One Less Car: One Year Later

Last May (2009) our second car threw a timing belt which sucked into the engine and effectively destroyed the vehicle. Although we are a family of 5, with one student in school 25 miles away due to custody issues, we have never replaced that car.

In that one-less-car year I put about 800 miles on my bike (900 the year before the car loss) but my spouse put an additional 500 miles or so on her bike and the kid trailer.

In that year, we have used some public transit, lots of bikes, carpooled rides and a couple of times calling cabs. But we havn't really missed the car terribly.

Cold Turkey

We were working on driving bikes more anyway. I put 900 miles on my bike two, three and five miles at a time around town the year before we ditched one car. We increased that to about 1200 miles post-car, but and this is key we rode in an auto nearly 10,000 miles fewer. The annual mileage on the missing vehicle mostly went missing.

Oh a couple thousand miles just transferred to the remaining car -- but in the end, by going cold-turkey and losing one car, we saved thousands of car-riding-hours that we would not have saved by just trying to drive bikes more.

Where We Live

Where we live is important. Pasadena is relatively bike friendly; lower speed limits, smaller streets, share the road signs, everything we really need is available locally (within, say, five miles). Last week, for example, I drove my bike (including trailer) to my school site for work 2.5 miles from my home. My son and I rode our bikes to the dentist on Friday; on Saturday my wife and I took the 5 and 12 year olds to do our grocery shopping by bike. (She towed the 5 year-old's trailer, I towed the empty one for the week's groceries.) The type of community we live in has been important in facilitating our one-less-car year.

So, the short report on reducing car miles: (1) Live near your work and a complete community (not a bedroom suburb outside of a "real" city); (2) Insist that your community by bike and pedestrian (transit user) friendly; and (3) Kill a car cold turkey.

Watch Your Language! How We Refer To Things Can Affect How We -- and Others Understand Them

It's a fairly ancient and standard joke that in the world of Politically Correct Terminology a trash hauler is a "sanitary engineer." Despite that, it is actually true that how we name things does affect how we perceive them. Here are a few suggested alternative terms for things that just might help folks understand why the green version is important:

• "Conventionally Grown Food" is, really, something of a misnomer. Using heavy doses of petrochemical neurotoxins and artificial growth stimulants to grow our food has only been "conventional" (i.e., the usual manner) for the last 50 years or so. Before that, much more organic and near-organic food reached our tables -- because that was the norm. So, instead of "conventionally grown" may I suggest "chemically grown food" to accurately reflect the state of what's in the super market. Or as we sometimes call it around our house "dirty food." Try this term swap yourself, and suddenly organic food seems a lot more reasonable.

• "Organic Food" as a term is itself problematical. It makes that food seem special, even unusual. This is not good for at least three reasons: First, many large producers charge unnecessary premium prices for organically grown products, trading on the implication of "specialness" to make a higher profit. Second, organic food should be the norm -- i.e., "conventional" should mean "organic," but it never will so long as we refer to clean food as something special. Third, "organic" brings with it all sorts of baggage suggesting hippies eating brown rice stored in hand thrown pottery jars that many folks just don't want to be associated with, even if they really aren't all that excited about poisoning themselves or our farmland by eating the chemically grown variety. So, in our house, we call organic food what it is: "clean food."

• "Bike rider" or "cyclist" similarly does not convey the (should be) mainstream nature of human powered transportation in our cities and suburbs. I have taken to referring to "bike drivers" when discussing vehicular cyclists. Bike drivers have a right to use the road; bike drivers are serious vehicles, going places and doing things, not just sports enthusiasts out for a little ride.

• "Drivers" or "car drivers" used to refer to motor vehicles operators does not either accurately include all vehicles on the road, or the activity that takes place in a car. I actually drive my bike; I push it forward under my own muscle power. If you are in a car, the best that can be said is you are out for a ride. Thus, of course, I often refer casually to "car riders," both as the flip-side of "bike drivers" and to demonstrate the passivity of the activity.

So, you might hear me say something like this:

Tomorrow I'll drive my bike to the market after work; because of the bike I'll have an easier time parking than most of the car riders making the same trip. I'll buy our favorite clean pasta and sauce to cook for a big group of folks, but will probably compromise and buy chemically grown dark chocolate for the dessert we are making, and dirty artichokes because the clean ones are currently out of stock. "

See what I mean? The need to buy chemically grown and dirty food over clean food is terribly reduced. In my revised paragraph, the patchouli-tinged aura associated with a fluffy bike ride to buy organic pasta is reduced, as is the whingeing and whining factor that comes of complaining that your store is out of organic vegetables. No one could blame you for griping about having to buy chemically grown food -- even though most people don't realize that's what they're eating already anyway!

Remember the advice of good old Humpty Dumpty:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Do Nothing, Save the World! "Black Friday" Goes Green on Buy Nothing Day

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Of this triple mantra "reduce" is, in some ways, the hardest for folks to find quick and easy ways to implement in one's daily life.

Reducing consumption often feels too much like some sort of deprivation. For my grandparents, who lived through the Great Depression and WWII privations, the concept of thriftiness and making do with what you have was common sense.

But for that generation, and for many of their children, those days are over and the idea of voluntarily doing without where there is no imminent and identified threat is anathema.

Similarly, their grandchildren (my generation) were born in an era of plenty, grew up into the 1980s boom, and with the exception of gas rationing in the early 70's, have lived comfortably, even lavishly, without great difficulty.

Now, there are many ways to reduce consumption. But the whole thing starts with awareness. As noted in a previous post, The Story of Stuff is great introduction to the problem of over consumption. But it's not very specific, or personal. So here's a personal statement to make to remind yourself -- and our consumer driven culture -- that as people we are more than the sum of our stuff:

Celebrate "Buy Nothing Day," November 28

Stay home. Decline to participate in the consumer madness retailer's call "Black Friday," known as The Day After Thanksgiving to you and me. Stay home and make a present. Read a book (from the library of course).

Sure, plenty of people stay home to avoid the traffic and insanity, so don't celebrate Buy Nothing Day alone. Copy and reproduce the graphic below as your email signature for the next three weeks . . . remind folks -- and oneself -- that "reduce" is the first and most useful of the triple-mantra.

Going to miss a sale? Probably. But frankly, in most cases it will be cheaper later if you decide it is something you really do need. And by explicitly declining to participate in Black Friday we send a reminder to the industry and ourselves that a sustainable future is the, in the long run, the only future.

.

NOVEMBER 28, 2007

Going Green: Are We There yet?

We are a just one family trying to make the transition from an unsustainable lifestyle to a reasonable one, and this blog has chronicled some of our discoveries and experiences about the "easy" green things to do.

We still are not as green as some, much more green than others. The journey continues.

Meanwhile, contemplating what to do next it occurred to me that we had hit a plateau; we seem to have maxed out most of the easy options, and our next steps are all a bit bigger.

Buying that electric car, for example -- either the all-electric pickup truck here, or (the one I really want) the Aptera, here -- is a step we are not ready to take right now. (Mostly because we are not ready to buy a new car.) Or making a commitment to 100% sustainable food options --organic, local grown, fair trade, etc. (Largely because some clean foods are still priced in the region of luxury items, and we just can't justify the cost; in other cases we have our over-processed, chemically grown food vices we are not willing to give up.)

"What next?" I have recently asked myself.

It's hard to know where to go if you don't know where you have been, so in a coming post I hope to review the sustainable elements we already have in place, list-style, and "wish-list" those we want to implement, and set some goals and priorities.

In the meantime, I will note that we have achieved something like success on overcoming one of the three main obstacles to sustainability, a green mindset. We (and I include most of our family members most of the time in this "we") have reached a stage where we have internalized the concepts of sustainability such that when only non-sustainable options are available we at least have the good grace to cringe, and may, in fact, skip buying or using or doing something at all until we can do it cleanly.

Three Obstacles and an Objection

What are the three main obstacles you say? Well, one is obviously Mindset. This itself includes several elements, not all of which can be achieved at once: The recognition of the basic need to live sustainably is the beginning; an understanding and awareness of the natural cycles that affect our lives and make our lifestyles possible helps; a commitment to live so as to not affect those cycles adversely; and finally, the integration of those things into one's life so completely and seamlessly that it happens without much conscience effort, as a way of living not something layered over an existing non-sustainable lifestyle.

The next obstacle is Cost. This includes the sometimes actual additional cost of a more sustainable product, but also includes upfront costs on retrofitting sustainable solutions for long term savings. (The latter can be legislated away, in part, by rules requiring deeply sustainable new construction, for example, and retrofit-on-sale type rules.) Cost also includes the more common "wrongly perceived additional cost," which is related to (because it fails to account for) hidden additional costs and public subsidies for unsustainable practices.

Hidden additional costs include things like personal illness from chronic ingestion of chemical food, to higher costs of education for masses of kids developing learning disabilities due to poor chemical nutrition. Hidden costs include indirect subsidies such as allowing free waste "disposal" by dumping it into the air and water. And they can include taxpayer-paid subsidies for certain products or industries known to be unsustainable and which would be economically unsustainable but for the hidden subsidy.

Availability is the final obstacle. Sometimes one wants to do the sustainable thing, but finds that manufactured products or those one chooses not to make for oneself by hand, are simply not available. From time to time clean technology is hard to find; green options are not very green. One does what one can to encourage products and services in this vein, and moves forward. (This obstacle should not be confused with the false objection and/or "would-but" that relieves one of the need to find a sustainable product or service because it is more difficult to locate than the unsustainable variety.)

Finally, The Objection is a really any one or more of a large set of (false) rationalizations for ignoring the need for sustainability. The Objection has many causes and guises, and although rightly a part of the Mindset obstacle, often seems to act as a block to sustainability.

Within The Objection sometimes is a belief that the deity gave man dominion over the earth and its resources -- and thus humans may loot and pillage that trust property without guilt.

There is also the (sometimes deliberate) confusion of "Sustainable Impact" with "No Impact." Every plant and animal has an impact on the environment, and a role to play in natural cycles; we need not eliminate ours, merely change and moderate ours so that it does not threaten to destroy us and the system of which we are a part. The sneering taunt "your locally grown, organic hemp reusable bag used resources, so why should I feel guilty about a plastic bag?" is an example of this confusion.

Which bring up the fact that Guilt is another factor that motivates the basic Objection response. So much about sustainability implies that if one has been doing something in a non-sustainable manner for years one must be a bad person, stupid, or maybe even malicious. People don't accept guilt readily.

Finally, sometimes the Objection comes down to simple embarrassment: Caring for the environment is seen as a weak, touchy-feely, tree-huggerish, emotion-laden activity -- which is inconsistent with the aggressive self-image that seems to dominate popular culture.

One rarely encounters a person for whom The Objection can be removed directly. Largely it is a matter of finding a point of entry to an Objector's world view, and finding sustainable practices that are consistent with it. Once the Objection is overcome, even a little, it is simply a matter of working on the Three Obstacles one bit at a time.

With this grounding then, we can look to my households current and future practices and see where to go next . . . for a sustainable, not an undetectable, interaction with our biosphere.

Coming Soon: The Checklist: The Good, the Bad, the Etc.

"Klean" Water Saves Kash $$$

A while back, I wrote about giving up on plastic water bottles. Given our current rate of use, our cool reusable water bottles will have saved us $532 this year, and kept at least 1,825 plastic bottles from being created, or buried in the landfill.

The original post went into some detail on why single-use plastic bottles are bad; here is the nutshell version in case you didn't see the original:

Plastic manufacturing pollutes and uses oil and oil related resources; plastic is suspected of poisoning people by leaching into food; plastic does not break down in either the landfill or the environment, adding toxic chemicals and simple trash to the landscape; and even recycling those bottles use significant energy, create significant pollution, and creates other plastic products that in turn cause all the aforementioned problems.

Although steel has some significant environmental drawbacks in manufacturing, the steel bottles lack the other issues, can be reused hundreds of times (thus spreading the cash and environmental cost out over time), will degrade in nature and landfills (if they wind up there at all), and recycle very easily.

How do we use our bottles? We fill them from the tap and stick them in the refrigerator. That’s it.

Wash them with hot water and soap, refill them. Sometimes we refill them several times during the day, or swap out an empty for a cold, full one.

We calculated that we use each of our five bottles an average once per day (allowing for days when all five got refilled three or four times in summer, and days in winter when only two or three get used a single time). Thus 365 x 5 bottles = 1,825 plastic bottles we did not buy last year. At our local Trader Joe’s a case of bottled water the same size as our steel bottles works out to just over 29 cents per bottle. Thus, 1,825 x $0.29 = $532 in savings last year alone.

Now our bottles were gifts, so our initial cost was zero, but even at the approximately $20 each that they cost at full Internet retail (with shipping), we would have had a net savings in year one of $432, with an additional $532, per year, for the next several years.

Or, another way to look at it is that, in the first year, our amortized cost was about 5½ cents per fill, plus less than ½ cent for the water, so maybe about 6 cents per bottle-full. By December 2009, our cost will be down to about 3 cents for each use over the two years, including water. And if we use the bottles a third year, we pay less than 2½ cents per bottle. If the bottles last five years, at this rate that is less than 1½ cents per bottle of water!

And of course that calculation does not include the $1.00 or more each for bottles of water we did not buy at Disneyland, or the gas station, or the many other special events we’ve attended where water was wanted and for sale at absurd prices.

A good deal all around.

How to Get Off Your "Would But" and Start Doing Something

I Would But . . .

You know you should do it (whatever green thing “it” is) and you would but, well this thing and that thing and the other thing really make it impossible for you to do right now.

Welcome to Stage One Denial.

I’ve been there; every time I stop doing some green thing for awhile, I go through it again to get started. Breaking through Stage One Denial -- the "would-buts" -- is the hardest part of doing the green thing, at least sometimes.

An Example: Bike to Work Day, Just Today.

Take, for example, the green goal of riding a bike to work. Last summer I rode nearly every day to work. It was hot, but bearable. I got to wear summer clothes to work (shorts, polo shirt) so it was a fairly comfortable bike drive.

But the fact that I had to carry a laptop to work every day changed the ride. I was nervous carrying it unpadded in a backpack. (The computer case I had weighed a great deal, so I did not want to carry it on the bike.) And the backpack made me really hot. Although I rode most days in the summer anyway, the laptop-in-the-backpack became my “would-but” for the fall semester.

In the fall semester, without a way to carry my laptop conveniently, I rode a car to work every day. I would have driven my bike, but carrying the laptop was a problem. See how this works?

Over Christmas I received a really cool Jandd pannier bag. Folds up to look like a canvas briefcase, has a padded holder for a laptop, and a built in waterproof cover(!)

This week, my laptop and I drove a bike to work every day.

How about you?

What’s your bike-riding “would-but?”

For most of us it is one of these top ten:

1. “I don’t have a bike.”
2. “I have a bike, but I haven’t ridden it in years.”
3. “I’m scared of the cars.”
4. “I have to work in dress clothes, like a suit or high heels.”
5. “I work too far away.”
6. “I have to carry stuff to work.”
7. “I have kids to pick up.”
8. “The weather is too severe.”
9. “There is nowhere to park a bike when I get there.”
10. “I have bad knees/back/balance and can’t ride.”

I have used at least seven, maybe seven and a half of these personally.

We’ll deal with these Top Ten Would-But excuses in future posts. For the moment it is enough to recognize a "would but" excuse for what it is – a temporary obstacle to be overcome. And once overcome, most of these would-buts seem terribly insubstantial.

In general, though, the top suggestions for more bike driving are to get a good used cruiser bike if you don’t own one (try www.freecycle.org for a potential free bike!), or clean yours off and get it out of the garage! Drive your bike on weekends from time to time to get back in the groove; find a “Road Cycling” course online to help you understand and deal with the driving a bike instead of a car for transportation -- versus riding a bike for fun only.

_____________________

COMING SOON: Puncturing the First Five "Would But" Excuses . . . .

IDEA: Green Your Brain!

Going green is all the rage, but many still see the process as all sacrifice and conservation -- when nothing could be further from the truth.

What is wanted is a simple but complete change of mindset that allows one to make green choices without particular sacrifice, and as second nature.

The culture of waste and despoliation of the planet has been in place a long time, however, and such a fundamental change can be frightening, even daunting.

Even the mental change to so-called "conservation" can be daunting, not the least because it carries images of sacrifice and deprivation. It (wrongly) foreshadows the end of America as the land of endless everything.

Worse, mere conservation is, in fact, an inadequate response to a growing population made up of folks who each also want a growing piece of the pie.

Again, what is needed is a change of mind, as much as a change of habit.

One Example

Consider: At my house, according to the electric company, we've managed to conserve 90% (yes, ninety percent) on our electric bill last year. Even with the hottest summer on record this year and the AC running 24/7, we are on track this year to "save" 50% of the electricity we would have used in the past.

But we've made NO sacrifices. Really.

We have made a green choice that was so painless, and seems like such a no-brainer from our changed mindset, that we don't understand why most homeowners, builders and city governments haven't made the choice too.

Remember: No sacrifices.

We have only one compact fluorescent light bulb on in the house, have four TVs, five computers, and a microwave, central air and heat that runs non-stop. We have kids who leave the lights on. Our change costs us only about $40 per month, and has reduced our electric bill by 90 percent.

We have solar cells.

We didn't want the approximately 70% coal-fired electricity that our local utility offers. It didn't make sense when there was an affordable option.

Forty bucks a month -- with price rises, ever, and no coal.

And because right now we can afford to do so, we splurged and pay a tiny premium to the electric utility for wind and small hydro for our remaining electricity.

No Pain, All Gain

Although Pasadena gets nearly 70% of its electricity from coal, ours is 100% renewable, clean and green. No sacrifice. No actual conservation. No big deal.

And it is no big deal precisely because we have come about half-way 'round to changing our mindset.

Awareness of one's impact; a commitment to minimizing the impact; and, in these early decades of serious environmental change, a commitment to push past "business as usual" mindsets to get the green thing, or do the green thing wherever possible.

Green. It's all in your head, really.