Top 10 Ted Talks - 7 - Food That is Good for People & Planet

Number 7 in our list of sustainability related TED Talks, we have Mark Bittman (food writer for NYTimes, author of How to Cook Everything and How to Cook Everything Vegetarian) brings us a very enlightening talk on diet.  Specifically, the contemporary western diet and why is bad for the health of both people and the environment.

Bittman approaches the subject of food with love and wit, and makes plain some complex issues of how we arrived at the food system that we have and how we should change our diets to improve both our own health and the environmental impacts of our food systems.



Courtney and I have turned to How to Cook Everything Vegetarian for inspiration in our kitchen for years, and personally came to many of the same conclusions that Mr. Bittman recommends in this talk, but he does such a great job here of summarizing the issues and arriving at the correct conclusions.

Top 10 TED Talks - 2 - Eating an Entire Earth

Next on my "no particular order" list of Top 10 TED Talks, Jonathan Foley describes how much land we use for food productions and shows us that we are practically eating an entire earth already.  Foley does an excellent job of describing how agriculture impacts the Earth while keeping in perspective that it is a necessary part of human existence.



I like how Foley focuses in at the end on the solutions that are needed without loosing site of the scale and scope of the problems.  As he says in the talk, Agriculture has been the most powerful force for change in the world since the last ice age, and rivals climate change in importance.


Bon Appetit!

To Dream of Less Energy - Quality of Life and Energy Consumption

Energy consumption makes all things possible.  It allows us to extend our lives into the nighttime hours, it allows us to keep our homes warm or cool, it allows us to freeze food for preservation, or get it piping hot it in about a minute.  Energy, in all its forms, is the foundation of our civilization.  If an era is defined by the predominant technology (the stone age, the bronze age, the information age), then we are living, and have been for about a century, in the age of fossil energy: coal for electricity, oil for transportation.  Information Technology itself would be impossible without abundant energy, and right now the only technology we have that can provide the amount of energy needed with the consistency required is mostly coal (there is a smattering of other: hydro-electric, nuclear, natural gas, but all of them together are less than a third of coal).

There are two primary problems with this system: resource and waste.  The inputs, the raw materials, the oil pumped form the ground and coal dug out of mountains, are limited.  They are finite resources that we will one day run out of.  You can argue about when, about how much time we have left to keep burning through those resources, but you cannot argue about the fact that one day the wells will all be dry, the last heap of dirt will be devoid of useful coal.

The second problem, waste, is manifold.  When these fuels are extracted, the process often involves polluting massive amounts of water and damaging land in a way that will not be repaired for generations.  When the fuels give up their energy in combustion, they release several compounds that are degrading to the environment.  CO2, Nitrogen- and Sulfur-Oxide compounds, and particulates take their toll on air quality, and various partially combusted hydro-carbons foul our streams and water-ways.

It is almost inconceivable that we could live up to our current standards without energy, and equally inconceivable, given current technology, that we could produce enough renewable energy to replace all of the fossil energy we use.  That is why I am dreaming of less.

Technology holds many answer to a future of less energy, but human behavior is equally, if not more important. I dream of a culture that values the energy it uses in an emotional way, not just in price per kWh; where daylighting and passive cooling are as valuable to a home buyer as granite counter tops once were.

I dream of a society in which people care where their power comes from, how it got to them, and what happens in between and afterward.  Where people see a light bulb burning and think, even just once in a while, about what it means that they can run their homes into the night, keep their produce cold 24-7, turn the thermostat up or down on a whim. Where people care not just about having energy, but the kind of energy they have.

A revolution in our energy production is still a long, long way off, but a cultural revolution, or at least a cultural shift in the way we perceive energy is already under foot.  What was once a vanguard is edging into the mainstream, and today more than ever people care about energy.  Not just that they have it, but where it comes from too.  We are still a long way from a culture where everyone cares about energy, and is concerned with reducing energy consumption, but a change in the culture that uses the energy can be much, much quicker than a change in the infrastructure that delivers it.

iPinion Update: Avoiding the Next Mass Extinction - Out Today

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

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

Living Small and Walking Tall - The Big Move

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Meat in the Vegetarian Argument

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

Re-Posted from the iPinion Syndicate

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Related articles

• Simon Fairlie: How Eating Meat Can Save the Planet (time.com)

To Dream of Less Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles

• You: The Minimalist: The Food Processor: A Virtuoso One-Man Band (nytimes.com)

Waste Not

Image via Wikipedia

Re-posted from the iPinion Syndicate

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


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


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


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

Image via Wikipedia

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


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


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


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

Print Media v. Digital Media: Missing the Point?

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

Related articles by Zemanta

• Amazon: E-books Will Overtake Paperbacks by the End of 2011 (mashable.com)

To Dream of Less Space

My wife is designing a very tiny house on a very tiny lot for her studio project this term, so both of us (because she has to bounce every idea and every design choice off me, sometimes to the point of driving me crazy) are thinking right now about the least amount of space you could possibly fit a family into.  I have the unusual benefit of growing up in a house that is, by American suburban standards at least, minuscule.  The house in Laguna Beach that my father designed and built is located on a little wedge of land that was divided from a larger lot.  Also, the wedge is mostly on a steep hill, with just a little flat area at the street.  My parents fit a family of five into that postage stamp space and still had plenty of room leftover to play host to a surprising number of friends and family on special occasions.

When I was younger, perhaps to compensate for having less personal, private space than some of my friends, I would dream of one day living in a mansion.  I imagined having a huge living room, dining room and kitchen to entertain.  I dreamed of having collectible cars in an over sized garage.  I wanted a big bedroom with a walk in closet and big bath room with walk in shower.  All of this would be nestled, of course, in enormous and multi-layered private gardens.  Basically, I wanted to be Bruce Wayne.  But hey, I was 15, what do you expect?

The older I get, though my dreams don't get any smaller, the size of my house in my dreams does.  This is due, at least in part, to the location of my dream home.  Once nestled in layers of private gardens, perhaps in some coastal town yet undiscovered by the relentless developers of CA, my dream home has packed its bags and moved to the center of a big city.  It has lifted itself off the ground, and found its way into the upper floors of a low rise building.  As such, it has of necessity folded in upon itself, sacrificed some extra space, doubled up purposes of other spaces, and generally shed a few pounds (even as I gain a few).  The gardens have been replaced with public parks, the garage full of fancy cars completely sacrificed, and the over-sized rooms scaled down to average human size (and sometimes even below average).

When you have space, you feel the need to fill it with things.  Nature abhors a vacuum, as my father is fond of quoting, and when you have more space than you need, you will fill it.  If you did not need the space in the first place, then it stands to reason that you will not in any real sense need the stuff that you find to fill it.  So the question that we should ask ourselves is "how much space do I need?"  No one seems to ask this question these days.  Instead everyone seems to ask "how much space could I use?"  And the answer to that question is almost always another question, "how much space can I afford?"

You could use more space.  We all could.  I could have an exercise room, a home office, a pool, a home theater, a game room.  And if I had them, I would use them.  Of course, if I lived in a city of any size, it would have a movie theater, a pool hall, a gym.  If I lived in a large enough residential building in an urban area, it is likely that my building would have half of these amenities that I covet.  So I have to ask, do I need any of these things?  Another important question: how much would it cost me to have all that space, to fill it with the associated stuff, and to maintain it?  Is the value that I would get out of that extra space equal to how much it would cost me?  The answer is almost certainly no.

Space and stuff are directly linked, as well.  In every home, a certain percentage of the space is devoted entirely to storage.  Linen closets, clothes closets, cabinets, shelves, chests, armoires, and don't forget garages, which are usually equal parts car park and storage for random junk that you can't stand to look at inside of your living spaces.  If you have less space, it follows that you will need to have less stuff.  There are few feelings more liberating than getting rid of stuff that (after considering it) you realize you just do not need.

And so I have been dreaming, instead of more space, of having just enough.  Just enough to be happy, to feel content and uncluttered, to have some privacy and full utility, but just that much and no more.  I dream of having that space in a context, in a place that is as important to me as the space itself.  I dream of loving a city, a neighborhood, a building, and my space within each of those contexts as well as loving the space for itself.

I dream of having storage that restricts me from accumulating stuff I don't need.  I dream of a space in which every object has a purpose and a place.  I dream of a space so well utilized that a single useless object feels like a burden not worth bearing (I'm looking at you, waffle maker).

I dream of spaces that feel bigger than they are.  I dream of spaces with double and triple uses, in which each use feels so appropriate and right that you couldn't imagine any other.

In short, I dream of maximizing utility and harmony, of wedding efficiency with comfort.  I am asking myself this question: 'how much space do I need to be happy, healthy, and sane,' and I hope to find the answer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Big ideas, small spaces (knoxnews.com)

To Dream of Less: A New Operating System for the American Dream

People talk a lot about the American Dream.  There are a few different versions, but I think at the core is making something of your situation that is better than what you were given.  When you try to pin down what that translates to in the real world however, the answer is almost always 'stuff.'

A three bedroom home with a two car garage.  A new car.  A bigger car.  A faster car.  Lots of cars basically.  A riding mower.  A space in the house that is just mine.  A space in the house to work.  A space in the house that is just yours.  A space in the house for the kids.  More Space, in other words.  A pressure cooker.  A new microwave.  A bigger Barbecue.  A professional cook for weeknights.  A better vacuum.  A new dishwasher.  A maid that comes twice a week.  A cleaner life with more convenience.  A bigger TV.  A smaller computer.  A bigger laptop.  A new phone.

Each time we achieve one of these goals, it seems that very shortly we find ourselves having exactly the same goal once again.  I have a flat screen, LCD HDTV, I want a bigger one.  I have an iPhone 3G, I want the new 4G (or whatever, 6G, 7Q, 10JT) as soon as it is available.  I have a moderately fuel efficient car, I want an electric vehicle.  The trouble is, I know for a fact that each time I acquire one of these things I will quickly tire of it and want something newer/bigger/faster to replace it.

Recently, I have been dreaming of less.  I dream of wanting less.  I am not living the dream, not yet, but I am dreaming it.  I dream, instead of a new car, of having no car at all.  I dream of living in a place where I can walk to work, walk to the grocery store, walk to a restaurant, pub or theater, and walk to a  public transit line for everything else.  I dream of no car insurance, no car maintenance, no gas prices, no car washes, and mostly no driving.  I hate driving.

I dream, instead of more space, of just enough space.  I dream of having no storage, and being forced to get rid of everything I can't store.  I dream of having only things I need and use frequently.  I dream of getting the most out of every space and every thing that I own, of loving my spaces and cherishing my things.  I dream of liking my stuff enough to care for it, keep it, and enjoy it, rather than dreaming of replacing it.

I dream, instead of getting new things, of getting very old things.  I dream of finding things that have worked for many years, which show little sign of wear and every intention of working forever.  I dream of caring for these things, of keeping them working, and when I no longer have use for them of finding other people who do.

I have been dreaming lately of making my situation better with the dream of less.  This is the American Dream, though it may not look like it on the surface.  I dream of taking what I am given and making it last longer, making it worth more, making myself happier, and making the world a better place.  In short, I dream of making a better life for myself and my family, and it seems that every day that better life needs a little more less.

The three Rs of environmentalism - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

The Waste Hierarchy is an established model for thinking about how to reduce waste, and divert it from incinerators and landfills.  Most people have heard the simplest version of this over and over again: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  This has become a mantra of the green movement.  It is very effective as a mnemonic device and people have widely accepted it as a rule of thumb.  Something that is lost in the repetition of the mantra, however, is that this is a hierarchy.  It is meant to be read: reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order.  It seems that in the mind of the average consumer this has too often been reduced to recycle, recycle, recycle, because that is the easiest thing to do to reduce the amount of stuff in your trash bin.

Why is this important?  Because different strategies have varying degrees of impact.  Recycling something does keep it out of the landfill, but most recycling processes use energy.  Often not as much energy as the initial process of creating it from raw materials, but still a non-negligible amount.  At the very least, that material has to be transported to some distant place to be reused.  So what if that piece of recyclable waste didn't exist?  Or what it if was smaller, or lighter?  What if instead of three layers of packaging made from three different materials, there was one layer of one type of material?  Less packaging usually means less raw materials consumed, less energy used, less waste in the production process, and less waste at home when you use the product.  The overall impact is much greater, and it exists in every level of the life of the product.

The difficulty here is that it is harder to control the reduction of materials.  Often, it just comes to you 'as is' at the point of purchase.  But there are a few simple things you can do.  If you buy vegetables at the Farmer's Market, and bring your own bag, you can get a weeks worth of food with hardly any packaging materials at all.  Some items like mushrooms will often come in a paper bag to control humidity, but that bag is going to be recyclable or compostable (there appears to be ambiguity about whether or not 'compostable' is a real word, but it is very useful, so I am sticking with it).

This is preferable to getting a separate plastic bag for each vegetable and then putting all those bags into other plastic bags, and getting some items in Styrofoam trays wrapped in cellophane.  Not that I am judging, that is what I end up doing when I go to a regular grocery.  You don't know where that cart has been (or more accurately what has been inside it).  Also, for some reason, I am embarrassed to bring my own bag into Ralph's (I still do, it's just harder), but it seems natural as breathing at the FM or Trader Joe's.  Why is that?  I guess it is because I am afraid of being labeled a loony by the 'normal' people at the super market, but I feel like I might be the most conservative person at the TJ's, and there the bags are proof that I am hip enough.

To get a little broader perspective of the hierarchy, here is a graphic produced by Lane County as part of their Recycler's Handbook, with the relative importance of each strategy represented by it place and the size of its level on the pyramid (used without permission, but I think this is 'fair use'):

If that is hard to read, you should be able to click on it and see a larger version.  There are also many other versions of this hierarchy with different or additional steps, and there is a lively debate about which one is best, but generally everyone agrees that reduction is most important, reuse is next, recycling is a decent alternative, and waste should be avoided.

All of these issues are in fact more complicated, and I intend to go further into each of them.  I will post something later with more detail about how to reduce and reuse materials, but for now I will provide you with a few links about how to recycle, because that topic is pretty well covered by people who have been generating these resources for longer than I have been thinking about them.

For a good overview of what can and cannot be recycled, check out the Consumer Recycling Guide.  It covers the basics about which plastics are recyclable (because not all are) and where you can recycle them (because your municipality may not take certain kinds).  The link above is a guideline however, and each city and county chooses what they will recycle and how they will accept or collect it.  In Lane, for example, there is the Recycler's Handbook.  Search for your local waste management website, and they will tell you everything that you need to know about recycling in your area.

If you want to know where you can drop off batteries for recycling, check out Call2Recycle (serves the US and Canada).  Batteries of all sizes frequently contain heavy metals like lead, sometimes contain mercury, acid, or some other toxic substance, and that stuff can get out if you just toss your batteries in the trash.  Different types of batteries need to be recycled in different ways, but generally speaking big chains that specialize in electronics will take most batteries, and any place that sells car batteries is required to take used car batteries.

Many cities and counties cannot accept used electronics and computers.   Luckily, there are many programs, some local and some national, that accept these products.  The EPA has a web page with links to many of these organizations.  Here in Oregon, the DEQ is working with manufacturers to bring us the Oregon E-Cycles program.  It is very important to recycle these items, because many of them have small amounts of toxins which will end up in the environment if they are just thrown out.  Mercury is particularly nasty, because it can stay in the ecosystem for a long time, poisoning plants, animals and humans all the way up the food chain, and cycled back through the same chain over and over before it achieves anything like safe deposition.

Speaking of mercury, all fluorescent light bulbs contain a little.  Home Depot recycles the CFLs that are being promoted for home use to replace incandescent bulbs, and most local recycling programs accept all other types of fluorescent lights.

The Oregon Trail Part III: Sea otters and Sustainable Fisheries

Day two, we wake up in Cambria tired from sleep deprivation and a long day of driving. We are also excited about the day ahead of us, and glowing about the day behind. The main attraction today is the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which we have been told is The Aquarium by which all others are measured. It is an impressive measuring stick.

As we drove up the coast, through foot hills along cliffs and over bridges, I was listening to back episodes of Good Food, a favorite radio show of Courtney and I. In one episode, Mark Bittman (author of "How to Cook Everything" and "How to Cook Everything Vegetarian") came on to discuss sustainable seafood, and mentioned the Monterey Bay Aquarium, specifically the fact that they offer a simple pocket guide to sustainable seafood. So of course, we picked a few up.

Of course, the 'simple guide,' as Bittman points out, glosses over some issues and provides some information that seems useful, but is impossible to apply at the market. So, I thought I would recap a little and provide some links.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: for most of human history the ocean has provided much more fish than we can possibly catch and consume. But recently, and I mean very recently, we have started catching and consuming much more fish than the ocean can provide. And really, that is impressive. Fish farming is sometimes a good alternative, but in some cases it is much, much worse. Farmed salmon, for example, requires feeding tons and tons of wild caught fish, and their waste flows directly into coastal waters (the 'farms' are pins in the ocean) contaminating the areas where they are grown. Meanwhile, wild salmon fishing in the pacific is sustainable (even if the way the fish gets to market is not), so farmed salmon is essentially a useless practice.

Clams, oysters and mussels, on the other hand, are best when farmed. And just to highlight the confusion, sustainability of fisheries is only one small part of the seafood minefield. The next biggest mine is mercury. If you haven't heard, it's in almost everything that we take out of the sea. And the crazy part is we put it (the mercury) there.

Our experience at the aquarium was awesome, especially the otter exhibit (did you know that otters eat floating on their backs, and use their chest as a table? neither did I). Sea horses and jelly fish are also amazing, but I don't have enough room to talk about them here. In short, the Monterey Bay Aquarium was a great experience, and very educational. I highly recommend it to anyone who is going through the area, and also highly recommend making one of the scheduled otter feedings.

Used = Green

My wife and I stumbled upon an amazing fact up in Oregon: It is saturated with beautiful antique quality furniture. When we moved up at the beginning of the summer, we didn't want to bring all of our old baggage with us. We got rid of as much as we possibly could, including most of our furniture.

In looking for new furniture, we found that what worked in LA did not necessarily work in Eugene. Craigslist had some decent stuff, but it was pretty bleak compared to SoCal. Then we wandered into a St. Vincent de Paul, which I didn't know was a thing before we moved. We were both amazed, the thrift stores in Eugene are all packed with beautiful furniture. Stuff that would go for thousands of dollars in vintage shops on Melrose Blvd. was more like $100 bucks there.

Then, because Craigslist had to redeem itself, we came across a promising post. I believe all it said was "modern sofa," or something to that effect, and when my wife called, he said he had "s0me more modern stuff." When we arrived, there was a garage full of mid century modern furniture which this guy had culled from all over the Pacific North West. He also knew everything about modern design, and knew the designer of most of the pieces that he was offering. We furnished most of our living room out of his garage. Here are a few of the pieces that we got:

Dining set by Paul McCobb

Sofa by Umanoff, end table by Keal

Don't know designer, if you have any ideas please post in comments

I would be lying if I said that I was thinking about this at the time, but in retrospect this is the most sustainable way we could have furnished our new place, and it is also an excellent example of how you can save money being green. In the past, I have furnished apartments with a bunch of nice looking but really low quality cookie cutter furniture from Ikea and Target, and most of it eventually ended up in the trash.

Cheap furniture is really disposable furniture. When particle board warps, chips, cracks or breaks, it cannot really be repaired, and once it starts down that path it is not long before it ends its life in the landfill. It is usually designed to be put together only once, as well. Pre-drilled holes in the particle board and cam locks made of weak metal ensure that if you disassemble your Ikea desk, it will lose most of its structural integrity when you put it back together.

In the long run, cheap furniture ends up costing you more money, because you have to replace it more frequently. But unless you are paying more in taxes than I make in a year, antique quality furniture is way too expensive, and there isn't really much of an in between.

One great way to get around this dilemma is to buy used furniture. You can tell if it is well made pretty easily: if it is still solid after years of use it will probably be good for many more. Also, solid wood is really easy to repair. With a very small investment in wood glue, a few clamps, and maybe a power drill, you can keep solid wood pieces alive for decades.

Buying used stuff is more sustainable in two ways: first it reduces demand for more new stuff, which means that there is less energy being consumed to produce that new stuff, and second it keeps old stuff out of the waste stream. But more than being green, when you buy used you can afford to get better quality stuff; beautiful, well designed stuff that you will love. And if you love it, you will take care of it: fix it when it breaks and find a good h0me for it when it no longer fits in your life.

Different cities have different channels for finding good used stuff. The thrift stores in Eugene, for example, are a great resource, where in LA they have been completely picked over by people who buy the good stuff, fix it up, and sell it for 10 times as much out of little boutique shops. But, in Los Angeles, the stuff available on Craigslist and at yard sales can be amazing. One way or another, people are always changing their surroundings, and high quality used furniture is available for those who seek it.

The Maker Movement - why it is green and why I love it

I don't know if the people who started the Maker Movement intended it to be a green movement, but whether intended or not, it has the potential to do all kinds of green good.

The fact of the matter is that we Americans buy too much junk. And I am not preaching at you here, I am not telling you that you personally are responsible for the over consumption problem, I am saying that too much of the stuff we buy ends up being junk.

So many of the products that we buy are poorly designed, or worse, designed to break. Whats more, when they break, you find that they are impossible to open up and repair. In fact, if you do open one up, your warranty instantly expires, and FBI agents break down your door and cart you off to be prosecuted for theft of intellectual property. Sort of.

Manufacturers have gotten used to the idea that they are selling you a closed system, and if anything ever goes wrong your only options are taking it back to the manufacturer or throwing it out to buy a new one. Planned obsolescence and designing for short product life span ensure that you will need to purchase a replacement widget soon, and the old widget will be useless for any purpose other than filling land.

So what can we possibly do in the face of such an entrenched system? Is there no way out? Well the people at Make Magazine may not have all the answers, but they have a great philosophy for getting more out of your junk, and evaluating whether or not your next purchase is going to be junk.

Make is a Magazine about how to be a modern day tinkerer, how to get more out of those widgets we buy with our hard earned money, and how to turn our landfill fodder into a fun Sunday project. With the purchase of a few basic tools (that should last you the rest of your life), we can conquer our waste stream, open up those busted products to repair them, re purpose them, or possibly even improve them.

Endowing garbage with new value, reusing and re purposing things instead of buying new junk, that is as green as it gets. Also, it's FUN! What former boyscout, amateur engineer, or generally interested person doesn't LOVE the idea of cracking stuff open and messing with the functional parts?

On the purchasing new stuff side, Mr. Jalopy (yes, like an old car) has penned the Maker's Bill of Rights, a simple list of how a product should be presented. In a forum at the UCLA book fair this past spring, he asked the audience: if you can't open something up and tinker with it, do you really own it? Or are you just renting it from the manufacturer? With that in mind, the Maker's bill of rights provides a simple list of rules for products that a Maker will approve of. Some of them are neat little memorable sayings that hold an entire philosophy in a few words, such as the most quotable: "screws are better than glues."

I think that embracing the Maker's philosophy can improve the relationship that people have with their stuff and at the same time reduce unnecessary waste and consumption. I dare say, if more people took the initiative to understand how things work and how to work with them, the positive repercussions could be limitless.