Related Links:

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Courtesy AdbustersFor twenty years, the people behind Buy Nothing Day have been pleading with consumers to avoid the frenzy inherent in "Black Friday," the no-holds-barred shop-o-rama that comes the day after Thanksgiving. This year, they're ramping things up and calling for an all-out Wildcat Strike against the "capitalist consumption machine." Socialists, you say? No, just worried people who want to take a stand in the face of "crises of ecology, psychology, and faith."

Dearest readers, I'll let them say it themselves -- give this a look, and visit the Buy Nothing Day site to learn more:

This year we’re calling for a wildcat general strike. On November 27/28 we’re asking tens of millions of people around the world to bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding – if only momentary – halt. We want you to shut off your lights, your televisions and other nonessential appliances. We want you to park your car, turn off your phones and log off your computer for the day. We’re calling for a Ramadan-like fast. From sunrise to sunset, we abstain en masse. Not only from shopping but from all the temptations of our five-planet lifestyles.

Instead we’ll feed our spirits and minds with a feast of subversive activities: pranks, shenanigans, credit card cut-ups, bicycle swarms, mall invasions and all manner of culture jams and creative détournements … and some of us will take things even further with sit-ins, demonstrations, passive resistance and acts of nonviolent defiance, anarchy and civil disobedience. If we can create a big enough ruckus on November 27/28, then we may be able to catalyze what the Situationists tried to set in motion half a century ago: a chain reaction of refusal against consumer capitalism … a sudden, unexpected moment of truth … the first ever global revolution.

So think about it -- and at the very least, I encourage you to rein in your shopping this holiday season. Here's an interesting look at the role of products and packaging in our current climate crisis; when all is said and done, they can be tied to 44 percent of our greenhouse-gas emissions. In the words of Santa's seamstress, "Yikes."

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Dearest readers,

Colin Beavan, aka No Impact Man.You've perhaps No-ticed the No Impact swirl of late: there's been lots of buzz about No Impact Man, the New Yorker who committed his young family to a year of zero-waste living, and his eponymous film. In late October, five thousand people participated in the first-ever No Impact Week. If you missed it then, here's your  second chance: the Natural Resources Defense Council is sponsoring another No Impact Week beginning this Sunday -- you can sign up here, then learn how to plan and carry out your own consumption revolution. (If the timing is no good for you, conduct your own No Impact Week with this handy how-to guide.)

No matter what you think of the No Impact phe-No-menon, the idea of a week of "pre-holiday mindfulness," as NRDC terms it, sounds pretty darn refreshing to me. The event is part of NRDC's new Simple Steps campaign. Wander over to the site, and you'll find the beginnings of a solid set of resources, including household calculators, tips for greening your community and your family, and pointers for understanding product labels. Near and dear to my heart is a section called This or That -- much like my own set of FAQs, it aims to answer those pesky "paper or plastic" questions that make so many of us a little twitchy.

Kudos to NRDC for its site, which is full of bright candy colors and making me dream of lollipops. While I go in search of sweets, take a look at Simple Steps yourself and let me know what you think. Useful? Inspiring? Vapid? Making you crave corn syrup?

And let me know if you give No Impact Week a shot, or if you're experimenting with consumption in some other way. The more stories, the better!

Sweetly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

This interview is part of a series on people who are making their communities smarter, greener places to live. Got a nomination? Leave it in the comments section or send it along to us.

Winner of Project Laundry List’s 2009 “Art on the Line” competition. Daisey BinghamAlexander Lee founded Project Laundry List as a Middlebury College undergrad in 1995, after hearing Dr. Helen Caldicott say we could shut down the nuclear industry if we all did things like hang out our clothes. He’s been true to the cause ever since, pushing for clotheslines across the land—even at the White House. Grist caught up with him to find out how hanging out can make for better neighborhoods, what clotheslines have to do with climate change, and why laundry stigmas are as persistent as wine stains.

Q. You created and run Project Laundry List—why, and what are its goals?

A. Growing up, my mother had always referred to herself as Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle (the prickly laundress in Beatrix Potter’s series) and the clothesline was much less a pennant of the eco-chic, as it is becoming today through our work, than a flag of New England Yankee frugality. Helen’s idea resonated with me and we started a subgroup of the environmental club. We asked people to put themselves on the line and come hang out with us, and the puns haven’t stopped.

Our mission has evolved to focus on “making air-drying and cold-water washing laundry acceptable and desirable as a simple and effective way to save energy.” This really only became my day job in 2007, after years as a teacher, law student, public utilities commission staffer, and political campaigner. I get paid roughly minimum wage, mostly raised through selling clotheslines and drying racks. I work a bazillion hours. We have never really written grants. There is no time for that nonsense when the house is burning down. This is a work of love and passion, motivated by an abiding sense that we are in planetary crisis. Not much sense in working for Lehman Brothers and laying up treasure, like many of my classmates did, when ain’t none of it gunna matter if we don’t get ahold of the climate monster. I am just not the type to drink martinis and listen to Mozart as the Titanic is sinking.

Raise your hand if you believe in the right to dry!Couresty Project Laundry ListI am inspired by people like Dorothy Day, co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement, to live and work as I do, but I fall way short. Furthermore, I am too irreverent and incorrigible to be as good a Catholic as she. An editor for my forthcoming book (More Time to Hang) likened me, somewhat admiringly, to a monk. I grunted and then chuckled, remembering Dorothy’s rebuke to somebody calling her a saint: “I won’t be dismissed so easily.” In July 2008, ABC World News, in their story on the right to dry, referred to me as “a 33 year-old bachelor lawyer from Concord, NH.” That conjures up another image, entirely. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Q. The clothesline issue seems to have gotten a lot of press in the last year or two—to what do you attribute that? Does it surprise you?

A. No surprise. People love to talk about laundry and everybody, everybody is an expert. Laundry is a universal human experience that is tactile, olfactory, and sentimental. Nearly everybody of a certain age has their own story of twirling among the bedsheets pinned on a clothesline with a grandmother or parent. Consumers like the smell so much that Yankee Candle has four scents meant to remind us of clothes drying on the line. (Forget that they mostly smell like dryer sheets.)

We have received mention in the WSJ twice, ABC World News and the CBS Sunday Morning Show, and NPR and The New York Times (seven times!). We have a meme that works, but the clothesline is just a “gateway drug” to better environmental living. It is a jumping off point to talk about the failure of the fourth layer of government (“community” associations); to talk about clothing care issues more generally, like we are doing with the Permacouture Institute through our New Again Coalition; to talk about why taxpayers foot the bill to wash prison uniforms in hot water; and to think about so much else.

Q. I’m always taken aback when I hear about places that don’t allow clotheslines, and then I assume they’re gated communities in sprawling places. Is that generally true? And are the bans are a reflection of some sort of stigma?

Lee (left) with Canadian folk singer and children’s TV personality Fred Penner, sporting a clothesline tie. Courtesy Project Laundry ListA. Truth is, clotheslines are banned or severely restricted by landlords and mobile home parks, too. It is not just the super-wealthy who are afraid of some mythic property value decrease if a neighbor shows some thong on the line.

The Italians—only 3 to 4 percent of them own a dryer—think we are crazy. They are a fashion-conscious, industrialized nation. We could take a page from their book. By contrast, about 80 percent of American households own a dryer, but good news: for the first time last year, we did see a drastic decrease in the number of Americans who see the dryer as essential.

There are five major objections to the clothesline that I confront all of the time: Prudery, snobbery, liability/safety, convenience, and feminism. I could write a book (I am writing a book) full of anecdotes that paint a picture of an America looking for any reason not to use a clothesline. The excuses range from the absurd to the comical. In both Connecticut and New Hampshire, shills for the local chapters of the Community Association Institute testified against Right to Dry legislation, claiming that the clothesline is a liability. Somebody might walk into one in the common area of a condominium and sue the association, they claimed. Never mind that, according to the National Fire Prevention Association, dryers cause 15,000 fires every year, resulting in 10-15 deaths and $200 million in property damage.

Michelle Obama put in that garden at the White House and I said, on Facebook, “Maybe a clothesline will be next.” Within minutes someone asked me if I was being racist or snarky. He was surprised to learn we had been pushing for a White House clothesline since 2007 on www.right2dry.org. That is what we are up against here. Stigma.

In response to the Times debate I wrote a piece for, a woman proclaimed, “You’ll pry my clothes dryer out of my cold dead hands.” Project Laundry List is not telling her she cannot have a dryer. Feminism is about choices. We are telling her that if she has a dryer, the oceans may rise and her front porch will get wet. Tough choices for some.

We are not anti-dryer; we are pro-clothesline. If you cannot get up out of your wheelchair or you have debilitating allergies for part of the year, the dryer makes sense and is a marvelous invention, but the real problem is not the millions of Americans disallowed from hanging clothes, it is the hundreds of millions of Americans who refuse to get up, go outside for some fresh air and sunshine, talk over the fence with their neighbors, and mindfully take time to do an essential human task. By my estimate five billion plus people in the world manage fine without a dryer. It may not be “easy living,” but it beats having the ocean lapping at your door.

Q. What promise do better laundry habits hold for individuals? What about for climate?

A. Life is about choices. We should sweat the small stuff, because small is beautiful; however, we can ill afford not to sweat the big stuff. A report that just came out concluded that if Americans would hang their laundry out to dry, along with 16 other small steps, they could slash U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 7.4 per cent by 2019. This is a studiously conservative study. We can do more, faster. I know we can, in my unscientific gut.

As far as laundry itself, we do a terrible job of measuring its true national energy impact. It is okay to look at the average household energy used by a fridge, but when you have over 2 million households doing fifteen loads or more per week and others skewing the average by doing laundry down the hall or at a Laundromat, the 5.9 percent figure, which is the average American residential electric use for the tumble dryer, tells you almost nothing. There are 2 million people in jail in this country and millions spent last night in a hotel, hospital, or nursing home. We do not submeter commercial or industrial laundry facilities to see how much they are using. All that laundry done for restaurants, universities, fish piers, etc., goes unaccounted for.

Q. You spent the summer on a “Clotheslines Across America” tour—what are the most memorable things you saw and heard?

World’s largest—and solar-powered to boot!Courtesy Alex LeeA. The tour started on my 35th birthday in New York City. The purpose was to have fun and meet some of our supporters. I wanted to see this country, see the holy ground that people like my uncle, a Marine lieutenant in Korea, died to protect. I met somebody at the giant clothespin sculpture in Philadelphia who had supported us for over a decade!

Another primary purpose was to provide material for a movie that is being made called Drying for Freedom—watch the trailer. The interviews that we did in Kentucky, visiting the World’s Largest Laundromat (solar hot water!) just outside Chicago, standing beneath the Arch in St. Louis on the Saturday morning of Parkapalooza, and watching a baseball game with Gov Pat Quinn of Illinois (we want a major league team to do a “Line Dry” event next year) were a couple of the highlights. I had the most fun doing a photo shoot with a pin-up girl in Philly so that we can make a poster that asks, “Why Don’t More Men Hang Out the Laundry?!” She was watching as I did the dirty work… and don’t worry, it was tasteful! Maybe every Hollywood couple can do a similar photo shoot with Celeste Giuliano (the awesome photographer) and we can produce a whole calendar on this theme.

Q. What will it take to get every U.S. municipality to give its citizens the “right to dry”?

A. What will it take to get every utility company in the country to give away clotheslines to its customers, like Toronto Hydro and BC Hydro have done in Canada? Couldn’t they give away racks, too? What will it take to get these places you are asking about to allow xeriscaping, compost piles, window AC units and screen windows (so people don’t get central air), and gardens? Maybe some really good designer drugs from Aldous Huxley. Maybe the Community Association Institute making this an organizational priority.

Q. What eco-worry keeps you up at night?

A. Environmentalists have this fascination with carbon dioxide. It is time for them to start paying attention to methane, before the proverbial cow pie hits the electric fan.  To understand why methane is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide over a twenty year period, read Wikipedia. Particularly, I am worried that New England governors are about to encourage Hydro-Quebec to build more dams when nobody can show me any peer-reviewed evidence that rotting vegetation in temperate hydroelectric reservoirs are not a major producer of greenhouse gases. I have been working with the Cree since the early 1990s on this and have paddled the Rupert River—just dammed this year—five times.

Q. Anything else you want people to know about your work?

A. Without throwing about academic terms like Jevons Paradox and the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, I just want to say that heroes of mine, like Amory Lovins, who have asked us to invest with religious fervor in the concept of energy efficiency, have forgotten that we need to focus on what happens with all that leftover cash saved through efficiency. If the individual takes that cash and flies to a conference in Copenhagen or buys one of these new drying cabinets that Maytag thinks we need to have next to our dryer, then we have not gained a thing. In fact, it is a setback.

Read More Work for Mother by Ruth Schwartz Cowan and Elizabeth Shove’s book Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience (Berg 2003). Stop putting your faith in sweeping political reforms, like the “clean” nuclear and America is the Saudi Arabia of clean coal mumbo jumbo coming out of our Congress, and start taking some personal responsibility. Congressman Brian Baird is on the right track with his behavior change research bill. New technology is important, but not the silver bullet.

The biggest crisis facing humanity is not campaign finance reform, climate change, nuclear waste and proliferation, or endocrine disruption and our poisoned food, air, or water, but rather how we do our laundry. What if every one of the five billion people without access to a dryer now suddenly had not only a dryer, but a refrigerator, washing machine, and hot water heater in their mud hut? And what’s up with all the wooden clothespins we buy now being “Made in China”? I was made in America and think conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, that you should put on your sweater and turn down the thermostat. It is almost winter, for Pete’s sake.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

I don't dislike No Impact Man. He is more intentionally political than his detractors portray him to be, and I think his yearlong stunt of living without toilet paper in NYC has been eye-opening for a lot of people, and amusing for many others. I admit that the "happy green" genre of books that are appearing a lot now, exemplified by Sleeping Naked is Green (by Vanessa Farquharson), make me nauseous: a hot twentysomething journalist makes sacrifices such as "buying only green cosmetics" while traveling to eco-resorts by plane and making amends with carbon offsets. But I was, until recently, a less ostentatious personification of the same middle-class green guilt, and I understand the way we anxiously try to bargain with our angry planet by promising to be better consumers. No one wants to admit that we may not be consumers at all in a few years.

What I want to point out here is that simple living, simple people, are everywhere, and always have been. We recognize the extreme varieties: back-to-the-land types, monastics, Mother Teresa and Ralph Nader, not to mention the homeless, addicts, that crazy lady who takes in all the stray cats. Really they live among us, quite unobtrusive in most cases, and most of them are sane.

My friend Catherine has worked all her adult life in administrative jobs, minimizing her material needs and ignoring most external definitions of success, in order to write poetry. She’s needed to get off the computer for health reasons lately, and is diligently working to set up a small business as a personal organizer (if you’re in Boston and having trouble finding your passport in that firetrap you call your office, check out Catherine’s services at ARoomofOnesOwnOrganizing.com). Another friend, Rick Zemlin, lives on $10,000 a year in San Diego. He feels that working more than 20 hours/week is unhealthy and leaves no room for his spiritual development, which is the focus of his very intentional life. Rick doesn’t write a snappy blog, or have a book contract that I know of, but his Facebook posts are honest and detailed. He did write a disarming article for his church newsletter, detailing his personal expenses, and he’s allowing me to cite it here.

Current Annual Personal Consumption Expenses

5,200 Rent & utilities (bedroom in a 2 bedroom apt. in high-priced California. House phone. No cell.)
1,500 Food (lacto-ovo vegetarian, with an emphasis on good nutrition)
100 Misc household and personal items
100 Clothes (thrift stores provide all of my clothing)
1,000 Health care & supplements (no health insurance)
750 Transportation (public transit fares & tennis shoes. No car)
500 Recreation (movies, eating out, retreats, coffee shops, etc.)
650 Travel: to see family & friends
550 Gifts consumed (items received gratis & low income medical discounts)
—– 10,350

I say disarming because Rick's expenses are remarkably low. He has obviously given up much of what defines the rest of us, including owning a home and having children. But he has a special clarity and warmth, and he seems to be enjoying his life as much as anyone I know. Here’s Rick’s philosophy: "I believe we are each on a journey with our Creator, moving deeper and deeper into the gift of our lives -- into the fullness of living. This core life purpose of living fully is joined by a second one, equally important: to help create a world where all are able to do so -- a world in which all 6.8 billion of us can thrive. I see this thriving world as the Grand Dream that God holds for us. I believe that we are given all that we need to live into this vision for the world, and that because God is infinitely patient with us we will eventually arrive. It is our destiny, our home. It's going to cost us, though. (And I think we will gladly pay ... one day.)" Read Rick’s full article here.

I learned a lot about the relative definitions of prosperity by living in Europe in my twenties. (Czechoslovakia, 1990-92, the Czech Republic 1992-95. Same town, same apartment.) When I arrived, shortly after the Velvet Revolution in 1989, a four-member family was typically living in a high-rise apartment with one or two bedrooms. No kudos to the repressive and corrupt regimes of communist Eastern Europe, but material prosperity was adequate, and no one seems much happier 20 years later now that they all have new cars and TVs and debt.

These friends, these memories of other places, and my own experiences of living out of a car or a backpack, are comforting to me now in moments when I’m anxiously scrutinizing the household budget, or wondering where that last 30k we need for the house is going to come from. I remember to breathe deeply and recite my mantra, "In the end, it's six by six and nothing more."

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

You never get a second chance to make No Impact—oh wait, yes you do

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

For those times when fresh vegetables are not available, are canned or frozen veggies the way to go from a sustainable and nutritional standpoint? Assume that we recycle in our household. Cheers!

Mark L.
Sanford, Fla.

A. Dearest Mark,

I thought you Floridians would just live on fresh oranges and lemons all winter. Scurvy must have its opposite, I suppose, and one never hears of orange casserole or orange stew.

On the sustainability front, there is no clear and dominant difference between canned and frozen veggies -- or, to say that another way, studies differ. The major ding on frozen food is the energy you use to keep it frozen; for canned, it's the energy used to make the cans.

Based on what I read, I would recommend that if you cannot purchase fresh vegetables for some reason, you purchase high-quality processed vegetables with no additives, that you eat frozen vegetables within two weeks, and that you religiously recycle your steel cans. Of course, you should first be buying whatever fresh produce is available in wintry Florida.

Grade A frozen foods are harvested when ripe and quickly taken to the freezing plant, where they are (even more quickly) flash frozen at extremely low temperatures. The modern industrial freezing process retains almost all the original nutritional value of the food (according to nutrition guru Marion Nestle's helpful book What to Eat). Good to go on the nutrition angle. But it's important to have an efficient freezer. One study using 1970s data found that the longer frozen foods sit in the freezer, i.e., are using energy in storage, the more they fall behind canned goods in the efficiency smackdown.

The canned goods are a bit less nutritious, but a study that looked closely at this issue found the differences between frozen and canned carrots to be insignificant. Carrots in syrup, or whatever they might put carrots in, would of course fall in to the category of dessert or a processed food, and cannot be favorably compared to fresh. As you know, the ecological issue with canned carrots is the steel can itself, which has high embodied energy costs. If a study assumes the recycling of the steel can, then canned vegetables can compete favorably with frozen vegetables on the sustainability index. (One health consideration is that BPA is often used in the linings of such cans.)

All this to say, the two forms of commercial preservation are ecologically comparable, so we can all put this issue out of our minds and focus on eating our recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables. As we discussed last week vis bike helmets, it is ecologically important to remain in good health and away from hospitals. Fruits and vegetables help us achieve this goal. They also help us eat low on the food chain, an even more vital objective in the sustainable kitchen.

Five a Day-ly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

As a frequent cyclist, I've inevitably been in my share of collisions and accidents. Most bike experts recommend replacing your helmet after any crash, even if the damage isn't visible. Obviously the two most important qualities of a bike helmet are lightweight-ness and strength. That is best achieved by petroleum-based, non-biodegradable substances. Can you recommend how to avoid hurting the environment with these disposable Styrofoam helmets (other than being a more careful cyclist)?

Julia A.
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Julia,

Small eco-price to pay for an intact head.Please continue to wear your helmet and replace it after each crash. Cut the straps of your old helmet and write "crashed" on it with a permanent marker, then throw it in the garbage. Biking safely is an ecologically correct practice, even if it occasionally results in a small amount of waste. Two, three, four helmets a year is a small ecological price to pay when we consider the benefits of cycling (though for your body's sake I hope you don't go through this many).

Let us remember that biking is emissions-free transportation. Whether you are commuting by bike or simply taking a brief trip to the store every week, you are ecologically ahead of almost every form of transport save walking. If your bike is simply an exercise device, you are keeping yourself fit and providing inspiration for other would-be cyclists.

Secondly, a lightweight helmet made out of plastic is a fairly innocuous object on the environmental scale. As we have learned over the years, plastic is evil due to the raw materials (petroleum) from which it is made and the eons that will pass ere it degrades. On the bright side, helmets are light, and hence do not require overly much fuel on their trip to the bike store or the landfill -- which would be a concern were they made of gold. Some companies are tinkering with eco-friendly helmets, but I think you should not lose your head over this issue. You could always save your used helmets for some kind of trash sculpture.

Julia, a hospital visit has the potential for much more ecological impact than does your discarded helmet. Your fitness level keeps you (hopefully) from general ill health, and hence reduces the need for greenhouse-gas emitting trips to the doctor. More important, of course, the helmet protects you from serious head injury and/or death, both of which are far more environmentally costly than a piddling nine-ounce helmet. Let's say you were not wearing a helmet and bonked your head in a crash. First the ambulance or a friend's car has to transport you to (and from) the hospital, emitting Earth-damaging gases en route. Then perhaps you have to get a CAT scan or MRI, neither of which would be solar powered. What if you have a bleeding abrasion that requires multiple washings and several sets of bloody sheets and piles of gauze? Maybe they bring you a hospital meal which certainly includes terrible not-shade-grown coffee and some kind of mystery meat from a confined animal feeding operation. In a worst-case scenario, you could scrape off your nose and require years of plastic surgery -- certainly not ecologically OK, and sadly a real-life example.

Wear a bike helmet without worrying too much about the environmental consequences. Umbra, also known as Safety Pup, has spoken.

Cautionarily,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

What does a carbon offset do today for the planet? It seems to me like these vehicles are more for our guilty conscience than for real change. What do you think?

Ingrid G.
Chicago, Ill.

A. Dearest Ingrid,

Get involved in the climate fight -- become a Climate Citizen today.I am about to leave carbon offsets behind, but I want to use your letter to do two things: clarify a comment I made in Monday's column, then step up on my cap-and-trade soapbox.

First: I got a little too extreme on Monday what with averring that voluntary personal offsets did not "negate" our actual emissions. It is true that they don't magically erase the nasties you emit. However, if you have chosen a solid, verified provider and your money is going toward projects that would not otherwise exist (again, that's called "additionality"), and the offsetter is accurately counting the tons of carbon removed by the project ... if all those terms are met, the offset does keep an amount of carbon equivalent to your real emissions out of the atmosphere.

However! As I've said before, the voluntary offset market is frustrating because it has no overarching entity determining the quality of proffered products. Hence it seems suspicious, to you and to others. For this reason and many more, we need a national cap and trade program.

And that brings us to my second -- but actually primary -- purpose today: to emphasize that if we get a decent national cap-and-trade program going, all this voluntary offset stuff will be less urgent. The voluntary system, which is a passel of organizations patching together divergent methods, does not equal a well-planned national scheme with a target, a proven methodology, and rigorous accounting. It's great that individuals have an interest in creating and buying into small-scale offset projects. But it'll be even better when we have a national system that forces industry and hence consumers to internalize the cost of carbon.

The national system will not be perfect. But we will all be working together to reduce our global footprint, and reducing the chance that our footprint will be wiped out by giant waves from rising seas. It won't just be those of us with a guilty conscience who are trying to build an alternative energy system.

We need a decent cap-and-trade bill, and our politicians need to know that we want one and are willing to be part of the U.S. Stop Global Warming In Its Tracks Team. Contact your elected representatives and let them know how you feel -- visit our Climate Citizens section for tips on getting started.

Repetitively,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

What to make of the new climate poll

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Lately I have been traveling a lot for work. This has made me seriously consider buying offsets for these trips. I know that it is better to not travel at all, but outside of quitting my job I can't get around it. I have considered spending money on projects around the house to lessen my footprint, but using a carbon offset seems to give you more bang for the buck. My question is, are these offsets really helping or should I save my money for a bigger ticket item like a solar water heater?

Kevin E.
Raymond, Wash.

A. Dearest Kevin,

Or you could find another way to go.What an elegant weaving together of our two most recent discussions, on carbon offsets and solar water heaters. Bonus points for you!

As we discussed last week (don't I sound like your mom or dad? was there a discussion, or just a monologue?), it may be most helpful to think of personal offsets as a contribution to a renewable energy project. In the best-case scenario -- with all the usual caveats about sussing out the quality of the offset here -- offsets help support renewable energy. This is good, because we do need more renewables capacity on our electric grid, people in deforested areas need solar ovens, landfill methane should be captured, wind turbines should be built, etc. However! Remember that voluntary offsets do not erase, vacuum up, cancel out, or otherwise negate the actual emissions you produce.

As we also discussed last week, solar water heaters are a proven, easily adopted technology that can make a real difference in your home emissions, replacing up to 70 percent of your water heater's footprint with galaxy-derived, renewable, carbon-neutral energy.

If we consider your travel emissions as but a subset of your total life emissions, it may help you see a bit more clearly how to choose a compensatory action. Installing a solar water heater, or any equivalent proven environmental home investment, will reduce your actual total emissions. The actual amount of greenhouse gases for which you are personally responsible -- Kevinpogenic greenhouse gases -- will shrink. Achieving this real shrinkage is what I would recommend.

I'm not alone, either. Voluntary climate offset advisories recommend the same, including the Stockholm Environment Institute, Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund ... Do what you can to improve your personal footprint. This, by the way, should include discussing with your employer whether there are ways to reduce the amount you travel, or reduce the impact of your travel. You haven't said much about where you go, or why, or how you get there, but there may be creative solutions that could help -- carpool, or conference call, or even train instead of plane.

If you still must travel for work and if you have money left after you take more concrete emissions-reduction steps at home, by all means support renewable energy projects via offsetting or other methods. Vocally supporting a solid national cap and trade program, and your regional climate plan, are also vital actions that shouldn't cost you much money at all.

Umbrapogenically,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

We are a family of five, with three little boys growing bigger every day. Which is the better environmental investment for our family: to replace our existing hot water heater with a solar model, or to switch to an on-demand, "instantaneous" hot water system?

Thanks!
Gillian and Grant
Toronto, Ont.

A. Dearest Gillian and Grant,

Whaddaya mean, my bath is heated with coal?Solar hot water is the better choice and would still be so if your children grew not one inch taller. Solar hot water takes advantage of the sun hitting your roof, which hopefully happens regularly without costing you money, nor the Earth anguish. A tankless heater will still use a polluting energy source to heat the water. It is a rare ratepayer who gets electricity from all-renewable sources, and Torontoians (?) seem to have the usual mix of coal, gas, nukes, hydro, and so forth.

All a tankless model does differently from your (I assume conventional) hot water heater is heat water as you need it, rather than storing hot water for hours. Like your tank heater, it uses either an electric coil or a gas fire to do this. A tankless on-demand model is, in the best scenario, a bit more efficient than your existing hot water heater. But it still has all the problems of using a non-renewable resource: pollution, greenhouse gas production, a sufficient power generation and delivery system, and of course reliance on the supply of whatever resource is used. You might be interested in reading my earlier column on tankless heaters.

A solar hot water system, on the other hand, can provide the bulk of your hot water needs without using any non-renewable resources (other than those used to make the equipment). Solar hot water is neither a new nor a highly complex technology, so you need not be a brave early adopter to have a system installed. There are a wide variety of systems (again, see a previous Umbra solar water love-fest) to choose from, and there are often financial incentives from one's city or state. Toronto seems to have a solar hot water initiative heating up right now, in fact, and here is a list of system suppliers to peruse.

The two potential drawbacks that I see are the initial financial outlay and whether your roof and home are well situated. But you won't know whether these are actual or theoretical drawbacks for your specific situation until you investigate the systems available where you live, their costs, and the fabulous financial incentives that might be coming your way. Here are some resources from the U.S. government on solar water heaters and how to calculate their costs.

Always choose the sun over the coal mine.

Sootily,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Freeing the grid

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Common wisdom tells us there’s no free lunch. But you can have a guilt-free lunch, thanks to Umbra Fisk’s recipe for midday munchers everywhere. You won’t have to swallow your pride -- you can eat well, save money, and help this juicy planet we call home.

“Ask Umbra” is the first video series produced by GristTV. Look for new video tips for greening your life from Umbra nearly every week.

Watch it on the go! Subscribe to GristTV video podcasts via iTunes.

Feed your mind with these links from the Grist archives:
Ask Umbra on food storage options
Let’s (re)do school lunch
Cargill, the National School Lunch program, and antibiotic-resistant salmonella
Maverick chef Ann Cooper aims to spark a nationwide school-lunch revolution
… and even more on school lunch

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

With GoodGuide scanner, PC food shopping goes point and click

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

With GoodGuide scanner, PC food shopping goes point and click

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Boys will be boys ... online or off.School started this week. We have two fourth-graders and a second-grader. Ken has the misfortune to be driving a carpool that involves four boys and two schools and takes about an hour round-trip. I am biking to work every day now, because we’re cutting back to just the one beat-up station wagon for transportation. Today I was almost hit by a Hummer.

New school year, new shoes, old lunchboxes, and a new household rule that we're all wrestling with: No internet access except Saturday mornings.

One of our children -- and I think it's fair to keep this private, so let's say child #1 -- was developing an addictive relationship with online gaming. When given the opportunity, he would do nothing but play games on the internet; easily twelve hours at a stretch. Child #2 was also a fan of gaming, but didn't seem quite so hypnotized -- he would cut himself off after two hours. Child #3, who is garrulous and loves sports, was fed up with #s 1 and 2 for being "boring and stupid" -- he couldn't get them to go outside and play much.

We, the parents and parental-figures in the lives of all three, were feeling uncomfortable about the clearly deteriorating situation with our Gamer. He was pale and spindly, and irritable whenever the games were taken away.

But let's face it, we all love to have those children who "self-entertain." We like it when they play alone, or nicely with others, and let us do our own thing much of the time. This is especially true in a house of three boys. Child #1, the Gamer, was pretty easy that way. Just the opposite is true of child #3, who is either talking or moving at all times, and to whom we sometimes say, "Wouldn’t you like to go watch TV for a while?"

Oftentimes, the problem of too much screen-time in a household is really a parental problem. Not only are we all addicted, to a certain degree (I'll admit my fondness for crafting two to three Facebook posts a day), but we have lost much of the community that made it easier to raise children. It's well-documented elsewhere (see Robert Putnam's work) and I won't rant, but without safe neighborhoods and at-home parents around, our kids' lives are quite attenuated, and they rightly expect us to entertain them within these limitations.

Part of the JP Green House project is to create a better childhood for our three boys, and any local kids who want in on it. Looking at the situation we had gotten ourselves into with #1, 2, and 3, it was inevitable that we'd have to fess up to our own bad habits around screens. So we called Comcast and explained: No we don't want cable TV and 144 channels, along with high speed internet, thank you -- just turn it off ... no really, turn it off! What do you mean we can't just have a phone line?

It isn't pretty. Day 1 of No Internet found #1 first sulking in bed, then raging at his dad, and then secretly staying up until he thought everyone was asleep, and nabbing a cell-phone to play games on.

Day 2 was better: all three kids were out in the street on their bikes, complaining about the excessive number of girls with pink bicycles in the neighborhood. There are worse things than girls who like pink.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I have recently become a grandmother. (Eek! Doesn't seem like it was that long ago that I made the decision to have a child.) Though I had just one child, my daughter is pregnant again. She married a guy with seven sibs, and they want to have three or four, including adopting one. How do I talk them out of it? Having more kids will defeat their work to live lightly on Earth, won't it? Even adopting -- making a kid from Asia or elsewhere [into an] American -- doesn't help much, does it?

Crowdedly,
Terry

A. Dearest Terry,

New rule: You can raise as many kids as you can fit in a Smart Car.Andrew Currie via flickrDo not try to talk them out of it unless your side goal is to never see your grandchildren.

How did you feel about people who told you to have more than one child? To say nothing of relations who said one child was not enough. I shudder to think of the family strife that might ensue. Best to simply love your grandchildren and help them grow into strong citizens.

It might be permissible to gently speak with your daughter about the environmental impact of Americans, on a one-time only basis. You may wish to pair this conversation with an offer to help her have a smaller eco-footprint, via some useful contribution such as ... let's see ... cooking vegetarian meals for the family once a week? Or by setting aside money for the children's college fund now, in hopes of raising an inventor of solar-powered tractors.

Having kids will not help your child's overall lifetime carbon footprint, no. We are responsible for the environmental impacts of our child raising, and it is reasonable to consider that we are responsible for the lifetime impacts of any child we choose to birth or raise, as well as our descendants through that child. A recent study out of Oregon contemplated this idea of carbon legacy through childbirth, if you wish to read some interesting genetics and carbon math (and transfer your anxiety from your daughter back to yourself, which is where it might more properly belong).

It is a bit unfair to carry a multi-generation burden of guilt around for child raising, when most of us can buy and sell a car or a toothbrush without thinking too hard about the centuries of atmospheric carbon and landlocked garbage we have created. Think about it all we must, though. Alas.

In terms of adoption, you have a point that international adoption is not automatically an environmental act, beyond the fact that you are choosing from an existing pool of children rather than adding another to the world's population. One could adopt a child from another country and then raise an SUV-driving, vinyl-buying American who has an outsized carbon footprint. If a child is adopted domestically, you are not adding more people to the carbon-piggy American population, but the same danger lurks. In either case, you can help your daughter raise thoughtful children who are careful about their own impacts as they get older.

These are interesting ideas to discuss on a theoretical level with your daughter, but only if your relationship allows for such discussion. Otherwise, child bearing is an intensely personal act, and outsiders are generally unwelcome at the decision table. Keep your mouth shut and your arms wide open.

Mazeltovly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Like any married couple, my husband and I occasionally fantasize about what we'll do with our life in our retirement years. We've had the typical RV fantasy as we do love to travel, but we worry about the gas consumption and resulting emissions that would come of that route. We could tour around in our Prius and stay at budget hotels (and probably break even monetarily), but we're concerned with their poor laundering, heating/cooling and other consumption choices. Of course we love foreign travel, but the emissions from airplanes are hard to justify, even with purchasing carbon offsets. Any ideas for environmental friendly travel in our golden years?

Kristina F.
Richland, Wash.

A. Dearest Kristina,

Dare to dream.I fantasize about sitting still in a comfy chair and occasionally jumping in to nearby water. Then napping. Totally low carbon. Also perhaps boring after a few days, and thus not suitable for the long years of retirement. I hope you get to retire soon, in full health, at a young age, and since we can't know what the future will bring in terms of U.S. high-speed electric trains and transoceanic solar hydrofoils, today's answer will assume said near-term retirement.

Lo and behold, my adored Union of Concerned Scientists has addressed this issue in a lovely way with their "Getting There Greener: The Guide to Your Lower-Carbon Vacation." Included in this fabulously simple and easy to understand guide is a ranking of better to worse travel choices, based on number of people travelling and distanced travelled. My UCS (mwah!) suggests that two people travelling economy class on an airplane can be climate-preferable to two people driving. It does depend on the distance, so don't just read that sentence and go book a flight. Download the guide. Pass it around at work.

The marvelous guide also underlines the environmental superiority of the long-haul bus, followed closely by the train. The bus is germane to your retirement plans, as you live in the United States, and it's not probable that you would move to Europe for retirement and take lots of trains. As you plan your travel, remember the possibility of the bus.

Forget worrying about the hotels and their facilities. They have an economy of scale similar to a small apartment building and may be more environmentally efficient, on a per-person basis, than your house. And some hotels are making greener choices -- research that ahead of time, if you can, and feel free to discuss it with Ye Olde Innkeeper if you land in a place that's not aware of the beauty of reusing towels.

Many people enjoy group tours, which should be fuel-efficient by definition, or bicycle tours that take you from spot to spot. You may have fun, as I did, searching "low carbon travel" on the internets. Much of what I turned up was European, but that's charming enough, and there were many tips on getting around without an airplane, where one might best do so, and how much fun one might have. Here is an entire site about linking mass transit options in several U.S. cities.

Whatever you end up doing, I stand by my time-tested vacation advice: It's not necessary to constantly move about when you go to "see" a place. If you decide that your dream trip involves flying, then fly -- you can see by the comments on my last column that flying for fun is not something people are going to give up easily. But after you get to the location, find creative, culturally appropriate ways to get around that are low-carbon. And stay in place a little once you get there, in a comfy chair. It'll probably be fun.

Relaxedly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Carl M via flickrThose of you following our last post (Should Kuba Have a Puppy?) can see that both votes and comments on this question are running 9 to 1 in favor of the gratification of pet ownership. This is even though eco-curmudgeon Ken has made the point, with hard statistics, that keeping domestic animals essentially ensures the death of wild creatures that we would all heartily agree to preserve (indirectly, through habitat loss and overuse of resources).

So what?

Well, the JP Green House is meant to be a demonstration project. We aim to build a zero-carbon house on a low budget, grow veggies and raise chickens for eggs, cut our consumption to a level sustainable for the planet, and make it all public. This means full transparency of finances, building dilemmas, relationship agonies, parenting fiascos, and just the overall messiness of the thing. (Quick house and garden update: Foundation finished, windows and insulation are next, debating exterior options, many radishes, one pumpkin, fabulous dahlias, still short 50k.)

How does the utopian vision jibe with the fact that Kuba wants a puppy, the reality that Ken bought a motorcycle last week, the admission that I am writing this on a 95-degree day in Boston with my window AC blasting?

Are we a demonstration of hypocrisy? Or the immense difficulty of living within our earthly means? I'm afraid we're bound to reveal it all.

Fellow climate-organizer A., who does not own a car and rides his bicycle 12 miles from a prosperous Boston suburb to protests and meetings in our neighborhood, is one of the most sincere environmentalists I know. He writes brilliantly about the failures of major green groups to reckon with the true implications of climate change. He rants inappropriately at meetings, and never avoids calling people on their lifestyle failures. He’s more of a crank than Ken (and that’s saying something). And he smells a little funny.

A. enjoys bugging people. Last week out of the blue he responded to an email I sent from work about the economic crisis by accusing me of ignoring the true ecological disaster. Do you always address people you barely know this way? I snapped back. Basically, his answer was yes. In contrast, I try to walk a tightrope on which I avoid offending anyone by openly criticizing their consumption. I know I might regret my general affability and politeness in twenty years. Geez, we were all too busy to go to those climate protests and write our Congressman before Greenland melted...

I’ll leave you with all this hypocrisy, unresolved in my own mind.

But now for our next poll. I was over at Sue's house around the corner, today, drinking my third cup of coffee and bitching grandly about the past week, which has just been a slugfest for me, when I came up with a brilliant new question.

"How do you think the neighborhood would react if we raised rabbits for food?" I asked Sue. "I love rabbit--we used to eat it in Europe a lot. Delicious with garlic and spinach."

"Around here?! I don’t think so. You’ll have all the vegetarians and vegans picketing by the front door."

"Really? Do people realize where store-bought meat comes from?" I launched into a tirade about factory farming and got the evil eye from Sue, while her ten-year-old daughter turned pale across the room. (Point of fact: Our family is omnivorous, but we currently buy only meat raised humanely and organically on a local farm. We eat it with relish, however, the blood running down our chins. Also, I wish I had a picture of the day Eli ate a raw baby octopus, with the tentacles hanging from his mouth.)

So, the JP Green House question of the week is: Should we raise cute fuzzy bunny rabbits and slaughter them for their meat? Should we make moccasins and baby booties from their skins, sell rabbits-foot keychains for good luck, so as not to waste any usable byproducts?

Well why the heck not? Cause it's mean?

Related Links:

Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do we really need to fly less or do we need planes that are more fuel efficient? Am I assuming correctly when I say that planes have little or no emissions standards? I didn't see that mentioned specifically in your previous article on planes and trains. So the real answer would be, fly less for now until planes become more fuel efficient and green.

Justin B.
East Tawas, Mich.

A. Dearest Justin,

Don't fly -- the friendly skies will thank you.Robert Scoble via flickrYes, fly less for now until planes become more fuel efficient and green. Don't count your frequent flier miles before they accrue, though, because it is extremely unlikely that airlines will reach the needed amount of "more" efficient in your lifetime.

If you did indeed read back on my extremely erudite plane travel musings, you noticed that planes not only burn a lot of fuel, they burn it in a layer of the atmosphere that lends the fuel more power to change the climate. The greenhouse-gas emissions of an airplane are hence given a "radiative forcing" multiplier, to reflect this extra power.

There are varying accounts of aviation's contribution to overall climate emissions, ranging from 4 to 9 percent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that aviation contributes 12 percent of transport-related CO2 emissions. If you have ever calculated your own carbon footprint, you'll have an idea of the lopsided effect just one or two flights can have on an otherwise typical individual impact.

The aviation industry justifiably fears any mandated carbon reduction, such as the cap and trade system outlined in the American Clean Energy and Security Act. They complain that the system will lead to higher fuel prices, which means they will have no money to make all the efficiency improvements they really, really want to make. Which may be true, to a point; some airlines have been changing routes, experimenting with fuels and landing methods, even developing new aircraft.

But this is also true: If the government does somehow establish a functioning cap and trade program that brings our emissions down 83 percent in the next 40 years, flying life as we currently know it will have ended. The days of cheap fuel will be, and should be, over. Flying will become cost-prohibitive. Flitting about on quick vacations and seeing far-flung family and friends will be even more the privilege of the financially endowed. This is already coming to pass in Europe (and for airlines that fly in and out of Europe), where they are ahead of us on cap and trade and airline emissions will be regulated.

Aviation is a powerful industry, though -- and is just one of the powerful groups looking for changes as ACES heads to the Senate. So as I said, try not to fly much -- and don't hold your breath for the day when flying will be climatologically neutral.

Runwayly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!