A lot of ink has been spilled on the question of whether driving or flying is better for the environment. The answer, as with many questions of this sort (see for example, our green tip on plastic v. paper), is it all depends–on the context, on your assumptions, on how you go about answering the question. I’ve seen completely opposing answers to this question (such as this one and this one, and I’ve seen numbers that indicate the difference, especially for short flights, is not that great.
Here’s how I would rate your green travel options (from greenest to least green):
- Stay home and do all the fun things you never have an opportunity to do otherwise.
- Travel by train.
- Travel by bus.
- Travel by car (with more than one person in the car).
- Fly and purchase carbon offsets
You can read more about green travel at Grist and Planet Green.
(7/23/09). A recent post on Low Impact Living reviews an online environmental impact calculator for travel, called Trip Footprint. Interesting stuff, although even the numbers their recommendations are based on aren’t foolproof.
Comments (0)
Local food–it’s a big phenomenon these days. Farmers markets are springing up everywhere; CSAs are overwhelmed with interest; urban homesteading is on the rise. Hopefully this isn’t all just a passing fad as there are many advantages to eating local:
- unlike large, industrial farms, small farms generally practice crop rotation, which mitigates the need for chemical fertilizers and helps to maintain the health of the soil,
- locally grown and raised food often uses less energy for distribution than does food produced far away
- locally grown fruits and vegetables are fresher and may have higher nutritional content as a result (there’s a study underway to test this hypothesis)
So eat your fruits and veggies–and buy them from local growers (to read about the benefits of eating locally, click here; to find local food sources near you, click here and here).
Comments (0)
(this is the first in a series of posts about my reasons for going green).
“Going green” has become a proxy for reducing the impact of our personal behavior on the environment. We’ve discovered (or rediscovered) that our actions can either harm the earth or help the earth; by “going green” we are committing to making choices that help rather than hurt. Choices like turning down our thermostats, walking or biking instead of driving, ditching disposables… The list of ways that we can do less harm to the earth goes on and on.
But “going green” isn’t just about reducing our impact on the earth–as if the earth were something out there, beyond us. We are a part of the earth, and our relationship to it is complex and interdependent. The implications of this complexity and interdependence are several. Here I focus on just one: because we are a part of nature, when we harm nature, we also harm ourselves.
Nowhere is there stronger evidence for this than in our own homes, the air quality of which, EPA studies have found, is frequently worse than that outdoors. The sad truth is that pollution isn’t just a problem “out there” or for “other people.” Known and suspected health hazards have insinuated themselves into all of our lives; everyday we are breathing in, applying to our bodies and even ingesting known and suspected toxins such as:
- Formaldehyde, which has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a known human carcinogen. Composite wood products (such as plywood and MDF) are significant sources of indoor emissions.
- Phthalates, which are potential endocrine disruptors, are present in pvc (vinyl) products such as raincoats, floor tiles, shower curtains, and children’s toys, as well as many personal care products (the ingredient “fragrance” is frequently a marker for phthalates).
- Pesticides, which have been linked to a host of health problems including cancer.
Research remains ongoing about the health effects of chemicals in consumer goods. When definitive evidence of human harm is found, substances have been pulled from the market. But why wait until definitive evidence of human harm has been found, especially since it can take years to acquire?
A recent handbook on greening your home published by Healthy Child Healthy World (an organization devoted to protecting children from environmental health hazards) makes this point succinctly: “unlike you and me, chemicals should never be considered innocent until proven guilty; in fact, we must consider them guilty until proven innocent! We must demand that the industry prove a substance safe before it is allowed to be sold to millions” (Christopher Gavigan, Healthy Child, Healthy World, 8).
What a great concept! It’s so great, in fact, that the European Union has made this principle, known as “the precautionary principle,” the basis for its regulations for chemicals in consumer products. Movement is afoot to change the laws in this country as well, and it would behoove all of us to work towards this (MA residents: check out The Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition that advocates for better chemical legislation). In the meantime, we need to do our best as individuals to protect ourselves and our families from potential health hazards.
So when people ask me, “why go green?” my first answer is often this: a greener life is a healthier life.
Comments (0)
