The Northeast Organic Farming Association is a non-profit, membership organization that supports sustainable agriculture in the Northeast. NOFA MA is one of seven NOFA chapters that provide a variety of services farmers, land care professionals, and consumers. Consumer programs include workshops on topics such as organic gardening, food preservation, and winter gardening. They also publish an organic food buying guide and a list of MA CSAs (CSA stands for community supported agriculture. A CSA supports itself by selling seasonal shares; shareholders pay an upfront fee for a certain amount of farm-grown or raised food each week).
The Go Green Web Directory is an online directory of MA based green businesses. Organized by region, Go Green can help you find eco-friendly products and services for your home and personal life. GoGreen requires all potential members to submit detailed statements about their missions, business practices and products so that consumers can feel confident about the environmental commitments of listed companies.
Did you know that in the average home 75% of the electricity used to power electronics and appliances is consumed while the products are turned off? The power that electronics draw when they are turned off is called a “phantom” or “standby” load, which–considering that electronics account for 20% of the average home’s energy bill–could be costing you a pretty penny.
You can eliminate phantom loads by unplugging small electronic devices when not in use (like your cell phone charger and coffee maker) and plugging larger ones (like TVs and computers) into power strips that you switch off when not in use.
If you won’t or can’t switch off your power strips you can get “smart” power strips that completely power down your electronics for you. Smart strips have at least one controlling outlet, and when you power down the device plugged into this outlet, the strip automatically powers down the peripheral devices plugged into the other outlets. Smart strips also have one or more “hot” outlets for devices that you do not want to completely power down (like your router).
You can buy smart strips from a variety of retailers including Amazon & Walmart. The price for a small size (1 controlling outlet, 2 hot outlets, 4 peripheral outlets) at Amazon is $27.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Want to know the “greenest” thing you could do this holiday season? According to Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeaker Climate Action Network, it’s to “Stop Going Green.”
In his recent editorial in the Washington Post, Tidwell argues that if we want effective and lasting solutions to environmental problems in general and global warming in particular, we need to refocus our energy away from personal lifestyle changes and towards political action.
Tidwell sees two problems with our current focus on personal greening efforts. The first is that personal greening efforts haven’t gotten us very far. The second problem is that our personal greening efforts have distracted us from the more pressing task of political action and perhaps even aided and abetted the status quo. We run our CFL fundraisers and bring our own bags to the grocery store and buy each other “eco-friendly” gifts while we continue to drill and log and mine and pave our way into oblivion.
Unfortunately I think that Tidwell is on to something here. Like Tidwell, I can “almost imagine the big energy companies secretly applauding each time we distract ourselves from the big picture with a hectoring list of “5 Easy Ways to Green Your Office.” And yes I do think that the media has inflated the importance of personal gestures like washing clothes in cold water, and canceling our junk mail. And yes we have deluded ourselves into believing that we can change the world simply by changing our light bulbs.
Simply put: we can’t solve the climate crisis by changing our lifestyle choices. Rather, we need to change the universe of possible lifestyle choices and the framework within which we make our choices. We need sound public policy that takes certain choices off of the table (like buying gas guzzlers), that makes others more accessible and compelling to more people (like living in urban environments), and that transforms others into taken-for-granted facts of life (like living in energy efficient homes).
But I do not think that we should stop going green. Unlike Tidwell I think that green lifestyle choices can support and be supported by political advocacy. As I wrote in an earlier post, I believe that there can be a synergistic relationship between individual actions and social change, especially when individual actions include both advocacy and efforts to live according to the principles for which one advocates. Instead of halting our greening efforts, let’s put them in perspective (ultimately I think this is Tidwell’s message as well).
Yes we need to make different choices. But, more importantly, we need to join our individual voices to others in advocating for political change. Put differently: we need to “choose” advocacy as the first and most important step in our efforts to “go green.” We need to make sure our elected officials step to the plate and address the environmental problems we face. And there is no problem more pressing right now than global warming.
There are lots of ways to get involved with advocacy but for climate change there is no better place to start that 1Sky, founded in 2007, not as a new organization but as “collaborative campaign” of environmental organizations, religious groups, scientists, economist, business leaders, etc. who want our leaders to tackle global warming. 1sky has developed a policy platform and spearheaded wide-reaching and effective community organizing to promote this platform. Visit 1sky to get learn more about how you can help right now, including calling President Obama to let him know that you want the US to lead the way towards a comprehensive global climate treaty at Copenhagen.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
If buying less stuff is the first principle of sustainable consumption, then “mindful” buying is the second. We can start by buying less. But the next step is to buy better. When you shop this holiday season consider: Where did the item come from? How was it made? Who made it? How long will it last? Can it be reused or recycled when the recipient no longer needs it? Who benefits from the sale? To what extent and in what ways can it enhance the recipient’s life?
The unfortunate truth is that it is hard to practice mindful shopping when you buy from national or multinational chains, whether online or bricks-and-mortar. But you can frequently practice it at your locally and independently owned toy store or clothing store or jeweler. You can sometimes practice it online, when you seek out socially and environmentally conscious retailers. And you can also practice it by frequenting second-hand and vintage shops.
Large chains, bargain shopping and convenience shopping are here to stay, for better and for worse. They are part of the landscape. They may serve as the most direct and accessible routes to consumption. But we can sometimes take the windy, back roads instead. It may take longer, it may cost more upfront, but we may also find that it gives us more satisfaction and value in the end.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
So you’ve decided to take a first step towards greening your holidays: you’re going to buy less stuff. So what do you give instead of “stuff”? Here’s a list of ideas to get you started
- Give tickets to theater, music, a sporting event; or dinner out
- Give a personal service such as a massage or facial
- Give a class in knitting, wood-working, dance, or cooking
- Give membership to a museum, gym or yoga studio.
- Give to a charity in honor of the recipient.
- Give an experience that you and the recipient can enjoy together.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
There are lots of things we can do to “green” our holidays: from using LED holiday lights to reusing and recycling gift wrap. But these little things won’t add up to much if we ignore the bigger challenge: our buying habits. Our penchant for shopping has a profound impact on the environment (to learn the ways in and extent to which consumerism harms the earth, click here and here). And at no time do we buy more than between Thanksgiving and New Year’s.
If you want to green your holidays, start by asking yourself: “What can I give my loved ones other than more stuff?” We don’t really need all that “new stuff” anyway. It may be less convenient and take more time to give each other non-stuff but it may also provide more and longer-lasting satisfaction (this has actually been studied; click here for a link to a 2002 article published in The Journal of Happiness Studies). In other words, buying fewer expendable consumer goods isn’t just good for the planet. It may make us happier.
(to see more green holiday tips click here)
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
There is no question about it, plastic–especially disposable plastic products like water bottles–has an image problem. Faced with consumer defections to more “earth-friendly” materials, the plastics industry has worked steadily to develop “greener” plastic alternatives.
Until recently the fruits of these efforts have been meager. But now ENSO bottles has come out with a new earth friendly plastic bottle solution.” What makes the ENSO bottle earth-friendly? One word: biodegradability.
Although petroleum-based, ENSO bottles have organic compounds added to them that enable them to biodegrade in both anaerobic (landfill) and aerobic (compost) environments. But because they are petroleum-based they are also recyclable: so whether they are thrown in the garbage or in the recycling bin, ENSO bottles don’t add to our growing mountains of trash.
ENSO bottles also have end-of-life advantages over biobased bottles, which cannot be recycled and can only biodegrade in industrial composting facilities (which–when they exist at all–are not easily accessible).
Given that 12% of our landfill space is taken up with plastic, an en-mass switch to ENSO could make a significant dent in our trash pile. But at what cost? With biodegradability comes greenhouse gas emissions, which as a recent treehugger post points out, may negate the benefits of freeing up landfill space. In addition, what happens to the petroleum distillates and other compounds in an ENSO bottle when it biodegrades? Do these present an environmental hazard?
And how do ENSO bottles stack up when you take into account life cycle stages? For example, when you look at sourcing, ENSO bottles are neither more nor less earth-friendly than other disposable plastic bottles: they are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource whose extraction and processing is the number one contributor to global warming.
Finally, questions remain–for me at least–about safety. While ENSO Bottles meet FDA criteria for food grade packaging, so does BPA, which we now know poses significant health risks, especially to fetuses, infants and young children. This isn’t to say that ENSO bottles are unsafe, only that it isn’t clear to me that they are.
Isn’t the most earth-friendly solution to simply forgo disposable plastic products at least when there are safe, reusable alternatives? But that’s the rub: there are times when there aren’t safe, reusable alternatives. When you’re at the airport, or example. Or when you are having an event or function in a facility without a kitchen.
But of course these examples only raise a broader question: is it worth all the time, money and talent that ENSO has invested in creating a biodegradable bottle, or would that time, money and talent be better invested in another technology that might move us further along the path towards a sustainable future?
I may answer this question one way but clearly other people would answer it other ways. There are many paths that will take us towards a sustainable future; we need many paths. On the other hand, some paths may be dead ends, and I think it’s worth discussing–even arguing over–what makes some paths more promising than others.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
It seems that everywhere we go our kids are being tempted by–even bombarded with–opportunities to consume excessive amounts of sweeteners, salt and bad fats (partially hydrogenated or hydrogenated oil). Unfortunately sweeteners, salt and bad fat aren’t the only things we need to watch out for in junk food. There are a host of chemicals added to processed food–either to extend shelf life, to “enhance” flavor or to make the food more visually appealing–that make them even more unhealthy. For example, several chemical food dyes have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
The best way to reduce your intake of chemical additives is to eat as much whole food as possible, such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains. And make sure you read the ingredient lists of all processed food you buy–the shorter the list, and the more ingredients you recognize on it, the better. Finally, check out the report, “Chem Cuisine,” published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and try to avoid additives considered to be unsafe.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy is a research, education and advocacy organization working to “ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.” While IATP is based in the Midwest and focuses much of its policy work in this region, their publications are a great resource for consumers around the country. I especially recommend IATP’s Food & Health Smart Guides on topics such as plastic safety and hormones in the food system.
Hi Rachel,
Good debate! But it remains just so essential to “act locally” (as in your own local household, your own car, and so on) even as you write your congressman and President Obama, etc to have the US lead in places like Copenhagen, and Mexico next year. By adopting, modeling, and advocating personal energy-efficiency actions we have an answer to those people who criticize the idea of carbon taxes (or cap and trade) as bound to inflict harm on our economy, and especially on low income households. I can honestly tell my students that in my house I use about 1/3rd the electricity of what the federal energy information agency tells me is used by a typical New England household. And no, I am not making my family sit in the dark, and actually the TV is on a fair amount especially during baseball season. So, I tell my students, I just don’t worry to much about a doubling in the price of electricity, since I have found that its not that hard to use only 1/3rd of the normal amount. Other households can do as we do too, and the price per kWh could double but their quality of life would change little.
What about low-income households, that might not be able to afford the high efficiency refrigerator and new lighting, etc? Here we can go a step further: whether we use cap and trade with auction (government gains fees during the auction of the permits) or carbon taxes (govt gets new revenues from taxation of a public bad, the polluting types of fuels) we can direct a good portion of those fees or tax revenues to making low-income households more energy efficient. The New England cap and trade system (the RGGI) has already been used in this way, with some $4 million spent on making low-income homes more energy efficient. At least one observer has dubbed this the “cap and share” approach, and I like that term a lot. Energy taxes (and cap and trade will be like a tax in its effect on electricity costs) are inherently regressive, so some kind of cap and share system is needed. There may need to be more sharing of the wealth in this respect, since the price of goods like food may also rise (a supermarket’s electric bill must be startling…on the other hand, as the new supermarket in Chestnut Hill has shown, LED lighting and high efficiency refrigeration can reduce costs in a big store too!)
So what do we advocate for, when we contact the government? More renewable power, of course. But we will also need some kind of carbon taxes eventually, because if we just reduce demand for energy, the price of carbon-rich fuels will fall, making it tempting to continue to use them to meet new demand somewhere else. And if US homes and stores, etc., continue to power its newly installed LED light bulbs with coal fired electricity (the source of about half of the nation’s electricity), we’ll just keep adding to the mess in the atmosphere, only a bit more slowly. So by sharply reducing demand per household (lighting being just the easiest piece to tackle), we make all those actions that government intervention is needed for that much easier to afford and advocate for.
So the personal and the public complement each other in many ways, but it is particularly important for educators and activists to practice both, with real zeal.
Cheers,
Eric Olson
Comment by Eric Olson — December 14, 2009 @ 7:40 pm