to review their product]. Even upon inspecting the cans, I was skeptical, especially since the directions instructed me to spray the mess and then do nothing, no wiping no blotting, nothing. You can imagine, then, why I use the verbiage of a religious experience when I first had an opportunity to use this brilliant product and it worked better than anything else ever. And when I say that it worked, I mean I didn't do a thing, the product literally did all of the work.

The word 'aerosol' in the last paragraph may scare some people, as CFCs which deplete the ozone have been used as aerosol propellants in the past. But please, do not be alarmed, because CFCs are not the only effective propellants. In fact, the folks at Clean+Green use nitrogen as their propellant, which does not deplete the ozone, is not a green house gas, and has no toxicity at all. Nitrogen is already the most abundant element in our atmosphere, and spraying it out of a can has just about exactly zero impact on the environment.

The packaging of this product is almost entirely aluminum, which is not only 100% recyclable with very little loss or degradation of materials, it's vastly more energy efficient when recycled than when produced new (it has been estimated that recycling aluminum takes 5% of the energy of producing it from bauxite). The remaining components are plastic, which is also recyclable (though less awesomely so).

[Update: I assumed the packaging was aluminum. In fact, it is a pretty new and exiting process for making tin free steel aerosol cans, which is lighter (more fuel efficient to ship), made from two solid pieces with no welding (reducing the need for copper and water in manufacturing). Steel is still 100% recyclable with almost no loss or degradation to the product in the recycling process.]

The most impressive thing about this product, however, is not that it works miracles with pet waste and odors, nor that it comes in recyclable packaging or uses nitrogen as its propellant, no. The most amazing thing is that the cleaning agents are completely non-toxic as well. No chlorine, no ammonia, no alcohol, no oxidants, it is not bleach based or enzymatic in nature, it is not even perfumed (aromatic compounds can irritate some people, especially those with severe allergies). Everything that goes into this cleaner is biodegradable, and completely safe for pets (who have a tendency to lick interesting smells on the floor), kids, and the environment.

So in short, if I was prone to using a star system, this product would get as many as I can give. It handled multiple different kinds of pet stains and odors from my dogs and my cats, leaving no residual smell or stains in carpets or upholstery. We even tried it on an old ink stain on a sofa, and to our utter shock and amazement, it reduced the visibility of the stain significantly (they don't make any claims about ink though, so don't hold me or them to that). Marry that performance with a non-toxic, biodegradable product packaged in recyclable materials, and you have one great, green product that I am happy to promote. In shorter: Clean+Green is one of the best cleaning products I have ever used.

Looking Back and Forward after a Long Break

2011-02-06T13:46:00.000-08:00

I am returning to my blog after another unplanned absence, and so I have been looking back over my posts to date. I have been doing a lot of Dreaming of Less, and thinking about how to buy Nothing New. But sometimes more is more, and something new is necessary. A few green products have been brought to my attention in the past few months that I feel are really worth highlighting, and I intend to write them up in the coming month.

As important as it is to reduce the amount of new stuff that you buy, you can never eliminate the need for new stuff entirely. So endorsing good, green products is an important part of promoting a green life style. With that in mind, this February I will seek out as many great green products as I can, and promote them shamelessly. Several have already fallen in my lap, one or two companies even approached me to write about them, but it was during my month of Nothing New, and so I decided to shelve it. Since the holidays led right into starting a new job as a part time teacher for the Northwest Energy Education Institute (I am teaching a class on LEED), those products stayed on the shelf much longer than I had originally anticipated.

Being a teacher, by the way, is much harder in some ways and much easier in others than I had expected. This is my first time teaching a class at an accredited college (NEEI is part of Lane Community College's Science Department), and I find the work to be incredibly engaging and fulfilling. I also haven't dug this deeply into the text of the LEED rating system since I was first studying for the exam, so it has been a great way for me to further master this complex system. I also really relish the notion that I am helping to shape an emerging group of green professionals.

Just wanted to let all my readers know that, although I am sorry I have been neglecting this blog for a while, it was for a good cause.

8 in a Million - a Quick Lesson in Atmospheric Science

2010-12-13T20:15:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Re-Posted from the iPinion Syndicate

It is widely known that the ozone layer, part of the stratosphere, filters ultraviolet radiation out of sunlight. Without this filtering, life as we know it could not exist: UV light is much higher energy than visible sunlight: it breaks chemical bonds, excites particles and heats them up, and generally messes with everything that it touches. So the ozone is pretty important.

A slightly lesser known fact, however, is that ozone makes up only about 40 parts per billion (ppb) of the earth’s atmosphere. That means that for every billion molecules of gas in the air, only 40 are that special UV collecting combination of three oxygen atoms. Even at its highest concentration, in the lower portion of the stratosphere which is named after it, ozone accounts for only about 8 parts per million (ppm). Now, while that is an order of magnitude more concentrated than the rest of the atmosphere, it is still only 0.0008%. And yet, this tiny, minuscule amount of O3 filters about 98% of the UV light that is emitted by the sun, thus saving the life of everything on earth every day.

Recently a skeptical acquaintance asked if I really believed in “that global warming stuff.” I informed him that in fact I did, and he proceeded to ask me if I knew how much CO2 was actually in the atmosphere. I did not have the number memorized, but I knew it was very small. “Less than .05%” he informed me (to be a bit more precise, it is about 385ppm). He continued “do you really expect me to believe that that tiny amount of stuff is going to change the temperature of the entire earth?” Without quick access to my facts, all I could do was weakly say “yes, but I can’t really explain why right now.”

Well, now that I have been able to go back over my notes and do some more research, I can boldly say (and I hope my skeptical friend gets to read this) “yes, I expect you to believe it, because if such a tiny amount of gas couldn’t absorb so much energy, we would all be dead.” If 8ppm of O3 can absorb 98% of UV energy, then is it really so hard to believe that 385ppm of CO2 could absorb a significant amount of the infrared energy that the earth emits? Greenhouse gasses (GHGs) like CO2 absorb much of the earth’s energy, and they scatter it all around. Some of it warms the atmosphere, some is emitted out into space, and some emitted back to the earth. The more GHGs there are, the more of that energy is trapped and emitted back to the earth.

It has been estimated that in recent history the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 2ppm every year, due almost entirely to humans burning fossil fuels. That may not seem like much, but that means an increase of 8ppm (which, if you remember, is the maximum concentration of ozone) every four years. I don’t think many climate scientists are suggesting that some catastrophic event is going to end the human race over night, or even in a decade or two, but it does seem reasonable that increasing green house gas emissions steadily over a long period of time will result, in that long period of time, in a warmer planet.

Just 8 ozone particles in a million units, just 0.0008% of gas molecules make this planet habitable. In atmospheric science, numbers that tiny are not only significant, they tend to describe the most significant phenomena of all.

Kimchi, Sauerkraut and Chutney - the Art of Home Fermentation

2010-11-28T23:26:00.000-08:00

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

There is something magical about homemade Sauerkraut, whether it is the European variety, the Korean Kimchi, or the Latin American Curtido, all of which are fermented at room temperature. The first time you smell Kimchi, you may have serious doubts about its potential for human consumption. Once you develop a taste for it, however, you begin to crave the funky, intense flavor of cabbage fermented with garlic, green onion, carrots and ginger.

The ingredients and the process for fermenting vegetables are simple, and the results are delicious and a little amazing. The very concept that you could cut food up and leave it to 'spoil,' and then later eat it probably sounds like black magic to the modern American. But fermented vegetables have developed independently in every human civilization around globe. The modern American, in other words, is unique in the history of humanity in his diet of 100% either fresh or pasteurized/preserved foods.

My foray into fermentation is very recent, prompted by the gift from a cousin of an alternative diet cookbook (which is equal parts fruity and fantastic, mixing good science with psuedo-science on almost every page, but full of wonderful gems), so I was surprised and somewhat validated by the November 22nd New Yorker which includes articles on fermented food in general and on sauerkraut specifically. As Burkhard Bilger discusses in his article Nature's Spoils, our society's obsession with killing bacteria, thinking of all bacteria as pathogenic, has recently been recast as an extreme and sometimes detrimental view. Some good science and a lot of appeals to down-homey common sense based on anecdotal evidence are used to suggest that a thriving population of non-pathogenic bacteria is essential to good health. This argument is being used to promote a wide variety of foods and diets, from raw milk and dairy to raw food diets such as Primal Eating.

Image via Wikipedia

I personally am neither for nor against raw milk (though I think you should know the cow if you trust it not to be contaminated with listeria), look skeptically at any extreme diet, and believe that pasteurization is essential for industrial food production. That being said, I am fully converted to simply fermented fruits and vegetables. Statistically speaking, they are much safer than raw milk or meat, their benefits have been studied a little more rigorously, and they are (lest we forget) delicious. In fact, if prepared properly with due attention paid to temperature and the even distribution of salt, the likelihood of fermented vegetables carrying food born pathogens is almost nil. In the taste department, if you have previously been soured to sauerkraut, you may have had commercially pickled cabbage, which is completely different in flavor, texture, and nutritional value from the traditional room temperature fermented variety.

Nothing could be simpler than fermenting vegetables. All you have to do is add salt and sometimes water (vegetables should be covered in liquid, but their own juices often suffice), put it in an inert container (usually glass) and wait. Three days is sufficient for most veggies, two will suffice for most fruits. Without access to oxygen, lactic acid producing bacteria thrive and create a very low pH saline solution, destroying most other microorganisms. The result is similar to yogurt in that it is full of bacteria that is good for you and totally devoid of bacteria that is harmful. Speaking of yogurt, you can separate the liquids (whey) from yogurt by straining through a cloth and add a little of this liquid to the vegetables if you want to ensure the presence of healthy bacteria. The solids which remain will be a light, fluffy cream cheese.

After one extremely successful experiment with Kimchi, I decided to attempt a fermented cranberry sauce for thanksgiving this year, and stumbled upon this lovely recipe for lacto-fermented cranberry chutney. With just a little modification, I followed this recipe and the results were fascinating. Initially too sour for some of the family (I used water instead of juice, that was a mistake), with the addition of a little extra sugar it pleased the whole crowd. The fermentation process really makes the most of the aromatic cinnamon and clove, and I added the zest of a whole lemon (in one giant strip, not shredded) which also wonderfully infused the entire concoction.

Food production has become a complicated hydra of health and safety issues, with compelling arguments for and against every practice yet imagined or implemented. In this jungle of information there is something extremely satisfying about stumbling across a home process as simple and fool proof as fermenting. Follow the rules and you get consistently healthy and delicious results. It is also a cheap and energy efficient way to preserve summer crops through the whole winter, as fermented veggies can last for months in the fridge (or even root cellar in cooler climates) with no negative impact to their nutritional value or flavor.

If there is any cabbage to be found at the winter farmer's market here in Eugene, I am bound to be making a large batch of sauerkraut in the very near future. If not, however, I don't really see the point of fermenting conventional vegetables. The process depends upon the presence of live lactic acid producing bacteria. If you can't be sure whether the vegetables have been irradiated or not, then you can't trust them to ferment properly. By law, fruits and veggies cannot be labeled organic if they have been irradiated, so organics are still worth the effort.

Weekend Meal Planning - Creating All your Meals for the Week in One Day

2010-11-10T14:10:00.000-08:00

The key to eating healthy home made food when you have a busy schedule is planning. Sitting down on the weekend and spending 20 minutes planning your meals for the week, and then doing as much cooking and preparation as you can on Saturday or Sunday will save you hours of planning and cooking for the rest of the week. This method has lots of other unintended benefits as well, and the more you develop a routine the more you will see those benefits: less waste, less stress, less expense, more healthy diet.

For some time now, Courtney and I have tried to make a weekly menu before going shopping, starting ingredients that are already in the fridge or pantry. We write this list on a white board in the kitchen, and then write in the date that leftovers were made. Since instituting this simple process, I think we take out the trash about 1/2 as often. Here is what our whiteboard often looks like


Our Home Kitchen Menu

If you can avoid prepackaged meals and refrain from eating out for convenience sake (I love eating out, but only when I choose to treat myself), you can save a lot of money while gaining more control over your diet. If you try to plan and cook a meal every night, however, you can quickly become overwhelmed and throw in the towel.

When we decided to do the October: Unprocessed challenge last month, we realized that with our busy schedules we were not going to be able to cook most week nights. Eating out is expensive, but eating healthy and unprocessed foods out is phenomenally expensive. In order to meet the challenge and maintain our savings (what little we have) Courtney and I turned our kitchen into a high efficiency food production facility every Sunday last month, and generally produced enough food in one day to last all week (that is why several of the menu items above have the same date by them). Spending several hours doing intensive cooking is also significantly more efficient in terms of waste and energy. For example, one Sunday, I made a frittata and Courtney cooked cornbread and pumpkin muffins, all at the same time. The oven only heats up once, and there was one temperature change half way though, but over all we had 6 meals worth of food with one meals worth of oven time.

You may think that it would take more energy to refrigerate and freeze all that food, but in fact the opposite is true. The more full your fridge or freezer is, the more efficient it will be. Your fridge works hardest when you open the door, because all of the air it has cooled down escapes, and warm air rushes in. The more stuff you have in the fridge, the less warm air can fill the space. Also, the cold food will help to cool the air, so the actual heat pump doesn't have to work quite as hard.

Our menu over the past few weeks has been pretty extravagant, but our costs and time commitment have been relatively low. We have been eating even less meat, and we feel free to experiment with more ambitious recipes and ideas (this week we plan on making kimchi). One of the keys is making things which are not any more work when scaled up in volume, like soups stews and sauces. The first week we did this, I made a tomato sauce from scratch. A portion was sweetened and turned into pizza sauce that day, the rest was frozen and used variously as the base for enchilada sauce, a pasta sauce, and to make lasagna.

Homemade Tomato Sauce and Pizza with bell pepper and lobster mushrooms

For the rest of the week, Courtney and I are happy to come home and simply reheat our delicious and nutritious food, to wake up and grab left overs on the way out the door. We find we spend less on groceries, since we tend to buy fewer items that can be used for several recipes, and that means less food spoils as well.

We have greatly enjoyed our Sunday cooking days, and hope that it will provide good practice for the extra work that a growing family will (eventually) bring. Also, we are hosting a (very tiny) Thanksgiving here in Eugene for the first time, and our Sunday cooking experiments should serve as good practice for coordinating a large group meal.

The Meat in the Vegetarian Argument

2010-10-12T22:12:00.000-07:00

As part of October: Unprocessed, and leading up to my guest post on Eating Rules later this month, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post this piece, which details some of the issues of food as it relates to sustainability.

Re-Posted from the iPinion Syndicate

You may have heard that being vegetarian is green. You may also have had a vegan activist tell you that meat is murder and you are killing the planet. While there is definitely some truth to the argument that a vegetarian diet is a little more earth friendly, there is a little devil in the details.

The issues of food production are numerous, from health and humanity to environmental impact and sustainability. Which issue is most important to you probably depends on a number of factors: your age, location, political views, etc. By and large, however, beef does not fare well in any serious analysis of food issues. At least, not conventional beef that is fattened in a concentrated feed lot.

If global warming and climate change are your primary concerns, you’ll be happy to hear that feed lot beef and dairy are the only things that you need to strike off your menu. Chicken, fish and eggs are comparable to vegetables in green house gasses emitted during production and transport. Speaking of fish, however, is opening a whole other can of worms.

If sustainability is what you are after, a lot of sea food is out: over fishing is stressing stocks all over the world, and aside from a few species that are managed responsibly (wild pacific salmon, e.g.) most edible fish populations are dropping at a staggering rate. Seafood doesn’t fare well on the health test either; electronics, fluorescent bulbs and industrial practices have contaminated most seafood populations with levels of mercury that are dangerous for human consumption.

If you are a card carrying member of PETA, or sympathetic to their cause, chicken and eggs are back on the black list. On the humanitarian scale, chicken production is much, much worse than just about anything else out there. Feed lot beef is not much better. If humanitarian concerns are foremost in your mind, you should probably explore expensive alternatives to conventional food at a specialty or kosher butcher shop. If you can’t afford that, then meat is out.

If health is what you are thinking about, then a strictly vegetarian diet might not be a good idea at all. Many people develop anemia, iron deficiency, or other issues when not eating meat, and careful management of protein and iron intake is essential for a healthy meatless diet. Pescatarians (a word I am not entirely comfortable with, I’ll have you know) can get around this quite easily, as salmon and mollusks like clams provide massive doses of protein and iron in tiny portions. But again, mercury is a real threat which much be considered constantly. Farmed clams are better, but farmed salmon are terrible: they are fed other fish from depleting stocks and foul up coastal waters with concentrated waste.

Here is something that your vegan acquaintances will not be quick to point out, however: grass fed and grass finished cows are better in every way. On the humanitarian angle, they are demonstrably healthier and ostensibly happier (in so far as we can tell these things). They produce less methane (a green house gas) and foul up less water during their lives. They are wildly healthier for you, with little saturated fat and more omega 3 fatty acids than salmon. Finally, their waste is not concentrated like feed lot cows, which means that it can be absorbed naturally by the environment they are raised in.

In summation, if all of the issues in this article are important to you, you probably should be vegan. However, if you are willing to do your food homework and buy the right products, you can put the vegan argument out to pasture with the grass fed cows.

To Dream of Less Stuff

2010-10-10T21:58:00.000-07:00

Stuff, it sometimes seems, is who we are. We produce it and measure our worth in its production. We buy and sell it and measure our success in its exchange. We own it, use it and replace it, and measure our happiness in its possession and acquisition. We often confuse obtaining more stuff with bettering ourselves, so new stuff becomes equated with self-improvement.
And yet, if all that is true, we seem to be ignoring some important parts of ourselves. What does it say, for example, that so much of our stuff is disposable? Having no longevity, no staying power, sacrificing quality for convenience.

What does it say that we have so much stuff built for one and only one purpose? Our kitchens and closets are cluttered with highly specialized gadgets, many of which are used only once a month, or even once a year. I don't doubt the convenience of a food processor, but do we need a blender, an immersion blender, a food processor, a juicer, a mortar and pestle, a mandolin, spice grinder, coffee grinder, and a Magic Bullet? Every house has an oven, yet we feel the need to augment this with a toaster oven, microwave, bread maker, crock pot, and pressure cooker. Any one of these items is perfectly reasonable, but is it reasonable to have all of them?

What does it say about us that we always want everything to be brand new? As soon as something develops its first nick or mar, it begins to bother us, to weigh heavily on our subconscious as if the mar were a blemish on our very souls. Nothing we own is allowed to have any history, any meaning beyond itself. Nothing is allowed the taint of a previous owner, nor any significance beyond its immediate purpose.

In the last month, I have come to realize that it is exceedingly rare that we actually need new stuff. When we challenge our selves just a little, we find that we can use things which are marred, we can fix things which are broken, we can buy things which have been owned by a stranger before us, and we can even make smoothies and pesto without a Magic Bullet. Most amazing of all, when we challenge ourselves, we find that sometimes, we can even do without.

Just as I have been dreaming of less for so many other things, I have been dreaming of less stuff. Less clutter, less trash, less hassle, less mess. I have been dreaming of things which serve many purposes, eliminating the need for other stuff.

I have been dreaming of buying everything used which can be bought used. I dream not just of less stuff in my home, but in the human world as a whole, and second hand goods eliminate the need for more new stuff. In a sense, an item can be divided by the number of people who have owned it, so that I own 1/5 of a couch, 1/4 of a dining set, 1/3 of a coffee table, 1/6 of an armchair.

I have been dreaming, longingly, of storage spaces that are clearly organized, free of clutter, full without being stuffed. I dream of all my spaces being clear of stuff, the surfaces in my house being almost empty when not in use. I dream of having one of everything I need and none of anything I don't.

I dream of a life which is occupied by a small amount of highly useful, durable, beautiful stuff that I love to use, to look at, to care for. I dream of meeting my every need with as little material as possible, and not coveting that which I do not need. I dream of a home in which all of my stuff improves my quality of life, and anything which does not is banished forever from my home.

Courtney and I have been moving actively toward this dream for some time now, and after many purges of stuff followed by periods of buying nothing new, we have achieved a level of stuff which is well bellow average, but there is much work left to be done before we are living the dream that we are dreaming. The journey, so far at least, has been liberating and joyous, and the less we use to meet our needs (both real and invented) the better we feel about our stuff.

Lane County Farmers' Market, FTW!

2010-10-02T17:15:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Fall is special for many reasons here in the Pacific North West, but my favorite thing about fall is that I can finally make all of my LA friends jealous of the Farmers' Markets up here. Sure, you get tomatoes year round, but you ain't got nothin' on North West Mushrooms. That's right, it's mushroom season big time here in Oregon, and there is no better place to be when mushroom season rolls around.

Aside from the abundance of obvious, well known 'shrooms that grow wild all over the Willamette Valley (chanterelles, maitakes, and truffles, to name a few. . . ooooh truffles), the climate is also perfect for some lesser known and truly delicious delicacies. Today I picked up a few, including the chicken of the woods, which believe or not actually tastes and has a texture similar to chicken. Also, I grabbed a few lobster mushrooms, which aside from being red on the outside and white on the inside, actually have a distinct seafood flavor that lends them their name.

Chicken of the Forest - actually tastes like chicken

Lobster Mushroom - actually tastes like lobster

There was much talk today amongst strangers at the market about how best to cook these delectable fungi, sauteed in butter or tossed in a pasta e.g., but my favorite thing to do with just about any mushroom is make risotto, which I will surely be doing this weekend, as it fits nicely with the October: Unprocessed challenge. For a basic risotto recipe, see my post on Wild Mushroom Risotto from last year. The wonderful thing about this dish is that the risotto provides a rich creamy base that supports the mushroom flavor, lifts it to the fore and lets it shine. The slight crunch of al dente rice is also a nice backdrop for the unique textures that the variety of wild mushrooms have to offer. This is not a dish for the feint of heart, but for those with clear arteries and good exercise routines, it is the ultimate in sinful savory satisfaction.

Nothing New except October: Unprocessed

2010-10-02T16:31:00.000-07:00

As the sun sets on my Month of Nothing New, it dawns on October: Unprocessed. The last month went by rather quickly and uneventfully in terms of my challenge, and after thinking it through, I have decided that one month of making no new purchases (excluding food and medicine) is just too easy. It was not really a challenge at all. There were a few minor hiccups, but not one real sense of sacrifice or brilliant solution to a difficult problem. In short, it was not the fodder for good writing that I had hoped it would be. All this has led me to the conclusion that I should extend the challenge, keep it going for perhaps six months. In half a year, I am bound to run into a number of problems that force me to consider breaking the rules, and probably doing it at least once.

Take the Pledge! Learn More Here.

In the next month, however, I will focus on the October: Unprocessed pledge, and so I will probably be writing a little more about food. Two things cropped up in September, however, that I felt it would be inappropriate to post in my month of nothing new, so keep your eyes open this October for news about the Unprocessed Pledge and a special treat for my readers. As I promised at the beginning of last month, the next installment of To Dream of Less will be out soon. Also, if you don't know about October: Unprocessed, check it out! Click on the logo above, take the pledge, you still can, join up any time in October and finish the month with Eating Rules, myself, and about 30 other bloggers who have taken the Pledge and agreed to write about it on Andrew Wilder's site.

Waste Not

2010-09-25T20:14:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Re-posted from the iPinion Syndicate

After writing about buying second hand goods, I got a few comments about giving to thrift stores, selling to stores like Crossroads, and having a garage sale to get rid of stuff instead of just throwing it away. After all, as I am sure you have heard many times by now, there is no ‘away.’ Or rather, ‘away’ is the ocean, landfills and incinerators.

‘Away’ is not so far away as you would like, and bits of what you throw away find their way back to you (like the mercury in seafood). The bits that don’t find their way back still might be affecting you in some other manner: by disrupting a food source, permanently damaging some piece of land, or being incinerated and mucking up your air.

There is a lot of waste in our society. For the identifiable past of ‘western civilization,’ we have always thought of things in terms of raw materials, useful products, and waste to be dealt with. But only in the past century and a half has the amount of waste been such a huge and universal problem. Today, we generate so much waste that even though we burn and bury the majority of it, it is clogging our streams, rivers, ports and even making a significant impact on every sea and ocean on the planet. If this were intentional, it would be quite an accomplishment. Unfortunately, it is a destructive and unintentional consequence of simply not paying enough attention to how much waste we generate and how we deal with it.

Now for the bad news: there is very little that you can do about it. At least by yourself, right now. You can recycle, and that is great. It really helps. Unfortunately, most things are not easily recyclable, and no municipality in this country has a 100% recycling rate for the things that are.

Image via Wikipedia

You can reuse stuff instead of throwing it away. You can (as mentioned above) sell or give old stuff away and buy other stuff second hand. This keeps stuff out of land fills and incinerator, and also reduces the need for manufacturing, packaging and shipping of more new stuff. But some things are never going to be available second hand, like food and cleaning products; nor should they be.

Finally, you can reduce the amount of stuff you buy. Maybe. Depending on the stuff. And you can consciously choose to buy stuff with less packaging. Sometimes. When there is an option. The fact is, the current paradigm embraces the old ‘raw materials, stuff, waste’ mind set wholeheartedly, and almost everything comes packaged in layers and layers of waste. And all that is not even the worst part, not by half.

The worst part is that before the stuff even got to the store, massive amounts of water and materials were turned into waste in the manufacturing process, and you as an individual right now have absolutely no power over that at all. Except...

There is one more thing that you can do that begins with ‘r,’ though it isn’t part of the traditional waste hierarchy: research. You can try to find out about the stuff you are buying, how it is produced, and vote with your dollars. So the good news is that we as the consumers (not individuals), over time (not right now), can try as often as possible to choose the less wasteful option, and that will make a difference. Because the more dollars that flow to low waste products, the more pressure there will be for a paradigm shift, from ‘materials, stuff, waste,’ to ‘materials, stuff, materials, stuff, materials...’ There is a growing field called industrial ecology that is preparing the new paradigm, and if we all push together, we can get this boulder rolling in their direction.

Print Media v. Digital Media: Missing the Point?

2010-09-22T14:04:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

It seems obvious to me that the rapid and free flow of information through every media channel available is one of the most important elements, by far, to a sustainable future. There is a lively debate, however, about which type of media is more sustainable: digital or print.

On the side of digital media we have Saul Griffith, who says that when you take into account the energy used to produce all of the books, magazines and newspapers that we have in our lives, ship them to the stores, light and air-condition the stores, and then drive them home, it is more than the amount of energy used by an electronic device that can replace all of them (iPad, Kindle, or laptop). I have to wonder, however, if this reckoning takes into account the fact that many tech savvy readers upgrade their electronic devices as fast as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos can come out with new models. Sure, if the iPad replaced every book and magazine in my life, it would balance out great. But what if it only replaces one year's worth of my print media, and then I upgrade?

Image via Wikipedia

Another question I would ask Saul, if I had a direct line to him, is whether or not that accounts for used
books. A single paperback can be read by dozens, or theoretically hundreds of people. Periodicals are more disposable by nature, but anyone who has frequented a cafe alone knows that a paper too can have multiple readers. Would this multiple readership divide the energy consumed by the number of readers? Public Libraries and websites like Paperback Swap add to this effect, and some people (like myself) have many books but never buy any of them new. Does that commitment change the equation? Most importantly, if you combine all of these points, is the balance still in favor of the digital age?

All of this would argue for print media, but to be balanced myself, I have to point out that digital does have a lot going for it as well. I opened this discussion by stating that the free flow of information is one of the most important parts of a sustainable society, because the rapid and free transfer of information promotes understanding of the issues and methods of a sustainable life. In this regard, digital media has print beat hands down. If someone has a simple idea for reducing energy consumption in a home or office, and they write in to their local paper, only the local audience will get that information. If that tip is very climate or region specific that might be just fine, but if it is widely applicable then isn't it better for that piece of information to be online where anyone in the world can access it?

In the end, the best thing that you can do is keep track of and think about how you use the media in your life. If you go with print: get books used, borrow from libraries and friends, only subscribe to the magazines and papers that you really care about, and when you are hungry for more use the library to access the digital version of media you are not 100% on. If you go the digital route, make a concerted effort to reduce the amount of media that you buy in the print format. Which ever route you choose to take, avoid frequent upgrades to the latest eReader hardware (especially if you already have a laptop, desktop, etc.), try to get more books used or borrow them from libraries, and cancel your subscription to magazines that you only read one or two articles out of each issue. If you follow these simple suggestions you should end up spending less on your media as well, and as always my favorite kind of green is the kind in my wallet.

October: Unprocessed with Eating Rules

2010-09-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

I have been invited to write a guest blog for Eating Rules, as part of the October: Unprocessed challenge. I am very excited to take the challenge, and honored that my old colleague (from a past life) Andrew Wilder asked me to write a post about food and sustainability for his blog.

The system of industrial food production in our society is unique in human history in both scale and methods, and there are many health and safety concerns to be addressed. Eating Rules is a website about how to maintain a healthy diet while navigating this system by following a few simple, easy to apply rules. The October: Unprocessed challenge is something that Andrew came up with to try and spur people into thinking more deeply about what they consume, where it came from, how it came to be on their table, and ultimately why all of that is important to us. So, for the month of October, the wife and I will be attempting to eat only food that is "unprocessed."

Image via Wikipedia

As you may have guessed, exactly what is meant by unprocessed is not totally clear, but the current working definition for the project is any food which has been (or contains ingredients which have been) prepared, altered, or processed in a way that could not be accomplished in an ordinary home kitchen. So, for example,a product which is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup would be out, because you need a laboratory and some very precise instruments to turn corn into HFCS, but chocolate could be acceptable, because with a little practice you could make chocolate at home from whole ingredients ('making chocolate' is easy, forming it into bars and such can be difficult). If that chocolate bar were sweetened with HFCS, on the other hand, it would be back on the black list.

Of course that definition itself contains some ambiguity, but I think the project embraces that ambiguity. It seems to me the desired outcome is to have a dialogue, if you will, with what we eat, to ask of everything we consume: where did you come from and how were you made, to engage in a daily process of thinking about our food in a new way.

I would encourage everyone to take a look at the project, and seriously consider taking the pledge yourself. If nothing else, it is an interesting way to look at the relationship between food and health.

Green Cross

Safety and Visibility - Biking in Weather and at Night

Artistic Expressions of Waste

Changes to my iPinion Column

Dreaming of Less Driving - Car Free Living

The $8 Bike Rack - How to Secure Your Bicycle on the Cheap

iPinion Update: Avoiding the Next Mass Extinction - Out Today

Bicycle Security: how to protect your green commuting investment

Related articles

From iPinion - "Making Markets Free"

Living Small and Walking Tall - The Big Move

Nuclear Energy is Not a Sustainable Solution

Related articles

The Paradox of Value

My Column for iPinion

Related articles

GreenSwitch: The Vampire Power Slayer

Related articles

Clean+Green - a Miracle Cleaning Product for Pet Owners

Looking Back and Forward after a Long Break

8 in a Million - a Quick Lesson in Atmospheric Science

Kimchi, Sauerkraut and Chutney - the Art of Home Fermentation

Weekend Meal Planning - Creating All your Meals for the Week in One Day

Related articles

The Meat in the Vegetarian Argument

Related articles

To Dream of Less Stuff

Related articles

Lane County Farmers' Market, FTW!

Nothing New except October: Unprocessed

Related articles by Zemanta

Waste Not

Print Media v. Digital Media: Missing the Point?

Related articles by Zemanta

October: Unprocessed with Eating Rules