It's been a mad dash to get my thesis completed. Monday my advisor told me that I needed to rewrite 95% of it. Needless to say, I haven't been in class all week.
 |
| Photo by Mutasim Billah |
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 09, 2010
There's been quite a bit of hype for a few years about corn-based biodegradable plastics. The simple solution to our throw-away culture was to create better things to throw away... or so they say. But the problems with these corn-based plastics run from the obvious to the not-so-obvious.
 |
| Photo by Dan Klimke |
My bigger concern is with claims of biodegradability. Companies use this "biodegradable" packaging and present themselves as our saviors. Most consumers, not knowing any better, think this is the greatest thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind. But the fact of the matter is that PLA requires high-temp municipal and commercial composting facilities. These don't exist in most places, and a home compost bin just won't do. Home compost bins are aerobic, and they just don't get hot enough to break down these pseudo-plastics.
There are some exceptions, of course. There are a few producers of bioplastics that claim their products are compostable in a home composting bin. However, of these relatively few manufacturers, I've only found one that has actually been certified as home-compostable. That is Mater-Bi. Mater-Bi was tested by Which?, a UK consumer organization, and found that Mater-Bi composted under normal home composting conditions. The Village Bakery has been using Mater-Bi to package their organic breads since at least early 2008. We could use more companies with that kind of initiative.
Of course, the better solution would be to use no plastic at all. Buy from farmers markets where you can avoid packaging altogether, or grow your own food. Ideally, I wouldn't have a trash bin. I wouldn't even have a recycling bin. I'd only have what I could personally put into my body, compost, or reuse. The prevalence of urban sprawl and the dominance of big agriculture remain major obstacles to this goal. In the evolution to that ideal however, biodegradable plastics have a role to play. Perhaps we start with home-compostable corn-based plastics like Mater-Bi. From there we shift from corn to less chemical-dependent crops. As we lessen our dependence on corn we can diversify the crops being grown on those lands, and perhaps provide all of our food locally. Once foods are grown locally, our excuses for packaging them will disappear.
It's a dream, but a dream worth having.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
A round-up of environmental documentaries that are available for immediate viewing via Netflix's streaming video service. See which one's made the cut--and which ones didn't.
This has been my first full week since spring break--if you could call it a break. But, while I was on break, I decided to test drive a trial of Netflix. The awesome thing about Netflix is that you can stream a large number of movies directly to your computer, and with a bit of know-how, to your TV. That means over the break I was able to watch a great number of documentaries without fiddling with DVDs or anything. Here's what I watched and what I thought of them:
The Botany of Desire
- Michael Pollan's book
has been transformed into a film by PBS. The film follows the domestication of four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana, and potatoes. But have we domesticated them, or have they domesticated us? And while it certainly behooves a plant to be attractive to us, has its attraction ultimately caused its genetic weakness and susceptibility to disease? Especially with apples and potatoes, consumers and producers are looking for specific traits, and as we find them, we end up eating a very limited variety of these foods. As a result, genetic variation declines, and the plants become more susceptible to pests. And perhaps our variety in diet has declined too much as a result of our selecting for certain traits. This film has beautiful cinematography on top of having compelling premises that interesting conclusions. Definitely a must-see.
Food, Inc.
- From the man that brought us Fast Food Nation
, comes a film that takes us on a tour of the food industry. When we walk into a supermarket, we're met with an illusion of diversity. The truth is that a limited number of companies, like Tyson, own the majority of the food producing operations in the U.S. Not only are we being swindled on variety because of what grows fastest, grows biggest, or stores longest, but the farmer's producing our food have little say in what or how they're growing. Companies like Tyson finance chicken growing operations and tell farmers when and how to do things. If farmers don't play along, they go out of business, often being in debt hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Much the same is true with potatoes. McDonald's is the largest consumer of potatoes in the world. What kind of potatoes does McDonald's want? Russets. And if a farmer isn't selling to McDonald's it likely isn't staying in business. And then there's the business of corn. I knew corn was in a lot of things, but I wasn't terribly concerned until I saw this film. High fructose corn syrup, dextrin, maltodextrin, dextrose, fructose, sorbitol, starch, monoglycerides, diglycerides, monosodium glutamate, vegetable oil, vegetable broth. It's everywhere. Not only do farmer's struggle to meet the demands of companies that own patents on GMO corn, but they're also pressured to grow corn because of outrageous government subsidies on corn. Our diet has become almost completely corn, and without our knowledge or consent. Want to know how far the rabbit hole goes? Watch this film.
King Corn
- On the subject of corn, these two college friends and filmmakers decide to get back to their Iowa roots and grow an acre to corn for a year. When it's done, they watch where it goes. Before they even start growing, they're paid by the government just for claiming that they intend to grow. They go through the process of spraying their acre with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and at the end of the growing season they find out that they've actually lost money on their crop. But not to fear, they still have a lot more money to collect from the government just for growing corn. And that's because corn ends up in everything. At the very beginning of the film, the two filmmakers have an analysis done on their hair that shows that their diet is predominately corn. They find out why when they start following their crop. The truth is, the corn they're growing isn't even edible without being processed into high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and other filler ingredients. What's left over goes to feed cattle. The corn-based diet upsets acid levels in the cow's digestive tract, and if they weren't taken to slaughter as soon as they are, the diet itself would kill them. The hamburgers that the filmmakers eat are predominately corn, the ketchup and their burger and fries is predominately corn syrup, and their fries are cooked in corn oil. It's no wonder they analysis was showing so much corn in their diets.
Killer at Large
- This film dives into America's obesity epidemic and tries to uncover why its happening. It shows large food companies lobbying for their rights to target advertisements at children, and then asking parents why they weren't more attentive to what their children were eating. It shows the unprecedented amount of corn in our diets and how that's contributing to early onset diabetes. And it shows how teachers were shut down when they tried to get sugar-filled vending machines out of the schools. I appreciated that this film approached the food industry from the angle of its effects on us. It struck home. Even after the other films railed on corn, this one really sealed the deal because it made the link between our unknown obsession with corn and the effects it's having on our health. If you want less enviro and more human-oriented thinking on the modern food system, this is the one to see.
No Impact Man
- A lone man takes his family off the grid over the course of a year. What's the catch? They live in New York City. They ditch cars for human-powered bikes and scooters and eat only local food (even visiting the farms they're buying from). He starts composting in his apartment and washing laundry by hand. At the 6 month mark, they turn of the electricity, and for the remainder of the year they do everything by candlelight. It's a long year, and they take at lot of flack, but at the end of the year they've learned something about what they can and cannot go without. Of all of these films, this is the one that most inspired me to get out and do something (or stay in and do something, as the case may be). Even something as simple as using candles at night instead of electric lights can be the big difference. And this year I think I'll actually be participating in a CSA owned by a farmer I know through my work at B St. If you want a really well-rounded film that will give you lots of ideas about how you can lessen your impact on the planet, this is the one.
Go Further
- This film was worthless. Don't see it. Woody Harrelson and his band of pot-smoking jokers take off down the west coast in a bus and Woody gives speeches on sustainability at colleges along the way. The only part of those speeches you get to hear is a poorly written poem. The rest of it is just an excuse for them to smoke and have sex. This film fails to be educational, and it fails to be entertaining. It just fails. If there were no other documentaries out there on the subject of sustainability, then it might have some merit for starting a discussion. Instead, it says much less than dozens of other films have already said, and it says it much less intelligently. This is the only film I watched that I really can't recommend.There you have it: my thoughts on some of the eco-documentaries I was able to watch over break. There are plenty more, but that's what I got around to. You can order any of these films from the links provided. Alternatively, you can try to find them at your local library. And, if you want to try out Netflix for yourself and stream all of these movies for free, click here for your two week trial.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Hey! I mentioned Rosanna and the MiniLivestock blog back when I did my series on entomophagy (that's bug-eating for the uninitiated). Seems Rosanna came by to read what I had to say on the subject...
Hey! I mentioned Rosanna and the MiniLivestock blog back when I did my series on entomophagy (that's bug-eating for the uninitiated). Seems Rosanna came by to read what I had to say on the subject and wrote up a short piece about my blog. The MiniLivestock site has moved since I mentioned it last, so go check out MiniLivestock.org for info on bugs, eating bugs, and recipes for the bugs you eat. It's a great resource for this interesting subject.
Want to know how to compost indoors? Here's are the details for the composter I made for my kitchen out of a couple of totes. Best of all, it'll only set you back $10.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on indoor composting. Click here for part 1.
I previously posted on the specific challenges of composting indoors, and from that, I decided to make an experiment out of composting indoors.
Well, I've built my composting bin and it's been going for about a week now.
Here's how:
Find a couple of matching plastic totes. These are 18 gallon bins. That is a bit excessive, but they were on sale for $5 each, which made them cheaper than the 10 gallon bins. If you have old bins, or can find used bins, choose those over buying bins... but remember that they need to have lids.
Drill holes in the bottom of both totes. The holes should be a quarter inch to allow the eventual migration of worms from one bin to the other (did I mention there were worms involved?) My dremel
only had bits up to 1/8" so I improvise and used a grinding stone to widen out the holes.
only had bits up to 1/8" so I improvise and used a grinding stone to widen out the holes.
The next step was to repeat the process, adding 1/16" holes around the top of the bins and in one of the lids.
It's probably hard to see since 1/16" holes aren't that big, but there are two rows of holes, about an inch apart, all the way around the bin.
The same with the lid. Only one of the lids though! We'll be using the other one for something else.
Soak enough shredded newspaper and scrap paper to fill the bottom 3-4 inches of the bin. Wring it out so that it's moist but not dripping. Add some vegetable matter to this. Make sure you bury the vegetable matter to keep fruit flies out of it. Let this set for a week or so before you add worms so the food can start breaking down.
Get your worms. If you have red wigglers growing wild in your area, you could just dig some up. I don't, however. Don't use night crawlers. Red wigglers are surface feeding worms that do well in big groups. Night crawlers feed deeper in the soil and are loners. They're not a good choice for a composting bin.
I ordered my worms from woodwormfarms.com. It wasn't the best experience in the world (they sent the wrong shipping confirmation, I had no idea when the worms were supposed to be arriving, worms looked half-dead when I got them). But, this was one of the few places I found where I could place an order for just a 1/4 pound of worms. It only cost $11 plus shipping, and I was looking to start this bin as cheaply as possible. And they all ended up living, so despite the less-than-stellar service, I can't complain.
Add them to the bin! Along with a cupful of dirt, of course. The dirt helps them grind up food, and contains microorganisms to break down food scraps.
Somehow I neglected to take a picture of the completed bin all set up. I'll have to do that at some point. Here's what you do:
Set the lid without the holes on the floor. Rescue four or five paper cups and place them upside down on the lid (I used a glue stick to hold them in place). Set the bin with the bedding material and worms on the cups. Place a piece of cardboard over the bedding. Place the second bin inside the first. And then put the lid with holes on top of the second bin.
When the first bin is full, add moist bedding and food to the second bin and remove the cardboard from the first. This will allow the worms to move into the second bin and start the process all over. Once the worms have all moved into the second bin you can empty out your delicious compost and use it on your plants.
A couple of important things: keep your food scraps covered or you will end up with a fruit fly infestation. Guaranteed. Also, don't feed your worms more than they can eat or it will start to smell. Red wigglers can eat half their weight in a day. That means my small 1/4 pound of worms can eat about a pound a week.
As things start to break down, I'll be watching for odors. If things get out of hand, I'll test the carbon filter theory.
Add them to the bin! Along with a cupful of dirt, of course. The dirt helps them grind up food, and contains microorganisms to break down food scraps.
Somehow I neglected to take a picture of the completed bin all set up. I'll have to do that at some point. Here's what you do:
Set the lid without the holes on the floor. Rescue four or five paper cups and place them upside down on the lid (I used a glue stick to hold them in place). Set the bin with the bedding material and worms on the cups. Place a piece of cardboard over the bedding. Place the second bin inside the first. And then put the lid with holes on top of the second bin.
When the first bin is full, add moist bedding and food to the second bin and remove the cardboard from the first. This will allow the worms to move into the second bin and start the process all over. Once the worms have all moved into the second bin you can empty out your delicious compost and use it on your plants.
A couple of important things: keep your food scraps covered or you will end up with a fruit fly infestation. Guaranteed. Also, don't feed your worms more than they can eat or it will start to smell. Red wigglers can eat half their weight in a day. That means my small 1/4 pound of worms can eat about a pound a week.
As things start to break down, I'll be watching for odors. If things get out of hand, I'll test the carbon filter theory.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on indoor composting. Click here for part 1.
Friday, March 26, 2010
A continuing discussion with a fellow blogger on the pros and cons of going nude for Mother Nature. What are some of the challenges? What are some of the benefits?
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 1.
 |
| Photo by SantaRosa OLD SKOOL |
I was glad to see someone taking me up on the topic of going naked to save conserve energy and resources. It was Michelle, of course, whom I mentioned in my previous post on illegal yards. I already responded to Michelle's post over at The Clueless Gardeners blog, but I thought I'd recap and elaborate here for my readers. This discussion actually has a lot of parallels to the illegal yard discussion.
Michelle says:
I can't get on board with going entirely without. Partially, this is because I get cold easily, and I sunburn easily. There is only a narrow window of conditions in which I personally would be physically comfortable going naked.I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. I definitely stay bundled up in the winter. It would be impractical, and sometimes dangerous, to not wear clothes. If you're in Alaska, please wear clothes to stay warm. If you're in the Sahara, please wear clothes to protect you from the sun.
Those are extremes, and it could certainly be considerably warmer or cooler and still be uncomfortable. But what about those places or those days when the weather is agreeable? Not too hot, not too cold. Certainly then we could go naked.
And what about all of the time we're spending indoors? Now, I'm not suggesting that we turn the heat up just so we can go around naked. That's counter-productive. The point, after all, was to go nude to conserve energy. But, that said, it is pretty easy to regulate temperature indoors without using any electricity. Just use passive heating and cooling techniques, such as passive solar. There are lots of green building techniques designed to keep air temperatures comfortable without expending energy by utilizing shade, thermal mass, insulation, air circulation, and more.
So, with thoughtfully designed buildings, we should be able to go nude indoors nearly 100% of the time.
Michelle's other big objection is...
sanitation. We females have moist nether regions. Sitting naked on a chair that has been sat on by another naked woman is like wearing another woman's underwear. Eww eww eww eww eww. Not hygienic!Simple solution: put down a towel. This is actually a requirement at every nudist resort I've read about, precisely because they're hygiene-minded. Really, this is a side-effect of an industrial society that we can't avoid. In nature, the things we would have sat on wouldn't have been so permanent. They would have been bombarded by sun and rain and animals, and sitting in the same place more than once would have been highly unlikely. But, our chairs are made of wood and plastic and other materials that will often outlive us. Not only do they last a long time, but they're also porous and hold bacteria and other nasties. (If you've ever looked into having wooden earrings, as I have, then you know that it's recommended that you wear stainless steel until your ear is completely healed up, as wood is porous and can hold bacteria that will cause your ears to get infected). Living communally is a recipe for spreading disease, so putting down a towel where you're sitting would be a necessary step. (This is also related to my disgust with bathrooms--in our pre-civilized state, there's not way you would have found so many humans going to the bathroom in the exact same spot. When you think about it, it's gross and a breeding ground for disease. So much for being civilized...)
Michelle's other objections are mainly about physical comfort of the non-temperature-based variety.
Having a toddler, I find that going shirtless is dangerous, because the curious little monkey likes to grab things - such as my nipples. Ow. I don't know how I would be able to wean him without shirt, either.
Speaking of nipples, I am not large-breasted, but even still, I need support. Bouncing flesh hurts.All of these are very real concerns. I definitely don't go out into a patch of blackberry briers without a pair of jeans to protect my legs. It would ultimately be more costly to get my legs all cut up, and could very well lead to infection. If we're in pain, we're less likely to be productive. And it's just plain not fun. There's no reason we should submit to that thing when we could have it otherwise (unless we really like that kind of thing).
But hey, even if a person wore a bra for support and protection, that would be one piece of clothing versus six or more. Reduce is the first and most important part of the ol' "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle" bit, and there's a reduction already.
I am male, so I can't fully relate, though I do understand pain and discomfort. The only thing I can do is point to African tribes where women don't wear any kind of covering or support, and then point to the history of the human race pre-clothing. Those people don't seem to be too inconvenienced... so maybe we're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Maybe they've figured out how to get by without the support that "civilized" people take for granted. Who knows? I'm just speculating.
Like I said though, a reduction from fully covered to only wearing a bra would make a huge difference in terms for how much clothing is being manufacture, for one, and also how much clothing is being washed.
Which segues nicely to Michelle's point about reducing our wardrobes and buying secondhand clothes.
I propose, instead, going with minimal clothes in the closet, minimal clothes on the body, minimal washing, and maximum clothes use. Most of my son's clothes, for example, come from yard sales. My own pants are worn between washings until they are stained or smelly, and they aren't retired until the knees tear open. And I rarely dress up, so my hoard of clothes is small.I love yard sales and thrift stores. Why have something manufactured when somebody already has one that they don't need? For the clothes that a person does need to protect them from the elements, etc., I can't recommend enough going this route to purchase them. Also, instead of purchasing secondhand clothes, you could participate in a clothing swap--a group of people drops off wearable clothes that they don't want or need, and then people take anything they want. Anything left is donated to a homeless shelter or other such organization. I got a very comfy jacket this way, and got rid of some old shirts from my "black phase."
But, even if we reduce the amount and frequency of washing, we're still washing. That, as I mentioned, is the big killer. I probably wash clothes once a month or less, and I only wash full loads when I do. If I need to have a particular piece of clothing between washings, I was them by hand. Really, washing buy hand is preferable since it uses less water and energy, and because it extends the life of the clothing. But, it's time consuming. That's why I only hand wash two or three things at a time. If I had more time to devote to it, maybe I would.
So then there's the issue of the machine. It's fast and convenient. Congrats if you're using a high-efficiency washer like Michelle... you're using about half the water. But then we have to worry not about the pollution from manufacturing the clothes, but also the pollution from manufacturing the washer. There's a statistic somewhere, and it might actually be in Stuff, that compares the amount of pollution produced to manufacture a car versus the amount of pollution that car is likely to emit over its lifetime. For the average car, more pollution is emitted in the manufacturing process than in the actual driving.
A similar claim could probably be made about washing machines. Even if the manufacturing process doesn't create more pollution, it's likely that it produces a very significant amount.The problem then is not about how frequently we use it, but rather, about how infrequently we use it. We could have five families using one machine, but instead we've manufactured five machines and each family has a different one. Each of these machines is sitting around doing nothing most of the time.
This is one theoretical upside to laundromats. But laundromats are really only effective in urban areas, and urban areas come with their own unique problems. The alternative is to have multi-family or multi-adult households in order to prevent the unnecessary production of large appliances. This is what I like to call a neo-nuclear household. These kinds of arrangements, in my opinion, would have lots of added bonuses over just preventing the unnecessary creation of appliances.
But even acknowledging that clothed and nude both have their advantages, and that one might be more appropriate in some situations than in others, and then setting aside this part of the discussion, there are still social and moral issues to consider.
Though there's plenty to touch on in this arena, for the sake of brevity I'll stick to the big one: (public) nudity is illegal. Not everywhere, of course, and except for a few local ordinances nudity is legal in Oregon. I'm more than happy to concede that if you're uncomfortable, you should be allowed to wear clothes, despite the environmental impacts that are implicit in the act of clothes-wearing. But, given the benefits of going nude, shouldn't it be legalized?
And where it is legal, shouldn't we encourage people to take advantage of that? "We" shame people into their clothes... and we wonder why people have body image issues?
Of course, a lot of this stems from our religious history (Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, etc.), and perhaps there are still lots of people who think we should be ashamed of our bodies.
On top of this there are fears of pedophilia, or rampant sexuality... things that I sincerely doubt are as big of a concern as they're made out to be. But, I think my reasons for saying so will have to be saved for yet another post on this subject.
P.S. I'm naked right now.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 2 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 1.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
I'm literally weeks away from graduating and I'm grinding to a halt--physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. At this point it's just a mad dash for the finish line that isn't accomplishing much of anything. It isn't teaching me any new skills or ideologies. It isn't preparing me for any job I will likely have. It isn't pushing me toward the future life I wish to live or the future world I wish to live in. It's all for a piece of paper that says I survived 4 years.
Whoop.
Dee.
Doo.
I'm not being the change I want to see in the world, as Gandhi famously suggested. I'm bending to the will of a world that I see as broken, a world where everything we eat is corn
, where my generation may have a lower life-expectancy than my parents', where sea-levels are rising and islands are being consumed, and where people are forced to stay inside to protect themselves from man-made smog.I don't want to be here. Do you?
Add to that a lack of community, a lack of connection to food and people. I'm supposed to be on "break" but instead I'm spending hours a day at a computer dreading a thesis I don't want to write. I get nary a text message, email, phone call, or knock at the door (except for a couple of Mormons who meant to convert me, and who I later regretted shoeing away in such a hurry).
Too much time inside. Too much time apart from people. It's frustrating.
Not to mention that I watched The Tribe
a few days ago. Certainly it was far from a perfect situation, but I connected with the situation: a modern group of people all depending on each other for their survival while living largely independent of the larger social structures.Lets face it, we've created a system where it's easy to feel stuck.
If I don't go to school I won't get a good job. If I don't get a good job I won't make good money. If I don't make good money I won't be able to buy any land. If I don't buy any land I won't be able to grow my own food. If I don't grow my own food I won't be able to be self-sufficient. If I'm not self-sufficient I'll never be able to get out of this system which I detest.
We've made it even easier to get stuck by pouring concrete over land that was once abundant with food and by making it illegal to hunt or fish without the proper licenses. Our survival, our very instincts, are regulated.
But what if we worked together? What if we unstuck ourselves? What if we started a New American Tribe?
If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, you should fill out this form.
Basically, I want to put together a group of 10-20 people from the Pacific Northwest with a diverse set of survival skills (foraging, hunting, fishing, trapping, shelter construction, first aid, etc.) and head south. And then north. And then south.
Our goal would be to cover all 48 contiguous United States on foot, moving with the seasons to avoid the most extreme weather. We'd forage, hunt, and fish for our meals and trade manual labor (like farm work or yard work) for shelter and food. When necessary, we'd sell handmade trinkets (perhaps you're a jeweler?) to earn money for food. Ideally we'd be eating 100% local food (wild or from local farms) and in turn avoiding additives like high fructose corn syrup which have become seemingly necessary components of processed food
. We'd be getting back to our heritage as wholly as is possible in this broken landscape.So often we're ground down by overwhelming abundance. We don't have to work for food. Surviving becomes trivial. Life becomes boring because we don't have to try in order to survive, but instead we worry about created stresses like phone bills and rent.
This experiment would allow us to be energized by the act of surviving. It would allow us to see the country in an environmentally friendly way. It would allow us to have a community amongst ourselves and to connect with our fellow Americans. Our interactions with different farmers and people with diverse backgrounds will help us develop a diverse skill set in a world where we're forgetting how to do many wonderful things.
Yes, this is a crazy idea. But I'm sick of worrying about what job I'm going to get when I graduate, and about how I'm going to be perpetuating a broken system. I need a break to do something crazy. I think you should do it with me.
If you're between jobs, just graduated from school, or are otherwise unsettled, this might be right for you. If you want to do something crazy, refreshing, educational, and rewarding, this might be for you. If you want to see the country in an environmentally friendly way, connect with others, and be a part of something big, this might be for you. If you have the necessary hunting, foraging, and wilderness survival skills, this might be for you.
If you're interested, fill out this form and subscribe to the blog. If I get enough interest in the project I'll contact people to start discussing details.
Thanks for reading and your continued support. This crazy kid is now off for some shut eye.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 1 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 2.
One of the things I like about Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things, is how well it breaks down each item it focuses on. A t-shirt starts out as a huge diamond drill bit, powered by an ungodly amount of diesel fuel, drilling for yet more oil on account of our energy hungry society. Why the oil? Two of the products from the highly-polluting oil refining process go on to be polyester. That polyester is coupled with cotton from highly fertilized fields. The fields are also heavily sprayed with pesticides and herbicides to eliminate any competition the cotton might have. Finally, right before the cotton is harvested, the plants are all sprayed with a defoliant to get rid of the leaves which would stain the cotton balls in the mechanical picking process. Up to half of these chemicals end up in local streams during application and even more end up there when heavy rains or irrigation leach them from the soil.Once the cotton has been picked and the seeds have been removed it is shipped to a textiles factory where it is combined with the polyester and spun into yarn. From there it is woven into fabric and finished with a combination of chlorine, chromium, and formaldehyde before being dyed. As much as a third of the dye ends up in the wastewater because cotton resists coloring. These are all regulated toxic chemicals.
This fabric is finally shipped halfway across the world to be turned into t-shirts by women making 30 cents an hour in a Taiwanese factory. It's packed in an assortment of plastic and cardboard before being shipped back across the country where it will sit under the glaring lights of a department store waiting to be bought.
But that's not where it ends. A load of laundry in a conventional washer and dryer will use 40 gallons of water. An extremely energy efficient model will still use 20-25 gallons per load. Add to that the bleach and detergent which goes out with the wastewater and the electricity used to heat the water and then to dry the clothes. Over the life of the shirt, washing it ends up being a larger environmental concern than its manufacture, and that's even consider the amount of packaging and transportation that it underwent
The average household, according the Consumer Energy Center, does 400 loads of laundry per year. Thats as many as 16,000 gallons of water per year. 16,000! Based on the fact that experts recommend drinking 64 oz. (1 gallon) of water per day, the amount of water that the average household uses on laundry in just one year is enough to provide fresh drinking water to one person for almost 44 years. And this is in the face of the fact that our supply of freshwater (less than a percent of all the water on earth) is going to struggle to meet increasing demand as the world's population increases along with the standard of living for many parts of the world.
Am I suggesting that we go around naked? Yes. And no. First, I want to know why we wear clothes.
Of course, there's the practical concerns: protection from the elements. But for those of us who are forced to spend more time than we care to admit indoors, how much of a concern are the elements anyways? For those that do spend a great deal of time outside, the extremes of heat and cold tend to be the biggest concerns. But even then, we should be worried about function. Does it keep me warm, or does it keep me cool? The toxic dyes and chemicals are hardly a necessary component in a functional piece of clothing; clothes have been around for a long time, and the industrial use of these chemicals is relatively new. Even when clothing is practical, current manufacturing process are extraordinarily wasteful.
And those of us that don't need clothing to protect us from the elements 90% of the time? What is our excuse?
Shame. Shame is a big part of it, and a lot of that stems from our puritanical history.
I read an article the other day on a nudist website where a daughter found out that she would have to dress down for P.E. in junior high. She openly refused to do so because she didn't "look like a super model." I remember my own days from junior high and high school. I wore my gym shorts under my pants. I never showered. I never saw anybody else shower for that matter.
This is an era in which we are bombarded by airbrushed super models that inform what we're "supposed" to look like. We are made to fear the ways in which we are different from others rather than celebrating those differences.
The small amount of research that has been done on nudism suggests that children that grow up in nudist families and who interact with other nudist families have a much healthier self-image. It might be by accident that we are teaching children to be ashamed of their bodies, but it is clearly happening.
But, of course, there are always social pressures to don clothing. In Oregon, barring certain local ordinances, nudity is legal so long as it is done without the intent to arouse. There are two nude beaches in the Portland area. And even several nudist resorts. These places allow a person to shed clothes in a noncontroversial and nonthreatening environment.
Better for our self-image and better for our planet? I think we can all afford go naked sometimes. And I'm not the only one that thinks so.
Around your house, when you sleep... whenever you can, be naked. Think about the 40 gallons of water you could be saving for every load of laundry you save yourself from doing. That adds up.
And if you want to join a club, the American Association for Nude Recreation has annual memberships for $24.50 for students ages 18-25 years old, and $57 for adults. This provides discounts at various resorts as well as on services like car rentals... which I suppose is better than owning a car.
I just got a confirmation that my worms are on the way, so stay tuned for my post on making an indoor composter.
Until next time...
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is part 1 of 2 in a series of posts on sustainability through nudism. Click here for part 2.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Okay, so apparently people couldn't comment while the system comments were screwed up. The site isn't going to be very usable for a few hours or so. I'm starting back at square one and adding things one at the time and making sure they're in perfect working condition. Sorry for how sporadic things are going to be... and the fact that the look of the blog will probably be changing yet again... but after that, things should be pretty stable, as I don't have plans for any major renovations as soon as I get all of the current features working properly.
 |
| Photo by Dagny Scott |
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I'm pretty sure I have an Amazon gift certificate coming. If that is the case, I think I'm going to spend it on books. I've already got three in mind, two of which I've read, and one of which I haven't. I'm going to keep the list of books a secret for now... it'll be more exciting that way.
 |
| Photo by flyzipper |
Obviously I haven't figured out the specific details. I'll keep thinking about it, and when the books get here I'll let everyone know what I've decided.
Make sure you subscribe so you can get updates. It's the most surefire way to get all future information about this contest and other goings-on at Going backward, moving forward.
All whining aside, the reason I posted that lovely array of wild plants the other day is two-fold. First, wild plants thrive and reproduce without human intervention, which makes them great for a no-maintenance food forest. Second, native species thrive in the climactic patterns of the areas where they are growing (in my case, wet winters and springs followed by drought in the summer).
The biggest problem is learning how to identify the plants, as one plant may be edible, and another that looks just like it could be deadly. And, once you correctly identify a plant, you have to know how to prepare it. Parts of a plant may be poisonous, or it may need to be cooked to be made edible.
In any case, going out into the wilderness with someone that knows what they're doing is your best bet. If you don't have friends or family members who are familiar with local edibles however, it could get spendy. Hundreds or even thousands of dollars spendy.
Well, the other day I overheard a comment about the work that Trackers NW is doing. They have seasonal and year-long classes on hunting, tracking, trapping, permaculture, wild plant identification, blacksmithing, and other "old time" skills. It's more than I can afford, to be sure (although I just found single day, single skill classes on the PDX site that are under $50.) But, I got excited when I found out that they offered free days. They're about once a month, and you have to make a reservation, but you get to check out Trackers NW for free, which goes to say something about their confidence in their service.I'm definitely planning on checking out one of their free days, and since I'm especially interested in learning about wild edibles, I'll probably see if I can scrape up the extra $45 for the edible plants class. I'll probably end up putting off the whole "paying for a class" bit though until I know I'm going to be able to afford my rent.
I definitely picked the wrong degree for that.
But, I have read two pretty good books on the subject of plant identification. Granted, books on plant identification are more of an appetizer than something you should use to make a definitive identification unless you can be 100% sure that there are no similar looking poisonous species. That disclaimer out of the way though, the two books I've read are Identifying and Harvesting Edible and Medicinal Plants in Wild (and Not So Wild) Places
by "Wildman" Steve Brill (who also happens to have a pretty informative website) and The Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants (which is quite extensive in both scope and breadth). There was also a good one on poisonous plants which was especially good, but I can't remember for the life of me which it was. Possibly Poisonous Plants of the United States
by Walter Conrad Muenscher, but that's only a guess based on the books on poisonous plants offered by the university library. The other possibility is Toxic Plants and Other Natural Toxicants
. In any case, it would be a good idea to get some book on poisonous plants since, in reality, it's more important to know what will kill you than it is to know what is good eats, as then you'll at least not die even if you do stumble across something less than palatable.
by "Wildman" Steve Brill (who also happens to have a pretty informative website) and The Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants (which is quite extensive in both scope and breadth). There was also a good one on poisonous plants which was especially good, but I can't remember for the life of me which it was. Possibly Poisonous Plants of the United States by Walter Conrad Muenscher, but that's only a guess based on the books on poisonous plants offered by the university library. The other possibility is Toxic Plants and Other Natural Toxicants. In any case, it would be a good idea to get some book on poisonous plants since, in reality, it's more important to know what will kill you than it is to know what is good eats, as then you'll at least not die even if you do stumble across something less than palatable.