Green (Living) Review

Goosefoot, aka Fat Hen, Lamb's Quarters (Eat your weeds)

2025-07-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

Goosefoot: A Nutritious and Abundant Wild Edible Weed

You are wasting free food. Spinach is a cool season crop, so it grows best in the cooler months rather than in summer, but you could be eating this instead.

Lamb's quarters, also known as Wild Spinach, Goosefoot, and several other names, thrives in the sun. The beauty of it is that you don't have to plant it. It just shows up everywhere. And it is way more nutritious than store-bought spinach, or even home-grown.

It has twice the vitamins B1 and B2, three times the vitamin C, three times more calcium, five times more magnesium, and more protein and iron than spinach or cabbage.

Oh, and it's a close relative to quinoa. Indigenous communities used to gather the seeds and use them as grains. You can too. Quick identifier, it's also called goose foot because the leaves look like the foot of a goose. It is part of the Amaranth family of plants, just like quinoa. In fact, Amaranth, even the colored variety grown as a decorative bedding plant, can be eaten in the same way. Beware though when growing Amaranth, as it spreads like the proverbial wild fire.

So stop spraying it, stop mowing it, and start harvesting. It is right now probably, if it is summer where you are, growing everywhere in your garden and you regard it as a weed and pull it up, mow it down or spray it to death.

Did you know that Goosefoot was a staple “crop” of the Punjab, allowed to grow with the then long stalk wheat and got people over the hungry gap before the wheat was available, and it was also generally used as a vegetable. The so-called “green revolution” did away with this as the Goosefoot would outpace the short stalk wheat in growth and hence the Goosefoot had to be eliminated, leading to malnutrition. So much for the “green revolution” in farming.

More about Goosefoot below.

Goosefoot, a common "weed" found across much of the world, is more than just an unwanted garden intruder. Belonging to the Chenopodium genus, several species – most notably Chenopodium album (commonly known as lamb’s quarters or white goosefoot) – are valued for their nutritional content and versatility as a wild edible.

Goosefoot has been consumed by indigenous cultures and traditional societies for centuries, and it's gaining renewed interest among foragers, herbalists, and homesteaders.

Identification

Goosefoot plants are typically:

Annual herbs growing 1–6 feet tall.

Recognizable by their triangular to diamond-shaped leaves that resemble the foot of a goose (hence the name).

The leaves are often coated in a whitish, mealy powder, especially on younger growth.

Tiny, green, inconspicuous flowers cluster on the tops of stems and leaf axils.

Seeds are small, black, and encased in papery husks.

Note: It’s important not to confuse goosefoot with similar-looking toxic plants. Always positively identify any wild plant before consuming.

Edibility

Nearly the entire plant is edible at various stages of growth:

Leaves & Stems

Tender young leaves and stems can be eaten raw in salads or cooked like spinach.

Cooking reduces naturally occurring oxalates and saponins, which in high quantities can be mildly toxic.

Leaves are rich in vitamins A, C, and K, as well as calcium, iron, and protein.

Seeds

Resembling a wild cousin to quinoa (which is also in the Chenopodium genus), goosefoot seeds can be:

Collected, dried, and cooked like a grain.

Used in porridge, ground into flour, or added to soups.

Seeds contain protein, fiber, and essential amino acids but should be rinsed or soaked to remove saponins.

Foraging Tips

Season: Goosefoot thrives from late spring through fall, depending on climate.

Habitat: Found in gardens, roadsides, fields, disturbed soils, and abandoned lots.

Harvesting: Clip young tops and leaves regularly for the best texture and flavor. Mature seeds can be harvested in late summer or early fall.

Preparation Ideas

Sauté leaves with garlic and olive oil for a wild-style spinach dish.

Add to soups, stews, stir-fries, or omelets.

Blend into smoothies for a nutritional boost (in moderation, due to oxalates).

Roast or grind seeds as a grain alternative.

Dehydrate and store leaves for use in winter.

Cautions

Goosefoot contains oxalic acid and saponins, especially in mature leaves and seeds. Occasional consumption is safe for most people, but those with kidney issues or prone to kidney stones should limit intake.

Always harvest from clean, pesticide-free areas. Avoid roadsides or contaminated urban soils.

Cultural and Historical Notes

Historically, species of goosefoot have been used as food across Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa. In North America, archaeological evidence shows that Chenopodium species were part of the Eastern Agricultural Complex, a group of plants cultivated by indigenous peoples before maize arrived. In India and Nepal, the plant (known locally as bathua) is still widely eaten and featured in traditional dishes.

Conclusion

Often overlooked and undervalued, goosefoot is a nutrient-rich, versatile wild edible that deserves a place in the modern forager's toolkit. With proper identification and preparation, this humble weed can provide free, sustainable, and healthy food straight from your backyard or nearby field.

While it will establish itself without help, and this is just a suggestion, you could always harvest some of the seeds and put them into a raised bed or some containers for you to ensure you have some and know that it is safe from pesticides and what-have-you, and actually turn it into a garden crop. Why not?

2025 © Michael Smith

Glass Recycling – A Scam

2025-07-06T05:51:00.000-07:00

You will have noticed that I did not put a question mark after the word scam and that is because it is.

Around 90%, if not more, of all glass collected for recycling, in our region at least, is not recycled at all but downcycled in that it is not being turned into new glass but is ground down for road aggregate.

When glass bottles, and glass jars, are not separated by color and all end up broken, while being tipped into the collection vehicles, into the same container no one can tell me that that stuff is made to make new glass. It does not work.

A huge waste of a valuable resource.

We once had it right, years ago, when all glass bottles came with a deposit and went back to be cleaned, sterilized and then refilled, until such a time that they were actually broken. As far as milk bottles are concerned that was not until that long ago. The milkman brought the full ones and collected the empties.

During the Second World War in Britain even glass jars were collected to be reused by the factories and this could still be done today as there is just a number of size openings of such jars and thus required lids. But no, it seems to be too labor intensive not considering the cost to the environment.

Even when that was no longer the case, as in the case of glass jars, not all that many were ever tossed out because they were being reused in the home for all manner of things (and I still do this today).

They, depending on the size, where used to store dry goods, from beans, peas, lentils, to pasta, oats, and even flour, in case of the large ones. Smaller ones were employed for storage of the likes of nails and screws, buttons, and whatever else. Some were also used as drinking vessels and this was the case when I was a child and is still the case in my home to this very day.

Broken, the shards of bottles and jar became a woodworking tool, namely that of a scraper for so-called glass shave. It works by far better than a steel card scraper. The only disadvantage to a steel card scraper is that the glass shard cannot be resharpened but then again that matters little as there is always ample material available.

When it came to glass bottles in the days when there was a deposit on them even if they were tossed out by people into the ditches and whatever they did not stay there long. Kids would soon pick them up and take them back to the shops to get the deposit for pocket money. Almost every child did so when I was a kid.

But, apparently, reintroducing a deposit scheme for glass bottles would be too difficult, according to government because one would not know whether it would ever work in this country. That is entirely disregarding the fact that we once had it and it worked well. You just could not make it up. There is no political will to do it and that is all.

Therefore glass recycling is and will remain a scam.

2025 © Michael Smith

Why we should stop killing weeds in lawn

2025-06-22T09:46:00.000-07:00

For decades, the perfect green lawn has been a symbol of pride and suburban success. But behind the pristine turf lies a hidden cost: chemical treatments, biodiversity loss, and environmental damage – all in the name of eliminating “weeds.” It’s time we rethink the war on weeds and consider what we’re really doing to our yards, our communities, and the planet.

What’s considered a ‘weed’ is essentially a plant that happens to grow where we don’t want it to. But really, isn’t that just an arbitrary designation? Before the widespread use of herbicides, did we really fret over weeds in lawns? No, we didn’t. We treated all plants equally, unless they posed a significant threat, like Japanese Knotweed.

After World War II, with the rise of commercial interests, herbicides became the go-to solution for achieving the ‘perfect’ lawn. But who decided what’s perfect anyway? The push for monoculture lawns devoid of any plants deemed undesirable was driven not by lawn experts or environmentalists, but by profit-driven commercialism. And where has it led us? To a cycle of endless pursuit of an unattainable perfection, at great cost to both us and the environment.

In farming, weed control is a different story driven by economic factors, but we’re focusing on lawns here. We’re not talking about pristine showcase lawns or lawns in international competitions; we’re talking about the lawns that form part of our social lives, property values, and the ecosystem around us.

Why are weeds such a nuisance in lawns? Well, our native grasses naturally compete with and inhibit the growth of these so-called weeds. So why do we feel the need to intervene with herbicides, especially when they’re often applied incorrectly and cause more harm than good?

The truth is, weeds have a place in a healthy lawn. But the harmful chemicals used to eradicate them do not.

It’s time to embrace a more natural approach that respects the balance of nature and eliminates unnecessary damage to both our lawns and the environment. As Derek Trotter would say, “You know it makes sense”.

1. Weeds are essential for pollinators

Dandelions, clover, and plantain may be classified as weeds, but they are lifelines for bees, butterflies, and other pollinators. Many of these plants bloom early in the season when little else is available, offering critical nectar and pollen sources. With pollinator populations in steep decline globally, protecting their habitats – even small ones in suburban lawns – can make a real difference.

Letting a few dandelions grow could help save local bees and, in addition to that the roots of the dandelions also do some valuable work in the soil. That is apart from the fact that every part of the plant is edible and, in fact, very good.

2. Herbicides harm more than just weeds

Most weed-control products contain powerful chemicals like glyphosate, 2,4-D, or dicamba. While marketed as safe, these compounds have been linked to:

* Soil degradation

* Water contamination

* Reproductive harm in wildlife

* Increased cancer risks in humans

Runoff from treated lawns ends up in streams and groundwater, impacting not only ecosystems but also human health. These risks far outweigh the aesthetic gain of a weed-free lawn.

3. Weeds can improve soil health

Far from being nuisances, many weeds are signs that the soil is trying to heal itself. Plants like dandelion and dock have deep roots that break up compacted soil and pull nutrients from deeper layers. These nutrients are returned to the surface when the plant decomposes, improving soil quality over time.

In essence, weeds are nature’s way of regenerating poor soil – free of charge.

4. Clover and other weeds reduce the need for fertilizer

Clover, once a common and accepted part of lawn seed mixes, naturally adds nitrogen to the soil. This makes your lawn greener and more drought-resistant – without synthetic fertilizers. Ironically, it was only labeled a “weed” when herbicide companies needed to market products that couldn’t distinguish between clover and unwanted species.

Reintroducing clover can save money and reduce your environmental footprint.

5. Lawns are ecological dead zones

Traditional lawns are monocultures that offer little food or shelter for insects, birds, or wildlife. When we kill weeds, we’re doubling down on this sterile environment. By contrast, a lawn with a mix of native plants and “weeds” can become a vibrant mini-ecosystem teeming with life.

A biodiverse lawn is healthier, more resilient, and far more interesting than a uniform stretch of grass.

6. Weeds are resilient – and that’s a good thing

Weeds thrive in tough conditions: poor soil, high traffic, drought. Their resilience is an asset, not a flaw. By embracing hardy, self-sustaining plants, we create landscapes that require less water, less maintenance, and fewer chemicals – all while staying green and alive.

7. The cultural shift is already happening

Movements like “No Mow May,” “Pollinator Pathways,” and “Rewilding” are gaining momentum. Homeowners, cities, and even golf courses are beginning to recognize the value of more natural landscapes. In many places, ordinances are being updated to allow wilder yards — and in some, native plantings are even encouraged.

The idea of the “perfect lawn” is evolving — and that’s a good thing.

🌼 Conclusion: Rethinking the lawn

Weeds are not enemies. They are signs of life, resilience, and ecological potential. By choosing to stop killing weeds in our lawns, we can support biodiversity, reduce chemical use, improve soil health, and redefine what a beautiful yard really looks like.

In the past so-called lawns, even bowling greens, croquet lawns, and other grassy areas would always have included weeds of all kinds, because that was before Monsanto (Bayer) & Co. and herbicides.

When did we really become that obsessed about weeds in the lawn. When after the Vietnam War Monsanto had no longer a ready market for its defoliant, namely glyphosate, renamed it Round Up and marketed it to gardeners and the landscape industry.

Before that, if you didn't want the weeds you dug them out and in your patio (they were rare until not that long ago) or pathways you also dug them out or removed them. They always would come back though, because they do happen to be rather resilient. Over time they may get weakened and, maybe, die off, but that is just a maybe.

It’s time to trade perfection for purpose – and let a little wildness back into our lives and also discover the weeds for ourselves, as many of them are edible and make very good eating indeed.

2025 © Michael Smith

The Slow Bicycle

2025-04-21T02:38:00.000-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The ONE BIKE EVERYONE NEEDS but DON'T EVEN KNOW they want!

What is a slow bicycle?

Today electric bicycles, and the only ones that are actually, in the UK, at least, are considered as standard bicycles are pedelecs, that is to say electrically assisted pedal bikes, but, as far as I am concerned those have several serious drawbacks. True E-bikes and so-called speed pedelecs are considered in the UK as motor vehicles and require at least a moped license and thus also a license plate.

But back to the drawbacks of pedelecs (and they also apply to the other types).

Firstly they are much more difficult to maintain. Not at the general stages as they are more-or-less bicycles, as far as fixing a tire and such are concerned, but when it comes to the electrical bits you will, more than likely, need the help of a mechanic who is converse in the workings of one of those, ideally of the one you happen to own.

Then comes the battery. You have to charge it and maintain it and it has a limited range. In addition to that you may need a new battery in at worst every 3 years, at best every 5 or 6 years, which will set you back about a third of the purchase price of a new bike of that kind. The cost of the battery generally covers the purchase of a new slow bike any day, as the cost is between £350 to $800. You get some good slow bikes for that kind of money.

Charging the battery, although not all that expensive, over time adds up. Having a limit to your range with most of them on low power being around 35 miles and at high power around 15 miles only is also a limit. This, therefore, this limits the use of such a bike to really only a short distance runabout and does not make for a bike that you can go touring with unless you carry a couple of spare batteries.

The only advantage over an ordinary, often referred to in England, push bike, is that you have the power assistance (your speed in the UK is limited to 18 mph) which makes for easier cycling in hilly areas, for sure.

However, alone the purchase price of a pedelec (I will keep calling it thus and will not use E-bike) is anywhere in the region of £1,000 and upwards. Some of the better ones are in the region of £7,500+. Now for that kind of money you get a lot of slow bicycles.

So, what is a slow bicycle? Well, to say it simply, it is an ordinary bicycle with or without gears or speeds. Having a slow bicycle that only has one speed – which about equals the so-called second gear on the Sturmey-Archer/Kienzle kind of system – is the best as it is a lot easier to maintain with a lot less to go wrong.

The advantages of a slow bicycle outweigh any disadvantages and the advantages start at the cost and continue over ease of maintenance (all of it if you read up on it or watch some YouTube videos).

OK, you need to pedal a little harder to get up a hill, even if you have a slow bicycle with gears, though my recommendation is to have a single speed free wheel one, and any of the geared ones can be converted to such, even without changing the back wheel, as long, that is, that it has a horizontal dropout and and not a vertical one. In the latter case you will need a chain tensioner but they can be gotten quite cheaply. You will have to shorten the chain to the correct length when converting a bike but the chain tool required for that is quite cheap and will always come in handy.

But let's return to the hills. If you can't pedal up it then you can get up and push. I found that frequently when I used to do just that – I normally always did – I was overtaking, on foot, those that were struggling to get up the hill cycling, like the maniacs, in the lowest gears. It is called a “push bike” after all, that's why I push when it gets too difficult. We always did also as kids when there was but one speed on the bikes.

The slow bicycle has a great deal going for it and it advantages very much outweigh its disadvantages. The greatest advantages are the costs – they are cheap in comparison to pedelecs – and the easy of maintenance and repair.

Personally I have acquired so many normal, if I may call them that, bicycles, though often mountain bikes with 15-21 speeds, found abandoned in the park, which I then have rebuilt, always converting them to single speed. Thus most of my bicycles have cost me nothing but time to work on them and maybe a new innertube or such.

When we are protecting the Planet we are actually saving ourselves

2024-04-22T11:43:00.000-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

All too often we are told to save the Planet and the majority do not seem to understand it and also hope, it would seem, that someone else, such as governments, will do it. We need to stress more that it is a case of saving ourselves and creating a sustainable future for ourselves, our children and grandchildren if and when we care for the Earth.

It is not so much (just) about saving the Planet, it is about the survival of us, the human race, and every living thing on the Earth. But to do that we will have to make changes to the way we live and electric vehicles, for instance, are not going to make one iota of a difference.

No, I am not saying that we all have to become vegans but thinking about what we eat and where it comes from is what we will have to do for certain. There are many other things that we will have to do as well, such as rethinking the way we work, where we work and live, and how we travel and, maybe also where we take our holidays, and where the things that we buy come from.

As regards the latter issue the incident with the MV “Ever Given” in the Suez Canal in early 2021 and the impact it has had should have given everyone a wake up call that our supply lines are far too stretched. It should also give us all a hint as to the environmental footprint that the goods that are made so far away from our home shores have coming via such long and stretched supply routes. In fact still months after the actual event, the ship having been, with content, impounded by the Egyptian authorities, the repercussions are being felt with many goods not being able to be had because they are in containers on that very ship. From bicycles and spares for bicycles for shops in the Netherlands and Belgium (where the is currently therefore a shortage of bicycles and spares), to folding tables for the hospitality industry in Britain, to who knows what else.

Admittedly having products made “at home”, in our own countries, again, and that goes also and especially as regards to recycling, will make them (somewhat) more expensive but the alternative is not a rosy one.

An economy, at home, that only (still) work because it sells products made abroad, mostly, is not one that will last and the outsourcing of manufacture of the majority of our products to China and other such cheap labor places has already cost many jobs. What is even worse is that those products – and that where the system, the capitalist system of perpetual growth based on obsolescence, is at fault – break down after an appointed time, generally not long after the extended warranty has run out and cannot be repaired. In fact, the products have been designed so that they cannot, often even by skilled repairers, of which we virtually have no longer any, be repaired.

If we want to save ourselves by saving the environment and the Planet we have to vote with our wallets and look for sustainably made products and sustainable products also means products that can be kept alive for a long time, the way it once was, when shoes and boots, for instance, could actually be mended, radios and television sets and other appliances fixed when they failed, often due to a burnt out fuse, a switch that had worn or such, at times even by a tinkerer in DIY. Today, however, it is often (almost) impossible to even open the case of a device let alone repair anything that has failed.

When it comes to shoes and boots, for example, aside from the fact that many are made in such a way that there is very little that can be done to them but even when they are repairable, say with a stitched on midsole or such, the so-called shoe repair places, for it is hard to find a proper cobbler today, are incapable to doing stitching repairs; “I haven't got a machine for that”, I was told by more than one place. No, you don't even use a machine for that, you use 2 bent needles and waxed thread.

Yes, sustainable products will, more than likely, be more expensive but in the long run that costs is recouped by the fact that they last longer and can be repaired and kept going for a very long time which is good both for our pocketbooks and the Planet. A complete win-win situation. But it is a way that does not tally with the wishes of the capitalist system based on more and ever more consumption, where products are designed to fail and break so that we, the so-called consumers, have to buy the same product over and over again.

Products that once upon a time were the kind of once in a lifetime or a couple of times purchases have become consumables much like printer ink or such like. Going back just a few decades the radio or TV set was something that often only was replaces every 20 or so years, if at all, because they could be kept going and going. But capitalist economy demanded more “growth” and this growth could and can only be achieved by making and selling more of the same.

We must also get away from the throw-away society in many other aspects, especially when it comes to packaging waste and waste from fact food outlets; the stuff that we “throw away”. Even with the new – well, it has been with us now for a couple of months – in the UK that no longer permits plastic flatware, aka cutlery, though it lives up the to the flat in flatware, we still produce waste because those, in fact, useless implements are still being tossed into the trash. While they may be made of wood and thus return to the earth, theoretically, they are still waste, much like the takeout chopsticks in China and Japan which gave bith to the BYO (bring your own) campaign.

We, as concerned “consumers” have the weapon in our hand to force a a change to the good of our finances and especially to the Planet and that weapon is our money. Let's cast our votes wisely.

Recycling is not the answer

2024-03-09T06:55:00.000-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

While the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (Note: I wrote this originally in 2022) has been attacked from all sides for his comments on plastic recycling – and let me mention that I am no friend of his – he is, to a great extent, correct in what he said. Recycling is not the answer but it does not just go for plastic recycling but recycling in general as most so-called recycling is actually downcycling.

When it comes to plastic recycling he has been more than correct because plastic cannot, unlike some metals and glass, be recycled infinitely and in many cases virgin polymer has to be added each and every time for strength.

Therefore we need to get away from single use plastics such as plastic bottles (PET), carrier bags, and the like. Plastics that have a much longer lifespan and are a different type should not, automatically, placed in the evil department, as long as they are not single use, such as take out cutlery, for instance. That stuff does belong in the evil department as no one reuses those.

On the other hand there are all too many things that are made from plastic that could be made from renewable sources and resources, such as wood. Bottles should, when it comes to bottles for sauces, drinks, and such like, once again, be made from glass and they should be returned to be cleaned and reused and it should not just apply, as it used to be, drinks bottles. Also sauce bottles, glass jars, etc., should go back to be reused.

Recycling of glass should only happen when the glass is actually beyond use, such as chipped or broken. Before that any glass containers, bottles and jars and what have you, should either be reused by the consumer in whose possession they are or they should go back to the place whence they came and be cleaned and refilled with new product. Adding a little deposit those jars would soon be returned the only problem is that we no longer have the infrastructure for such operations.

When it comes to other things we must ensure that they are kept alive for as long as possible though that is, nowadays, a lot easier said than done as far too many products, even the likes of the more expensive “consumer” goods, TVs, radios, etc., and white goods, have been designed to be more or less non-repairable. Then again, even if they still would be we are lacking the menders to fix them.

Clothes and footwear also are made in such a way that repair, unless one can do it oneself, is more expensive, and that is also the case with the goods mentioned in the previous paragraph, bar, maybe, white goods, to get them repaired than to buy new. Hence we have this waste problem.

If something works, and can be kept working, regardless how old it is, it is better, environmentally, to keep it than to replace it with newer even if the newer is claimed to be better for the environment.

The recycle economy and others

2024-02-28T07:21:00.000-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

There are three forms of economies, the linear one, the recycling one and then the circular one. Currently we predominately have the first two only and more often than not it is the first one, namely that we take then make then consume and then “throw away” even though there is no such place as “away”.

Then we have the so-called recycling economy where we take, make, consume, and then theoretically recycle to make new products, with some waste still remaining. I specifically like to stress the word theoretically because while the consumer may diligently separate his or her recyclables which are then collected those, however, quite frequently end up in the same place where the waste ends up, namely the landfill or the incinerator because not enough money can, at times, be made from the recyclables.

The circular economy everyone is talking about but unless industry seriously changes the way it operates this will remain but a pipe dream.

Also, recycling and circular economy, the later which is more likely never to come about, are but ways and means for us to keep consuming in the same way that so-called green products are. We must reduce our consumption and we must return, in some respects, back to the future in that we need to do things again like they were done in the past, such as glass containers which are then reused, bottles and jars with refundable deposits (not new, we had that once already), tin cans, and simple cardboard packaging.

Glass and metal can be infinitely be recycled into new products, though the former should only ever be recycled if it is beyond reuse and cardboard will simply compost, even in a domestic compost heap or composting bin.

While glass and metal containers are heavier than plastic and thus weight as regards to transportation is an issue the benefits outweigh all the downsides as far fewer resources will be required and far less energy in manufacture. But we can guarantee that the plastic (packaging) lobby will find all manner of excuses of how bad it would be if we would do away with plastic packaging.

If we have to have plastic packaging than the material really should be recycled in the home country rather than the recyclables shipped abroad where they are turned into pellets to be returned to turn into products or where we re-import new products made from them. Alternatively those products (packaging) should have a second use designed into it that would be automatically recognizable by the consumer. Think of Avon the way it used to have bottles that would become toys for kids afterwards.

French and German mustard manufacturers to this day frequently fill their product, the mustard, into jars that are actual drinking glasses for reuse by the consumer and there was a time that some people would specifically buy particular brands of mustard just because they wanted those drinking glasses for reuse (and obviously they liked the mustard too).

Or the flour mills in the USA during the Depression era who, because the realized that mothers sewed clothes for their kids and others of their family and themselves, as well as textile items for the home such as bedding, from the white cotton bags printed them with patterns so they were even nicer for reuse, upcycling.

We have been there before and it is not rocket science but where would the economy be if we would do that, eh? It would no longer grow the way it does now and even less so if we actually made products last and made the repairable again.

Proper design and a return to some of the ways of the past, including packaging designed with an obvious reuse would bring us a great deal further than any playing about with the way we do at the present time.

That is not to say that there was no waste in times past. There was, as we can see when we do some digging in certain places but we could advance by putting the old together with a new ideas and we would have, more or less, no waste of any kind left.

When it comes to food waste there should be very little if people actually would learn to cook from scratch again and learn how to use and reuse leftover food.

But food waste reduction does not start with the consumer but well at the beginning of the chain and it is also not the farmer who is to blame but the buyers who reject some produce outright because it is not the right size or shape and then, also, such as when the farmer is contracted to a certain supermarket chain or other such entity, the farmer is not at liberty to pass on the rejected produce elsewhere but is forced to destroy the rejects. This must stop.

And any food waste that does occur, as some is unavoidable, must be returned to the soil by means of being composted, be that at home or in composting facilities.

Returning to ways of the past in the way products are produced, that is to say made once again to last and to be repairable, and then having the skilled workers again who can repair the things expertly when they are broken, at a price that is not several times higher than replacing, learning also once again to reuse and repurpose, together with ways of reclaiming all materials from anything that has come to the end of its life will really bring us a kind of circular economy, more of less. Whether, however, it will be entirely zero waste even then is rather questionable, but one can but aim for it.

The real reason they want independent farmers gone

2024-02-27T04:19:00.000-08:00

The reason they want to get rid of the small farmer is because the small farmer is the last free person on this planet.

Because everyone else has to depend on something else to make a living but a small farmer with a piece of land, some seed in their hands, their intelligence, the sun shining, a bit of water, can produce with no external dependence.

That is why the independence of the small farmer is seen as such a threat by those who would like to control the last living system.

This, at least, is the way it is being approached by the western global elite and that is also why Russia, for instance, is such a thorn in their side.

There, in a reversal of the system of the Soviet Union, and associated states, of the collective farm has been reversed and smallholdings are being encouraged. This to such an extent even that some years ago the President signed a decree into law which gives every Russian citizens, and even some “just” residents, the right to between one and six hectare of land – depending on the region – to be held by them and their kin (or anyone else the owner might with to pass it on to) in perpetuity (though the land cannot be sold). In addition to that there are then grants (gifts) to the new landowner for the building of a home and also grants for farming tools and machines (small scale). The only obligation for the owners is to live on the land, and produce food for themselves and their families, with any surplus to be sold on the local market.

According to sources about 80% of all fruit and vegetables on the Russian markets come from such small dachas, as does 40% of all meat and 20% of all grain.

We have to remember that the products on the markets are the surplus produced by those small farms. That is to say produce that does not stay on the farm to feed the family or families living there, or as seed for the next year, neither does it account for produce and products that may have been bartered between such smallholdings or with people in the surrounding villages.

The small independent farmer can also supply people outside the big supply chain and that is just the reason why the global elite want the small independent farmer gone and want everything done by the large conglomerate industrial scale farms. It is all about controlling the food supply.

Environmentally though, it is those large farms that are actually bad for the environment as they are mono-cultures in general and, in contrast, the small independent farmers, especially the smallholdings, are actually beneficial as the methods are, generally, of a different approach than those of the large farms in that rarely mono-cultures are employed but they are mixed arable and livestock combined.

While the powers that be always harp on about the environment and such instead of supporting small farmers and smallholdings they do the opposite.

When it comes to protection of the environment then it is more small independent (family) farms and smallholdings that we need and far fewer, if any, large corporate conglomerate industrial farms. Not just the results in Russia, but in many other countries, have shown that small (family) farms can better provide food security than the large ones, while, at the same time being able to benefit the environment. But that is just what the globalists do not seem to want. The food produced by independent farmers they are unable to control and control is what they are about.

The more or less ban on saving seeds and selling, bartering or giving away saved seeds, as well as the patents on seeds and plants must be seen in this context of control over the food system.

2024 © Michael Smith

People are still not getting reuse & recycling

2023-12-31T06:46:00.000-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

People are still not getting reuse & recycling despite the fact that either or even both are indicated clearly enough on the packaging, for instance.

A case in point I have come across the other day with an empty bottle of Nero Water (comes in an aluminium bottle) thrown into the trashcan. The bottle is clearly marked with “Refill me” and also with the recycling information.

There would have been a time, and I am of that generation for sure, where reuse (that was before recycling was called recycling and that easy as today) would have been so very obvious with so many packaging products.

Today's generation seems to have need to be told that reuse is possible, or recycling, and how. Many packaging products, such a biscuit tins, and such, including this bottle in question, have instructions, more or less, how to reuse them.

I really had to laugh when on biscuit tins it stated: “Can be reused for biscuits or cakes.” Erm, what precisely was in that tin? Biscuits. So why does someone have to be told that they could use it to put biscuits in it?

I sometimes really wonder what has happened to people in the last 40 years and especially to their minds. Somewhere along the line something went seriously wrong, for sure.

For us of the slightly older generations this came just naturally because, I would guess, we saw our parents and grandparents do it. Often packaging came also with an immediate reuse apparent, such as the glasses in which mustard and, for some time even, Nutella and similar products came in. They were obvious drinking glasses and were reused as such.

As for reuse of biscuit tins; they were reused for biscuits and almost everything else. Many a child wishing to steal a biscuit at grandma's from a tin that so obviously must have biscuits in it going by the picture on the lid was disappointed to find just buttons in there or other sewing gear.

For some reuse one does need some imagination but when the container, or whatever, already has a reuse, or recycling ability, indicated why then does that end up in a littler bin rather than being reused or recycled? Laziness, no doubt, is a main reason for this.

Then again we can even see this at environmental rallies when the recyclables are all in the general litter bins then content of which is not sorted but ends up in landfill. So much for protesting for the environment.

Today's generation is not so much the last generation but very much a lost generation and one that has lost the plot.

Frugal Living is back

2023-05-01T06:08:00.000-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

For some of us, to be honest, it has never gone away regardless as to whether we may have the money to splurge somewhat or not. It is an ingrained way of life; to me at least. I grew up poor.

Some very frugal people happen to be those of the old money in the UK, as I have encountered. Those of what we call the new money are a different breed and they seem to have no inclination often to conserve resources and to live a frugal lifestyle.

Sometimes it is understandable for some of them have come into money through often hard work now owning their own small to medium size business as builders and such and who frequently have come for a poorer background and now they are trying to live on a higher plane.

But, often like most, they are only a paycheck, so to speak, away from falling down again but they refuse to see it and live the life of Riley, as they say in this country.

Among the “old money” folks, even some of the aristocracy, if one knows those people on a personal level, there is a kind of frugality that was common with everyone not so long ago. It is, probably, for that reason that many of them still have money.

Those that once were poor and have come into money, either by work opportunity and success, by inheritance or, like a couple, by winning the lottery, literally, seem to immediately go on spending sprees as if there is no tomorrow and in the early days of the lottery we used to hear some of the tales of someone having won tens of millions and then a number of years later finding themselves more or less penniless again.

They, more than, despite of being poor were never taught proper frugality and thus as soon as they have money they run away spending, spending and spending, on things that have no long lasting value.

But, alas, I digressed, as usual.

Frugality now is back, I should guess, with the so-called “cost of living crisis”, a crisis that is totally of the governments own making but affects the people and those of the least income worst of all.

Some, however, do not know, and have never really know, what it is and means to live frugally. One can see that especially by what they waste, the things that they toss out because, as far as they are concerned it is obsolete, the food they waste because they have no idea how to cook from and with leftovers, and so forth. And many of those who are doing that are just the people who do not actually have the money to waste.

While frugal living to some of us is very much an ingrained way of life and living some will have to learn it and learn what it means to be and live frugally.

Making do is one part of that for sure and that means, as far as I am concerned, how things can be reused and upcycled, whatever this may be. The only problem that I have encountered with that mindset is that there are way too many things one comes across where the mind says “this may come in handy (some day)” and then one starts accumulating all those things and requires a barn to store them, and then finding the time to actually use those items, unless they are what could be classed as “spare parts” for something.

Having grown up relatively poor but from a family where reuse and all that was a mindset I still today try to make things rather than having to buy them. If I can make something that I want or need, or reuse and refurbish something someone else has tossed out, then I will do so rather than spending money on buying it new.

The same goes for food, in a way, though different, obviously. I do not tend to order in or go out to eat – anyway to some degree an anathema among my People proper – but cook from scratch. That way I do know what is in the dish and also I know how to make use of leftovers, if there are any. The latter is something that, alas, many people, even and especially of the poorer in society, no longer seem to know how.

The new frugality is nowadays more found among those who do have some money to spare, in a similar way as it is and was always the case with those of the “old” money. Those that really should have that mindset do not, as yet, have acquired it and then wonder why they cannot make ends meet.

Having said that, however, does not mean that it would help with paying many of the bills, especially with regards to energy, etc., as the “cost of living crisis”, as it is being called, is not their fault but, as said already, that of the respective governments. It is also not the fault of a country in the far east of Europe. Capitalism is the reason and nothing else.

London is in the midst of a cycling boom

2023-02-08T07:31:00.002-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a report by Transport for London (TfL) legions of Londoners have embraced cycling during the pandemic.

It found that bike journeys are up by a quarter compared to pre-pandemic levels, with an 82 per cent rise observed at the weekends. Almost 800,000 journeys a day are now made by bike; TfL wants that figure to be 1.3m by 2024.

The news follows the publication of another TfL report a week before, which found the number of cycling fatalities in London hit a record low in 2021.

While I have to admit that I have yet to full read the report to actually bring about a real uptake of cycling for the majority a proper and safe cycling infrastructure has to be created and not just in London.

It is more important even and especially in the suburbs and the areas servicing, so to speak, London, but then again not only there but this is applicable to all cities and towns in this country.

Also the countryside needs such a cycling infrastructure in order for cycling to become and be an alternative to the use of the motorcar and, when it comes to the countryside, the villages and small towns, other infrastructure too needs to be invested in, recreated and created, so that shops and other facilities are within cycling range, including schools.

It is a sad state of affairs that, even in London, cycle lanes are, in the main, a farce, as they are either part of the road itself without any physical separation between cyclist and general traffic, like most of them are on the European mainland in countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc., and that even those lanes that there are are (1) not protected from cars parking on them and (2) that they are often only very short before becoming a normal road again.

The talk is there about getting more and more people to use the bicycle instead of the car, especially for shorter journeys, but the political will does not seem to be present to actually create the right infrastructure for people, including and especially children and the not so confident, to safely take up the bike and use it regularly.

On the other hand there is also a problem with the attitude of many cyclists in the UK, and I am saying that being a cyclist myself (I do not own or use a car), in that many ride as if they are competing in the Tour de France or such an event and behave abysmal, ignoring traffic lights and zebra crossings, for instance.

Would it not be for such people with such attitudes one could safely, as is done in many countries, allow the dual use of the sidewalks for pedestrians and cyclists.

I cannot fathom why cyclists, much like drivers, in the UK have an aggressive style of riding unlike people in countries where there is a real cycling culture, be it the Netherlands, France or Germany, per example. In a number of places in those countries I have encountered the amicable sharing of sidewalks, albeit somewhat wider than most of them we encounter in the UK, between pedestrians and cyclists, with cyclists giving pedestrians priority.

The message of reuse is still not getting through

2022-11-11T12:15:00.002-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

I have written about this problem of how people do not seem to understand the principle of reuse many times already and that even if the message is printed large on the wrapper of the box.

Only the other day in my work (I am a groundsman in a municipal park in my general life) a plastic box from muffins that is intended to be reused as a storage box, sandwich box, box for storage of leftovers in the fridge, or whatever tickles your fancy, thrown into the bin. Nothing wrong with it and the label on it actually states “reusable”. Needless to say that I rescued said box and it will be reused/used.

The origin of the box, despite having removed the wrapper without thinking, has been located with a little research on the Internet and is from Island (no, not the country but the store) and from Choc Chip Muffins of their Brompton House range, and the message of reuse is relatively big printed on it.

However, it really would appear that some people, even when the reuse message, and even suggestions for reuse, are printed on the wrapper or the box itself, as is the case with some, unfortunately still do not get the message.

When I was growing up, for some reason, the great majority of the people had a mindset that was looking for a reuse potential in most packaging, whether glass jars, tin cans, boxes of various kinds, and so on. Now the majority seem to have but one mindset, namely that of “toss out”.

But, as I have written before, this is by far the first, and I am sure also will not be the last, of such cases. There have been incidences where entire new picnic sets, with real cutlery, bought on the day from IKEA have been thrown, in the IKEA bag with the receipt even in the bag, into the bin. Well, they were dirty and what is one to do with dirty dishes but to thrown them.

It totally beggars belief that, if not for the environment then for their own pocketbooks, such things should not be tossed out. As my dear old Grandpa always said, “we'll reuse the things because we have paid for them when we bought the things in them”.

We did not have to be told that a container, in those days mostly metal, that had biscuits (cookies) in them could be reused as a cookie tin. It was obvious. And they were reused not just for cookies. Grandma had her sewing stuff in one, something else in another and yet something different in yet another.

Smaller glass jars of all kinds were reused for drinking vessels, especially for us clumsy kids, because glasses were expensive, as far as our parents and grandparents were concerned, for us to drop and break them. If we broke a “drinking” jar there always was another one. Larger glass jars, especially with screw tops, because storage jars. And so on and so forth. Today, it would appear, people need YouTube videos with instructions to, maybe, get the idea of how to reuse glass jars and other things.

For some reason, even without a message printed on the packaging, such as boxes, glass jars, etc., we knew, when I was a child, how to make use of those things that came with most of things that we bought in such a way, and that even included tin cans.

When it came to tin can our family used to make things from them for resale on the markets even and people indeed would buy them. And our family was not the only one and we can still find this in many other countries.

The mindset of those days and years seems to have disappeared, in Britain at least, somewhere in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the disposable economy, for lack of a better word, came into force.

Even though the message is repeated time and again the how to knowledge seems to be lacking today as it has disappeared, it would appear, through lack of use. Time to go back to the future.

Continued disruption of seasonal weather is causing spring activities in autumn

2022-11-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Woodland Trust warns that continued disruption of seasonal weather may be causing confusion for wildlife.

After a year which saw a ‘split spring’, heatwaves, droughts and a false autumn, the UK’s wildlife may be starting to confuse its seasonal activities as spring sightings are reported in October.

There have been reports of second flowering for horse chestnut trees, new leaves on species like ash, and plenty of active amphibians and butterflies, and the two former I can verify myself as a professional groundsman aside from a writer. Also at the Park for which I am responsible a bird cherry tree (more like a shrub as it keeps being coppiced) is again in flower and is sprouting new leaves.

We would normally expect butterflies and newts to be going into hibernation around now, and we would also not expect trees to regrow their leaves and flower or flower and then get new leaves, as in the case of prunus species, of which birch cherry is one.

Warmer weather in autumn can extend the growing periods for plants and allows more foraging time for animals, which in the short term gives them a chance to recover from the summer heatwaves and drought. And while we can expect, after heat and drought as we have been experiencing especially in the southern parts of the UK this summer with trees shedding their leaves as a protection mechanism, some new leaves forming prior to them being shed in autumn in some cases the trees are so confused that they seem to believe spring having arrived already.

Squirrels too, seeing that many females appear to be suckling, seem to have decided that either it is nowhere near autumn yet or that spring has arrived already, appear to have another litter. Not that there weren't enough of those gray menaces around already who, this year, have taken their toll on the trees in that this year they have done a lot more bark stripping that usual and even on species that they not normally strip.

However, if extreme weather like we have had this summer becomes increasingly common, disruption to natural cycles may throw species out of sync. Butterflies, for example, rely on a period of dormancy during winter to save energy while food is scarce, and many plants require a spell of cold weather in winter to drive germination in spring.

It’s not just animals that struggle with rising autumn temperatures longer-term as tree’s rely on cold spells to help kill off and stall the spread of pests and diseases.

Alisha Anstee, Lead Policy Advocate for Tree Health and Invasive Species at Woodland Trust said, “Climate change is likely to lead to a multitude of challenges for our trees and woodlands. One area that is not exempt is the threats posed to trees by pests and diseases.

As our climate changes over time our trees are likely to be more stressed which means they will be more susceptible to the impacts of pests and diseases. Warmer temperatures will likely lead to more pests and diseases being able to thrive in the UK. These species may previously have been unable to survive in the cooler UK but an increase of up to 2 degrees could reverse this.”

Dr Lewthwaite continues, “A changing climate means changing seasons. We already know that spring is arriving an average of 8.4 days earlier each year, but not so much is known about autumn.”

Whether we can lay all the blame at the door of climate change is a question but the truth is that the UK, at least the southern parts, have not been experiencing a proper set of seasons, as there used to be for some decades by now.

This year's events could be due, to some extent to the, and that already for some tens of years, wobbling, for lack of a better word, of the jet stream. One could almost assume it to be rather drunk. And in addition to that we seem to be having a serious La Niña pattern this summer.

However, who, at least in the southern parts of the UK, can remember having even remotely have had a proper autumn and winter in the last couple of years. I doubt that anyone can. Snow has become – and, as far as I am concerned good that is too, as I do not like snow – restricted to a couple of days, maybe and the same is true for any real frost. I am old enough to remember real winters in this part of the country lasting for weeks and months. No wonder, therefore, that the natural world is confused because, unlike us humans, it takes them all much longer to adapt.

As far as tree pests and diseases are concerned we have seen the arrival of Horse Chestnut bleeding canker about a little over 20+ years ago and then the Horse Chestnut leaf miner (Cameraria ohridella), the latter being a pest that likes it a little on the mild side. For its larvae to be killed off it requires a good frost that reaches well into the leaf litter. One can but wonder whether the reason we have so many new tree diseases arriving on our shores, aside from bad biosecurity, is the fact that those pathogen actually thrive now in our much milder “seasons.”

Autumn still to arrive say Forestry England experts

2022-09-04T10:08:00.002-07:00

Today, marks the first day of autumn according to the meteorological calendar. And although we have already seen various signs that could be mistaken as autumn, such as leaf drop, Forestry England experts say autumn is still yet to arrive.

The very high temperatures experienced this summer, coupled with lots of sunshine and lack of rain means that some tree species such as leatherwood, hazel, witch alder and bladdernut are showing signs of stress, also known as ‘summer leaf drop’. However, Forestry England experts are reassuring visitors that we can still expect impressive displays of vibrant autumn hues this year

Andrew Smith, Director at Forestry England’s National Arboretum at Westonbirt, Gloucestershire, explains:

“Many factors contribute to when leaves will change colour and drop. Shallow soils and drought can cause stress to some tree species, triggering some leaves to change colour and drop early.

“This is known as ‘summer leaf drop’ where trees are reacting to their environment and adapting their growth accordingly. When it’s hot and dry, a tree realises it is losing too much water so drops some of its leaves.This can be mistaken as a ‘false autumn’ but typically only 20% of a tree’s leaves are lost which means there are still plenty left to put on a spectacular autumn show.

“If we continue to experience warm days in early autumn, along with spells of rain and cooler nights then we could still see a spectacular show of seasonal colour in our nation’s woodlands.”

It can be misleading, noticing leaves turning yellow and dropping everywhere, however Forestry England say it’s important not to confuse signs of stress in individual trees with the full arrival of autumn.

Andrew continued:

“Here at Westonbirt, we are noticing signs of autumn earlier each year. We have recorded leaf colour change at the arboretum since 2010 and we are already seeing earlier colouration of leaves and later dates of full leaf fall. I like to think of autumn as a firework display that rolls on with different colours appearing over several weeks. Climate change means that display is now lasting longer.

“If we have some spells of rain in the coming weeks and continue to experience above average temperatures, the climate will be ideal for maintaining sugar levels. This means that the leaves will stay attached to trees for longer and will have time to develop their autumnal shades.

“The length of display relies heavily on the weather throughout autumn. If it continues to be mild the leaves will have time for the build-up of chlorophyll to entirely fade and their dormant pigments to fully take over.”

To ensure that autumn is kept colourful for future generations and to increase the resilience of our nation’s forests in the fight against climate, Forestry England is working hard to plant lots of different species of trees in many woodlands which will fare well in the climate conditions predicted over the next decades. Sycamore, wild cherry, hornbeam, small-leaved lime, and oak to name a few should bring a riot of colour to our countryside for visitors to enjoy well into the future.

Source: Forestry England

The climate lockdown cometh

2022-08-23T11:34:00.003-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British Chief Scientist overnight morphed from a virologist to a climatologist (maybe even a Scientologist, who knows – apologies, I do have a sarcastic streak).

In his speech on Monday, November 8, 2021 at COP 26 in Glasgow he said, among others (paraphrased): “Climate change is more dangerous than the pandemic could ever be and therefore it is important that governments have to force people to change their behavior and make changes in their lives and that governments introduce restrictions (to people's freedoms).”

What a while ago has been seen as figments of the minds of so-called conspiracy theorists appears to be now becoming reality. Whether it is being called a lockdown or not is not the issue.

I must say that I, and I am not alone in this, have seen this coming and, and hopefully I am wrong, the restriction of private motoring (as long as it is not by electric vehicle) as well as the restriction to private long distance journeys, especially by aircraft, and it could go as far, in my opinion, of government telling us, more or less what we can eat and what not, such as meat, could all be part of this. Currently they are doing this by persuasion, and other means of manipulations, but if that is not going to have the desired effect we can be certain that heavier guns are sure going to be brought to bear.

None of this has been said, so far, but the very idea of forcing – the man's very words – people to make changes to their behavior and lives and the idea of restrictions mentioned is an indication that such things could be in the offing.

Presently it is all done more or less by what could be called nudging and making people feel guilty, for instance about eating meat, and this agenda is currently very heavily peddled in the media, from print and online “newspapers” and magazines, to radio and television.

It has, however, already been rumored in certain quarters that some kind of “lockdowns” could be put in place where private (motor) vehicles may only be used by certain people at certain days. Anyone remember the restrictions during the so-called “oil crisis” when no one was permitted to drive on Sundays?

Now we have ideas of that nature coming from the Greens in Germany, especially directly from the Economy Minister Robert Habeck (Greens), and we are talking here about measures that a while ago were claimed to be fantasies of so-called conspiracy theorists.

What some of the so-called conspiracy theorists have been envisaging is not half as bad as what the governments are really planning, it would appear, and which has been ordered, more or less by bodies such as the UN and the WEF. The world government has arrived by the back door thanks to a certain virus claim.

The Ultra Low Emission Zone of London instigated by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, which is now being extended to all of even Greater London, is just another one of those things. This impacts greatly on people who cannot afford new low emission vehicles or EVs and some will not even be able to get to their own homes without each and every time crossing into the ULE even if they have not gone into London directly.

What it boils down to, really, is that certain powers are trying there very best to make private motoring impossible for all but those that have enough money to buy an EV. This is something that I, together with others, have been foreseen years ago already.

The talk of climate change is an agenda. Yes, the climate is changing and it has done so since the Earth has been existing and that about ever 500 years or so, and man has very little influence on that. Our problem, as far as the environment is concerned is pollution but the tackling of this the powers-that-be have tried to avoid for ever and an day. Pollution we can sort, climate change we have adapt to.

Climate change has become a means by the governments, especially the world government by the UN and the WEF, of people control and is being pushed through for that very purpose, together with supposed pandemics.

Is Climate Change real? Yes, it is. The climate is changing but we may be heading for peak heat and could be returning very soon to another mini ice age. That is the way the earth has been working ever since. In fact, we are due for another mini ice age and we may have, actually, averted it due to our activities.

On the other hand CO2 is the food for plants and without it, and without sunlight plants, and especially crops, will die. They will too in droughts, as we have experienced recently, but are droughts really anything new? No, they are not and neither are the drying up of rivers such as the Rhine. In the early 1900s the Elbe river dried up to such an extent that people could cross over on foot in the river bed at Magdeburg. The Rhine was been almost non-navigable due to low water levels many times in history but this must not be mentioned as it does not fit the agenda.

Bees, and other pollinators, for instance, are not dying because of climate change but because of the way we farm nowadays and have been for a while, throwing dangerous chemicals about.

We need adapt rather than trying to change the climate, or the weather, or both, especially not by means of so-called geoengineering. Being able to make it rain, for instance, is one thing and we can do that but we have no idea how to turn it off again. Trying to spray some aerosols in the sky to reduce sunlight also is not a great idea for sunlight is needed for plants to grow while, and we know that too, too much of it is not good also. Playing gods, on the other hand, is a bad idea altogether.

While reducing the use of combustion engines will reduce air pollution the wholesale use of electric vehicles will not make things better either. There we have the often hidden costs, whether in pollution or human misery and that very much so with regards to the mining and production of the materials needed for the batteries. Furthermore the electric supply change will not be able to handle all those vehicles being charged all the time. Thus, the ordinary punter will no longer be able to have and use his or her own car and thus be no longer able to get from A to B by his own means. I am not a driver and I do not own a car but I will defend anyone's right to own and use one, period.

Our most urgent thing or things to do, aside from adapting to a changing climate, is to reduce pollution on all levels and get away from the throw-away society of today. And also, and especially, from products made cheaply in developing and Third World countries which are cheap only because workers are exploited and environmental, as well as health and safety rules either do not exist or are being broken.

Most important, probably, is that, aside from the products being again, more or less, all made “at home”, in our respective countries, bringing some industries back home, products be made, once again, in such a way that they can be (easily) repaired. Not only will it be better for the consumer but also and especially, for the world around us because fewer things will go into holes in the ground.

It will make products more expensive in purchasing, that is true, but it will all pay for itself in the long run, and that on many levels.

But, and here comes the big but, industry, corporations, are not interested in such a sustainable model because it reduces their profits because things that do not easily break and can be easily and even cheaply be repaired mean that they, the corporations, cannot sell us the same product over and over again simply because it is broken and cannot be repaired. In the realm of politics there is also no willpower to force industry to make such changes.

There is an answer to it but that would require a complete change of our political system and landscape and would mean that most companies would be in public ownership or be co-operatives, as well as all utilities and such like. The system, or its predecessor, has been tried before and only failed because of pressure from the capitalist countries around them and especially from one particular quarter, one particular country, which thinks that it has to bring “democracy” and “free”-market capitalism to every country of the globe, if necessary by force of arms.

Politicians like to blame the ordinary people for the change in climate and believe that they, the politicians, have to force everyone to do the “right thing”, if necessary by means of sanctions.

The bicycle is the slow death of the planet

2022-06-12T11:30:00.002-07:00

A banker made the economists think this when he said, “A cyclist is a disaster for the country’s economy: he doesn’t buy cars and doesn’t borrow money to buy. He don't pay insurance policies Don't buy fuel, don't pay to have the car serviced and repairs needed. He doesn't use paid parking. Doesn't cause any major accidents. No need for multi-lane highways He is not getting obese

Healthy people are not necessary or useful to the economy. They are not buying the medicine. They don't go to hospitals or doctors. They add nothing to the country's GDP.”

“On the contrary, each new McDonald’s store creates at least 30 jobs – actually 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietitians and nutritionists – obviously as well as the people who work in the store itself.”

Choose wisely: a bike or a McDonald's? It's something to think about.

PS: walking is even worse. Pedestrians don't even buy a bicycle!

All we hear is planting trees

2022-06-12T07:27:00.002-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

All we keep hearing is that we should be planting trees to mitigate climate change but what first and foremost is needed is proper woodland management of the already existing woodlands, and not just of those in the UK.

Simply planting trees is going to do nothing. They will not just grow and thrive by themselves even though that seems to be the thinking of those who advocate planting more or less over management.

I have, literally, had self-proclaimed experts who have just read the books that suit them and their beliefs tell me that woods do not need management and that Nature will do it all herself. Yes, I am sure we have all seen Nature's gardening.

Natural regeneration in woodlands is something different to man-made woods, that is to say planted areas that are often plowed or such which then gives weeds, brambles and other such species a great chance to thrive and brambles especially, without the intervention of man, will soon take over, smothering the young trees, and I do not even want to talk about damage by animals, from small rodents, to squirrels and to larger animals, such as deer, in all sizes.

Before, however, we advocate the planting of more and more trees, often species not suited for a particular area, because the people deciding to do so know no better but think that they do, we need to go and manage our existing woodlands properly once again and here especially renovate the overstood coppice woods and bring them back into management. The same goes for the many thousands, probably, of hectares of unmanaged woods up and down the country, and that is just in the UK. Then, and only then, should the planting of new trees at a large(r) scale come into consideration.

However, those advocating the planting of more and more trees, more or less willy-nilly, are often of the misconception that just sticking those whips into the ground is enough and Nature will do the rest. Sorry, we have been here before only a paragraph or so back, I know, but just planting and forgetting does not work.

It requires as much management, if not more, than managing old woodlands. In fact, the management of old woodlands is, to a great extent, easier and less labor intensive than the management of newly planted woodlands, as the trees are already established ones.

So, let us first of all, concentrate on the proper management of our existing woodlands and restore them to working, worked and productive woodlands before we run amok planting trees everywhere, often the wrong trees in the wrong places and forgetting about them. And many of the so-called tree planting schemes do end up as “stick in and forget” operations and that does no good at all.

Our woods all were once worked for products and the wildlife, nevertheless or maybe actually because of it, thrived. Very little debris was left laying around on the woodland floor, most of it ended up as firewood, and that which was no good for that use was burned on site, but still we had creepy crawlies, insects, and everything else in profusion. Could it be actually that the modern practices, and especially the use of harvesters, have caused us the problems that we are told our woodlands have? Combined, I should think, with the lack of proper management of most of the smaller and difficult accessible woods as far as heavy machines are concerned.

In addition to that the bottom fell out of the market for home-produced smaller scale wooden products because capitalism made it thus. Instead of home-produced wooden utensils for kitchen, etc., and woven baskets, cheaper imports were sourced from Asian countries and much of it was then also replaced, as far as basket ware, for instance, is concerned, by plastic, once again cheap from Asian countries. But at what cost to the environments, our woods and the woodland workers?

We need to go back to the future, so to speak. In other words we need to get back to managing our woods the way we once used to, though not necessarily only by use of axe, billhook and handsaw.

World Bicycle Day

2022-06-04T04:48:00.002-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

June 3 is World Bicycle Day, or better to say was, as it is past and very few people, myself included, seem to have been aware of it. But as it is annually we can be better prepared for next year and celebrate it in our own ways.

It is nice to see that the humble bicycle has got a world day nowadays and it is a shame that it has not been well publicized – or so, at least, it appears to me.

In April 2018, the United Nations General Assembly declared June 3 as World Bicycle Day. The resolution for World Bicycle Day recognizes “the uniqueness, longevity and versatility of the bicycle, which has been in use for two centuries, and that it is a simple, affordable, reliable, clean and environmentally fit sustainable means of transport.”

Despite the fact that it has been declared several years ago now knowledge of the fact seems to be very thin on the ground. OK, the Day is only four years old so far but, nevertheless.

Had it not been for a Facebook post from Radio Havana Cuba I would have been blissfully unaware of this World Day honoring the humble two wheeler and it is for that reason that I use Radio Havana's picture in this post about it.

When it comes to environmentally friendly travel the humble bicycle can hardly be beaten and, aside from obviously the danger of an accident, the health benefits of cycling are legion. It is also the best “toy” any child can ever be given.

How do I stand as far as e-bikes are concerned in this equation, some may ask. While the e-bike is being hyped by many environmental writers – and I once did so as well – I have to say that, in my opinion, the standard, the simplest bicycle, will beat the e-bike hands down and that especially as to cost and maintenance.

The upfront cost of an e-bike is so much higher than that of an ordinary bicycle and every three to five years a new battery will be needed – as I have found out – and there is no guarantee that the new battery actually is as good as the original first one, as I have experienced. Therefore, all I can say, is let us stick with the old-fashioned bicycle, even though riding an e-bike is so much easier.

The old-fashioned bicycle beats the e-bike hands down especially in the maintenance and cost department. Most maintenance of an ordinary bicycle can be carried out by the use with even a minimum of skills and does not require a shop and mechanic to do it. No motor and such. However, what when the motor of an e-bike is having problems? OK, let's leave it then and just consider the benefits of the bicycle in general and especially in view of the World Day many of us missed to celebrate.

Fostering a reuse and repair culture

2022-05-15T07:13:00.002-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The talk is frequently, at the present moment in time at least, about (establishing) a circular economy but such an economy requires much more than just recycling which, more often than not, has become a scam.

It requires first and foremost an approach to reuse, and before that already to refuse, especially when it comes to packaging. Then we need to return to repair and that means that products will first of all be made repairable again, and that is down to industry.

However, all too often all that the idea of a circular economy seems to entail, when one hears the talk, is that things are made and at the end of their lives – and no one seems to think about extending their lives through repairability – they get recycled, as they call it. That is not the way to go.

Learning, once again, reuse, as our parents, grandparents and their parents practiced, in that, when it came to much of the packaging, which in their days was mostly glass, tin and paper/card, it was put to use again rather than thrown.

Glass jar are the prime example here. They were used to store all manner of things and they actually were used as drinking vessels, something that has become fashionable today only that today's drinking jars are purpose made for that job. They weren't in the “old” days. Ordinary glass jar were being used for that purpose and I am sure that the term “let's have a jar” comes from that practice. Working class men, going to the pub, had to provide their own vessels; tankards were only for those patrons who were wealthy enough to be able to afford them.

But I digressed a little. But, we do must take a leaf, or better quite a number of them, out of the book of our ancestors and their ancestors to get some normality into the world again on the level of waste and waste management.

Also, as mentioned already, we must get back to having products that are made to last and which, should anything go wrong with them, can be repaired. In order for that to word we also need the repairmen and -women back, so to speak, for very few are there today who, for instance, can repair a boot or show properly especially when it comes to stitching and sewing seams in leather. Fixing, say, a leather midsole back top the upper is a job few can do today as, as I was told, they don't have a machine for that. It does not, however, require a machine but two bent needles and some waxed thread and, obviously, the skill to actually use those said needles and thread in the proper way.

Not so long ago everywhere there were repairmen and -women for all manner of things and in the German Democratic Republic, often referred to as East Germany, there as a true repair economy in operation with business cooperatives and state-owned enterprises doing nothing but repair. They repaired bed linen, clothes, shoes, electrical goods, bicycles, and everything else we could but think of.

But then again products were made in such a way that they could be repaired and not only by trained professionals; many things could be fixed by anyone a little handy with some tools. But that is just not in the interest of the corporations who want to sell us the same thing over and over again and therefore they design a very short lifespan into the products nowadays.

When it comes to fashion and the fashion industry they are a rather large culprit because clothes are made cheaply – yes, the majority want cheap clothes because they want to change style and whatever every five minutes – by more or less slave labor and definitely child labor in China and countries of the Third World (yes, I am still using that term) to a very low standard more often than not that they don't last more than a few months to a year.

Fine for children who outgrow their clothes quickly but then again in time gone by hand-me-downs were worn by kids. Often passed from one to the other and then further afield even. If those came not from their own older siblings then from older children from family and friends, or the jumble sale. And those clothes also were mended and patched when they got torn. But hey, what about street cred and peer pressures and all that? Some years ago it had to be Adidas, then Lacoste, Fila, Nike, and I have no idea what it is now. Do kids, or even adults, really have to follow the dictates of the fashion industry.

We could go on and on and on about this with many more examples of how things were before the corporations introduced and designed obsolescence into each and every product. Therefore industry must be forced by politics – and us, the consumers – to abandon this practice and return to the production of repairable goods, if we are ever to get anywhere.

This requires action, however, from governments but most importantly from us, the consumers, for we hold the purse strings, literally. If we decide not to buy from those who do not produce according to what we want to buy then they will have to change or go out of business. We are, literally, their masters through our purchasing power and purchasing habits.

Cheap electric cars cost at least 21000 €

2022-04-17T07:21:00.002-07:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Cheap electric cars cost at least 21000 €. If you can afford it, you will get 6,000 € back from the German state. If you cannot afford an electric car, however, you still have to pay for bus and train or fuel. For those who cannot afford an expensive electric car, there is no € 6000 for sustainable mobility.

This policy is designed to protect the climate, or so they say. But it is socially unjust. Because who benefits from it is obvious: 48 percent of households with the lowest income in Germany do not have a car. This means that the wealthy in particular benefit from the e-car premium.

Those on low incomes will have to continue to pay for public transport travel or have to walk or bike or have to pay for fuel for the “ordinary” car. Considering, however, that “ordinary” cars are to be phased out from production and then from use in the not too distant future where does that leave the poorer in society? It leaves them out of pocket while the richer ones have pocketed (pardon the pun) the premium.

Half of the households with the highest incomes have two, three or more cars. Because you can afford electric cars, this means that you can get the purchase premium two, three times or even more. Thus, a sum equal to an average annual salary quickly comes together. Is that fair?

It is especially low-wage earners (e.g. employees in the retail trade or parcel delivery companies) who are dependent on mobility in everyday life. Because you can not work in the home office. It is they who “keep the store running”.

In addition to the initial purchase cost there is the issue that the battery has a limited lifespan and if the case of e-bike batteries is anything to go by then they last probably five years or thereabouts. Replacement cost of a battery, again judging from those of e-bikes, will amount to at least one third of the cost of the car itself. And I do not even want to talk about the environmental costs of the batteries, which are huge, both to the planet and the often child slaves who are digging up the materials.

Anyone who wants fewer people to drive a car must therefore not promote the purchase of a car, but must make buses and trains cheaper. Only in this way can we protect the climate in the long term. Not only that but our towns and cities must be made also walkable and a proper cycling infrastructure must be created, and that not just in towns and cities but also in the rural areas.

The rural areas must, once again, also have stores within reach of the people without them having to resort to using the car and which can be reached by bicycle or on foot. Even in the Unites States and such large places it ones was thus that there were general stores within reach of people, and those stores were not just in the nearest towns. They were, in fact, at road junctions serving a number of homes and farms around, at times being a farmstead also. In addition to that mobile stores plied their trade to the rural homes and farms. In a way we need to go back to the future to really change things for the better. Electric vehicles of whatever kind are not the answer.

How bicycles transformed our world

2022-03-10T11:09:00.002-08:00

...and could do so again, maybe

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Corona virus pandemic has sparked a two-wheeled transport boom in many parts of the globe. But this isn't the first time bicycles have been the hottest machines on the market.

If history doesn't quite repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. With demand for bicycles soaring, and nations preparing to spend billions to redesign their cities with a new focus on cycling and walking, it's worth remembering how the advent of the bicycle in the late 19th century transformed societies the world over.

It was then a hugely disruptive technology, easily the equivalent of the smartphone today. For a few heady years in the 1890s, the bicycle was the ultimate “must-have” swift, affordable, stylish transportation that could whisk you anywhere you cared to go, anytime you liked, for free. And it enabled the poorer in society to cover ranges – if the could afford a bicycle – that previously was only accessible to those with a horse and who could ride.

Almost anyone could learn to ride, and almost everyone did. The sultan of Zanzibar took up cycling. So did the Czar of Russia. The Emir of Kabul bought bicycles for his entire harem.

But it was the middle and working classes around the globe that truly made the bicycle their own. For the first time in history, the masses were mobile, able to come and go as they pleased. No more need for expensive horses and carriages. The “people's nag,” as the bicycle became known as, was not only lightweight, affordable, and easy to maintain, it was also the fastest thing on the roads.

The person generally credited with inventing the modern bicycle was an Englishman named John Kemp Starley. His uncle, James Starley, had developed the penny-farthing in the 1870s. Suspecting that there might be greater demand for bicycles if they weren't so scary and dangerous to ride, in 1885 the 30-year-old inventor began experimenting in his Coventry workshop with a chain-driven bicycle featuring two much smaller wheels. After testing several prototypes, he came up with the Rover safety bicycle, a 45-pound machine that more or less resembles what today we think of as a bicycle.

When first displayed at a bicycle show in 1886, Starley's invention was regarded as a curiosity. But two years later, when it was paired with the newly invented pneumatic tire – which not only cushioned the ride but also made the new safety bicycle about 30 percent faster – the result was magic.

Bicycle makers around the world scrambled to offer their own versions, and hundreds of new companies sprang up to meet demand. At the Stanley Bicycle Show in London in 1895, some 200 bicycle makers exhibited 3,000 models.

The insatiable demand for bicycles spawned other industries – ball bearings, wire for spokes, steel tubing, precision toolmaking – that would shape the manufacturing world long after the bicycle was relegated to the toy department, at least in the United States, though it should have never headed that way.

With a bicycle anything seemed possible, and ordinary people set off on extraordinary journeys. In the summer of 1890, for instance, a young lieutenant in the Russian army pedaled from St. Petersburg to London, averaging 70 miles a day. In September 1894, 24-year-old Annie Londonderry set out from Chicago with a change of clothes and a pearl-handled revolver to become the first woman to cycle around the world. Just under a year later she arrived back in Chicago and collected a $10,000 prize.

In Australia, itinerant shearers routinely rode hundreds of miles across the waterless outback looking for work. They set out on these trips as though they were rides in the park, recalled newspaper correspondent C.E.W. Bean in his book On The Wool Track.

In the American West, during the summer of 1897, the U.S. Army's 25th Regiment – an African-American unit known as the Buffalo Soldiers – made an extraordinary 1,900- mile trek from Fort Missoula, Montana, to St. Louis, Missouri, to demonstrate the usefulness of bicycles to the military. Carrying full kit and carbines and riding over rough, muddy tracks, the Buffalo Soldiers averaged nearly 50 miles a day – twice as fast as a cavalry unit, and at a third the cost.

If we are really serious about carbon reduction and all that then the humble bicycle needs to be brought back into use on a big scale. Forget the e-Bikes, though, and especially the electric cars.

When we look to rural India the bicycle is still the main means of transportation as long as it is not all too heavy haulage, though at times you wonder what they are thinking when you see what they load on their bicycles, and what some tow behind. The same goes for many parts of Africa.

But, in order for the bicycle have a real revival, which it must have, we need the proper infrastructure to go with it, not just some tinkering at the edges or a slight change in the highway code, as was done recently in Britain. That does not go anywhere far enough. In fact, it does not really help at all.

If the governments are truly honest about encouraging people to change their behavior as to travel and try to encourage walking and especially the use of the bicycle for short to medium distances at least then the proper infrastructure has to be created and put in place and those must include proper cycle paths. Cycle paths, not lanes that form part of the normal road, like those in many countries on the European mainland and which are, while along the roads, not part of them but, basically, part of the sidewalks.

The benefits of growing up

2022-02-17T05:56:00.002-08:00

No, not that kind of growing up but gardening vertically

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

If you have ever considered growing your garden vertically then do it. If haven't then why not give it a try. Not only can it absolutely stunning visually, but it also provides many benefits as well.

You are able to grow more in less space and thus maximize limited space and especially if you live in town, gardening vertically can provide you a nice and useful privacy screen even though mostly only during the growing season.

It increases accessibility as it is so much easier to harvest your yield, as long as you do not put it up that high – or let the plants grow that tall – that the produce is way too far up. Have done that with beans and know.

It keeps your crop up and off the ground, so it provides great pest prevention and prevents ground rot and it also provides proper air flow to keep diseases, fungi, and powder mildew down which results in healthier plants and can – I did say can – provide a higher crop yield.

Theoretically it also gives the plants more sun exposure. I do theoretically because it all depends also in growing this way from which direction most of your property gets the sun.

Gardening in this way also makes for cleaner and more visually appealing crops because they are not in the dirt, and are able to grow to their true shape with no flat sides or discoloration from sitting in the soil.

And growing vertical is not just trellises and such, as far as I am concerned, but hanging baskets too can be successfully employed in this and I have started growing strawberries in hanging baskets with the result that they are not attacked by slugs – they can't get to them – and not even by birds.

Swiss Chard, for instance, with its more often than not multi-colored foliage looks quite stunning in hanging baskets and if they are hung by, or near, the door you only have to step out to harvest. Same goes for herbs and spices.

Window boxes, and not only used at the windows but fixed to fences, etc., also provide a good growing space. And here you can also improvise, reuse and upcycle for the window box does not have to be a window box nor does it have to be a box at all, or not have been one originally. Thinking out of the box here helps to save money. Also, as far as trellises and other “risers” go, upcycling is very much the way to go.

Any plant that climbs, theoretically, such as cucumbers and other squashes, bean and peas, and those that can be trained to grow that way, should be led up – no, not the garden path – trellises and other such structures.

In Spanish villages one can often observe entire walls of houses with plant pots fixed to them full of all kinds of flowering plants, predominately though geraniums. The same can, however, also be done with edible plants and flowers. And why not mix your pots with crops with pots with flowering plants. Again though, as far as the crops are concerned, do not put them up too high.

I do two things in my approach to gardening. Where I can I use containers, tubs and others, on the ground or, as I am now going over to, seated on old pallets to keep them somewhat off the ground, and I grow upwards, so to speak, in hanging baskets, trellises and wall-“containers” – and that here means anything from pots in holders to window boxes screwed to the wall and the like.

If you, like me, grow beans in a large container, and do not – though I do – have access to bean poles then go the old Victorian kitchen garden way and use one pole in the middle with strings attached that are used for the bean runners to grow up on. (See picture) The Edwardians and Victorians actually, the rich houses, had for their kitchen gardens when growing beans, a special cast iron pole with attachments for the strings but something like that can easily be created by means of upcycling (as in the photo) or by using a wooden pole and attaching the strings. A number of screw in eye hooks could be used to which to attach the strings to the pole.

There are many ways to gardening vertically and this can even be employed if you use the garden itself with raised beds and the like. It gives you additional space and, again, keeps many of the crops off the ground keeping them cleaner and healthier.

For much more information that I could possibly give you in an article check out Mark Ridsdill Smith (no relation) and his Vertical Veg operation at Vertical Veg and in the group that goes with it, Vertical Veg Community on Facebook.

America stocks logs

2022-02-11T10:06:00.002-08:00

Red-hot firewood price fueled by energy crisis

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Americans are turning to firewood in their droves after oil and gas prices rocketed in recent months, with around 1.7MN homes expected to rely on it as their source of heating.

Stove vendors are reporting huge jumps in sales, while firewood itself is selling at up to 33% more than last year.

Around 8% of American households are expected to rely on this “rudimentary” fuel as a main or secondary heating source through winter.

I know that when it comes to the environment and emissions there are many who will now state how bad this situation is but the truth is that the only emissions, as far as CO2 is concerned, is the carbon that the tree sequestered throughout its life. No more. So, theoretically, burning wood is carbon neutral. Alas, depending on how dry the wood is, there are nano-particles in the smoke to be considered, I know.

On the other hand when we see this increase in firewood sales, in the US and probably elsewhere, we have to ask where the wood is coming from and how sustainably it has been grown, harvested and whether it comes from a sustainable operation in that the woods are maintained in a rotation.

We saw in Britain some years back that the firewood being sold came from almost untraceable operations abroad in the main, and from as far afield as Belarus. Very little was actually homegrown and harvested. Sustainable this definitely was not but imports were cheaper, as far as the sellers were concerned, than homegrown. No wonder our woods and our woodland workers and owners cannot make any money in that field.

Importing firewood logs from abroad is not sustainable, neither in the short nor the long run, but then again, as far as the UK is concerned, it makes the laws for homegrown wood fuel more and more difficult, all in attempt to make it impossible for people to heat their homes from sources outside the control of the big corporations and the state. In fact, the UK is not far off banning all wood-burning stoves altogether. They keep talking about net zero but wood fuel is – basically – net zero.

We need to stop buying unnecessary stuff

2022-01-11T10:50:00.002-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Our ridiculous addiction to acquiring more possessions is stuffing up the planet, so it’s time to call in the experts

Some time ago a person who was an early adopter of environmental concerns wanted a new kitchen. He asked an expert he knew from his work in woodland conservation what wood his new kitchen should be built with. He was startled to get a sharp response: “If you really care, then don't come to me asking which wood to use; ask yourself if you really need a new kitchen.”

A point well made but one that very few people take to heart and act upon and it does not just go for a kitchen. It equally well goes for the cellphone, the car, or whatever. We may want something because everyone else does want this new one but we, at least if we are truly concerned about our environmental impact, as to whether we really need it, or whether it is just a want and not a need.

People often have difficulties to differentiate between wants and needs, and this goes for all ages. While children may express a want as a need they more often actually know that they just want this new toy or whatever else simply because it is new (to them) or because Johnny down the street has one, in that they say “I want” and often add “because...” Many adults do not seem to see that the need they perceive is actually just the same a want and that they do not really need the thing they want.

While we all have to buy things for (daily) consumption, from food, to toiletries and other things, and those are real needs, more often than not, many of the things we tend to buy we do not really need but we want them.

Does one really need a new smartphone – I hasten to add I don't own one – while the old one is not even that old and works perfectly well and does all the things we use it for well? No, but many want a new one just because of the advertising promises about the new bells and whistles on the new one.

This goes for a great many things in that we always need to ask ourselves the question as to whether we really need a new one, whatever it may be, or whether it is a want and whether, if we would be honest with ourselves and everyone else, we could not actually be using the thing that we have and are using.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is an old adage, though one from, as we would say here, across the pond, but it is,m nevertheless, a good one. Which also means if it does not need to be fixed then we could continue to use it. And, well, if it is broke we should then ask ourselves could we fix it or could it be fixed, rather than tossed and a new one bought.

There are also other occasions, and I certainly, wherever possible, try to do that, when it is a case I can buy that but I can also make that, from scrap wood or whatever other material around, including by means of upcycling “waste”. It may take some skills and a great deal more effort to make it yourself but aside from the satisfaction of being able to say “I made that” you may have prevented a great deal of carbon emissions and also stopped something going to landfill. If I can make something I am not going to buy it and there have been many, many occasions when I have employed that adage of mine. It may not be exactly as the thing in the catalog, so to speak, but it fulfills the very same purpose.

Rom Polska Stirring Wood, the ideal tool for the minimalist kitchen

2021-12-04T10:08:00.003-08:00

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Rom Polska Stirring Wood, you could call it a stirring spatula if you would so wish but it is not really a spatula, but what I am using is the literal translation of the word, is the ideal tool for the minimalist kitchen when one might not want so many tools.

It replaces a great number of others as it is equally at home stirring the porridge as to doing the stir fry, and many other stirring jobs in between and, hand carved from local (local to area of the maker) woods and priced between £10 and £15 on cash sales in person, or £15 to £20 for online sales as postage is included in the latter, it does not break the bank either.

Properly treated, which means not, and here especially not, putting it into the dishwasher it will last for many, many years to come. In fact, as this product, like the majority of products I produce, is left untreated and thus the natural antibacterial action of the wood can work washing will rarely if ever be required. All that is needed, really, is to wipe the working end down after use and allow to air dry with the working end up.

Available from Wood, Leather & Recycled via the Facebook Page.