Rockstrom is both informative and persuasive, and uses some theatrical tropes and props to help get his points across. It is a very effective description of what exactly is meant by existing within the limits of a healthy planet.
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Top 10 TED Talks - 3 - Learning the Limits
Limits are frequently the theme of Sustainability conversations, and my third Top 10 TED Talk is precisely about the limits of environmental stability. Johan Rockstrom, director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, discusses his work identifying exactly what the environmental limits are, and where we are in relation to those limits. Rockstrom lead a group of researches in developing 9 "planetary life support systems" that are being stressed by human activity, and the limits of how much we can stress them before they collapse. The good news is, we've only crossed three of those limits! I think you can infer the bad news.
Rockstrom is both informative and persuasive, and uses some theatrical tropes and props to help get his points across. It is a very effective description of what exactly is meant by existing within the limits of a healthy planet.
Rockstrom is both informative and persuasive, and uses some theatrical tropes and props to help get his points across. It is a very effective description of what exactly is meant by existing within the limits of a healthy planet.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Clean+Green - a Miracle Cleaning Product for Pet Owners
I don't use the word miracle very often. Truth be told, I didn't really believe in miracles until recently, when I got a package in the mail containing these two aerosol cans of Clean+Green cleaning products [legally, I have to disclose that they sent me free samples to review their product]. Even upon inspecting the cans, I was skeptical, especially since the directions instructed me to spray the mess and then do nothing, no wiping no blotting, nothing. You can imagine, then, why I use the verbiage of a religious experience when I first had an opportunity to use this brilliant product and it worked better than anything else ever. And when I say that it worked, I mean I didn't do a thing, the product literally did all of the work.The word 'aerosol' in the last paragraph may scare some people, as CFCs which deplete the ozone have been used as aerosol propellants in the past. But please, do not be alarmed, because CFCs are not the only effective propellants. In fact, the folks at Clean+Green use nitrogen as their propellant, which does not deplete the ozone, is not a green house gas, and has no toxicity at all. Nitrogen is already the most abundant element in our atmosphere, and spraying it out of a can has just about exactly zero impact on the environment.
The most impressive thing about this product, however, is not that it works miracles with pet waste and odors, nor that it comes in recyclable packaging or uses nitrogen as its propellant, no. The most amazing thing is that the cleaning agents are completely non-toxic as well. No chlorine, no ammonia, no alcohol, no oxidants, it is not bleach based or enzymatic in nature, it is not even perfumed (aromatic compounds can irritate some people, especially those with severe allergies). Everything that goes into this cleaner is biodegradable, and completely safe for pets (who have a tendency to lick interesting smells on the floor), kids, and the environment.So in short, if I was prone to using a star system, this product would get as many as I can give. It handled multiple different kinds of pet stains and odors from my dogs and my cats, leaving no residual smell or stains in carpets or upholstery. We even tried it on an old ink stain on a sofa, and to our utter shock and amazement, it reduced the visibility of the stain significantly (they don't make any claims about ink though, so don't hold me or them to that). Marry that performance with a non-toxic, biodegradable product packaged in recyclable materials, and you have one great, green product that I am happy to promote. In shorter: Clean+Green is one of the best cleaning products I have ever used.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Weekend Meal Planning - Creating All your Meals for the Week in One Day
The key to eating healthy home made food when you have a busy schedule is planning. Sitting down on the weekend and spending 20 minutes planning your meals for the week, and then doing as much cooking and preparation as you can on Saturday or Sunday will save you hours of planning and cooking for the rest of the week. This method has lots of other unintended benefits as well, and the more you develop a routine the more you will see those benefits: less waste, less stress, less expense, more healthy diet.
For some time now, Courtney and I have tried to make a weekly menu before going shopping, starting ingredients that are already in the fridge or pantry. We write this list on a white board in the kitchen, and then write in the date that leftovers were made. Since instituting this simple process, I think we take out the trash about 1/2 as often. Here is what our whiteboard often looks like
If you can avoid prepackaged meals and refrain from eating out for convenience sake (I love eating out, but only when I choose to treat myself), you can save a lot of money while gaining more control over your diet. If you try to plan and cook a meal every night, however, you can quickly become overwhelmed and throw in the towel.
When we decided to do the October: Unprocessed challenge last month, we realized that with our busy schedules we were not going to be able to cook most week nights. Eating out is expensive, but eating healthy and unprocessed foods out is phenomenally expensive. In order to meet the challenge and maintain our savings (what little we have) Courtney and I turned our kitchen into a high efficiency food production facility every Sunday last month, and generally produced enough food in one day to last all week (that is why several of the menu items above have the same date by them). Spending several hours doing intensive cooking is also significantly more efficient in terms of waste and energy. For example, one Sunday, I made a frittata and Courtney cooked cornbread and pumpkin muffins, all at the same time. The oven only heats up once, and there was one temperature change half way though, but over all we had 6 meals worth of food with one meals worth of oven time.
You may think that it would take more energy to refrigerate and freeze all that food, but in fact the opposite is true. The more full your fridge or freezer is, the more efficient it will be. Your fridge works hardest when you open the door, because all of the air it has cooled down escapes, and warm air rushes in. The more stuff you have in the fridge, the less warm air can fill the space. Also, the cold food will help to cool the air, so the actual heat pump doesn't have to work quite as hard.
Our menu over the past few weeks has been pretty extravagant, but our costs and time commitment have been relatively low. We have been eating even less meat, and we feel free to experiment with more ambitious recipes and ideas (this week we plan on making kimchi). One of the keys is making things which are not any more work when scaled up in volume, like soups stews and sauces. The first week we did this, I made a tomato sauce from scratch. A portion was sweetened and turned into pizza sauce that day, the rest was frozen and used variously as the base for enchilada sauce, a pasta sauce, and to make lasagna.
For the rest of the week, Courtney and I are happy to come home and simply reheat our delicious and nutritious food, to wake up and grab left overs on the way out the door. We find we spend less on groceries, since we tend to buy fewer items that can be used for several recipes, and that means less food spoils as well.
We have greatly enjoyed our Sunday cooking days, and hope that it will provide good practice for the extra work that a growing family will (eventually) bring. Also, we are hosting a (very tiny) Thanksgiving here in Eugene for the first time, and our Sunday cooking experiments should serve as good practice for coordinating a large group meal.
For some time now, Courtney and I have tried to make a weekly menu before going shopping, starting ingredients that are already in the fridge or pantry. We write this list on a white board in the kitchen, and then write in the date that leftovers were made. Since instituting this simple process, I think we take out the trash about 1/2 as often. Here is what our whiteboard often looks like
 | |
| Our Home Kitchen Menu |
If you can avoid prepackaged meals and refrain from eating out for convenience sake (I love eating out, but only when I choose to treat myself), you can save a lot of money while gaining more control over your diet. If you try to plan and cook a meal every night, however, you can quickly become overwhelmed and throw in the towel.
When we decided to do the October: Unprocessed challenge last month, we realized that with our busy schedules we were not going to be able to cook most week nights. Eating out is expensive, but eating healthy and unprocessed foods out is phenomenally expensive. In order to meet the challenge and maintain our savings (what little we have) Courtney and I turned our kitchen into a high efficiency food production facility every Sunday last month, and generally produced enough food in one day to last all week (that is why several of the menu items above have the same date by them). Spending several hours doing intensive cooking is also significantly more efficient in terms of waste and energy. For example, one Sunday, I made a frittata and Courtney cooked cornbread and pumpkin muffins, all at the same time. The oven only heats up once, and there was one temperature change half way though, but over all we had 6 meals worth of food with one meals worth of oven time.
You may think that it would take more energy to refrigerate and freeze all that food, but in fact the opposite is true. The more full your fridge or freezer is, the more efficient it will be. Your fridge works hardest when you open the door, because all of the air it has cooled down escapes, and warm air rushes in. The more stuff you have in the fridge, the less warm air can fill the space. Also, the cold food will help to cool the air, so the actual heat pump doesn't have to work quite as hard.
Our menu over the past few weeks has been pretty extravagant, but our costs and time commitment have been relatively low. We have been eating even less meat, and we feel free to experiment with more ambitious recipes and ideas (this week we plan on making kimchi). One of the keys is making things which are not any more work when scaled up in volume, like soups stews and sauces. The first week we did this, I made a tomato sauce from scratch. A portion was sweetened and turned into pizza sauce that day, the rest was frozen and used variously as the base for enchilada sauce, a pasta sauce, and to make lasagna.
 |
| Homemade Tomato Sauce and Pizza with bell pepper and lobster mushrooms |
We have greatly enjoyed our Sunday cooking days, and hope that it will provide good practice for the extra work that a growing family will (eventually) bring. Also, we are hosting a (very tiny) Thanksgiving here in Eugene for the first time, and our Sunday cooking experiments should serve as good practice for coordinating a large group meal.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Waste Not
Image via WikipediaAfter 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 WikipediaYou 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.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Second Hand Retail Therapy
Re-Posted from the iPinion Syndicate
This past weekend [first weekend in August] Courtney and I celebrated our 2nd anniversary. We decided, instead of gifts, to indulge ourselves to the highest possible degree at the local thrift stores. We did so not because we are broke (although we are not exactly sizing up multi-million dollar yachts and coastal states with no sales tax yet), but rather because buying things second hand is the best way to buy things, and not just because you get more things per dollar.
Being good, law abiding citizens, we self medicate with that wonderful drug sometimes called ‘retail therapy’ just like all our fellow Americans. But because we are trying to be environmentally conscious, and we have seen “The Story of Stuff” (which you should too; if you haven’t seen it, watch it right now before you finish reading this; it’s free online), we want to buy as much stuff as we can while minimizing the energy, waste and pollution that results from buying lots of stuff. While most solutions for buying low impact stuff involve really expensive techniques for making new stuff, one low budget solution is to buy stuff that simply is not new.
If you have a choice between new and used, and you go for used, you are actively reducing demand for new stuff, which means (added up across many individuals and over time, of course) less raw materials used, less fuel burnt, less water turned into toxic sludge, and less waste.
You may think (especially if you do not frequent thrift stores) that shopping would not be the same without getting a bunch of new stuff, but new stuff is not the best thing about shopping. Consider: how often do you enjoy the item you purchased at home as much as you enjoyed picking it out? Since 99% of new stuff is no longer in use just 6 months after it is purchased, I am guessing the answer is somewhere around 1 percent of the time. It isn’t the stuff that you like, it’s buying it.
We are a nation of consumers, and we love to shop. Men just as much as women: many men may hate shopping for clothes, but ask the average dude about his ideal BBQ, and you will discover that he loves buying certain things just as much as the average female. This is due, at least in part, to the feeling of control that being a consumer provides. When you walk into a store, there are people being paid to serve you, answer your questions, get another one from the back, and tell you ‘that looks great on you.’ They are doing so because they want your money, but that’s okay; its understood that you have chosen to shop there.
You can get dumped on all day at work, get no respect from your family and friends (not describing my own life here, everyone calm down) but when you are ready to pull out the check book, everyone treats you like a king (or queen). Pretty much all those positive emotional experiences are just as good at second hand stores. The amenities may not be quite so classy, the staff not quite so motivated, but you are still in control of your money and how you spend it. Also, just as ‘new stuff’ stores range from Sears to Saks, so second hand ranges from Goodwill to Crossroads. So whatever your needs, retail therapy is available second hand.
When my wife and I want anything, even if we can afford it new, we always look for it used first, and that is just one more method of experiencing that control. We do it because it is our darn money and we will it spend how we darn well see fit. And I would encourage you to consider doing the same (though of course, I would never dream of telling you to).
This past weekend [first weekend in August] Courtney and I celebrated our 2nd anniversary. We decided, instead of gifts, to indulge ourselves to the highest possible degree at the local thrift stores. We did so not because we are broke (although we are not exactly sizing up multi-million dollar yachts and coastal states with no sales tax yet), but rather because buying things second hand is the best way to buy things, and not just because you get more things per dollar.
Being good, law abiding citizens, we self medicate with that wonderful drug sometimes called ‘retail therapy’ just like all our fellow Americans. But because we are trying to be environmentally conscious, and we have seen “The Story of Stuff” (which you should too; if you haven’t seen it, watch it right now before you finish reading this; it’s free online), we want to buy as much stuff as we can while minimizing the energy, waste and pollution that results from buying lots of stuff. While most solutions for buying low impact stuff involve really expensive techniques for making new stuff, one low budget solution is to buy stuff that simply is not new.
If you have a choice between new and used, and you go for used, you are actively reducing demand for new stuff, which means (added up across many individuals and over time, of course) less raw materials used, less fuel burnt, less water turned into toxic sludge, and less waste.
You may think (especially if you do not frequent thrift stores) that shopping would not be the same without getting a bunch of new stuff, but new stuff is not the best thing about shopping. Consider: how often do you enjoy the item you purchased at home as much as you enjoyed picking it out? Since 99% of new stuff is no longer in use just 6 months after it is purchased, I am guessing the answer is somewhere around 1 percent of the time. It isn’t the stuff that you like, it’s buying it.
We are a nation of consumers, and we love to shop. Men just as much as women: many men may hate shopping for clothes, but ask the average dude about his ideal BBQ, and you will discover that he loves buying certain things just as much as the average female. This is due, at least in part, to the feeling of control that being a consumer provides. When you walk into a store, there are people being paid to serve you, answer your questions, get another one from the back, and tell you ‘that looks great on you.’ They are doing so because they want your money, but that’s okay; its understood that you have chosen to shop there.
You can get dumped on all day at work, get no respect from your family and friends (not describing my own life here, everyone calm down) but when you are ready to pull out the check book, everyone treats you like a king (or queen). Pretty much all those positive emotional experiences are just as good at second hand stores. The amenities may not be quite so classy, the staff not quite so motivated, but you are still in control of your money and how you spend it. Also, just as ‘new stuff’ stores range from Sears to Saks, so second hand ranges from Goodwill to Crossroads. So whatever your needs, retail therapy is available second hand.
When my wife and I want anything, even if we can afford it new, we always look for it used first, and that is just one more method of experiencing that control. We do it because it is our darn money and we will it spend how we darn well see fit. And I would encourage you to consider doing the same (though of course, I would never dream of telling you to).
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Nothing New -- Courtney and I Vow to Make No New Purchases for One Month
While turning over the Dream Of Less in my head and discussing it with my like minded wife Courtney, we developed a little challenge for ourselves: purchase not one new item for an entire month. At the end of the month, I hope to write the next installment of the dream: To Dream of Less Stuff. Also, if the month goes better than expected, maybe we will extend the challenge for an even greater period of time. For the first installment, however, we will begin on September 1, and attempt to buy nothing new until October 1.
Of course, a challenge like this would be meaningless without some clearly defined terms, some ground rules, and some expectation up front of a reasonable amount of failure. So I describe for you now the plan:
I think that about covers it. I can tell you right now that at some point we will fail, and most likely because of my wife's car, which we are in the process of fixing up to sell. But the failures are an anticipated part of the experiment, and we will not be deterred by a few set backs.
The purpose of this exercise is to actively monitor the amount of stuff we buy, and the amount of waste that we generate, and furthermore attempt to actively reduce those categories. I am very optimistic that we will achieve some success in this endeavor, and I hope against hope that you will find this either a little inspiring or least somewhat entertaining. Either way, I am really doing this for your benefit, so you better read!
Of course, a challenge like this would be meaningless without some clearly defined terms, some ground rules, and some expectation up front of a reasonable amount of failure. So I describe for you now the plan:
- First: food is not counted here, for obvious reasons. What is counted, however, is any kitchen utensil, crockery, flatware, or other durable good associated with the preparation of food.
- Second: semi-durable and disposable goods do count, including napkins, towels, clothing, shoes, kleenex, etc. Also counted are things purchased for us in the process of a service we pay for, such as car maintenance.
- Third: Cleaning products are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. We will try to use what we have sparingly, and find alternatives (vinegar and baking soda, e.g.) when we run out.
- Fourth: items essential to health care (medicine, bandages) for both ourselves and our pets do not count at all. I will not put myself, my wife, or any of our furry children in harms way for this or any other experiment.
- Fifth: "new" shall be here defined as anything which is not previously owned, not re-purposed or recycled, not refurbished or re-anything-ed in any way.
- 6th: when the need for some stuff arises, we shall follow this rubrick for satisfying the need:
- Try to repair the broken stuff (reuse/repair)
- See if we can make something else work for the same purpose (re-purpose)
- Try to borrow or barter for it
- Try to find it used or refurbished
- Reconsider if we can do without it
- Finally, break down and buy it new
I think that about covers it. I can tell you right now that at some point we will fail, and most likely because of my wife's car, which we are in the process of fixing up to sell. But the failures are an anticipated part of the experiment, and we will not be deterred by a few set backs.
The purpose of this exercise is to actively monitor the amount of stuff we buy, and the amount of waste that we generate, and furthermore attempt to actively reduce those categories. I am very optimistic that we will achieve some success in this endeavor, and I hope against hope that you will find this either a little inspiring or least somewhat entertaining. Either way, I am really doing this for your benefit, so you better read!
Friday, April 30, 2010
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.
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'):
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Good Design in Shipping Container Construction
Read an article of Treehugger while drinking my morning coffee, and was piqued by this post by Lloyd Alter. Basically it was attacking some cabins made out of used shipping containers built by the Boy Scouts of America on Catalina Island. And while most (or all) of what he said about those cabins was true, he then went on to attack shipping container construction in general. That is what piqued me.
I know as well as anyone that most shipping container design looks pretty ugly, but just because many examples look like a bunch of shipping containers stacked into a big ugly box doesn't mean that it has to. And really, is this any more ugly than the big steel and glass corporate power towers that have been popular in this country for so many decades? No, it is just as ugly. To say it was more ugly would be to diminish the legacy of Corbu.
Poorly designed shipping container construction is not the fault of the shipping container, it is the fault of the person designing it. To prove my point, I will add a slide show of beautiful homes and buildings that use shipping containers as structural elements, right below my "about me" on my blog. It should be up later today.
"It is about time for architects to face up to the reality that shipping containers are designed for freight, not people, and by the time you adapt them to people there is barely any shipping container left."Well, that may be true, but do wood frame construction houses look like a pile of 2x4s when they are done? This is just a silly argument. Even if you remove all the siding completely, you are still reusing the structural steel without going through a very high energy recycling process. Also, this technique utilizes a material that is currently waste. Empty, used shipping containers are piling up at all of our major ports and big cities, because it is more expensive to ship them back to where the goods come from than to manufacture new ones. In what way is using them to build houses not better than using new steel? Or conventional wood framing? I am willing to stand corrected if someone can give me a good answer.
I know as well as anyone that most shipping container design looks pretty ugly, but just because many examples look like a bunch of shipping containers stacked into a big ugly box doesn't mean that it has to. And really, is this any more ugly than the big steel and glass corporate power towers that have been popular in this country for so many decades? No, it is just as ugly. To say it was more ugly would be to diminish the legacy of Corbu.
Poorly designed shipping container construction is not the fault of the shipping container, it is the fault of the person designing it. To prove my point, I will add a slide show of beautiful homes and buildings that use shipping containers as structural elements, right below my "about me" on my blog. It should be up later today.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Efficient cooking, made complicated!
I was at a fundraiser in Eugene last week, and got in a conversation with a local woman (whose name I did not catch) about the most energy efficient way to cook. She told me that the pressure cooker was the most efficient kitchen appliance. The entire conversation was nagging at me for a few days afterward, however, and it wasn't until just the other day that I realized why. The straightforward way of thinking about this issue was actually totally backwards.
First, here are some of the straightforward facts that she was operating with. When we cook, we either burn some fuel (natural gas, charcoal e.g.) or use electricity to heat our food. Electricity can heat food in a couple of ways: most electric heating elements are just a simple resistor (a material that resists electric current), which turns 100% of the electricity it resists into heat with theoretically perfect efficiency. All electric heating elements have the exact same basic efficiency, from your portable space heater to your hairdryer to your electric stove. Electricity can also be used (as in a pressure cooker) to pump hot steam into a contained space, which increases the temperature even more efficiently. This increase in efficiency is similar to the way that a geothermal heat pump heats a house more efficiently than an electric space heater. Burning anything to cook is less efficient, and also releases more carbon gas.
All of this, however, misses some important points about how we use our homes. The assumption is that the heat will be used to heat the food, and then be lost to the universe. After beginning my first winter in a place that actually gets cold, I realize that this is just not true at all. When the oven is running all day, the thermostat controlled home heating doesn't turn on. The point is, in the winter there is no such thing as 'waste heat.' And since my oven heats the house with the same efficiency as the built in heating system (the apartment has electric heat) there is no functional difference between one and the other. In fact, the oven is more efficient in a way, because the heat is being used for two purposes: first to heat the food and second to heat the home.
Back before the power grid and natural gas hookups, every home had one fire that ran more or less non stop and served every function that requires heat in the home. Over that fire, water was boiled and food was cooked. The fire provided heat for the home, light for that room, and a place for the family to gather all winter long. Today, we have a separate appliance for every function. An oven, a pressure cooker, a crock pot, a toaster oven, a fridge, freezer and heater, not to mention all of the various motors that we need (a blender or a mixer, e.g.), and our countless entertainment devices. All of these things consume energy and use it for one and only one purpose. When you start thinking in this way, it becomes obvious that the pressure cooker is not more efficient in the winter, because there is no "waste" heat going in to your home.
First, here are some of the straightforward facts that she was operating with. When we cook, we either burn some fuel (natural gas, charcoal e.g.) or use electricity to heat our food. Electricity can heat food in a couple of ways: most electric heating elements are just a simple resistor (a material that resists electric current), which turns 100% of the electricity it resists into heat with theoretically perfect efficiency. All electric heating elements have the exact same basic efficiency, from your portable space heater to your hairdryer to your electric stove. Electricity can also be used (as in a pressure cooker) to pump hot steam into a contained space, which increases the temperature even more efficiently. This increase in efficiency is similar to the way that a geothermal heat pump heats a house more efficiently than an electric space heater. Burning anything to cook is less efficient, and also releases more carbon gas.
All of this, however, misses some important points about how we use our homes. The assumption is that the heat will be used to heat the food, and then be lost to the universe. After beginning my first winter in a place that actually gets cold, I realize that this is just not true at all. When the oven is running all day, the thermostat controlled home heating doesn't turn on. The point is, in the winter there is no such thing as 'waste heat.' And since my oven heats the house with the same efficiency as the built in heating system (the apartment has electric heat) there is no functional difference between one and the other. In fact, the oven is more efficient in a way, because the heat is being used for two purposes: first to heat the food and second to heat the home.
Back before the power grid and natural gas hookups, every home had one fire that ran more or less non stop and served every function that requires heat in the home. Over that fire, water was boiled and food was cooked. The fire provided heat for the home, light for that room, and a place for the family to gather all winter long. Today, we have a separate appliance for every function. An oven, a pressure cooker, a crock pot, a toaster oven, a fridge, freezer and heater, not to mention all of the various motors that we need (a blender or a mixer, e.g.), and our countless entertainment devices. All of these things consume energy and use it for one and only one purpose. When you start thinking in this way, it becomes obvious that the pressure cooker is not more efficient in the winter, because there is no "waste" heat going in to your home.
So then what do we do in the summer? When it is too hot for that extra heat to be useful, the issue is reversed. Then that waste heat is really wasteful, because it will cause your AC to work extra hard! So if it is really hot, chilling out with a cold dish is ideal. This is also just obvious when you think about it, summertime is when we want to eat salads and sandwiches and (some of us at least) gazpacho. We want cold food because we are hot. In the winter, when it is freezing outside, it is lovely to have baked goods, homemade soup, etc. all of which requires the oven and stove to be burning away all day long. This is a not a coincidence. When you go back to that one fire scenario above, people didn't want the fire burning all day and night when it was ninety degrees out, and they did want it when it was below freezing. In other words, our habits have been developed over centuries, and the recent innovation in technology has thrown us a little out of whack.
I am not a Luddite, I love technology. But sometimes our really advanced and clever solutions (like using electricity to make your house cold) cause us to forget the really simple solutions that we have been using forever (light linen clothes, cold food and drink). And sometimes those simple solutions are extremely satisfying.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Stock Pot
The other day I made a lentil stew. I was not expecting much out of it, I have made it before and it is usually bland and only moderately satisfying. This time, however, I was shocked to discover that, although I did not do anything interesting with it, it was totally delicious. The kind of delicious that finds you moments later scraping the last bit of stuff from the side of the bowl wondering if you should have seconds, extending the bliss, or savor it tomorrow as leftovers, repeating the moment.
I retraced my steps. What had I done differently this time? I used the same spices in roughly the same proportion, I added tomatoes, but that hardly explained the drastic change in quality. I concluded in the end that there was only one real difference: I had used chicken stock that I made from scratch.
The tradition of making stock is all about efficiency, utility, and reducing waste. Back when meat was extremely expensive (you had to pay a chicken in grain for months and months to get one meal's worth of meat), people felt the need to extract every milligram of protein, mineral, and flavor from their animals. In many cultures, the practice of boiling the bones and remnants of your harvested livestock developed to reduce the waste. Not because they were concerned with waste, mind you, but because the food product of the animal was so valuable that it was crazy to just throw it away.
Although this process was developed to utilize the waste, the result was so delicious that it became an important part of the cuisine of many cultures, and today is ubiquitous in the culinary arts. While dehydrated stock (bullion) and canned stock have been around for as long as the technology of canning and drying, they were originally developed as a convenience for travelers or otherwise encumbered people who could not make their own. Stock prepared from scratch is considered to be superior by most (myself included), and few restaurants will admit to using canned stock these days.
So why is it that most home kitchens have sacrificed flavor for convenience? Canned stock has become so common that most of us have never made stock at home. Also, it is quite time consuming, and many cannot imagine spending 5 hours around the kitchen, even on a Sunday. To make matters worse, those who endeavor to make a first attempt can be permanently put off by a single failure (there is nothing worse than spending 5 hours on food, and ending up with something unsatisfying). However, making stock is not difficult or labor intensive; even though it takes a lot of time it requires almost no attention. Stock keeps in the refrigerator (though it must be taken out and re-boiled every 3 or 4 days) and freezes without loosing any of its flavor, and a good stock will vastly improve the flavor of the most simple dishes. If you, like Courtney and I, are trying to eat less meat, stock adds that meaty flavor to your vegetarian dishes. And finally, if you have never had home made stock, it tastes amazing compared to the can, which was the point of the lentil story at the top of this post.
So, after all that, here is a simple recipe for stock. I will try to cover the common pitfalls that can lead to an unsatisfying result.
Basic Chicken Stock:
Carcass of 2 chickens:
The simplest way to get the chicken material is to keep all of the less appetizing parts of a chicken that you have roasted previously (the back, the bones, the giblets, and wings are good for stock). You can freeze the remains after roasting and make the stock whenever you want. Alternatively, you can try to find a 'stewing hen' (chickens which lay eggs for many years don't yield good meat). There are other ways (buying a huge pack of chicken wings) to get good stock material, but they mostly defeat the purpose of utilizing waste.
1 or 2 Carrots, roughly chopped
1 Onion, quartered
2 Celery stalks, roughly chopped
1 Bay leaf
1 or 2 Other fresh Herbs (optional, don't go crazy)
Water to cover, at least 1 quart
The key to stock making is simplicity. Remember, this is not supposed to be a finished product, it is an ingredient. I never add salt or spices to stock at all. I typically use thyme in addition to the bay, and not one other thing. Simplicity yields versatility, and that is the key for a tasty stock that can be used as a base for any meal. As Chef Shaun Hill says in The Cook's Book (my favorite kitchen reference), the stock pot is not a "swill bin," for tossing in any scraps and junk. That is what the compost bin is for.
First, roast the chicken parts in the oven at 400 F to render away all fat and brown all over. Do not allow any part to burn, but deep browning adds a rich flavor and generates the color of the finished stock. When the browning is done, move all the chicken to the stockpot, drain off all fat and deglaze the roasting pan with water. Pour the deglazing water into the stock pot.
Put all the remaining ingredients into the stock pot and add enough water to cover. Bring to a boil. Simmer until the bones are disintegrating, several hours. Check the stock regularly, skimming off any foam or impurities, and adding more water if the level drops below the other ingredients. It is important that the solids remain submerged for maximum flavor extraction, but more water than just enough is not necessary, and will only dilute the stock.
When the stock is ready, strain the liquid into another container with a ladle. the solid ingredients may contain some more liquid, so allow them sit for few minutes or press them to extract the last bit of stock.
Allow the stock to cool to room temperature before storing in the fridge or freezing. Stock will most likely jelly when cooled. If stored in fridge, take out and bring to a boil every three or four days to preserve. Keeps in freezer for up to a year. This stock will be fairly concentrated, and can be mixed half and half with water when making soup or stew. Add a little less water if making risotto. Do not dilute if making sauce.
I retraced my steps. What had I done differently this time? I used the same spices in roughly the same proportion, I added tomatoes, but that hardly explained the drastic change in quality. I concluded in the end that there was only one real difference: I had used chicken stock that I made from scratch.
The tradition of making stock is all about efficiency, utility, and reducing waste. Back when meat was extremely expensive (you had to pay a chicken in grain for months and months to get one meal's worth of meat), people felt the need to extract every milligram of protein, mineral, and flavor from their animals. In many cultures, the practice of boiling the bones and remnants of your harvested livestock developed to reduce the waste. Not because they were concerned with waste, mind you, but because the food product of the animal was so valuable that it was crazy to just throw it away.
Although this process was developed to utilize the waste, the result was so delicious that it became an important part of the cuisine of many cultures, and today is ubiquitous in the culinary arts. While dehydrated stock (bullion) and canned stock have been around for as long as the technology of canning and drying, they were originally developed as a convenience for travelers or otherwise encumbered people who could not make their own. Stock prepared from scratch is considered to be superior by most (myself included), and few restaurants will admit to using canned stock these days.
So why is it that most home kitchens have sacrificed flavor for convenience? Canned stock has become so common that most of us have never made stock at home. Also, it is quite time consuming, and many cannot imagine spending 5 hours around the kitchen, even on a Sunday. To make matters worse, those who endeavor to make a first attempt can be permanently put off by a single failure (there is nothing worse than spending 5 hours on food, and ending up with something unsatisfying). However, making stock is not difficult or labor intensive; even though it takes a lot of time it requires almost no attention. Stock keeps in the refrigerator (though it must be taken out and re-boiled every 3 or 4 days) and freezes without loosing any of its flavor, and a good stock will vastly improve the flavor of the most simple dishes. If you, like Courtney and I, are trying to eat less meat, stock adds that meaty flavor to your vegetarian dishes. And finally, if you have never had home made stock, it tastes amazing compared to the can, which was the point of the lentil story at the top of this post.
So, after all that, here is a simple recipe for stock. I will try to cover the common pitfalls that can lead to an unsatisfying result.
Basic Chicken Stock:
Carcass of 2 chickens:
The simplest way to get the chicken material is to keep all of the less appetizing parts of a chicken that you have roasted previously (the back, the bones, the giblets, and wings are good for stock). You can freeze the remains after roasting and make the stock whenever you want. Alternatively, you can try to find a 'stewing hen' (chickens which lay eggs for many years don't yield good meat). There are other ways (buying a huge pack of chicken wings) to get good stock material, but they mostly defeat the purpose of utilizing waste.
1 or 2 Carrots, roughly chopped
1 Onion, quartered
2 Celery stalks, roughly chopped
1 Bay leaf
1 or 2 Other fresh Herbs (optional, don't go crazy)
Water to cover, at least 1 quart
The key to stock making is simplicity. Remember, this is not supposed to be a finished product, it is an ingredient. I never add salt or spices to stock at all. I typically use thyme in addition to the bay, and not one other thing. Simplicity yields versatility, and that is the key for a tasty stock that can be used as a base for any meal. As Chef Shaun Hill says in The Cook's Book (my favorite kitchen reference), the stock pot is not a "swill bin," for tossing in any scraps and junk. That is what the compost bin is for.
First, roast the chicken parts in the oven at 400 F to render away all fat and brown all over. Do not allow any part to burn, but deep browning adds a rich flavor and generates the color of the finished stock. When the browning is done, move all the chicken to the stockpot, drain off all fat and deglaze the roasting pan with water. Pour the deglazing water into the stock pot.
Put all the remaining ingredients into the stock pot and add enough water to cover. Bring to a boil. Simmer until the bones are disintegrating, several hours. Check the stock regularly, skimming off any foam or impurities, and adding more water if the level drops below the other ingredients. It is important that the solids remain submerged for maximum flavor extraction, but more water than just enough is not necessary, and will only dilute the stock.
When the stock is ready, strain the liquid into another container with a ladle. the solid ingredients may contain some more liquid, so allow them sit for few minutes or press them to extract the last bit of stock.
Allow the stock to cool to room temperature before storing in the fridge or freezing. Stock will most likely jelly when cooled. If stored in fridge, take out and bring to a boil every three or four days to preserve. Keeps in freezer for up to a year. This stock will be fairly concentrated, and can be mixed half and half with water when making soup or stew. Add a little less water if making risotto. Do not dilute if making sauce.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
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
Don't know designer, if you have any ideas please post in comments
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 commentsI 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.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Vinegar, Salt & Baking Soda: green cleaning
A big part of the green movement is about keeping the spaces in which we live and work healthy. One way to do this is to avoid buying products with toxic chemicals.
Most people these days have forgotten what our grandparents or great grandparents knew: most things can be cleaned and disinfected using distilled white vinegar, ordinary table salt, baking soda, or some combination of those things.
Vinegar kills bacteria and breaks up some stains and messes due to its acidity. Lemon juice works the same way. Either of these can be used to disinfect countertops or (with a little oil) to polish wood. Vinegar may smell a little harsh at first, but when it evaporates, there is no odor left. More here. Way more than you can possibly use in one lifetime here.
Salt kills bacteria by drawing all its water out, and this is why food has been preserved in salt for thousands of years. Also, the course grains can be used to scrub tough stains (such as pots and pans), especially with a little vinegar or other slightly acidic substance. More here.
Baking soda draws grease stains out of anything, and many commercial cleaning products have baking soda at their base. It can also be used (with vinegar) to break up simple clogs in kitchen and bathroom sinks. But, it is not very effective on really bad clogs. More here.
You can buy these items in bulk for practically nothing, and reduce your waste stream by replacing all of those small bottles of specialty cleaners. Imagine replacing all that junk under your sink with just a bag of salt, a box of Soda and a 5 gallon jug of vinegar. And instead of being toxic, all of these are things you can put in your food. You can literally eat a teaspoon of it with no negative impact to your health (I wouldn't do it though, it would probably be unpleasant).
I will be posting stories of successes and failures cleaning with these things in the future. Though probably not many failures: I have found very few messes that could not be cleaned using these three products.
Most people these days have forgotten what our grandparents or great grandparents knew: most things can be cleaned and disinfected using distilled white vinegar, ordinary table salt, baking soda, or some combination of those things.
Vinegar kills bacteria and breaks up some stains and messes due to its acidity. Lemon juice works the same way. Either of these can be used to disinfect countertops or (with a little oil) to polish wood. Vinegar may smell a little harsh at first, but when it evaporates, there is no odor left. More here. Way more than you can possibly use in one lifetime here.
Salt kills bacteria by drawing all its water out, and this is why food has been preserved in salt for thousands of years. Also, the course grains can be used to scrub tough stains (such as pots and pans), especially with a little vinegar or other slightly acidic substance. More here.
Baking soda draws grease stains out of anything, and many commercial cleaning products have baking soda at their base. It can also be used (with vinegar) to break up simple clogs in kitchen and bathroom sinks. But, it is not very effective on really bad clogs. More here.
You can buy these items in bulk for practically nothing, and reduce your waste stream by replacing all of those small bottles of specialty cleaners. Imagine replacing all that junk under your sink with just a bag of salt, a box of Soda and a 5 gallon jug of vinegar. And instead of being toxic, all of these are things you can put in your food. You can literally eat a teaspoon of it with no negative impact to your health (I wouldn't do it though, it would probably be unpleasant).
I will be posting stories of successes and failures cleaning with these things in the future. Though probably not many failures: I have found very few messes that could not be cleaned using these three products.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)