Catch the enviro-friendly bug, and you likely won’t be able to stop at just recycling. If you’re an all-or-nothing kind of of person, a whole new eco-lifestyle might be just what you’re seeking. Some women to inspire you:
A plastic-free life. EnviroWoman‘s trying to go plastic-free for a whole year, and documenting the joys and sorrows of the process. The latest: She’s found non-plastic-encased pretzels, ending her 260-day and 18-hour junk food fast.
A 10% life, aka the 90% emissions reduction project. Two gals, Sharon and Miranda, started this eco-challenge. The goal: to reach a 90% reduction in personal carbon emissions in 1 year — then keeping it there. The year-long challenge started June 1, 2007, but all are invited to join anytime. (via No Impact Man)
A 100-mile diet life. Alisa Smith and J.B. Mackinnon decided to go a year eating food produced from just the 100-mile area surrounding their Vancouver home. They’ve lived to tell about it — and even published a book, Plenty: One Man, One Woman, and a Raucous Year of Eating Locally. Join the movement — The rules are, luckily, easily bendable, I discovered –
A green summer. If you’re not ready to revolutionize your whole lifestyle, just try to incorporate a lil green into your life this summer. You can start by reading quick tips from Emily Meinhardt and Hannah Simon at the Sierra Club on low-impact, last-minute gift ideas for Father’s Day. And for those summer barbeques, learn how you can make grilling more enviro friendly.
Be inspired — If nothing else, extreme eco-challenges’ll provide you with endless fodder for your green blog :P
[crossposted on BlogHer]
There was an interesting paper written by some Uni in England (possibly Manchester on food miles) And basically their conclusion was that food miles were not that great. Basically the argument was that most of CO2 emissions from food producation or in the production not transportation. And as many foods need a lot of energy to be added to make them grow in certain places it is better to import.
For instance their example was that so much more energy needed to be used to grow tomatoes in the UK that less CO2 emmisions were used if they were shipped from Spain.
Then again you live in warm California so probably Tomatoes grow better. But take something that needs a lot of water. How energy is used to irrigate something in California then grow it in Washington State (my limited knowledge of US Geograph makes me think that is the wettest state). I.E The CO2 used to transport to LA is less then CO2 used to grow in California. So My guessing is that Food Miles is only of use when growing native species.
Comment by simon — June 18, 2007 @ 7:38 am
Plenty actually addresses this issue — with the emphasis on making our local agriculture less wasteful and more sustainable (as opposed to using it as an argument for shipping organic lettuce from China, for ex) –
Comment by Siel — June 18, 2007 @ 9:01 am
But how do they make is more sustainable. For instance on the issue of water in California. In my opinion if a crop is not tailored to grow in California climate be it by natural or dare I say on a Green blog GM modified.
Then the processes needed to make it grow are immense. I think the paper said that only something like 5% of the emmisions came from the actually transport of the crop the rest is all from the farming of it. So unless irrigation in California can me made super dupperly efficient. (Which I doubt is possible) then food miles achieve nothing.
But even if it is possible to save on transport. Food miles as a term do not do much. Lets say I can go and buy stuff with 10 food miles or 13 food miles. How do I know which had the more sustainable process. Using miles as a measure can be very misleading.
If you really want to reduce emmissons from food eat local should not be the call but eat native. Which probably means for instance not eating rice in LA
Comment by simon — June 19, 2007 @ 6:48 am
Did you read my comment? I didn’t say local IS already always more sustainable. I said that it’s important to make local agriculture less wasteful and more sustainable. Part of that’s obviously not growing invasive, GM, or crops not suited to Cali agriculture.
A lot of plants that are non invasive are not originally indigenous to an area, but have been introduced a long time ago with no ill effects. “Native” is a rather nebulous term –
If you’re getting food within a 10-13-mile area, bike over to that local farm and ask what’s up. My point is, it’s generally easier to research whether that food has been produced sustainably if it’s grown close by than when that food comes from 2000 miles away.
The main point is to think of local not as an end-all, but to use it as an important tool in sustainability.
Comment by Siel — June 19, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Part of that’s obviously not growing invasive, GM, or crops not suited to Cali agriculture.
Fair enough. But just going on my experience on this part of the atlantic many crops sold as local, are the likes of Tomatoes that are not easily produced.
Comment by simon — June 21, 2007 @ 1:19 am
Your pessimistic over-generalizing “experiences” are always a joy to read.
Comment by Siel — June 21, 2007 @ 8:57 am
we live in a hot-in-the-summer, snowy-in-the-winter climate and can still grow tomatoes, lettuce, potatos, onions, peppers (you get the picture) with well built (using repurposed materials) greenhouses semi dug into the ground and raised beds (used tires make a great surround). just started on meat rabbits. the amount of food it takes a cow to produce one pound of meat, a rabbit will produce 6 pounds (they are the leanest meat just about besides fish and lower in calories than chickens even), they are a way smaller carbon footprint for those of us who do eat meat (i was a veggie for 15 years), the fur can be utilized (for those below zero winters) and their poop is great fertilizer for the garden.
Comment by toni — April 1, 2010 @ 4:22 pm