Solarphile

Although Christmas is only days away, there are still choices you can make to give to those you love and be easier on the planet.

Out of holiday wrap? Try something different! Maps, calendars, posters, scrap fabric, newsprint, scarves, brown paper bags and a little bit of raffia ribbon or twine, are all very creative ways to present gifts to your loved ones. Unlike conventional wrapping paper, these options don’t create massive amounts of waste and toxins that end up in the landfill or waste stream.

Try giving a gift that doesn’t require wrapping in the first place. Opt out of giving gifts packaged with materials the receiver is just going to toss away. Think about giving gifts that can be put into a simple envelope or can be sent electronically, via email. This doesn’t mean you have to go impersonal with gift cards or cash, but maybe try giving gifts that present them with an experience, such as tickets to sporting events, museums, concerts, or even flight tickets for the extra special people on your list. These gifts don’t require extensive amounts of wrapping (maybe as little as an envelope and a simple bow) or can be emailed to the receiver and printed at a later date. If you choose to email these gifts but still would like to present them with something of substance on the actual day, write a card that lets them know they have a gift they can experience waiting for them in their inbox.

If you are one to send cards to friends and family, try sending or giving cards that benefit environmental causes, health and education programs (UNICEF). Use recycled, organic, and/or sustainably harvested materials (Papororganics, Global Exchange). You will usually be able tell all these things by looking at the back of the card. Better yet, try cards that are handmade by you, your friends, or your children. These tend to be more personal and creative, and don’t require fossil fuels to be delivered to a retailer. The best option, though, is to send an E-card instead. They are waste-free, have zero carbon cost, and are customizable to perfectly suit whatever you want to say, to whomever you want to say it to. E-cards are not only directly environmentally friendly, but often benefit wildlife conservation programs with the profit their companies make.

Although it may be late to put into effect all of these holiday get-green ideas, most are concepts that can be implemented with any holiday or celebration throughout the year, and can be kept in mind for the next Christmas season. Happy holidays everyone!

Plastic vs. real is always the question when it comes to picking out a Christmas tree. The common misconception is that plastic is the answer. How very wrong!

Plastic trees: are made in China using PVC (polyvinyl chloride), the worst plastic there is! Vinyl chloride is known to be a carcinogen and creates massive amounts of harmful and hazardous dioxins during manufacturing, and in disposal. Many products made using PVC are stabilized using lead, which is harmful to those who ingest fumes or dust coming from the tree or other product made with PVC. On top of manufacturing and disposal implications, there are the effects of transporting these products from their source in China. Plus, there’s no denying that plastic trees do not have a rich, fragrant smell of outdoors, and certainly struggle to look as healthy and glowing as a live tree.

Real trees: can be bought pre-cut, or, you can cut one down yourself at a local U-pick business. These fast and easy-to-grow trees are grown for the single purpose of being your living room feature during the holidays. Not only do you have the aroma of a fresh tree in your home, you’ve purchased a tree that helped to clean the air of the carbon dioxide emissions from the planes bringing fake trees from China! Real trees of course, unlike fake trees, don’t generate harmful dust or fumes, and so are safe to have in the home.

Your best bet, though, is to decorate a regular house plant or use a real potted tree so it can be re-planted in the spring (and then used again next year!), or just decorate the trees outside your house and have a special area for gifts inside the house.

Canada’s Globe and Mail published an article about a Canadian Cancer Society conference bringing leading scientists around the world to advise on whether restrictions should be imposed on spraying of pesticides on agricultural land.  The premise is that the large amounts of bug and weed sprays used on farmland may pose a heightened risk of several types of cancer for farmers, their rural neighbours and to all of us who eat foods containing pesticide residues.  Cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns and gardens is already restricted in some Canadian provinces and municipalities.  The article quotes Connie Moase, with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada’s watchdog: “In terms of any risk, health risk, Health Canada will only approve pesticides that do not pose a health risk, provided that the label directions are followed.”

I found the article especially interesting because it highlights so many dilemmas and barriers that get in the way of making a clearly informed, sustainable choice:

• Are organically grown foods a better option than pesticide sprayed food that is cheaper to grow, with significantly higher yields, making it more readily available and affordable;
• Should we now be eating less fruits and vegetables because of the potential health risks or do the benefits outweigh the pesticide exposure risk?
• Given the apparent magnitude of the relative risks of pesticides used on lawns and gardens versus agricultural lands, why is the former banned and the latter not?  Is it simply a case of picking the low-hanging fruit versus tackling an area mired with controversy and inherently more serious trade-offs?
• Do we accept the government’s assertions that approved pesticides are tested extensively and are not a health risk at the exposure levels when used as directed?
• Or do we side with those groups who oppose the use of pesticides, who remind us that “these are strong poisons designed to kill if used as directed”.
• Should we be concerned about what happens if directions for use on the labels are not followed exactly?
• Can pesticide evaluations conducted on one chemical at a time account for unforeseen and untested real-life interactions between the variety of chemicals used on any given farm?
• Should we trust the results of epidemiological studies linking pesticide use to higher incidence of cancers in farmers seriously, or can we safely discount them as “circumstantial evidence” that may actually be due to other risk factors?
• Can we truly trust the results of testing on mice and rats, in experiments funded by the pesticide industry?

Etc. etc. etc.  You gotta read the article and form your own opinion— ‘cause my brain hurts.  It’s not easy being “sustainable”.

There can be no doubt that our planet is under severe strain from economic and social development that maintains inefficient production and consumption patterns and an uneven distribution of resources.  The richest 20% of the people in the world consume nearly 75% of the planet’s natural resources.

It’s been said that if all the people of the world were to consume like those in affluent countries, we would need the equivalent of 4 extra Earths, putting unbearable pressure on our ecological balance.  Add to this the fact that the world’s population is expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, with nearly all of the growth projected to take place in developing countries. 

You may believe that it’s just not possible to produce enough food to feed the global population. You would be wrong. Food wasted in affluent countries is estimated to be up to 50% of all that’s harvested.  Moreover, unequal distribution of food is the main reason why there are a billion undernourished and starving people in the world today.  The huge amount of food waste also corresponds to serious wasteful impacts on fuels for transportation, chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, water and generation of methane. 

Sticking with hunger and poverty for now, here are just a few sobering statistics reported as part of research conducted in 2007 in support of the Millenium Development Goals:

• In 2005, the worldwide expenditure on military equipment and services was $1001 billion US (that’s more than a trillion US dollars!)
• In 2006, North Americans spent $37 billion dollars on pet food and pet care products

Contrast that with the following:

• An estimated $54-62 billion dollars would halve the number of people subsisting on less than a dollar a day by 2015
• An estimated $29.6 billion dollars would halve the number of people suffering from hunger and halve the number of children suffering from malnutrition by 2015

Shocked and awed?  Although some see these statistics as controversial and lacking rigour, this is just the tip of the iceberg highlighting the urgency of breaking away from socially unjust vested interests and promoting and practicing sustainable consumption worldwide.

 

Goblins beware! Halloween isn’t only scary for the kids—it’s a scary time for the environment too. Between plastic bags, plenty of candy wrappers, and a huge onslaught of garbage, we have a lot to get scared about.
With a few, simple shifts in our Halloween activities, we can help Mother Nature enjoy the spooktacular events, without worrying about our footprint. Here are some tips:

• Make Your Own Costumes: Rather than buy a costume and throw away after just one use, make your own using old clothing, mom’s 80’s make-up (BOO!), and plenty of hair spray. Not only will your children enjoy masquerading in ancient heels, you’ll have a chance to critically ask yourself, “What was I thinking?”
• Use Reusable Bags: North Americans use over 420 million bags a year, littering our waste sites, killing marine life, and leaching into our soil for generations to come. Not to mention the millions of gallons of dirty fossil fuels needed to create the plastic bags in the first place. Reach instead for a durable, re-usable bag, or better yet, an old pillowcase or cloth.
• Walk, walk, walk: Kids don’t need 40 pounds of candy. Really. Instead of taking them all over town in a car, keep the car parked at home, and walk your kids around your neighbourhood, collecting candy and saving yourself the gas and emissions. Who knows, you may even lose an inch around the waist.
• Hand Out Eco-Friendly Treats: Notice I said treats, not just candy. If you are going for candy, buy locally (Wal-Mart doesn’t count), keeping in mind the smaller shops that help keep your local economy strong, and stick to organic candies as much as possible. If you’re thinking of being avant-garde, you can opt to throw in neat little gizmos, such as stickers, keychains, erasers, or a scientific calculator. Ok, maybe not the calculator.
• Keep a Trash Can by the Door: Not only can you pretend there’s a ghoul inside it, but many children will have eaten a handful of candy from door to door.  Encourage them to throw their garbage in there, versus your driveway or front lawn. If you’re a parent walking with the kids, bring a bag with you and pick up candy litter along the way.
• Use Your Pumpkins: There are a variety of pies, muffins, and desserts you can make with your leftover pumpkins. Don’t just throw them out when Halloween is over—use whatever you can, including the seeds, and toss the rest into your composter. Don’t have a composter? Now’s the perfect time to get one before the cold sets in. Contrary to popular belief, food does continue to break down in the cold.
• Lead by Example: The best way to keep the green movement growing is through leading by example. Gather some friends and neighbours, and have them join you on your Green Halloween. Tell everyone what you’re doing, and if not this year, perhaps next year they’ll decide to partake in your ghoulishly green mission.

Happy Halloween!

Notwithstanding the references to “poisoned city water” and terrorists, this is an excellent video that demonstrates the integration of sustainable practices and technologies to create a mass-produceable off-grid home. The home is Robert Plarr and Michael Fulton’s Angel’s Nest/WorldNest Telsa research home in New Mexico.  It’s self-sufficient in energy, water, waste management and to some extent, food production. They use recycled and low-impact materials as well as improving indoor air quality.

They touch on a lot of different areas of sustainability and some of the controversial choices. I especially like their concept of creating a rainforest inside the home which is irrigated by treated grey water from the shower, creating humidity in the atmosphere, which, in turn, is extracted to generate drinking water. I haven’t seen their book, “The Secret of Sustainability” on Amazon yet, but it is available on the WorldsNest website.

 

Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is set to announce that “The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider.”

By contrast, transportation contributes 13% of our greenhouse gas footprint.

Greenhouse gases are released throughout the meat production cycle, during land clearing, making and transporting fertilizer, feed antibiotics and hormones, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and emissions from the animals themselves, which is a major proportion of gases emitted. Refrigeration and transportation of the meat for processing, packaging, distribution, retailing and to the consumer are also huge contributers.

Population growth and changing consumption patterns in developing countries will continue to increase pressure on global food supplies and food security. Livestock production has increased all over the world as demand for meat rises. The resulting increase in water scarcity, land degradation and soil erosion are key threats to productivity of farmland, not to mention the effects of loss of biodiversity associated with deforestation for high-maintenance agricultural land. Recent scientific studies have demonstrated that increases in global temperature adversely affects soil fertility, reducing crop yield. Water runoff from livestock farming can cause significant contamination and eutrophication of surface and ground water if the solid waste generated is not managed properly. Farming subisidies (like other poorly applied subsidy programs) tend to create an uneven playing field, further exacerbating the problem.

Possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with farming animals include genetically engineering strains of animals that produce less methane and ammonia. Organic farming is not a feasible option globally, due to the comparatively low productivity and yield.

We all know by now that eating less meat is better for your health. A price on carbon could cause the price of meat to rise, people would eat less, and, at the same time, reduce associated emissions of greenhouse gases and other adverse environmental impacts. This might just be the added incentive that ardent meat-lovers like me need to make another personal choice that contributes to the sustainability of our planet. Given the magnitude of the impacts, reluctantly, I’m adding eating less meat to my list of simple ways to reduce your carbon footprint.

Over the years, it’s become harder and harder to motivate myself to regularly mow, fertilize, weed and water my lawn and garden. With all the extreme weather that seems to be the norm these days, even my best efforts seem to be wasted. Some years, the only reason I dragged myself out to do it or paid someone to do it is to avoid the occasional evil eye from my neighbours. I’ve become acutely aware of how much water, air and noise pollution is generated from conventional mowers, fertilizers and pesticides, in our society’s quest for the most lush, green, weed-free lawn. I used to look at the bags and bags of yard waste waiting for collection day, and wonder how fast the grass clippings were filling up the landfill before we got our municipal composting program.

According to the EPA, 30% of water consumption in urban areas in the eastern United States is for watering lawns, and an average 1-acre lawn costs $700 and requires 40 hours of labor each year to maintain. Not that my lawn is anywhere close to 1 acre… but I’ve decided to reclaim that wasted time and money and do a good turn for the environment by switching to more sustainable landscaping practices.

Slowly, but surely, I’m replacing some of the lawn turf with attractive, low-growing, traffic-resistant groundcovers and my garden beds with a greater variety of native, non-invasive, drought and pest-resistant plants. I like the natural, “woodland” look, which blends naturally with the mature trees in my neighbourhood without looking overgrown and unruly.

I use a push mower for the remaining small patches of lawn, having traded in my old gas mower and storing away my electric mower which never did do a great job, even after it was fully charged.

I dropped off all the leftover pesticides in my garage and garden shed to the hazardous waste depot. I spend just a few minutes every few days monitoring and physically dealing with any signs of disease, pests or weeds.

I compost my grass clippings and most of my yard waste right on site and use it to replenish the soil in the garden and I use almost no soil amendments, fertilizers or plant food.

I’m looking into installing a simple irrigation system with a timer, soil moisture sensor and controllers for more efficient watering, before dawn or after dusk. I’m sick of seeing water from the sprinkler running off my neighbour’s lawn and driveway straight into the storm sewer.

I used to cringe whenever my neighbour picked Saturday afternoon to mow his lawn, just when my guests arrived for a barbecue and a relaxing evening. We couldn’t hear each other speak over the din, with the nasty smell from the gas mower overpowering the tantalizing aroma of whatever was on the grill.

But I have the last laugh, because I’m spending only a fraction of what he’s spending on fertilizers and weed control. I figure I use about 35% less water than he does for his lawn and garden. Not only that, I now delight in the fact that I’m lolling around with a tall, cool drink watching the butterflies attracted to my perennial wildflower garden, grilling freshly picked vegetables or dreaming of a quiet, peaceful warm day in the neighbourhood during my nap (with earplugs on), while he’s hard at work on his lawn.

While I was travelling through Spain this past week, I stayed in four different hotels. All of them had the usual linen and towel program, with cards that communicated the option to have your bed linens and towels replaced less frequently. All of the hotels had a slot by the entrance to each room which activates and deactivates the power to the room when you insert or withdraw your electronic room key each time you enter and leave the room.

One of them went a step further and had a card that suggested limiting heating temperatures in the winter to 20°C, cooling temperatures in the summer to 25°C, turning the lights off when not needed and relying more on the natural daylighting in the room and also practicing water efficiency. They had electronic shutters on the exterior of the windows that you could use to keep out the scorching midday sun more completely than the drapes. All of the toilets were dual-flush toilets. They stated that this was not all about saving money, but for all of us doing what we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are harming our planet.

Needless to say, I was impressed. The potential environmental and economic benefits and the increase in awareness should be quite significant. North American hotels should follow suit. North American consumers could use a good dose of awareness about the unsustainability of our culture of rampant consumerism and waste and small actions that can make a big difference.

Few things are taken for granted as much as clean water. We see downtrodden nations fighting for it to survive, and the mere mention of a power outage has people running into stores hoarding bottles of it. However, as the world is busy fighting over other natural resources and developing fuel alternatives, we are letting our most precious natural resource go down the drain (pun intended).

Did you know?

• A water-efficient washing machine uses only one-third the water of an inefficient model?
• An old-style single-flush toilet uses up to 12 litres of water per flush, while a standard dual flush toilet uses just a quarter of this on a half-flush?
• A standard shower head uses up to 25 litres of water per minute, whereas a water-efficient shower head uses as little as 7 litres per minute, which is less than a third?
• A standard faucet aerator on your taps can reduce water consumption by 25 - 50% per tap?

Water heating is the second largest energy user in the average home, just behind operating appliances. With higher hot water usage, come higher energy bills. Even the inefficient use of cold water can cost you, since we still pay water and sewer fees—and believe me, these costs will only continue to rise as the scarcity of our clean water supplies dwindle with time.

In the meantime, here are a few simple steps that will help reduce your water consumption, and consequently bring down your monthly energy and water bills:

• Install a low-flow showerhead. At a cost of approximately $30/shower head, a family of three can easily save $200/year in energy costs alone.
• Aerators are a great way of adding bulk to your water, without compromising the flow and/or pressure. At a cost of between $2-4, these can quickly reduce your tap consumption by half, and do not require a handy-man to install. In fact, here’s a great article on how to install aerators yourself.
• Replace that old 6- or 12-liter toilet with a dual-flush toilet. Switching from a 12-L to a dual flush will save you almost 70% water consumption, while the switch from a 6-L to a dual flush will save an additional 26%–of course translating into more money in your pocket. A quick scan of online forums seems to suggest Toto has the best brand of dual-flush toilets—and here’s a nifty comparison of Toto toilets based on a variety of factors, even letting you see the toilet in full 360 degree rotation!
• Consider a front-loading washer instead of a top-loading version. Not only will you save $50-90/year in direct water costs, you will use less laundry detergent because the rinse cycle is more efficient and less water is needed to wash your clothes. Clothes come out of the washer with less residual moisture, cutting your drying time in half and saving you more money on your electricity bills.
• Consider running your dishwasher with fewer, larger loads, instead of frequent, emptier ones. If you wash your dishes manually, turn down the water to a gentle, laminar flow and enjoy how easy it is to remove the soap instead of allowing water to gush down the drain needlessly.
• Water your lawn in the late evening instead of the morning or afternoon. This allows the water to actually seep into the ground instead of evaporating from the heat and sun. Your plants will thank you for it!
• Install a rain barrel—I bought one for $50 from a local vendor and have enjoyed watering my plants all summer without having to turn on the tap! There are many new versions being introduced into your local hardware store that incorporate planters and exquisite designs that mask that “cylindrical” look.

REBATES:
Municipalities are always offering rebates and programs for interested water-conscious consumers (here’s an example of one in Canada, and another in the U.S.) Contact your local authorities to find out if you can receive some money back for investing in a water-saving device, and reap the rewards of saving even more money!