Two years ago I reported dramatic reductions in my home energy use on this blog. Between 2007 and 2009 I cut my gas usage by 34% and my electric usage by 55%. Needless to say I was pretty pleased with myself for this achievement and none too shy about spreading the news. I was also happy to share because I believed that my experience could serve as a model for others seeking to lower their energy bills and that my savings were replicable.
My message? That behavior change had incredible power to drive down energy usage. This wasn’t what I anticipated when I first began to work at reducing our home’s energy use: I had expected that efficiency upgrades (insulation, air sealing and better equipment) would have a much bigger impact on our energy use than conservation (things like turning lights off, adjusting thermostat settings, or washing our clothes in cold water). Of course, I was practicing and preaching the virtues of making sustainable choices all along, but I didn’t really think these would have a big impact. Boy was I surprised when I began to evaluate our savings in light of the actions we had taken!
By way of illustration, consider our summertime electricity use. Between June-September of 2006 we consumed just over 1200 KWH each month. Between June-September of 2011 we used 600 KWH each month: half of what we consumed 5 years prior.
Can you guess how we did it? Yes, we insulated our attic, which allowed or air handler to run more efficiently (just think how much 
harder an air handler has to work if it’s located in a 100 degree attic, as opposed to a 78 degree home). But, no, we didn’t install a more efficient HVAC system. And, no, we didn’t even seal our ductwork. Mostly we just turned the AC off and ran fans instead (except on the hottest days; even I’m not crazy enough to suffer through several days of 90+ degree heat without using central AC). So… we cut our summertime electric bill in half simply by flicking a switch–oh, and “investing” in fans, like this ceiling fan we put in our bedroom.
Pretty simple, right? Well, yes and no. Take another look at that chart. Do you notice that the trend line started to edge back up slightly after bottoming out in 2009? Although we used slightly less electricity in the summer of 2011 than in the summer of 2010, in both years we used more electricity that in the summer of 2009. At the same time, we’ve also been backsliding a little on gas usage, and our total energy use (in BTUs) was slightly higher in 2011 than in 2010.
What happened between 2009 and now? Not much, other than our two new entertainment systems. While these systems use more electricity than our old-school TV did, we don’t use them all that much and power them down completely when we aren’t using them (we keep vampire power to a minimum in our house). So they don’t account for much of the uptick.
I suspect that this uptick is mostly due to a loss of focus. We just aren’t paying as close attention to our energy consumption now that we’ve achieved such marked reductions. And we’re slipping back into some bad habits: we’re leaving lights on more; we’re more likely to bump up the thermostat when we’re chilly; we’re using our clothes dryer more.
So what does this mean? First, that the power of behavior cuts both ways. Just as behavior change can result in dramatic reductions in energy use, backsliding can easily erode those savings. It reminds me of lifestyle changes: who among us hasn’t achieved weight loss or exercise goals only to watch them slip away as bad habits return to roost?
Which leads right to my second point: behavior change sounds simple. After all, most of us know what’s required in order to lose weight, be stronger, or cut our energy bills. We may even be successful at achieving these goals in the short-term. Yet as time goes on, many of us fail to sustain our achievements and end up back where we started. In short, behavior change is much harder in practice than it is in theory.
Which leads to my third point: behavior change alone won’t get us where we need to go. We can’t just tell people to conserve and expect them to do so. We can’t even teach them how to conserve and expect them to do so. We need to do a lot of other things too like:
- design and engineer our infrastructure to facilitate conservation
- sett goals, create support systems (Weight Watchers for energy use?), provide rewards for success, and perhaps even penalize people for failure.
- reevaluate and aggressively realign our political and economic systems to prioritize the public good over corporate profits, and the welfare of future generations over short-term and myopic fixes to immediate problems.
Lacking a holistic vision, policy and strategy, behavior change is likely to fail in the long-term. We may succeed in the short-term but soon enough we’ll be back to consuming calories and carbon-based fuels we can no longer afford.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The holiday season can be stressful for lots of reasons: too much spending, too much eating, travel delays and family tensions. For the eco-conscious, another stress is also part of the mix: the stress that comes from trying to buy green gifts. We do our best: giving experiences or services, buying second hand, or giving homemade. But at some point almost all of us step foot (literally or virtually) into the marketplace of the new. And when we do we come face to face with the fact that consumer culture and sustainability are antithetical. I know it’s discomfiting, but, yes, “buying green” is a contradiction in terms.
In my experience, there are a few different ways to deal with this stress: you can repress the knowledge that consumption is unsustainable, you can try to minimize or offset the damage, you can try to assuage your guilt, or you can do some combination of all three. Around the holidays, I tend to do some combination, especially as–with each passing year–I am confronted with ever more brand-conscious wishlists from my kids.
Consider if you will my son’s Hanukkah wishlist this year. Is there anything on this list that I can give without shopping? Anything that I can buy secondhand or make myself? Unfortunately, no. But also consider what’s not on his list: the kindle, the iphone, the Xbox. These are all things he has asked for but has been told he isn’t getting (at least for now). See, here I am, employing one of the strategies of the eco-conscious shopper: assuaging my guilt! I’ve also relied a lot on the repression method, in which I simply take off my green hat and hand over my credit card.
And what about minimizing or offsetting the damage? Well, this year I decided to tie gift purchases, as much as possible, to sales and donations of unused or underused stuff. So, for example, in order to put the FIFA 12 wii game on his wishlist, my son had to clean out his existing video game collection. The result? A $64 credit at Gamestop, which was more than enough to cover the cost of his new video game. The Judy Moody books on my daughter’s gift list? The shelf space and money for those will come from the Rainbow Fairy books she has outgrown.
Recommerce–a fancy name for trading-in–has long been a staple of the car market but has recently caught on much more broadly. Perhaps the hottest recommerce market right now is electronics, in which companies like Boston-based Gazelle are offering consumers, who are ever-voracious for the fastest, hippest, and most-tricked out gadget, the opportunity to resell their “old” devices. Gazelle also commits to responsible recycle any devices it cannot resell.
There are, of course, lots of reasons to resell our unused stuff (not least of which is the money). The question for me is: is environmental responsibility one of these reasons? In other words, if I resell some of my old stuff before I buy new stuff, am I undoing some of the environmental damage caused by my consumption?
Without question, it’s better for the environment from an end-of-life perspective when we resell our goods rather than trash them. To the extent that recommerce helps keep goods out of the landfill or the incinerator, it’s an environmental plus. But what about at the other end of the lifecycle? Does recommerce minimize the environmental impacts associated with harvesting natural resources, and manufacturing and distributing the goods we make from them? I think that the unfortunate answer to these questions is no. And even more unfortunately, I suspect that recommerce actually reinforces our consumption of new products, and in so doing may in fact undermine its waste-reduction benefits. For no matter how much waste recommerce may reduce, its financial success depends on our continual consumption of the new. Otherwise there would be nothing to resell.
Which isn’t to say that I won’t keep reselling my stuff. But it is to say that when I buy new–whether I resell something old first or not–I’ll have to lean heavily on another of my eco-conscious shopping strategies: repression.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Halloween has come and gone. Costumes have been put away. Decorations put back in storage. But the phantoms live on. Long after even the candy has been consumed–and that process is endless enough–our homes will still be haunted by what is known as phantom loads, or vampire power.
Vampire power or phantom loads refer to the energy that electronics consume when they are switched off but continue to draw power. Sometimes an LED display clues you in to the presence of a phantom. Sometimes you can tell because a device remains warm even when it isn’t being used. Everything from your microwave to your mobile phone charger draws vampire power when it is plugged in but not being used. Indeed, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a typical American home has forty devices plugged in that constantly draw power. And it turns out that these loads account for a huge proportion of household electricity consumption–almost 10%!
At my house, we’ve done a pretty good job of exorcising our phantoms: we unplug our chargers; we turn off our computers and peripherals at night; we even unplug our coffee maker and toaster when we aren’t using them. But there is one phantom that had proved very difficult to eliminate: the one that haunts our home entertainment system.
Two years ago I caved to pressure from the sports watchers and video gamers in our family (you know who you are…) and gave my OK to a relatively fancy AV system. Up until then we had an old-school television with a simple cable box and dvd player. The biggest energy user in this system was the cable box, which we knew drew vampire power because it remained warm after we turned it off. We expelled the vampire from our old system by plugging all the components into a smart strip. The smart strip automatically and completely shut down the cable box when we turned the television off. There was a functional trade-off to this solution, however: we had to wait roughly 15 minutes after powering the system back on for the channel guide to show up.
But then, in 2010 we replaced our old system with this. Now for some of you this looks like a pretty simple system, but to us, it was loaded: a wii, an HD cable box, Apple TV, blu ray, and surround sound speakers. Oh, and the 54″ flat screen TV. You can guess what happened to our vampire, right? It returned!
Fortunately, with some nagging I was able to get the av company to install a single switch that would allow us to power the system down completely. Of course, in order for this solution to work we have to remember to flip the switch. Mostly we do remember and we live with the delayed reboot time. But sometimes we don’t and then the vampire returns with a vengeance, especially if we go a few days without using the system.
According to a recent study published by the Natural Resources Defense Council, vampires in av systems have become increasingly common and increasingly bloodthirsty, with set top boxes (i.e., cable boxes and dvrs) consuming 2/3 of their power when they are off. That’s right, 2/3 when they are turned off. In fact, the typical set draws more electricity than the typical refrigerator (446 v. 415 kwh annually).
Now, these results were startling even to me, and I was already familiar with the problem of phantom loads! The question is: are they enough to convince people to live with the functional compromise of completely powering down their systems? I’d say they would for some people. But for many others they won’t. And even people, like me, who are willing to power their systems down won’t always remember to.
Which is why we need the cable companies to provide products that offer functionality and energy efficiency. Fortunately the Energy Star program is currently phasing in stricter performance standards for Energy Star certified set top boxes, as well as incentives for manufacturers to add a deep sleep mode in which the device would draw less than or equal to 15% of power it uses in on mode. But in the meantime, here’s another very simple, very cost-effective solution you could try: an electronic timer! This is a picture of the one Jonathan Kantar of Sage Builders set one up in his home. It cost $20. Assuming you are going from a system that is always on to one that is on 6 hours a day, I’d estimate that this investment would pay for itself in less than half a year.
Which isn’t a bad deal to make, even if it is with a vampire.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
When I first began my green living journey two year ago, junk mail was one of the first issues I tackled: I contacted the credit bureaus’ centralized service for opting out of credit card and insurance offers; I signed onto the Direct Marketing Association’s Mail Preference Service; I called up all the catalogs I received and asked to be taken off their lists.
And then–just to make sure nothing slipped through the cracks–I signed up with 41pounds, a junk mail reduction service, which charges $41 for 5 years. Named for the amount of carbon emissions they claim the service will save the average customer, 41pounds guarantees it will reduce your junk mail by 80-95% within 4 months or refund your money.
Then there are the steps I’ve taken to protect my name from being put back on junk mail lists (yup, just because you’ve asked to be taken off doesn’t stop the company from adding you back on next time you shop with them). When I shop online, I always follow my order with an email to customer service requesting that my contact information not be added to their mailing list. When I order over the phone I always make the same request. And I’ve become very cautious about in-store rewards cards (signing up for which is a sure-fire way to get on a mailing list). In those rare instances when I do sign up for a rewards card, I make it very clear that the store is not to sell, rent or otherwise share my information with any third party, including affiliates.
You would think these steps would have solved the problem. And they did for a while. Within a couple of months of doing all of this, my junk mail dropped off precipitously and stayed that way for about a year and a half.
But recently junk has started to reappear in my mailbox. First it was catalogs I’d unsubscribed from. Then it was financial solicitations related to business (oh the ironies of a green consultant being inundated with junk mail). And then came the straw that broke the camel’s back: my kids started receiving junk mail.
This has been very distressing for me, although I don’t know what to do about it other than call the companies and ask to have my kids’ names removed from their mailing lists. If it gets really bad, I guess I can repeat the steps I outlined above: call the DMA, sign up with 41pounds, etc. But I shouldn’t have to.
I shouldn’t have to jump through a million hoops to stop mail that I never wanted anyway. It’s a travesty. More than 100 million trees are destroyed each year to produce junk mail! Not to mention that the whole point of all this junk mail is to get us to consume more–an activity which is unustainable, no matter how successful conventional economic wisdom is at brainwashing us with the mantra of growth, growth, growth.
The planet is limited. Plain and simple. Junk mail is really annoying. But it’s also just the tip of the iceberg of the consumerism that may yet (but hopefully won’t) sink us.
Image Credits:
becomingminimalist.com (junk mail)
Nicole Duplaix, nationalgeographic.com (deforestation in Brazil’s Pantanal wetland)
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Does an ipad make you green with envy? Do you salivate just walking by an apple store? I know I do. I just bought a new macbook to replace my failing 2007 model (only 2007!) and I could barely restrain myself from buying an ipad also.
An ipad would be soooo convenient when I’m on the go: I could take it to meetings and when I travel. It would be so much easier for email than my iphone (yup, I’ve got an iphone too). And all those apps! There’s so much I could do with an ipad that I can’t do–or at least do as well–with my iphone or my macbook. Perhaps I’d even become an ereader. Since I’m trying to wean myself off buying books, I might as well… It would be a green choice, right?
Or so I was imagining as I sat there waiting for a “genius” to bring out my new macbook.
According to an increasingly influential school of thought in the sustainability movement I was actually on to something here. Dematerialization, which at its most basic level simply means using less material to make products, is a hot topic in sustainable design these days. Dematerialized design can encompass everything from making smaller products to eliminating packaging to replacing products with services (a la Zipcar).
There is a great deal of excitement about the type of dematerialization embodied in the ipad: an innovation that doesn’t just use less material, but actually replaces material altogether. The music revolution catalyzed by the ipod (and itunes) is a classic and well-known example of this type of dematerialization: by allowing us to scratch our consumption itch without buying any stuff, such gadgets are supposedly also better for the earth.
But what about the resources that facilitate these so-called dematerialized design innovations? Perhaps on an individual level buying an ipad and no longer buying books would have a net positive impact on my personal environmental footprint. But what’s the bigger picture? What is the overall and long-term impact of our proliferating gadgets?
Proponents of dematerialization point to the declining material and energy intensity of our economy as evidence that we can continue to grow and protect the environment at the same time. Whether it’s foodstuffs or forestry products or power generation, technological innovations are allowing us to make more with less than we were a generation ago. And if we just let innovators keep innovating, dematerialization will solve our environmental problems for us.
The problem with this line of thought is that a reduction in the intensity of consumption is not the same as an overall reduction in consumption. Dematerialization doesn’t stop, let alone reverse, the trend line of increased consumption. At its best, it only allows consumption to rise more slowly. At its worst, it actually facilitates increases in overall consumption.
Take the case of… you guessed it, electronic gadgets. When I was a kid we had one TV and, when I got to high school, one computer. My family now has three computers and two TVs. Not to mention two cable boxes, a blue ray player, wii, apple TV, ipod, itouch and two iphones.
My new macbook uses way less material and energy than the clunky pc my family shared growing up. But efficiency gains haven’t been able to make up for the increases in overall residential electricity consumption, which in a single generation has nearly doubled.
Then there is the energy needed to run the data centers that support our dematerialized consumption (as well as other economic activity such as online banking). By 2030 electricity consumption for IT centers is projected to rise from near 0 to over 500 billion kwh annually.
And then there is the problem of ewaste. We aren’t just buying more gadgets we are also junking more gadgets. Increasing media attention has made us more aware of the costs associated with ewaste, particularly in developing countries which have become dumping grounds for our outdated and broken machines, where children harvest scrap metal for resale by melting away the plastic and foam that encases it.
Now that brings new and perverse meaning to dematerialization.
Would the world be better off without ipads? I would wager that, yes, it would. Does that mean I won’t buy one? Well…
Image Credits:
Apple (Chestnut Hill Apple Store)
Maria Tama/Getty Images (Zipcar)
Madhusudan Iyengar and Roger Schmidt/Energy Consumption of Information Technology Centers (chart)
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
This summer I’ve been reading and loving Animal, Vegetable, Miracle in which Barbara Kingsolver chronicles her family’s year-long experiment in eating only locally grown food. The book speaks to the body and the mind: drawing the reader in with tales of mouth-watering produce and persuasively arguing the case for recreating robust local food economies.
One of the most appealing aspects of the book is the honesty and clarity with which Kingsolver explores the limits of her experiment. She shares her family’s reluctance to actually begin, the small compromises they make to appease their cravings, and the myriad challenges they encounter: there is deprivation as well as abundance; backbreaking labor as well as its delicious fruits.
For most people in most parts of this country it’s virtually impossible to eat an all local diet. And many of us who have jumped on the local bandwagon are fair weather riders. We eat local when the getting is good and go back to standard (organic) grocery store fare when it’s not. We enjoy abundance but never feel deprivation; we eat the delicious fruits of others’ backbreaking labor.
So what’s the point or value of an experiment like Kingsolver’s if it’s not a model that others could follow? As I’ve written in the past, I believe that deep green lifestyle choices (and chronicles thereof) have social and cultural value precisely because they are extreme. By living beyond the limits of what is possible for most people–and writing a good story about it–the deep or extreme green memoirist reveals that more is possible than we, or at least I, previously thought.
But what about the value of deep green living to oneself? Is it just about confronting one’s own hypocrisy? About living according to one’s principles?
Kingsolver writes beautifully about the pleasures and joys of her experiment, but I didn’t really connect with this aspect of her tale until, quite fortuitously, I found myself whipping cream by hand soon after beginning the book. Not with a plug-in mixer mind you, but an old-fashioned beater (a plug-in wasn’t at hand). I can cook with the best of them but whipping that cream by hand was one of the more physical experiences I have had preparing my food. And it may have been the best whipped cream I’ve had in my life.
As I ate that whipped cream it came to me: Beyond moral integrity, and beyond the benefits to self and society deep green choices often provide great joy. Not all the time of course but more often than us moderates might think. Kingsolver didn’t undertake her experiment simply to assuage her conscience or make a point. She did it because she knew it would make her happy.
Since then I’ve realized that I wouldn’t continue to make many of my decidedly more moderate green choices–like composting, walking my kids to school, and line drying my clothes–if I they didn’t make me happy. The ungreen path of least resistance is just so much easier; it can’t be overcome on moral and intellectual ground alone.
Living green is not the status quo (if it were it would just be living, not living green) and won’t be for the foreseeable future. Which means that it will continue to require at least moderate effort and some onerous choices. But if Kingsolver’s tale and my experience with whipping cream by hand are any indication, on the other side of difficulty is often joy–a joy which simply can’t be found along the path of least resistance.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I don’t know about you but the continual onslaught of news about our myriad exposures to toxins can make me feel kind of crazy. Last week it was carcinogenic cellphones. Two months ago it was hormone disruptors in supposedly safe BPA-free plastic… I sometimes feel that the only solution is to isolate my family in a hermetically sealed box, or at least throw out everything we own and start over. Only those aren’t real solutions, are they?
Although exposure to toxins in the environment does pose risks to our health, small changes can make a big difference. Yes, it’s true! A few simple adjustments in our daily habits and choices can dramatically reduce exposure to toxins. This is especially true in our homes, which is where we spend the majority of our time and have the most control. Here are some tips to help you get started.
Leave Your Shoes at the Door
An astonishing 60% of house dust originates outdoors, and much of it is tracked in on our feet. Studies have shown that house dust contains many hazardous chemicals including lead, arsenic & even DDT, a pesticide which was banned in 1972. Because smaller particles of dust tend to stay attached to your shoes, you can take a big bite out of your home’s toxic dust burden simply by leaving your shoes at the door.
Keep It Clean
Even if we could stop all outdoor dust at the door, we’d still have to deal with the dust that originates inside. This dust also contains hazardous substances, including brominated flame retardants (BFRs), which are found in a wide variety of household goods including furniture and electronics. Healthy Child, Healthy World recommends regular dusting and vacuuming (preferably with a HEPA filter) to capture BFRs. Of course, regular cleaning also helps pick up other unwanted and potentially unhealthy dust particles, including pollen and dust mites that are a trigger for allergy and asthma sufferers.
Use Your Kitchen & Bath Fans
Our kitchen and bath fans aren’t there just to get rid of bad smells. Their primary job is to evacuate hazardous emissions such as carbon monoxide and sulfur oxide, which are released by all combustion appliances, and water vapor, which we produce when we cook, shower, etc. Water vapor sounds harmless but especially in a small, enclosed space like a bathroom it can be a breeding ground for mold. We can mitigate these hazards simply by using our fans (just make sure they are vented to the outside–not, say, to the inside of your attic, in which case they’re simply transferring emissions from one part of your house to another). To learn more check out the Homeowner’s Guide to Ventilation, published by the New York Energy Research and Development Authority.
Pass on Pesticides & Herbicides
One of the first commitments I made when I embarked on my own green living journey was to stop using pesticides and herbicides on my lawn: that was four years ago and I’ve never looked back. Now I’m working on eliminating all pesticides from my home (I still use pesticides to kill the mice that find their way into my basement through my field stone foundation every winter). It is true that some pests, such as mice and termites, which are hazardous to your health and/or damaging to your home, may need to be treated with pesticides. But in many cases there are equally effective, safer alternatives. Beyond Pesticides is an excellent resource if you are ready to take this step. My favorite section of their site is their Alternatives Fact Sheets, which offer recommendations for effective, least toxic control for a wide range of pests.
You Are What You Eat
Last but not least, our food choices have a profound impact on our exposure to toxins. There are great tools and resources our there to help us make safer choices and–here’s the good news–studies show that these choices do make a difference. Choosing organic produce, for example, has been shown to lower the levels of pesticides in our bodies. Here is where I’d recommend you start:
- Avoid produce with high residues of pesticides. This is easier than it sounds thanks to the Environmental Working Group, which every year publishes a list of the “Dirty Dozen” fruits and vegetables with the highest residues of pesticides and the “Clean Fifteen” fruits and vegetables with the lowest residues.
- Avoid food packaged in plastic that has been shown to leach potentially unsafe compounds. Plastic containers have a number on the bottom inside a triangular recycling symbol. 2, 4 & 5 are widely recognized to be safe. There are concerns about the safety of 1, 3, 6 & 7. To learn more Healthy Child, Healthy World has published a plastic safety guide.
- Choose meat and dairy products from animals that have not been treated with growth hormones or antibiotics. Look for USDA certified organic, or products that you can be reasonably certain are hormone and antibiotic free (either because they are labeled or because you buy from a trusted source).
- Limit your consumption of canned food, which almost always contains BPA in its liners. Choose frozen instead, or look for food packaged in glass or aseptic cartons. There are also a few companies offering BPA-free cans (such as Eden).
Given the ubiquity of potentially harmful substances in our environment, it can sometimes feel impossible to protect yourself. But please don’t despair! The small steps that we take over time add up. And every step we take makes a difference.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Newton, MA Farmers' Market
One of the things I’ve discovered on my green living journey is that each season presents unique challenges to and opportunities for making sustainable choices. Summer is time for enjoying local food. Winter a time for tracking energy bills.
Of course, many of my green practices do not fluctuate: remembering reusable bags is something I try to do all year. But many of my practices do shift with the seasons, such as line drying my clothes (spring-fall) and using fans as much as possible to cool my house (summer). Over time, I’ve learned that these shifts present opportunities to reassess my green goals and to plot the next steps in my green journey.
Each new season I take a moment to consider those areas of my life that I have not yet “greenified” and ask myself whether the time is right take on new goals, or re-dedicate myself to earlier commitments. What opportunities does this season offer to live more sustainably? And what can I do to seize the moment?
Here’s how I’m answering these questions this spring:
- I’ve become vigilant about protecting my family from chemicals in food and consumer products– everyone, that is, except my dog (Sorry Butter! If you only knew…). Every month, from early spring through late fall, I treat Butter with the same chemical flea and tick treatments that I always have. But lately it’s gotten harder to do this in good conscience (click here to learn more). Now that I’ve kicked the chemicals from most other areas of our lives, it’s time to protect my pup. While I’m at it, I’ll investigate alternatives to “conventional” dog food too.
- OK, I have to confess there is one other area of my life where I continue to rely on chemicals. I kill the mice that find their way into my home every fall and winter. I hire a pest company (gasp!) to lay pet and kid-proof bait boxes with poison. When the mice eat the poison they get thirsty and exit the house in search of water. Sometime after that they bleed to death internally. Not very humane, I know–not to mention that it introduces poison into the food chain (was anyone else horrified to read about owls dying from eating poisoned rats?). I will never tolerate mice living in my house–they are too much of a health and safety hazard (pdf)–but there’s got to be a better way to “treat” for them. I’ve taken some preventative measures already (e.g., pest screen) but I’m going to find out if there are others. And I’m going to test out more ecologically-sound methods of eliminating mice that may continue to get in (total prevention with a field stone foundation may prove impossible). I’ve got about 6-8 months before they again seek refuge in my home…
- Last but not least, I’m going on a book buying hiatus. For a while last year I had gotten into a good groove of visiting the library for kids’ books. But I never stopped buying my own books and so, slowly, I went back to buying books for my kids too. I would be in the bookstore buying a book for myself and would pick up 1 or 2 or 3 books for my kids. And soon our bookshelves were overflowing with Rainbow Fairy and Rangers Apprentice books that are simply NOT worth owning. So from now on there’s a book rule. Unless it’s a classic or spectacular work, we’ll get it at the library, through a swap, or from a second hand bookshop.
In addition to pursuing these green goals, I’ll also be using Practically Green, looking out for other seasonal opportunities to spring forward in my green journey. If you aren’t yet a member, I urge you to join: it’s free, it’s fun, and it allows you to keep up with your friends’ green journeys.
In the meantime… I invite your thoughts and comments on my next steps: Do you have any mice prevention tips for homes that can’t be completely sealed? Have you found a natural flea & tick care treatment that really works?
I also invite you to share your next steps in your green journey. How will you spring forward this season?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
My backyard garden
When I embarked on my green living journey a couple of years ago, one of the first things I changed was the way we cared for our lawn and garden. And let me tell you, there was a lot to change. When we became homeowners a decade and a half ago, we immediately began “treating” our lawn & garden with regular doses of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. A few years after moving in, we “improved” our property by installing an irrigation system. And, of course, we also planted several new perennials and shrubs, and even a couple of trees. Can you guess what our prime selection criterion was? They were pretty.
But then I started to learn: that Roundup, which we were using to kill weeds in our lawn, is really bad for people; that our irrigation system was watering the storm drains as much as it was watering the yard; that many of the pretty plantings we had installed were providing scarce food for native pollinators. The more I learned the more horrified and overwhelmed I became. We had dug ourselves so deep into these practices, it seemed almost impossible to crawl back out. But we have–small step by small step we weaned ourselves away from our unhealthy and unsustainable habits. And in the process, we have created a yard that is healthy for us, that provides habitat for native species, and that relies on natural processes and food sources to sustain itself.
One of the first things we did was to hire Risa Edelstein, an ecological landscape designer, to help us get started. Edelstein, who is currently President of the Ecological Landscaping Association, advised us to first get our yard off chemicals. She tells all new clients that “The first and most important step is to stop using chemicals. No pesticides. No synthetics.” If you’re someone who is attached to the dream of a perfect lawn, take a moment to learn about the environmental and health risks we court by chasing this dream. You may find it easier to give up.
At the same time as we have switched to organic lawn care practices (click here to learn more), we’ve also steadily decreased our lawn, confining it to areas where we actually use it for playing (less lawn is better first and foremost because lawns waste incredible amounts of water). Over time we have added plantings in this freed-up space, focusing–with Edelstein’s guidance–on plants that are suitable for our site and provide habitat for native species.
Mophead Hydrangea
“Going native” has been an incredible learning process for me. While it didn’t take long for me to understand why lawns are unsustainable, I didn’t realize how devitalized the average suburban garden is until I was well into my work with Edelstein. One day while we were discussing plant options for my side yard, I mentioned that I really liked hydrangeas with those big showy, long lasting blooms (known as mopheads). She informed me that those blooms are sterile and that the sterility is the reason why they are able to last so long. Now I understood why I rarely saw bees buzzing around one of these showy hydrangeas! And I finally got Edelstein’s passion for native plants. “The importance of native plants as wildlife habitat – including bees, butterflies, bird, bats, etc. – is very exciting especially given the stresses we are seeing (i.e, Colony Collapse Disorder, White Nosed Bats Syndrome),” she explains.
The third area in which we have made great progress is in our use of water. Just by decreasing our lawn, we reduced our water needs significantly. But other changes in our watering infrastructure and habits have mattered equally as much.
One change that made a big impact was our decision to completely turn off the zones of our irrigation system that waterour garden beds. I’ve learned from Edelstein that plants don’t need to be regularly watered once they’ve established themselves, which typically takes a season or two (assuming they are suitable for your site). So now we water our gardens only when needed–i.e., when we’re trying to establish a new plant or if the garden is under stress from a period of extreme dryness.
Trenching for My Rain Garden
We also looked to our roof. Why were we directing so much of the rain that fell on this surface into storm drains? And then using potable water to meet our irrigation needs? The more I thought about it, the crazier it seemed. So last spring, we created a rain garden, which is just a fancy way of saying that we trenched our downspouts to a portion of our garden.
The last step on our path towards water conservation will occur this season, when we add a couple of rain barrels to water our vegetable garden. If you want to grow vegetables you do have to water them regularly. But you don’t need to do it with drinking water!
And so my journey towards a more eco-friendly yard continues… There’s much more to do but the progress we’ve made so far has made a big difference.
Interested in learning more about eco-friendly lawn & garden care? Buzz on over to these other posts
Quick and Easy Home Composting
Organic Lawn Care
Waterwise
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Last week wrought another crack in the veneer of “safe plastics”as research showing that newer BPA-free plastics are prone to “estrogenic activity” made the national news.
Needless to say this news unleashed a new wave of angst among consumers searching for safe and affordable storage containers for food & beverages. I was among them. I had given up my old polycarbonate bottles when I learned that they were leaching the endrocrine disrupting compound BPA. After struggling to find acceptable substitutes–especially for my kids–I was relieved when companies began to come out with BPA-free plastic bottles and cups with the same strength and resilience as the old BPA-laden ones. For the past two years my son has been carrying his water to school in a BPA-free Camel Bak. Not anymore.
It wasn’t long after the research made national news that the frustrated emails from clients and students started to come in. “I switched all my plastic baby bottles and sippy cups to BPA-free ones,” wrote one mom and participant in a Green Parenting Class Series. “Now what should I do?” The short answer is: seek out alternatives that are generally recognized to be safe. Right now my list of materials that are generally recognized to be safe for food and beverage storage includes the following:
- Plastics labeled with the numbers 2, 4, or 5.
- Stainless steel
- Glass
That’s it.
I’m frustrated about having to winnow down my list of plastic containers that are safe for food storage, but that is just what this new research has led me to do. Unfortunately this isn’t the first time this has happened (studies showing leaching of estrogenic compounds from #1 plastic have led me to take this off my list of safe plastic containers as well). Nor do I expect it to be the last, at least not until chemical companies are required to show that the compounds they produce do not have untoward health consequences when used as intended.
There are efforts underway at both the state and federal levels to reform chemical policy to require pre-market testing and enhance the powers of regulatory agencies to protect consumers. But at the federal level at least, the prospects for comprehensive reform look grim.
The good news is that advances in green chemistry mean that the day when it is technologically feasible to mass produce plastics that are safe for food storage may not so far off: a recent study in Environmental Health Perspectives concludes that there are alternative “monomers, additives [and] processing agents that have no detectable EA and similar costs.” The question is: How do we make the possible real? How do we transform the promise of green chemistry into the reality of truly safe (i.e., proven safe) products?
For most consumers our role in this transformation is twofold:
And, in the meantime, don’t be surprised if my list of plastics that are safe for food storage continues to get smaller.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I really enjoyed reading your article Rachel. I also like that you seem to teach your children the importance of saving the environment and leading an eco-friendly life. And what you mentioned about sustainability and consumerism being antithetical is absolutely true. However, I think before going back to being hunters and gatherers, we need to support innovations. Have you heard about ecovillages? In these villages, people grow their own organic food, they use renewable energy resources and they use eco-friendly architecture (like green roofs). I loved hearing about these types of villages and I hope we will hear more about them in the future!
Comment by Jennifer Tehraud — March 19, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
Thank you for your kind words, Jennifer, and for informing me about eco-villages.
I hope my post didn’t give the impression that I would like to see us return to hunter/gatherer society. I don’t and think that such desires are ludicrous!
Past ways of life are gone and can’t be recreated in their original form. We can, however, learn from the past just as we can from other contemporaneous cultures and societies. And we can adopt and adapt whatever seems useful to us now.
In many ways, it sounds like the eco-village concept adapts elements of pre-modern social organization to the contemporary context. The eco-village teaches us that the small scale, self-sufficiency and intentionality of pre-modern society can still serve us today, and that it would be in our self-interest to recreate a more communal and place-based way of life.
Comment by Rachel White — March 19, 2012 @ 7:26 pm