There were many successes throughout my month of green living. My compost pile, above, was not one of them. Photo by Andy Kroll
So this is it. My final post for “Going Green: Cutting Environmental Impact on Campus,” this fascinating, frustrating, peculiar, enjoyable and enlightening month-long project to live as sustainably and “green” as possible. No more blogging and writing and filming about solar-powered vibrators or Zipcars or “green” grocery shopping or unsatisfying Wendy’s salads or phantom energy. (At least for UWireGreen.com) In that sense, this post is an ending of sorts.
But it’s a beginning, too. The question I’ve been asked most often by friends, family and other journalists is whether I’ll keep up with my new green lifestyle. To be honest, I didn’t think twice in responding. With all this knowledge about sustainability and eco-friendly consumption, I fully intend to keep living as “green” as I can from now on. I may not be writing about it (as much), but that doesn’t mean I’m going to leave all of my appliances plugged in, indulge in 30-minute showers and eat steaks and pork each night of the week.
Prior to this project, I’d written about sustainability and dabbled in eco-friendly living, like going to the farmer’s market or driving my car less. But having to immerse myself into this kind of lifestyle and maintain what amounted to a public diary recording my experiences, plus some more objective reporting on “green” topics, showed me how many of my previous habits I could change and how much of an impact I could have. It’s an experiment I’d recommend to anyone even if only for a week instead of an entire month.
Now looking back at that month, it’s time to assess how I did starting with my goal of cutting my carbon footprint in half. As you’ll remember, I estimated my personal carbon footprint to be 35 tons of CO2 per year using the The Nature Conservancy’s Carbon Footprint Calculator. The average carbon footprint in the U.S. is 27 tons, and worldwide it’s 5.5 tons, according to The Nature Conservancy.
Did I reach my goal of about 17.5 tons? Sadly, no.
As I mentioned in my first post, The Nature Conservancy’s Carbon Footprint Calculator takes into the account “Home Energy,” “Driving & Flying,” “Food & Diet” and “Recycling & Waste” when calculating your footprint. And even though I made improvements in each of these categories—by eating less meat, by conserving energy in my house, by starting a compost pile, by recycling—the factor that pushed me past my goal was, again, the amount of flights I’ve taken in the past year. Granted, I didn’t fly at all during my month of green living, but the number of flights I’ve taken in the past year still boosted my total. Which is a reminder that flying less, if you can help it, is crucial to a more sustainable lifestyle.
Here’s my carbon footprint now:
So I did manage to decrease my carbon footprint by an estimated 14 tons of CO2 per year and drop below the U.S. average though I’m nowhere near the world average. In short, I’m pleased with the result and now know how to decrease my footprint even more. (Adios airport, hello bus stop.)
Making a mosaic
A couple of weeks ago, I went out to lunch with the writer Terry Tempest Williams, who was speaking at my dad’s college in Kalamazoo, Mich., and a number of other people from the college. She asked me about this project, and when I explained what I had been up to, Williams pressed me on what specifically I had learned and could share with everyone at the table.
What I told her, and what resonates with me the most now that my month-long project is over, is that sustainable living isn’t some massive overhaul of your life or a revolutionary change in how you live. Rather, it’s the sum of a lot of small changes, some more noticeable than others: You unplug your computer when you’re not using it instead of leaving it on; turn the thermostat down 10 degrees or so before you go to bed; flip off the lights when you leave a room; bring your own coffee mug or water bottle with you; and many, many others.
In Williams’ most recent book, Finding Beauty in a Broken World, the metaphor of a mosaic runs throughout each section, from Italy to the American prairie to war-torn Rwanda. That same metaphor, in a sense, can be applied to eco-friendly living: Lots of small pieces of change comprise the big-picture changes I set out to make.
My lonely car in the driveway, after a month without use. Photo by Andy Kroll
Some of those changes, as you saw, were more successful than others. Cutting down on phantom energy was easy—I just needed to be more aware of the electricity and appliances I used. I embraced the idea of shopping at the Salvation Army, especially as it was something I did somewhat often before this project.
And one of the biggest surprises was my decision to cut my meat intake. At first it was painful. I missed hamburgers and steak burritos and pork chops, and I loathed the salads that replaced them. But with each day, I grew more accustomed to a meat-less diet, and soon finding non-meat meals at the grocery store became an adventure of sorts. Everyone can find the ground chuck at the grocery store, but can you find the tofu section (if your store has tofu at all)?
Not that there weren’t failures. Two words: Compost pile. As I write, a few inches of snow rest atop my compost pile, thanks to a freakish first week of April here in Michigan. Then again, I think the compost pile was doomed from day one, as I’ve come to think that I may have used the wrong fertilizer for the pile and that it was too cold for it to work, anyway.
But my roommates, the good sports they are, were willing to throw their orange peels and food scraps into my compost jar for the pile. Their encouragement leads me to believe that I could have pulled it off, had it been later in the year and had I read the directions more closely.
And my roommates weren’t the only ones generally supportive of the project. Throughout the month I received lots of feedback from readers who shared their thoughts on the project, critiqued my individual posts and, in one case, even sent me some vegetarian recipes to try.
Having the posts appear at Green.FoxNews.com shared my project with many more readers, and even helped spark discussion of my posts at environmental sites like Grist and EnvironmentalExaminer.com. The amazing Kaitlin Urka of Palestra.net and the University of Michigan’s own WOLV TV station, who shot, produced and edited the videos on UWireGreen.com, said the blog was even mentioned on Fox News’ program, the Strategy Room.
With that, I’ll be signing off. It was a pleasure, and I hope that some of the ideas and lessons and experiences shared here will be helpful to others as they try to go green, too. Thanks!
Spreading the word about sustainable living
My official month of green living has come to an end, though my goal is to continue with many of little lifestyle tweaks I’ve adopted and tested in the previous month. As I had hoped, the past month was an illuminating and eye-opening 31 days for me, someone who considering himself somewhat in tune with environmental sustainability and eco-friendly living. I didn’t really understand what green living entailed, however, until I consciously changed my own day-to-day behaviors, shopping habits, cleaning, the way I ate and the way I worked.
With my month-long experiment now finished, there are plenty of lessons and truths and observations I’ve learned and taken to heart. In today’s post and the post to follow, I want to point out a couple of those big-picture ideas I could’ve only learned spending 30 days changing my own lifestyle to be more sustainable and writing about it.
The first idea, which I’ll discuss in the post, involves dispelling a certain stereotype associated with environmentally conscious people.
Since around the 1960s, anyone who’s voiced even the smallest interest in decreasing his or her carbon footprint, reducing his or her personal impact on the environment or even deciding to eat more vegetables over meat have been labeled as a treehugger, hippie, environmental wackjob and the list goes on.
For the past 40 years, there hasn’t been a great middle ground between your average consumer and the types who camp out in trees to save them from destruction or the people who throw paint on rich people’s fur coats. It’s always been us or them, normalcy versus environmental extremism.
But having spent this past month, in 2009, living as green as possible, I can honestly say that anyone still peddling the “look at those nature-loving maniacs” label is behind the times. The people I met over the past month were of all ages—college students, single parents, retirees, upper-middle class newlyweds—and none of them fit the old environmentally conscious labels. And they weren’t all Greenpeace activists (not that I dislike Greenpeace, by any means) or members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or tied to any other similar organizations. They simply cared about the environment and their impact on it.
Which goes to show that eco-friendly living is catching on throughout the population. I see more “green” or “natural” or “organic” products in various stores than ever before; I hear more people in my classes, at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, talking about environmental issues, which are more mainstream and visible today.
Does that mean we’re at a place where promoting these kinds of ideas and messages is no longer necessary? Not at all. And access to these ideas, and eco-friendly products and foods and supplies, needs to be greatly expanded as well.
One of the main critiques of the environmental movement I have after my month-long project is the cost. To be fair, living green ain’t cheap. The health and environmental benefits are immense, but for some people (many college students included) the costs are still too steep. The Ann Arbor farmer’s market, for instance, for all its virtues and locally grown, healthy food, still costs a good amount for college student like myself stretching every dollar to its breaking point.
The kinds of information about living a more sustainable lifestyle need to be more accessible as well. Not everyone knows of Michael Pollan. Not everyone has readily available Internet access and can look up information about natural and organic food.
We could start by incorporating more information about sustainable living and healthy eating habits into our K-12 schools. Building sustainable habits with young students will influence them as they get older and could also encourage these students to talk to their parents sustainability-related issues as well.
Beyond the classroom, spreading ideas about living sustainably—growing your own garden, building a compost pile, reusing as much as possible—through community networks and newspapers is crucial, too. Anything to get more people interested in living sustainably is worth the effort.
While today’s post took a broader look at what I’ve learned from my green living experiment, the next—and final—post will address my personal experience and whether I succeeded in meeting my goal of cutting my carbon footprint in half. If readers have any thoughts on the ideas above, I’d love to hear them, either in the Comments section or in an e-mail. You can reach me at akroll [at] umich.com.
Getting more for your gallon
The Chevy Volt: the great hope for the future—and viability—of General Motors. Photo courtesy of General Motors.
Last summer’s record spike in oil prices, which shot gas prices up to $4 a gallon or more, may have subsided for now, but the memory of painful prices at the pump still resonates with consumers and automakers.
Add to that the rising tide of legislators, policymakers and environmentalists calling for cleaner cars on the road, and the result is the one of the largest pushes for increased fuel efficiency in U.S. history.
The gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks that once ruled the road during the era of cheap gas are now looked at with derision. In their place are smaller, more efficient compacts and mid-size vehicles like the Chevy Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla.
Emerging technologies like hybrid engines, combining electric power with combustion engines, advance fuel efficiency technologies even further, as seen in Toyota’s Prius (the “icon of green automobiles,” according to U.S. News and World Report), or Ford’s upcoming Fusion Hybrid model.
At the federal government level, vastly improved fuel efficiency is a priority, as seen in legislation passed by Congress in 2007 mandating that fuel efficiency for cars and trucks meet or exceed 35 mpg by 2020.
On Friday, the Department of Transportation announced that the combined fuel efficiency of 2011 model cars and trucks must be 27.3 mpg, a 2 mpg jump from the existing standard.
“These standards are important steps in the nation’s quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families,” transportation secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
The 2011 fuel economy standards, an early step toward that 2020 goal, mandate that cars get an average of 30.2 mpg and light trucks—including SUVs, pick-up trucks and vans—get, on average, 24.1 mpg.
But can automakers keep up with federal fuel economy mandates? Will the technologies needed to achieve a 35 mpg industry standard be in place for 2011 models?
So far, international car companies seem to have lead the way in recent decades in improved in fuel economy.
The 2009 Honda Civic, one of the highest rated cars among foreign and domestic automakers. Photo courtesy of Honda Motor Company.
Smaller cars like the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic consistently lead all of the auto industry in getting the most miles for each gallon, earning 30 mpg and 29 mpg, respectively. (The 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid gets an impressive 42 mpg, but costs around $27,000.) These cars are priced at reasonable levels as well: A 2009 Honda Civic base model costs $15,505, and a 2009 Toyota Corolla base model starts at $15,350.
And, of course, there’s the Toyota Prius, the established leader in hybrid cars whose 2009 model gets 46 mpg, which has lead the way in alternative automotive technologies since landing on showroom floors in 2004, despite its slightly higher price. A 2009 Prius base model costs $23,375.
On the domestic front, despite the existential questions surrounding Chrysler and General Motors, both companies and the slightly more well-off Ford Motor Company have shifted away from larger, more expensive pick-ups and SUVs toward smaller, more fuel efficient cars like the Chevy Cobalt (30 mpg, around $15,000) and the more compact Ford Fiesta compact.
A row of new Ford Fiestas at the Port of Baltimore on March 26. Photo courtesy of Ford Motor Company.
U.S. automakers haven’t enjoyed the same success as the foreign companies when it comes to more fuel efficient vehicles, but hope ambitious investments in battery-powered cars could help them elbow in on the emerging alternative technologies market—and, in the case of General Motors, prevent the company from complete collapse.
Much has been made of the Chevy Volt, a battery-powered, plug-in vehicle that would get 40 miles on a single battery charge and have an estimated range of 640 miles using the battery and gasoline-powered engine. The New York Times called the Volt “G.M.’s Latest Great Green Hope.”
Indeed, much of GM’s future success is pinned on the success of the Volt, the much anticipated new breeds of cars powered by a cutting-edge lithium ion battery that is slated to hit showrooms in late next year.
The major downside with the Volt is its estimated cost—upwards of $40,000 at first, which could turn off buyers despite the longer-term savings of less gas consumption.
“If you’re the affluent individual who wants to make a statement, it’s one thing,” Ron Pinelli, president of MotorIntelligence.com, an industry analysis firm, told The Times. “If you’re Joe the Commuter, you’re not going to spend $40,000 on an electric car. It’s insane.”
Martin Zimmerman, a University of Michigan professor and auto industry, did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the viability and potential success of the Volt, and on the future of fuel economy in the U.S.
In the next four years, Ford also plans to unveil a battery-powered electric small car and commercial van by 2011 and 2010, respectively, and a plug-in hybrid vehicle as well by 2012.
But no matter how impressive vehicles with alternative energy technologies are, the chances that they’ll catch on among Americans is slim until they come down in price. While it’s true the savings in gas expenditures over the life of car will make up for the initial price, consumers will almost always balk at a sticker price in the range of $25,000 to $40,000.
In short, like all green technologies and products, affordability is crucial to success.
Fortunately, until the Chevy Volts and Honda Civic Hybrics come down in cost, there are affordable options with high fuel economy using existing technologies. And with the federal government nudging automakers toward better fuel efficiency, the country appears to be on the right track toward a more efficient, environmentally friendly auto industry.
But with the urgency surrounding the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions growing by the day, the question remains: Will fuel economy efforts by automakers and the government be too little too late?
Stocking the drawers with sustainable supplies
About every few months, my cache of writing and class supplies—pens, notepads, folders, printer paper—begins to run low, which means it’s time to visit the nearby big-box office supply store.
In months and years past, as I’ve run through thousands of pages of notebook paper and innumerable pens, I’ve developed a few personal favorites—the Pilot G2 gel pen, Office Max brand legal pads, the 6”x9” Steno Pads for reporting. But as I approached the office supplies aisle in the nearby Office Max earlier this morning, I noticed an entire section of “green,” recycled, curiously eccentric pens and notebooks and even staplers.
So, in the spirit of month of green living, I did a little investigating for my college-aged readers and myself on the new wave of eco-friendly office miscellany.
A pack of Terracycle brand, 100 percent recycled notebook dividers. Photo by Andy Kroll
The first display, from the brand Terracycle, offered pens with recycled paper casings, biodegradable pens, notebooks made of recycled paper and Chips Ahoy! Wrappers and a slew of other binders and paper dividers made out of 100 percent recycled materials.
A quick look at Terracycle’s Web site says that the company was started in 2001 by two Princeton University students, Tom Szaky and Jon Beyer, whose flagship product is a natural, organic liquid plant food made from “worm poop” and packaged in reused soda bottles. Today, the company’s product offerings range from eco-friendly firestarting logs packaged in reused two-liter bottles to natural window cleaners to pencil cases made of used Capri Sun juice boxes.
For a green-minded shopper, what’s not to like? Inevitably, the price. Whereas a box of 12 plastic Bic ballpoint pens costs as little as $2.50, a four-pack of Terracycle paper pens runs upwards of $7.99—more than three times the price. The company’s three-ring binders and notepads also cost quite a bit more than less environmentally friendly brands.
The dilemma that never ends—“green” versus green ($), environmental cost versus cash-register cost.
Fortunately, a few aisles over is the display for a few other—and cheaper—eco-friendly office supply lines. The store brand “green” products aren’t as appealing from a environmental standpoint—Terracycle’s pens are 100 percent recyclable; Office Max’s are only 72 percent—but I could be splitting hairs here, getting a bit too picky with my green goals. (Granted, after a month of trying to cut my carbon footprint, you start to pay close to attention to “eco-friendly” labels and claims.)
The brown label means recycled—and expensive. Photo by Andy Kroll
A two-pack of Zebra brand recyclable pens, I learned, costs $2.99, so even if I bought two packs I’d still end up with more money in my pocket than the Terracycle paper pens. Then again, that’s two times the packaging—and Terracycle’s products all come in recycled packaging as well. A dilemma, indeed.
While I mulled whether to fork out the extra cash in the name of being as green as possible, I checked out Office Max’s printer paper selection, figuring there would be plenty of eco-friendly choices here.
And indeed I was right, as the store’s paper selection (though I’m trying to print as little as possible nowadays) featured a wide array of options, each one color coded to indicate how much of the paper was made of recycled materials—and how much more expensive it was. 100 percent recycled “Multi-purpose Paper” runs $8.49 for 500 sheets—not all that more expensive from other less recycled options.
Against my own financial instincts (what little is left of them), I chose the expensive paper pens. Photo by Andy Kroll
In the end, however, I decided against buying any paper at all—printer paper, notepads, legal pads. I can always use the unused backsides of the various legal pads strewn throughout my room, and if I’m trying to read more online and not print as much then how could I justify buying a 500-pack of fresh paper, recycled or not?
For college students out there—and everyone else who uses office supplies for that matter—try shopping with the environment in mind next time you hit up the campus bookstore or your own local big box. You don’t have to buy a Chips Ahoy! book; a few biodegradable pens wouldn’t hurt, though.
Updates, come and get your updates! I’m already writing the post-mortem for my compost pile (in my head). When I check the heat of the pile, I see there is none; nearly every morning one of the compost box’s sides has fallen, despite my repeated stabilization efforts (I blame squirrel saboteurs); and the pile on the whole seems lifeless.
That doesn’t mean I’m giving up, however. Having talked with a couple of compost experts I know, they surmised that I tried to start the pile too early in the year—I’d have had more success starting in early or mid April, they said. C’est la vie. I’ll try to keep the pile alive until the weather warms, and maybe the sun will breath some life into it. Fingers crossed.
Going green in bed: A primer on sustainable sex products
Yes, you read that headline correctly: Sustainable sex products. They do exist. In fact, as the green movement sweeps over the country, the makers of biodegradable condoms and solar powered vibrators and organic lubricants are elbowing their way into the U.S.’s thriving sex products industry.
Before introducing you to the world of sustainable sex, I must concede that, unlike my other posts, I haven’t actually tested out any of products described here. Not that I’m shy or wary of ordering “green” condoms, but with my girlfriend in sunny southern Florida and me still in Ann Arbor, it’s a bit difficult to try any of these products. (And even if she were here or I in Florida, my guess is that she’d rather stick with what’s worked for us so far. She did, however, help with the research for this article!)
Which means you, the reader, have an assignment: Test these products (safely, of course) and then report back with a comment or e-mail on how it went. I’m relying on you here, and can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
* * *
With that in mind, let’s start simple.
Environmentally friendly condoms: Regular, latex condoms found in any grocery store or pharmacy are the safest but can be harmful to the environment, as latex can take years to biodegrade after disposal.
More environmentally friendly natural lamb condoms. Courtesy of naturalamb.com
Instead, you could try natural, lambskin condoms, which break down faster than latex; they don’t, however, protect against sexually transmitted diseases, so be smart about their use. And all brands and types—whether latex or lambskin or polyurethane—come with a good amount of necessary packaging, which ends up in the garbage too.
Verdict: Though eco-friendly condoms are a good idea, best to put safety over sustainability.
* * *
Thankfully, there are plenty of organic options in the lubricant market. Web sites such as Earth Erotics offer a healthy choice of organic lubricants, like “Hydra Water Based Lubricant,” made with organic extracts ($16); “Intimate Organics” brand massage balms ($16), whose ingredients include aloe, cocoa bean and goji berries and received the stamp of approval from Co-op America; and “Good Clean Love” brand personal lubricants, made of “99.99% vegan, 95% organic ingredients, with no animal products or animal testing” and containing no petro-chemicals or parabens.
Good Clean Fun natural lubricants. Courtesy of eartherotics.com
Options abound when it comes to “green” lubricants, and they’re relatively affordable, too, compared to K-Y or Astroglide lubricants.
Verdict: Get online and order yourself some good clean lubrication (if you need it).
* * *
Admission: I know next to nothing about vibrators, other than some of them are shiny and most make a funny whirring sound. (This last bit I didn’t know until freshman year of college when a pair of single girls lived in the room next to mine. Oh, to be young again…)
A few hours of Internet perusing later, however, my vibrator IQ has, ahem, risen exponentially. When it comes to “green” vibrators, there are brands with rechargeable batteries (keeps batteries out of landfills); latex- and phthalate-free vibrators, the latter of which can lead to birth defects; and—yes—even solar powered vibrators, eliminating batteries altogether and harnessing the power of the sun for your own pleasure.
Behold—the solar powered vibrator. Courtesy of alternativecustomer.com
The downside of these kinds of eco-friendly vibrators is their price. Rechargeable vibrators range in price from $70 to $160, and a latex-free Laya brand vibrator costs around $50. The Solar Sensations brand solar powered vibrator, new to the sex products market, costs $32.95.
Verdict: I still know too little about vibrators to judge, so I’m leaving the reader to decide.
* * *
Those are some of the highlights of the burgeoning sustainable sex products industry.
You can also buy bamboo or organic cotton bed sheets or even eco-friendly lingerie and underwear. Either way, there are plenty of options out there for you to try.
Planet Green has some additional tips to make your intimate moments more “green,” too:
Sexy play can be green and efficient as well. As seen on TreeHugger TV, showering together can save water (if things get steamier, we suggest taking it to the bedroom and not leaving the shower running). In the winter time, some nice warm loving before bed can get the bedroom toasty, meaning the thermostat can be lower (see How to Green Your Heating, for more). A nice bike ride for two is a fossil-fuel-free way to get the blood flowing and can also be quite stimulating, especially for the ladies. And of course the classic candle-lit dinner is a delicious way to set the mood and save on energy bills.
So there you have it: The world of sustainable sex products. Now get out there, go green and get busy.
The sustainable college eater’s dilemma
One of the toughest aspects of my month of green living is eating less meat. Trading chicken, beef, lamb and the like for tofu, stir fries and the occasional protein bar has proved far more difficult than anticipated. And depending on the location and your own budget, eating less meat can be even more challenging, as I’ve learned in the past couple of weeks.
Today's lunch: A Wendy's side salad. Oh for the days of hamburgers... Photo by Andy Kroll
My parents are vegetarians. (Well, my dad is, and since where one goes the other often follows, my mom is quickly joining the veggie ranks, too.) When I visited them this past weekend, meeting my low-meat goals (I’ve cut my intake by 75 percent) was easy—protein vitamin shakes, breads and fruit for breakfast; salads and vegetarian sandwiches for lunch; and often tofu stir fry or occasionally fish (which my folks haven’t entirely given up) for dinner. On the drive home from their house on Monday, I thought to myself, I could do this whole vegetarian thing no problem.
Then I got back to school. The semester is nearing its end, I’m busier than I’ve ever been, thus time to cook is limited – if present at all. As a result, I eat out and on the run for probably a majority of my meals. And after two weeks of trying to eat mostly vegetarian meals with only a spare few servings of meat, what I’ve learned is this:
It’s really difficult to eat healthy, appetizing meals without meat on a college student’s budget.
Yes, there are fantastic vegetarian restaurants in Ann Arbor—but they’re hardly cheap for a college student trying to stretch out a dollar. And the vegetarian offerings at other restaurants are mostly delicious, but those places are usually sit-down establishments, which isn’t conducive to a busy college student’s schedule.
So what I’ve ended up eating as of late are a lot of slices of veggie pizza (delicious but a bit too greasy), paltry side salads from fast food joints and innumerable peanut butter sandwiches.
For anyone knowledgeable about food policy or rising obesity rates in the U.S., the dearth of quick, healthy food options is old news. But having not paid too much attention to what I eat until joining the legion of Michael Pollan acolytes and then beginning this project, I never realized how little healthy food is available for busy people on a budget. And, to be honest, the healthy-ish food out there right now—the salads and baked potatoes—tastes pretty awful. Not to mention that this kind of fast food usually comes packaged in excess amounts of plastic and paper all stuffed into an oversized paper bag bound for the garbage can.
So what to do for a college student-turned-semi-vegetarian? I could pack my own lunches with more vegetarian meals, which I plan to do when my schedule lightens and the next paycheck arrives. I could suck it up and learn to enjoy the Wendy’s “side item” offerings more; after all, my baked potato and plain salad cost a mere $4.50 or so today. I suppose moving back in with mom and dad is an option, but I’ve already done that once, and my parents have replaced my brother and I with dogs and a cat; us kids are old news.
A reader of one of my earlier posts was nice enough to send me a few vegetarian recipes, and I intend to use those soon. But do any other readers have some suggestions for a veggie-minded, cash-strapped, hectic college student? I’d love to hear them if you do with a comment here or an e-mail at akroll [at] umich.edu.
Wipe on, wipe off: My experiment in greener house cleaning
Pitching name-brand cleaner for nature's own disinfectant. Photos by Andy Kroll
I thought the ingredients in a box of cereal were obscure. Then, after reading about the dangers of store-bought cleaners in the book “Ready, Set, Green: Eight Weeks to Modern Eco-living,” I did a little research on the bottle of 409 All-Purpose Cleaner sitting underneath our kitchen sink. Ingredients include “2-Butoxyethanol” and “Alkyl(C12-16)dimethylbenzylammonium chloride,” the latter of which I can’t even begin to try to pronounce. That alone is reason enough to green up my cleaning products.
Despite our best intentions, commonly used store-brand cleaning products can be quite dangerous and damaging to our health, not to mention harmful to the environment. “Many historically accepted practice, products, and ingredients are now known to be extremely dangerous,” said Jeffrey Hollender of Seventh Generation in “Ready, Set, Green.” “Household chemicals may not be much different than cigarettes—many are carcinogenic, likely to disrupt our hormonal system, and likely to have adverse effects on children.”
Fortunately, the problem of finding eco-friendly, harmless cleaning products is easy and instructive. A simple and easy way to get rid of dangerous glass-cleaning sprays or grease cutters is to make your own cleaning mixture, which I recently did using the old 409 bottle mentioned above.
First, I went to the grocery store and purchased a bottle of white distilled vinegar—32 fl. oz. of nature’s own grease-cutting disinfectant for only $1.50. Next, I looked up a few recipes for making your own cleaning solution, which led me to a number of different sites. The constant answer I found on each site involved some simple mixture of the vinegar I’d bought and water. Easy enough, right?
The only discrepancy among all these different green cleaning sites was how much vinegar I should mix with
Making my very own all-purpose cleaner.
water. One site said 1 part water for every 1 part vinegar; “Ready, Set, Green” suggested 1 part vinegar for every 5 parts water; and many others. So I decided to go with the safe, happy middle ground—a 3:1 water to vinegar ratio.
Mixing the solution was easy; then it was time to test my new concoction. Much to my excitement, my new water-and-vinegar solution proved effective on some nasty, sticky stains on our Formica kitchen countertop. A couple of sprays, a wipe of the washcloth—problem solved.
Before reusing an emptied 409 or Windex bottle to mix your own all-purpose cleaner, be sure to thoroughly clean the bottle first. I haven’t read anywhere saying it’s dangerous to use an old bottle after cleaning it, so I think it’s safe. Also be sure to understand all of the ingredients you’re using, and don’t haphazardly throw things together—safety first, always. I’d also recommend labeling a clear, reused Windex bottle with the words “CLEANING SPRAY” so your roommates, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc., don’t try to water the plants or anything with your new cleaner.
Unlike some store-brand solutions, this homemade spray doesn’t have much of a smell, other than that of vinegar. My guess is that if you really want a scent of some kind, you could probably mix it into your solution. But I’d do a bit of Google searching before throwing some scents blindly into the mix.
Now, if you don’t feel like going through the effort of making your own homemade all-purpose cleaner, you can always buy one of the more “green” products at the store. They’ll be more expensive, and you should also read the label of these kinds of products closely—sometimes green is nothing more than a gimmick and a reason to hike the price.
Dish soap for the roomies and I.
When it comes to products like dish soaps—Dawn, Dial, etc.—it can be a bit more difficult to create your own homemade version. Luckily, there are plenty of eco-friendly, biodegradable options at most grocery stores. They cost a bit more, but if you’re trying to live a more green lifestyle, they’re a worthwhile purchase. I figure that the amount of money saved by making my own disinfectant spray will help me to break even by spending more on eco-friendly dish soap, which I think is more than worth it.
Here are a few other housekeeping tips from the authors of “Ready, Set, Green” to keep in mind when cleaning up around the dorm room, apartment, house and so on. They may seem insignificant or pointless, but remember that lots of small changes add up to a major difference.
· Open windows and ventilate, even in wintertime, especially when you are cleaning or using glues, paints, or solvents. Wear gloves and goggles and even a mask if you detect any sensitivities.
· Use a reusable microfiber cloth instead of paper towels to clean. These create less dust and less waste.
· Don’t use hot water with toxic chemicals; it can cause them to off-gas more easily, releasing VOCs (carbon-based chemicals that vaporize and travel through the air at room temperature). Dilute cleaners with tepid water whenever possible.
· Rinse surfaces with water after you clean them, which removes toxic residues. Avoid synthetic waxes and polishes, which leave residue behind.
· Avoid spray cleaners that create fine mists, which disperse tiny particles into the air and spread around your home more readily.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about some fascinating and encouraging news from other college campuses throughout the U.S. that, in some form or another, are embracing “green” technology and lifestyles.
Since then, plenty has happened at schools like the University of Montana, the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Maryland. Here’s a snapshot of what’s going on at these campuses, with links included to the full stories for further reading.
U. Montana to offer climate change minor this fall
The Montana Kaimin newspaper reported today that a new minor program on climate change studies will be available to students this fall. The program will incorporate studies involving science and social issues as well as looking at potential solutions to climate change.
“It’s beyond looking at the science. We are trying to get students into this whole social, political arena,” said UM regents professor of forest ecology Steve Running, director for the new program and Nobel Peace Prize recipient for work on climate change issues. “We are trying to be on the leading edge of this transition and educate particularly our students in facilitating this change and helping the alternatives bubble up.”
The task of fixing the “global sickness” will soon be in the hands of the next generation, he added.
The minor was initiated under the direction of UM Provost Royce Engstrom, who received input from 29 faculty members from 18 departments who wanted to bring a climate change program to campus. “An important thing for students to know is that students from any background can enter into this minor because it takes a very interdisciplinary approach,” Engstrom said. “It’s not just for science students, it’s not just
for policy students. It’s for any student.”
U. California Regents approve deal between universities, utility companies
The Board of Regents for the University of California system approved a program that could lower energy costs and increase efficiency on a number of UC campuses. The program could save the UC system $36 million, the Daily Californian reported.
In collaboration with PG&E, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and three other companies, the program will be implemented at nine of the 10 UC campuses and four of the five medical schools over the next three years.
It will fund 900 energy-efficiency programs and is expected to reduce the UC system’s annual utilities costs by $36 million, or about 10 percent. The utility companies will cover roughly $61 million of the project’s total $247 million.
“It makes perfect financial sense,” said Dirk van Ulden, associate director of energy and utilities at the UC Office of the President.
UC Berkeley will undertake 190 programs, the most of any UC campus, totalling a budget of $24.8 million. PG&E will loan the campus $8.8 million to pursue these projects.
U. Connecticut gets a ‘kick’ out of environmental activism
The University of Connecticut began a shoe recycling program as part of Nike’s Reuse-a-Shoe program to cut the school’s carbon footprint and promote environmental awareness on campus, The Daily Campus reported.
The collection kicked off on March 1 as part of Nike’s Reuse-a-Shoe program, a program in which the company collects shoes so that their rubber soles may be turned into running tracks, athletic surfaces and playgrounds. According to the company’s Web site, in 19 years, Nike has collected 22,736,188 pairs of shoes globally.
UConn was inspired to start a sneaker collection after hearing about Nike’s program, seeing it as a way to reduce the university’s carbon footprint.
“UConn students are generally athletic-minded and environmentally-responsible,” said Richard Miller, the director of the Office of Environmental Policy, in an e-mail interview.
“We knew there were a lot of sneakers being thrown away by students, faculty and staff, and by recycling and reusing the components in different products, it would be a more sustainable practice than using raw materials to make these same products.”
The program is a partnership involving UConn Athletics, EcoHusky, the OEP, Nike and the Willimantic Waste Co., which brings the shoes to Nike.
How “green” shoppers navigate the neighborhood grocery store
- The grocery store produce section—a haven for all green shoppers. Photos by Andy Kroll
The half-empty jar of pasta sauce and remaining few slices of cheddar sit there looking lonely on my shelf of the refrigerator, like two shy wallflowers at a middle school dance.
In other words, it’s time to hit the grocery store and restock.
I had intended to write my “Going Green”-themed grocery shopping post about buying my produce and bread at the local farmer’s market on Saturday mornings, but decided otherwise, out of the worry that students without easy access to a farmer’s market wouldn’t find help in the post. So instead, I went to the regular grocery store—that ubiquitous Midwest chain, Meijer—and attempted to shop there as green as possible.
Which was, of course, far greater of a challenge. Meijer does promote and sell its own “Natural” and “Organic” brands of, say, peanut butter or laundry detergent; but, as The New York Times’ Mark Bittman recently pointed out, these supposedly eco-friendly, sustainable products aren’t always the answer, having evolved into a fad more than a revolution in how we eat and live:
[E]ating “organic” offers no guarantee of [healthy eating]. And the truth is that most Americans eat so badly — we get 7 percent of our calories from soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the top food group by caloric intake is “sweets”; and one-third of nation’s adults are now obese — that the organic question is a secondary one. It’s not unimportant, but it’s not the primary issue in the way Americans eat.
To eat well, says Michael Pollan, the author of “In Defense of Food,” means avoiding “edible food-like substances” and sticking to real ingredients, increasingly from the plant kingdom. (Americans each consume an average of nearly two pounds a day of animal products.) There’s plenty of evidence that both a person’s health — as well as the environment’s — will improve with a simple shift in eating habits away from animal products and highly processed foods to plant products and what might be called “real food.” (With all due respect to people in the “food movement,” the food need not be “slow,” either.)
Healthy shopping doesn't just mean "Natural" and "Organic"
If there’s one tip I can share about how to buy healthy food at regular grocery stores, one that I learned from both Michael Pollan and experience, it’s to shop from the perimeter walls of the grocery story and to avoid the inside lanes and shelves. After hearing Pollan mention this is in a great talk at Google’s headquarters, a lifetime of shopping with my mom became so much clearer in my head—the walls in most grocery stores are lined with coolers and freezers and shelves with watering devices, i.e., for the food that’s most fresh. The inside of most stores, on the other hand, contains food loaded with preservatives and chemicals and ingredient lists numbering fifty long with indecipherable words. The kind of food that would still look the same if it were left on those shelves for decades.
Fresh on the outside, most everything else on the inside.
So I shopped the walls, and left the inner aisles untrodden. The end result? My cart was filled with far fresher food, food that will go bad in a week if I don’t eat and food that costs quite a bit more. For college students, with our hectic schedules and erratic behaviors, the inner aisles are indeed more convenient—it’s food that keeps for longer, takes less time to cook, makes for easy on-the-go snacking.
But is it healthier? Not at all. Support local economies and local farmers? No chance. And it’s a matter of deciding whether you’re willing, as Pollan says, to vote with your fork: You shopping decisions impact how food policy in this country is developed, and supporting fresh-grown, local food not only keeps your healthier but communicates an important message.
A produce sale, ahem, ripe for the picking
And to be honest, shopping fresh can be done a budget. Here’s a tip of mine: When you’re at the store, look for fresh produce that’s nearing its expiration date. Usually, tomatoes or peppers or apples or pork chops (though I’m not eating many of those lately) that are close to their expiration are marked way down because the stores need to offload those products. A $4 bag of lettuce becomes a $1.50 bag of lettuce. A box of roma tomatoes for $3 becomes $1. For the Kroger chain grocery store near my house, I’ve found that most Friday afternoons there’s a lot of produce discounted throughout the store, and if I’m planning a dinner or even doing a bit of my own shopping, I can get great fresh food for cheap.
The catch is that you have to use the produce sooner—in the next day or so, if not that very evening. For someone like myself who likes to cook, that’s not a bad thing; for those averse to cooking, this may be a bit more of a problem. Either way, it’s a nice exception to pricey fresh food standard.
There’s always coupons, too, in the city and student newspaper, online, at the campus union or student center.
A major problem with shopping at this particular Meijer is that I have to drive there. It’s more than three miles away, and without a bike capable of holding five or six bags of groceries (I’ll get to those shortly) or a Zipcar membership, I had to fire up my little-used car parked in the driveway. I haven’t driven the car much at all in the past three weeks, but it was a necessary evil for this shopping excursion.
There were those bags, too. I ended up using plastic bags at the checkout counter—again, far from the best option (bringing your own reusable bags), but I will say that my roommates and I save our plastic bags and reuse them for other tasks around the house. Will they ultimately still end up in a landfill, though? Yes. Note to self: Time to invest in some reusable bags, Andy.
A reader from another post mentioned the issue of milk in the context of cattle producing greenhouse gases, that if we cut our milk consumption, like I’m trying to cut my meat intake, that would decrease animal-related emissions. On this particular trip, I did not buy any milk or milk products. I’m not much of a milk drinker (bad experience with a glass of curdled 2% milk), but the issue of buying milk or getting calcium from another source is a tough one: We need calcium and milk is a popular source of that nutrient, but the cattle that produce that milk for us do indeed have a substantial carbon footprint. It’s a dilemma on which I need to be better informed saying much else, though soy milk, which I take in all my coffee, is a potential alternative.
Shopping fresh may seem expensive, but with a bit of extra effort and flexibility, it can be done affordably for college students on slim budget. I picked up some fresh tomatoes, lettuce, peppers, bakery bread and peanut butter (the kind with only “Peanuts” as an ingredient and with the oil on top—the sign that it’s fresh) this time around.
But I’d be lying if I didn’t say I longed for some of those preservative-laden goodies lining the store’s interior—a bag of sour-cream-and-onion chips, some Keebler’s cookies, a frozen mac-and-cheese dinner. Though I’ve been pretty diligent in the past year or so to stick to fresh foods, the siren’s call emanating from those frozen pizza section (once a major vice) still tugs at me on occasion. Hopefully, the more I stick to healthy, fresh food, the more that will go away.
I’d love to hear from anyone with their own tips on shopping healthy on a budget that don’t necessarily involve farmer’s markets or more eco-friendly stores like Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods Market. To all you foodies out there, please do not hesitate to share your own tips or ideas, or send them to me at akroll [at] umich.edu. I’d be more than happy to write another post with suggestions!
Keg or can? An eco-friendly, beer-drenched showdown
Some (quality) Busch Light cans in my basement fridge. Photo by Andy Kroll
On Tuesday, another beer-filled, hazy, riotous St. Patrick’s Day went into the history books, with the sound of Flogging Molly, Dropkick Murphys and the theme song to The Boondock Saints carrying through the air.
St. Patty’s is also one of the greenest days of the year, too—the color, that is, not necessarily the “green” lifestyle I write about here. But in the spirit of both St. Patrick’s Day and my month-long sustainability project, I’ve decided to offer a few eco-friendly tips for next year’s St. Patrick’s Day parties—and for drinking beer in general, too.
For my friends and I in St. Patrick’s Days past, the main question at hand has always been: How are we going to get our beer? Or, in other words, do we buy a case of beer or a keg?
There’s the usual squabbling that cases are cheaper but kegs hold more fermented goodness and look much cooler on a patio or porch. Kegs, though, are harder to transport and require much more money upfront than do cases. And so goes the usual back-and-forth.
Now, I’d like to add an environmental aspect to this debate. As it turns out, kegs are a much more environmentally friendly way to drink your St. Patrick’s Day (or any day’s) beer than buying, say, a 30-pack of beers in cans. Kegs are reused over and over and over, unlike cans which, though recyclable, require a good amount of energy to recycle and remake into new products again. Kegs also come without any of the cardboard packaging, which, though also recyclable, usually end up in the trash can.
Given that most kegs weigh quite a bit more than cases, the energy expended transporting kegs from a brewery to (usually) a distribution center and then out to stores is certainly an issue. But in the long run, the nearly endless reusability of kegs outweighs the transportation emissions, especially when considering the energy used in the production, transportation and recycling (or flat-out disposal) of beer cans.
Now, if you really want be a green keg drinker, you could try using a plastic keg. (Some beer aficionados will consider this blasphemy, but we’re all about going green here.) As Plastic Kegs of America explains on its Web site:
Plastic Kegs America Kegs are significantly lighter than metal equivalent kegs; meaning the same volume of beer can be transported at a lower all up weight; reducing the delivery cost and reducing fuel consumption as well; save money and do your little bit at the same time!
Also the material used on the chimes (note: not liquid facing material) of the 1/2 barrel; 1/6 barrel and the 1/12 barrel is environmentally recycled HDPE; and the entire keg is recyclable; so rather than letting your keg become a BBQ/mooring for an old fisherman’s boat/scrap for cash for a less savory cause; if you ever damage your keg beyond repair; simply remove the spear and you can recycle the keg!
So in the battle of kegs versus cans, the more environmentally friendly option is going the keg route. And outside of the keg-vs.-can debate, there are a spate of other green steps you can take when imbibing some quality brews.
Here are just a few courtesy of Mother Nature Network:
Consider trying an organic beer or two. The ingredients that are most common in beer – barley, hops and sometimes wheat – are heavily laden with insecticides, fungicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers when commercially grown. All of these are bad for the environment. The ingredients for organic beer should not be grown with any of those – leaving the earth (not to mention you) a little bit healthier.
An alternative to organic beer when looking to leave less of an impact on the earth with your beer is to buy a local brew. It may not be organic, but it won’t have to travel far to get to you. The fancy imports that you drink may be really tasty, but they leave quite a carbon footprint getting from their home to yours. Buy buying local, the energy and fuel needed to transport the beer is decreased dramatically.
When at a restaurant, order beer on tap. Many restaurants do not recycle their bottles because it’s either a hassle or they don’t want to pay the fee to have them hauled off. By ordering beer from the tap, there is a good chance you’ll save at least one bottle from ending up in a landfill.
Recycle your empties. This may seem like a no-brainer but I’m still surprised at how many people don’t do it – even when they have curbside recycling programs. If you don’t have curbside recycling or your apartment complex doesn’t have a program, you can find out where to take any glass or cans that need to be recycled by going to Earth911. By entering your zip code, you can find the nearest recycling center.
Adventures in composting, day two: I awoke today and looked out the window to see my compost pile a bit out of sorts:
Day two, and my compost pile is already falling apart. Photo by Andy Kroll
Undeterred, I replaced the fallen board, sprayed the pile with a bit of water to keep it moist and then headed off for campus. I can’t tell if the microbes have started to do their composting-thing yet (they’re a bit too small to see, I think), but here’s hoping they are.
I’ll keep you updated on how the process is coming along.
