A Live Green, Live Smart™ Paper
Printer-friendly version

It is never too late to give up your prejudices.
      Henry David Thoreau, Walden; or Life in the Woods, 1854¹

In discussions about the human impact on planet Earth, it is easy to give in to despair or denial.  Many of us don't believe anything we do can forestall the deterioration of our natural and build environments; others insist that there is no real problem, and even claim that concern about how we live now is in some way subversive, un-American.  Too often these discussions themselves deteriorate into all-or-nothing debates, leaving us feeling helpless, cynical, or angry with those who disagree with us.  And then - nothing changes, and environmental degradation continues unrelieved.

But Americans have thought hard about how to live well in "the new world" from our very beginnings.  By Thoreau's boyhood, the North American continent had been claimed, named, and marked out for what its new settlers denoted ‘progress' in many different spheres.  The new nation began the work of creating a distinctive political, legal, social, and cultural identity.   By 1854 Thoreau's forebears had produced for him the freedom to move from their comfortable Amherst home to a small cabin on Walden Pond, where he determined that his response to the infant Industrial Revolution would be to "live deliberately."²

In the mid-Nineteenth Century that idea seemed both fundamentally and practically simple:  being personally mindful of how and why one lived in the world involved avoiding materialistic values - relatively easy for Henry David, living in that cabin and taking his laundry home for his mother's maid to attend wash.  The dollar chase that became today's culture of mass production and mass consumption could be genteely avoided by a thoughtful person: there wasn't that much stuff to buy and own, travel was as difficult as it was rewarding, and both the very well-to-do and the quite-poor American knew how and where their daily bread and potatoes were grown. For most people, getting enough to eat and having a place to live indoors was a practical material concern - never mind worrying about status symbols and conspicuous consumption of "stuff."  

In the new world of today's America, to "give up your prejudices" about what the necessities are for living well seems much more difficult and complicated than for our ancestors.  We don't know the person who has made the shirts we launder - and we don't know the source of the machines, soaps, and transportation that make our clean shirt at dinner possible.  Most Americans don't know where to find a quiet place to think about living deliberately, much less how to grow our own food, sew our own clothing, build our own shelter and make the time to read, write, and reflect on nature and our place in it.  This compelling American school of thought remains attractive as an idea, but what does it have to do with the way we live today?  How can anyone live deliberately today - and why bother?

In the more than one hundred years since Thoreau's visits to Walden, American society has become more complicated.  We know now that the trees and soils, minerals and water we depend on for our daily bread and spending money are not infinite.  It took us little more than two centuries to utilize the bulk of natural resources on the North American continent - and even those living in the woods and prairies seem to have had little leisure to reflect on what came next, once the new world had been used up.  While the factory-made revolution had already begun in Thoreau's lifetime, many things were still made at home through an investment of time and labor that was burdensome and which limited how much stuff any one household could produce and consume.  Today virtually none of what we consume is homemade.  Most of us spend our days at a remove from the basic necessities of life, and instead work at jobs that pay us cash we use to buy things we need from others who have made them to earn money which they use to...you know how it goes.  The store-bought lifestyle seems to make mindfulness - forethought, deliberateness - irrelevant.

But today, deliberate living is of the utmost importance, and it is still possible, though not in a cabin in the woods - at least, not for many of us.  The progress that brought us freedom to forget about where our dinner comes from has also used up resources faster than anyone might have predicted during American colonial and settlement days.  The result is an advanced state of planetary disrepair from which retreat to a simpler pond-side existence is not good enough.  To live deliberately in the Twentyfirst Century, we need to make real choices about what we consume each day in the place we stand, work, and live. We need to engage the problem and one another in this rescue effort.

And we don't have time to wait for perfection - the best thing we can do is to do our best: make the best choices for our lifestyle circumstances, each of us individually and as larger communities right now.  It's not too late to change a style of living that has become as burdensome to many of us as having to chop the wood for the fire to cook the potatoes we dug the ground to plant.  We can continue to enjoy progress, once we know what that means for us in our own time and place.

HOW TO START FROM HERE

Studies show that Americans want to change habits that threaten the environment and the life we have come to know; they just don't know what they can, as individuals, do right now to make a difference.   But when they've been given the information we need for effective action, individual Americans created the kind of consensus that turned recycling into a profitable as well as eco-friendly phenomenon, took lead out of our gasoline and paints, and voted with our dollars to stop using chloroflurocarbons in health and beauty aides and, increasingly, in industrial applications.  Given good information and the confidence that what we do matters, Americans accept their responsibility for deliberate living, with the result that everyone on the planet can live better by living sustainably.

The Union of Concerned Scientists believes the shift to a mindful sustainable lifestyle doesn't require profound changes in quality of life; a "targeted strategy" is most effective in getting people to claim their own role in saving the earth. By focusing on a relatively few especially damaging aspects of their consumption, Americans can reduce overall environmental damage dramatically.³  And it's damage to our planet, not stuff itself, that presents the threat to the good life.  We can live well while living sustainably - and we must begin now.

We have more options now for "going green" in everyday life than ever before.  There are more impact-reducing products for transportation, food production, heating, cooling, shelter, clothing and recreation being developed in response both to improved design and technology. Market researchers tell us that there is, conservatively, a $209 billion dollar market for green products that are more natural and sustainable than conventional products we already use.⁴  That market is estimated to grow by 20-30 percent each year. - hardly an un-American asceticism!  

The Natural Marketing Institute classifies 23 percent of American adults as LOHAS - Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability - consumers for whom environmental, social, and healthy lifestyle values are important considerations in their decisions about what to buy  played an important role in their purchasing decisions. They also find that many items that used to be primarily consumed by LOHAS consumers are seeing huge trends in "Non-LOHAS" mainstream consumers. For example, the hybrid car market has increased 450 percent for mainstream consumers.⁵  In most cases, the task at hand is not to eliminate consumption (were that possible); the task is to make conscious decisions in our consumption, that allow us to receive the greatest benefit from our goods and services, and to do the least harm to the world we live in while enjoying the benefits of progress.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) designated 50 categories of consumption in their investigation to find those with the most severe negative effects on environmental integrity. The UCS found that a household, through its daily consumption habits, is responsible for contributing to four different types of pollution: greenhouse gas, air pollution, water pollution, and habitat-altering land use. These contributions to environmental load can be broken down into annual per household averages:

• greenhouse gas ( primarily carbon dioxide and methane): 12,893 kg;
• common air pollution (ozone, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, smog) 507.8 kg;
• toxic air pollution (benzene, formaldehyde, carcinogens, VOCs): 28.95 kg;
• common water pollution (animal waste, plant waste, soil runoff): 631 kg;
• toxic water pollution (pesticides, fertilizers, harmful chemicals such as mercury): 571.8 grams;
• water use (diverting rivers, drying lakes, irrigation for overall manufacturing and consumption): 767.2 gallons per day;
• land use (habitat-altering, making land unlivable for native animals and plants) 88,920 sq ft.

The UCS found that within these categories, seven activities account for the majority of human-caused negative environmental impacts. From most impactful to least, they are: 

• Cars and light trucks operated daily by individuals;
• Meat production, field to market;
• Fruit, vegetable, and grain agriculture
• Residential heating, air conditioning, and hot water;
• Household appliance operation
• Home construction
• Household water and sewage use and treatment.⁶

Live Green, Live Smart encourages awareness of how each of these activities can be altered by individuals and committed groups of people, to extend and improve life on earth while living well.

TRANSPORTATION AND THE AMERICAN IDENTITY   

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike, I want to ride my bicycle I want to ride it where I like.
Freddie Mercury, Bicycle Race, from Queen album Jazz, 1978.

Because of the effect internal combustion-powered vehicles have on environmental air, water, and land quality, one of the most effective changes we can make to reduce our impact on the planet is to change how we use our vehicles for personal transportation.  But, because of the way we live, where we live, and our demand for daily mobility, most of us can't live without using gasoline.   While every little bit of gasoline burned releases harmful pollutants into the air and depletes limited fossil fuel supplies, it's nearly impossible to be a constructive, engaged member of society without access to gasoline-enabled travel.  So how can we focus on fixing the planet, when many of our most damaging activities are the practical underlayment of contemporary American life?
   
That's just the point we at Live Green, Live Smart want to bring home:  The very pervasiveness of the challenge means that it is possible for each of us to do something now: by making deliberate choices to make even very small changes, we can make contribute to the preservation of the environment. 

Here's what we mean:  Per household, transportation in all its forms accounts for:

• 32 percent of greenhouse gas, 51 percent of toxic air pollution;
• 28 percent of common air pollution, 23 percent of toxic water pollution, mainly from automobile manufacturing; and
• 15 percent of habitat-altering land use through roadway construction and maintenance, not to mention significant percentages in other areas of impact.⁷

Transportation in all uses - personal, commercial, industrial - uses 67 percent of the US petroleum supply. And since personal automobiles account for 84 percent of all travel, we can see that the car and light truck are mostly responsible for all of this damage. The act of driving itself is to blame for the majority of the three types of air pollution

• Car travel in the average household emits 3.7 tons of greenhouse gas a year; that is one quarter of a household's total greenhouse gas emissions.⁸
• The UCS found that 4 percent of all toxic water pollution comes from car battery manufacture alone.

Driving is still very convenient, and affordable; despite recent price jumps and fluctuations, Americans routinely pay less for gas than other industrialized nations-sometimes two to three times less. The AAA estimates that every mile you drive costs about 52.2 cents which takes into account the price of gas, finance charges, depreciation, insurance, maintenance, license fees and taxes, and 15,000 miles driven per year. An SUV averages 65.4 cents.⁹  When you factor in the environmental cost, the price per mile rises even higher.

• If the average American driver drove just two fewer days a week, one would prevent an additional 2,778 pounds of carbon dioxide from escaping to the atmosphere - annual gas savings per driver would average 143 gallons; $357.50 worth at $2.50 per gallon.
• If just one percent of American drivers (1.9 million) reduced their automobile use to that extent, we'd reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5.3 billion pounds - and save 273 million gallons of gas to return $681 million to household budgets.^{10 11}

The choice for most of us is not between walking and driving a Hummer:  because of the way we have developed our communities and transportation system, most of us must rely upon some form of automotive transportation to get to jobs and services at a distance from our residence.  Where mass transit exists reliably, efficiently, affordably and safely, this option needs a second look - where it does not, it requires citizen pressure to develop as an alternative to more roads and vehicles. Unfortunately suburban mass transit is less reliable and efficient than that in core urban areas, because fewer people live within walking distance of a station - and because driving ones own vehicle is still a status symbol.  But we can change this - we can encourage our peers and ourselves to consider the implications for the environment, the community, our national sustainability and peace of mind by seeking alternatives to more highway lanes and more cars. Find nearby Park-and-Ride stations for transit, or organize carpools; support funding for alternative transportation of all kinds - including buses fueled by clean-burning liquefied natural gas or hybrid engines.. Do your part to help local governments make changes.

Think again before buying a new or extra car. The UCS estimates that even before a new car has left the factory, it is already responsible for four tons of carbon and 700 pounds of pollution in the atmosphere.¹²  Many families do need one or even two extra cars, but many families get one when they don't really need one.  If you can, purchase and recycle an existing vehicle, and keep it in efficient running order - or purchase a hybrid, if you can, both for the fuel efficiency and to participate in the new socially conscious market that is growing exponentially.  Unless you're a park ranger, you probably don't need a huge, heavy four wheel-drive SUV - even if a bike is too down-market for your real needs.  Always seek out the most fuel-efficient and least-polluting car that will fit your needs. The light truck market (which includes SUVs pickups and minivans) has ballooned from 16.5 percent of the total car market in 1980 to 50 percent in 2002, under the perverse incentive that gave tax deductions for business users.¹³  Some people genuinely need a truck or SUV, but when it is not necessary, buying a smaller, more fuel-efficient car will save money on the initial purchase, and continue to save money - and air, water, and soil - for the future.

In seeking an alternative to costly oil as well as to the geo-political instability dependency on oil causes, a popular advocacy has arisen for a switch to ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel made from renewable sources like corn, sugar beet, and sugar cane. The final word is not yet in about ethanol; many producers and policy makers promote it as the solution to our energy crisis, while an ever-growing group of critics point to studies that suggest ethanol may have serious shortcomings.  Among these concerns:

• Claims that ethanol production requires more energy than the fuel provides: Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, so any car running on ethanol will have a lower per-gallon fuel economy.
• Use of, and damage to, arable land: Corn and sugar beet, the primary crops used in ethanol production cause 50 times more soil erosion than nitrogen-fixing sod crops such as alfalfa.¹⁴
• Ethanol production consumed one fifth of the Iowa corn crop in 2006 - displacing corn grown for cattle or human consumption. Widespread use of grain for high-demand fuel may eventually price food beyond the reach of the world's poorest people.

New sources of ethanol and other bio-fuels can mitigate this impact; there is promise in the use of perennial switch grass and other ground-covering plants that protect topsoil while allowing a renewable source of vegetation for fuel production.  But at this point in time, agricultural hopes and those of a well-funded industrial lobby have committed to conventional field crops for ethanol's future and the related subsidies.

Alternative bio-fuels for transportation are still in their infancy, but demand for alternatives is growing. Demonstration project use of hydrogen and methane fueled vehicles has caught the public's attention; biodiesels made from soybeans and even recycled cooking oils show some promise. Renewed interest in electric cars that can be recharged by use of photovoltaic and other technologies is promising for at least short-distance use.

The hybrid car market has seen serious growth in the past few years.  In 2006, 251,803 hybrid cars were sold in the US - a 22 percent increase over 2005 sales. A hybrid car combines an internal combustion engine with an electric motor powered by a battery. The two components interact to increase the efficiency of engine use and increase fuel economy. Many hybrids, such as the Prius and Civic Hybrid, are PZEVs, Partial Zero Emission Vehicles, cars that are certified by the California Air Resources Board (a body with higher standards than the EPA) to have near-zero emissions.¹⁵

Toyota sold 12,227 Prius models in February 2007, making it the ninth best-selling car in the country for that month, an amazing achievement.^{16 17}  Cheaper prices and a host of new federal, state and local tax incentives make hybrid cars more appealing than ever.  If we can couple this technology with an efficient renewable fuel and less driving, we're on to something.

But for now, for most of us, driving means gasoline use.  While there are many possible solutions to our energy and pollution crises in the pipeline, so to speak, your best bet right now to reduce your impact on the environment is simply to drive less.

And for those who are able and willing, the personal fitness benefits of walking or biking to work or on errands are an extra perk, though harder to express in numbers. Physically you'll be more fit, and you'll feel better throughout the day. Mentally, you'll have done away with the stress of spending an hour-the national average-in the car each day.¹⁸  You may interact more with your friends and neighbors, and get to know your community better. 

EATING AS IF THE WORLD DEPENDED ON IT

The sensual pleasure of eating beautiful food from the garden brings with it the moral satisfaction of doing the right thing for the planet and for yourself.
      Alice Waters, pioneering chef of Chez Panisse, in the New Yorker

Your dinner plate may look innocent enough, but a lot of energy and resources have been used in order to bring you that burger and those fries.  In the United States, 60 percent of the land in the US is used for agriculture; 40 percent is used for raising livestock alone. Agricultural land is land that has been altered for production, so every acre used for crops or grazing takes land away from wild nature, reducing "ecologically significant land." The UCS estimates that one-quarter of the threat to ecosystem and wildlife result from the agricultural impact of household meat and produce consumption.¹⁹ 

The effects on water are staggering as well.  Due to household consumption, a certain amount of water-from around the country-is used to "create", to use a general word, what the household consumes. The household is just as responsible for the water used to irrigate strawberry fields as it is for the water used on its own lawn. In the case of food production, water use comes from plant irrigation and animal drinking water. Common Water pollution comes from animal and plant waste; toxic water pollution comes from pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals.

Food production for households accounts for a whopping 73 percent of water usage per household (29.6 percent for produce and grains), 38 percent of common water pollution (half of which is animal waste), and 22 percent of toxic water pollution. Among different types of meat for household consumption, beef and pork are the most harmful, accounting for 10 percent of common household water pollution, 11 percent of water use, and 19 percent of land use. Poultry and eggs, by comparison, are responsible for 6 percent, 3 percent, and 1 percent, respectively.²⁰ 

The problem impacts of food production may seem beyond our reach, residing in the realm of farmers and governments. But we as consumers can hold referenda with our dollars, deciding what and where to buy.
  
Eat smart. Get informed about where your food comes from.  On average, each ingredient in an American meal has traveled about 1,500 miles before it lands on a dinner table.²¹  You may find that the tomatoes you buy in your local grocery store have traveled across several state lines - at the same time your neighbors and local farmers are beset with a glut of ripe produce.  Ask your grocer to buy from local vendors whenever possible, and buy directly from producers when you can.

Many of the fruits and vegetables we enjoy year-round have a relatively short growing season, and December asparagus and April apples have probably been shipped from other regions and countries.  If we eat more seasonally, our foods will come from closer to home and we make less demand on transportation and intensive agricultural practices (pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation all take a toll on the planet) than when we insist on season-less meals. 

In season, consider shopping at local farmers markets - the number of these markets in the United States has grown from 340 in 1970 to over 3,000 in 2001 and many require the products sold there to come from a limited geographic radius.²²  Because market farmers and growers tend to be relatively small operations, they are able to employ more sustainable agricultural practices than large corporate producers.  They are more likely to grow food organically than are large-scale producers, and that is good for you and good for the soil, air, and water.  Environmentalist author Bill McKibben points out that people have ten times as many conversations at farmers markets as they do when they shop at the supermarket.²³  Roaming around a farmers market on a cool Saturday morning can be a wonderful sensual experience of color and texture and scent - and you are buying from the producers. Eating locally reduces carbon used in transportation, packaging, and through sustainable production it contributes to the preservation of quality agricultural land - and its adjacent land, water, animals and humans.

The Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms that participate in conservation trusts protecting heritage farms from being taken out of production are supported by buyers and subscribers who support local farming and growing, taking a few chances on the seasonality of fruits, vegetables and meat in exchange for better tasting foods without chemicals and additives.  Members of CSA become co-op style shareholders of a farm, pledging support by buying food "shares" directly from the farm ahead of the planting season. The farmer gets steady buyers and income, the buyers get a steady supply of the freshest foods in exchange for their investment in the producer. There are more than 400 CSA farms in the US, with interest growing among consumers of all economic and social backgrounds.²⁴ 

Whether buying locally or in conventional markets, buying organic promotes organic growing and processing. The average conventionally grown cut of meat or glass of milk is filled with all sorts of hormones and antibiotics from meat and crop agriculture, which in bioaccumulate on the way to you.  The average apple or onion is produced with chemical pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and protective waxes.  When possible organic, antibiotic- and hormone-free products are best for earth and its organisms.  The regulatory term "organic"  identifies products grown without pesticides or artificial fertilizers, without genetically modified organisms, hormones, antibiotics, or irradiation. There are three USDA-certified Organic labels:

• 100 percent Organic means all ingredients are organic - produced without artificial fertilizers, pesticides, or additives such as hormones and antibiotics.
• Organic means 95 percent of the product is organic.
• Made With Organic Ingredients means at least 70 percent of the product is organic.²⁵

Don't hesitate to ask the grocer what the label means: despite a bevy of labels, not all the terms used give consumers an accurate sense of how the product has been grown.  Ask whether your coffee is bird friendly and shade grown.  Shade growers protect habitat for birds, and also prevent the erosion of delicate topsoil in coffee plantation regions.  Other concerns about trading practices of coffee wholesalers and retailers are also of concern to many of those who prefer shade grown organic coffee and chocolate - fair trade and shade grown are often seen in tandem as a new ‘brand' identity for these products.

Find out what the growing and harvesting conditions were for seafood and animal foods.  The Marine Stewardship Council certifies hundreds of products - ensuring consumers that the fish or seafood sold is caught without harmful practices that endanger the species or local ecosystem.  The fisheries awarded the Marine Stewardship Council label are regularly inspected by a London-based non-profit recognized internationally.  Avoiding over-fished stocks like cod, some salmon, orange roughy and other fish - and turning away from products produced without regard to marine mammals and those caught in environmentally disastrous drift nets - is not always easy, but it is necessary for these stocks to return to sustainable levels. 

When you buy meat, dairy, and eggs, check for cage-free and free range labels - but be suspicious.  Truly cage-free and free range animals need less antibiotic than conventionally farmed animals, because their concentrations decrease liklihood of disease and infection.  Truly grass-fed animals use less soil, pesticide, water than grain-fed animals.  Antibiotic-free animals do not pass along these bio-accumulated substances to humans, in whom disease organisms are growing resistant to antibiotics.

Another response to the appeal of deliberate eating is the "slow food" movement, which combines seasonal, local, organic foods with quality preparation and individual attention - slow processes, all - to create meals of foods that we have traditionally enjoyed, but made in ways that treat the earth and eater with respect and regard from seed to sauté.  This movement defies notions that to live well we have to live ascetically, as is illustrated by Chez Panisse in California, and Café Brenda in Minnesota - living sustainably can mean living well.

When shopping for organic foods you may notice that they're typically priced higher than conventional products, sometimes two times as much. While some of this price difference is due to supply and demand, it's mostly due to the decreased yields of organic products versus conventional. But as farmers get better at farming organically and as demand for these sustainably grown products grows, this price gap is closing.  And there are benefits that are hard to put a price tag on when you consider the deleterious effects that can be avoided by increased use of organics: the reduction of chemicals in your food and your body makes for better health and peace of mind; less water pollution and soil erosion means less need to restore these resources because organic farmers use crop rotation and cover crops to improve the quality of soil, helping it to retain moisture and nutrients.

Many assume that "organic" always means "local," but many organic foods we buy come from very far away. Be wary of where your organic food comes from. Organic food is subject to the same seasonal changes that conventionally-grown food is. That organic apple may have traveled just as far, if not farther than the conventional apple beside it in the supermarket, carrying with it the environmental impacts of long-distance travel.

Wanna step it up another notch? Start growing your own food. There is a wealth of information on how to start down this path.  While the average person will not be able to grow their entire food supply in their own back yard, many people can begin to offset their supermarket needs and reconnect with the source of food - our own backyard or patio pots. You have direct control over how at least a small percentage of your food is grown. If you live in a place where you can plant fruit trees, a single orange or apple tree can provide healthy fruit for years. Once you taste the tomatoes and basil from a pot on your deck, you'll be more critical of the shipped in out of season product.  If you are able to have a larger plot, you will find yourself growing food with less water, pesticide and fuel than the same items from industrial farming - and, like walking to work, the health benefits are plentiful: any gardener will tell you of the serious workout they get while out in the yard. And just think how good you'll feel when you sit down to dinner with the knowledge that these are your veggies and fruits. Americans extol the virtues of Freedom-what's more free than food from your own garden patch?

SHELTER FROM THE STORM

The home is a place that shelters dreaming.
      Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space, 1994

Sarah Nettleton, in quoting Bachelard in her book The Simple Home, makes the point that the home is central to achieving our lives' goals.²⁶  As we've seen so far, there are many ways to create a deliberate life for ourselves; but the home is the center of our lives, and if it is not in tune with the environment, there's no way we can expect the rest of our lives to be. We've arrived now at the broadest category of environmental impact, and the one with the most opportunities to change our daily habits and create deliberate lives.

With that in mind, let's look at some of the statistics of home pollution. Your home itself is responsible for a quarter of all your land usage. Two thirds of all lumber is used for building structures, and 35 percent of land-based endangered species are endangered by the sprawl of residential homes.²⁷  The average square footage of the American home has increased 2.3 times from 1950 to 2004, from 983 sq. ft. to 2,349 sq. ft.²⁸  With increasing size, the amount of materials and land needed also increase. In recent years America has seen a rise in super-huge homes, built not by the rich but by upper middle class families. This type of home is so prevalent today that it's been given a name: the McMansion, made possible by low property and material prices, an ever-expanding highway network, and the rising affluence of the middle class. The home is not just a place to live, but a well-groomed status symbol.²⁹

Household operations account for one third of common air pollution, and one fifth of toxic air pollution and common water pollution. The running of the home contributes a larger percentage of greenhouse gases per household than transportation; 35 percent versus 32, primarily from electricity.³⁰  In fact the largest single home-related drain on the environment is electricity; and at 36 percent, the residential sector is responsible for the largest percentage of total electricity use in the US. Electricity usage for heating and cooling is roughly proportional to square footage; the bigger the home, the bigger the bill. Thus any attempts you make to reduce your electricity usage will result in a lessened household impact on the environment.

If you're thinking about building a new home, do some research. While a new home may actually be cheaper to build than retrofitting an old home, the environmental impact of building a new home is significant beyond the building site itself. A new home requires raw material; trees that were once standing are now being used in your house. The pollution and greenhouse gases put out from construction equipment is staggering. An immense amount of water is needed to sod your new lawn, not to mention fertilizers and pesticides. And every new home built in the suburbs and exurbs encroaches on once-virgin land.  When you build, build as green as your budget allows. Reduce the square footage of your new home and use the building material savings to invest in efficient construction, heating, hot water, appliances, and furniture.

A new green home begins with green construction. There is a wealth of information on how to design and build a green house, and the opportunities are cheaper and more numerous every day. The US Green Building Council (USGBC) and their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification can serve as benchmarks for creating a green home or office. Many still believe that a sustainable house must look bizarre and futuristic, but this is far from true. A LEED-certified house may look exactly like the house down the block, or it may be the height of modern design. Live Green Live Smart's Sustainable House is a LEED-Platinum (the highest level of certification) remodeled home that, when finished, will look almost exactly the same as before, but will be the epitome of green home design.

Green building begins with the materials you choose. Most Americans' homes are built of wood which, if harvested properly, is a renewable resource. One of America's greatest problems is that we use trees faster than we can grow more of them. A growing number of companies are signing up with sustainable forestry initiatives such as the Forest Stewardship Council, which guarantee conservation of this essential resource. For almost anything you can think to build your home with, from siding to insulation, there is a green alternative. You can use products recycled from other homes, or use local sources of lumber and stone. Construction itself needs to become a green process. The farther away you source your products, the higher their air pollution and greenhouse gas impact. Digging up a parcel of land causes water pollution from soil erosion into lakes and rivers.³¹

Consider alternative power and heating sources for your home. The initial price will be high, but you'll save yourself money over the life of your home. If you live in a sunny part of the country, consider solar power to heat your water or power your home. If you live in a windy place, consider wind generation. Sink a geothermal pump in your backyard. Choose natural gas over oil to heat your home; gas is burned with higher efficiency and fewer emissions than oil. New "micro-cogeneration" units are coming onto the market which generate both heat and electricity from the burning of gas, and then catch the leftovers in a catalytic converter to reduce emissions nearly to zero. Micro-cogenerators are capable of producing so much electricity that a household may be able to sell it back to the power company. At the very least, buy an efficient EnergyStar-rated furnace. Keep in mind that simple things like turning the thermostat down from 72 to 68 can make a big impact. Use green, efficient insulation, and ensure the contractor insulates properly. Every uninsulated corner will leak heat, and money.³²

Most homes cannot yet become completely independent from the power company, but in some places that may not even be necessary. Many utility companies now offer their customers options about where they get their electricity, giving them the choice to get their power from wind, for instance, or buy a blend of fossil fuels and renewables.³³  Many local and state governments are also mandating that their utilities blend renewable energy with conventional; in Minnesota, for example, a statewide law was recently passed that requires utilities to generate a quarter of their power from renewables by 2025.³⁴  The options for greening your power and heat are only getting better. Remember, as more people adopt green energy choices, the cheaper they become.

In place of an air conditioner, in temperate climates the greenest option is to increase the ventilation in your home with more windows. Natural cross-ventilation provides a cool, free breeze. Consider ceiling fans, which use far less electricity than AC units. Geothermal power, which can heat your home in the winter, can also cool your home in the summer, bringing colder temperatures from the soil up to your home.

The refrigerator is one of the most wasteful household appliances. While the chemicals inside today's fridges are better for the environment, running a fridge, especially an older one, still takes an incredible amount of electricity. The fridge is about one fourth of the average household electricity use.³⁵  If you own an old, inefficient fridge, consider buying a new one. It's a worthwhile investment, and you'll save money on your electricity bill. Like with furnaces, there are EnergyStar ratings available. Choose the most efficient fridge for your budget. Many families own a second fridge or deep freezer for storage; in most parts of the country such a storage plan is wasteful and unnecessary. Assuming you keep your second fridge running constantly, you're using twice as much energy and spending twice as much money on food you don't plan to eat immediately.

Switch from incandescent light bulbs to fluorescents. Incandescents are amazingly inefficient: only 10 percent of the electricity used per bulb is given off as light, the rest is wasted as heat. Fluorescents, although considerably more expensive at the check out counter, more than pay for themselves over their lifespan. Switching just one bulb in your house will save about 300 pounds of coal.³⁶  Think of the incredible amount of energy that can be saved if we just switch our lightbulbs: 10 million new fluorescents, 3 billion fewer pounds of coal needed. Many governments are considering banning incandescents completely, including Australia, the European Union, and a number of American states, like California. There's another easy switch you can make: as with air conditioning, replacing lights with windows is a good, cheap option. The more windows you have, the less artificial light you'll need.

It's important to remember that everything you do, eat, or use comes with a price that is not reflected on the tag in the store. This is the environmental price. There are many aspects of our lifestyle that we spend relatively little money on (compared to major purchases such as a new car or home or furnace) but carry high environmental price tags.

• Lawn Care.  Pesticides and fertilizers on the lawn contribute 10 percent of a household's total common water pollution, and three percent of toxic water pollution. Pesticides are intended to kill living things. And although modern pesticides can be incredibly precise in their targets, they can still be highly toxic towards other living things. The EPA found that many people do not read the labels on their pesticides, and therefore to not know the dosage limits and the times to keep children and pets off the lawn. Another study found that some people overdose their lawn by as much as ten times over the needed limit.³⁷
  
  Then there is the lawn mower, an inefficient, emission-spewing machine. The emission controls for lawn care equipment are incredibly lax: a five horsepower lawn mower can produce more emissions than a 200 HP car.³⁸   Add to this the fact that the pristine grass lawn that Americans covet is an invasive species. Most forms of grass that we sod our lawns with are not native to America, and hence the need for constant maintenance. The best way to eliminate pollution from lawn care is to reduce the size of your lawn. Make a patio with water-permeable paving stones. Plant more trees and shrubs. Plant native grasses or new sod hybrids that need fewer chemicals and less mowing. And try not to go crazy about that brown spot.
  
  
• Fireplaces.  People love their fireplaces and wood stoves; they hearken back to a simpler time, and they seem to connect us with our ancestors and the distant past. While burning wood for heat is indeed simpler than your furnace, its impacts are complex. The fireplace or wood stove is very inefficient, burning with less than 10 percent efficiency.³⁹  While a fireplace's greenhouse impact is small, it creates more air pollution, specifically harmful particulate matter, than other fuel sources, like the furnace. The fireplace/wood stove contributes three percent of a household's total toxic air pollution, but since that air pollution is right in your living room, its impact can be pronounced. Use a damper and glass doors to catch particulate pollution before it comes indoors and goes into the atmosphere. Because most homes burn wood these days simply for the aesthetic value, consider changing to synthetic fire logs, which can reduce air pollution up to 80 percent. If you cook and heat with a wood stove, use seasoned wood, build efficient fires, and invest in a new stove, which have been EPA-regulated for efficiency since 1988.⁴⁰
  
  
• Off-road Vehicles and Powerboats.  Like lawn mowers, most ATVs, snowmobiles, and outboard engines are very inefficient and have an impact that their relatively small size belies.  They rank low on the impact index because the average household uses them infrequently. Nevertheless, the average boat motor is more harmful per hour than a car motor, releasing a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas and smog-producing air pollution. "For this reason," the UCS says, "a hour of water skiing can create nearly as much smog as driving from Washington, DC to Orlando, Florida."⁴¹  Off-road vehicles are no different. In addition they create significant, if limited environmental impacts to water and land, respectively. We look to our lakes and parks and reserves to be the beautiful, pristine places that help us "get away from it all." But we're bringing the ugliness of the modern world straight to these wildernesses. Consider other non-polluting ways of enjoying the wild. Bike or hike instead of off-road, canoe, kayak, or sail instead of powerboat. These activities will lessen environmental impact, and bring one closer to the quiet nature you want to enjoy.  Of course these activities aren't for everyone.  People who love to go boating shouldn't have to feel guilty about it.  Many outboard motor companies have introduced four-stroke engines that are cleaner and more efficient than traditional two-stroke motors.  And Evenrude, for example, makes two stroke motors that are highly efficient - even more efficient than four-strokes - and emission-free.
  
  
• Cleaning Products.  Cleaners contribute nine percent of a household's total toxic air pollution.⁴²  And since we are often in direct contact with them, the personal impact can be even higher than the environmental. Read the labels of every product you use, and find out how to dispose of leftovers and bottles correctly. Many cities now offer hazardous materials pickup on a certain day of the week. Follow the guidelines of the collection process. There is a growing number of green alternatives to the standard cleaning products, from green laundry detergent to soaps made with natural oils.
  
  
• Clothing.  As far as harmful personal items go, clothing is the worst across the board, contributing around two percent of a household's total toxic air pollution, common water pollution, and land use; three percent of greenhouse gases and common air pollution; and four percent of toxic water pollution and water use.⁴³  The jury is still out, however, on which is worse: synthetic fiber or cotton. The impacts of synthetics are obvious: they are plastic, and therefore made from petroleum, a dwindling resource that produces all sorts of nasty chemicals in its refinement. Cotton seems like the logical green choice, but it is conventionally harvested with intense pesticide, fertilizer, and water use over huge swaths of land. In fact, cotton farming uses more chemicals than food farming. You're wearing those. Hardly Earth-friendly. There are still things you can do. Buy organic, sustainable cotton and recycled synthetics, both of which are growing fields in apparel. Buy second-hand. Make do with fewer articles of clothing.

The UCS points out a number of green/not green disputes that are still unresolved. Two major points of contention are cloth vs. disposable diapers, and paper vs. plastic bags. Most people think, turned off by ideas of landfills crowded with baby diapers, that cloth diapers are the green choice. While disposable diapers use a lot of wood and plastic to produce, and they do take up landfill space, they have over the years become thinner and more efficient. And people tend to overlook the harmful aspects of cloth diapers. They must be picked up by a cleaning service, and that takes gasoline. They are washed a number of times, both in water and chemical baths, contributing to water use and pollution. Studies have been held up to prove both sides are right; so for the average consumer, the point is moot.⁴⁴

The case of paper vs. plastic is similar. While paper is assumed to be the greener choice, studies have found that plastic creates less pollution and waste in the production process than paper. Yet, a paper bag is made from a renewable resource, and has a higher chance of being reused as a trash bag or recycled. And you generally need more plastic bags for the average grocery trip than you would paper bags.  But, paper bags are less compactable, so they take up more space in the landfill. Once again, the results are inconclusive.⁴⁵  The best option is to reuse your own canvas bags, but if you must chose between paper and plastic, don't worry about it too much. In highlighting these two cases, we see that some choices make big differences, and others make little. We should concentrate on the obvious choices, and continue to research-but not worry about-those that are less obvious. Part of the idea of deliberate living is the hope that we will be less stressed and less guilty about our decisions.

Written for Live Green, Live Smart by Jack Hays (jack@jacksonhays.com)

 

 

SOURCES
¹ Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1997. 6.
² Ibid. 85.
³ Brower, Michael and Warren Leon. The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice From the Union of Concerned Scientists. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1999. viii, 4.
⁴The Green Money Journal. “New LOHAS Market-Size Data Released: A $209 Billion Opportunity”
http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?newsletterid=40&articleid=535
  ⁵French, Steve, Gwynne Rogers, and The National Marketing Institute. “LOHAS Market Research Review: Market Opportunities Abound.” LOHAS Journal. 2005.
http://www.lohas.com/journal/trends.html
⁶Brower, Michael et al. 53-55.
⁷Ibid.
⁸Ibid.
⁹American Automobile Association. “AAA Exchange: Your Driving Costs.” 2007. http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/Default.asp?SectionID=&SubCategoryID=9&CategoryID=3&ContentID=23
¹⁰ Trask, Crissy. It’s Easy Being Green: A Handbook for Earth-Friendly Living. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith. 2006. p. 23
¹¹ US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information. “Licensed Drivers.”
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ “Peak Soil.”
http://www.ea2020.org/drupal/node/39
¹⁵ NESEA. “Greener Vehicles on the Market Today.”
http://www.nesea.org/transportation/evs.html
¹⁶ HybridCenter.org. Hybrid Timeline.
http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-timeline.html
¹⁷ HybridCars.com. February 2007 Dashboard.
http://www.hybridcars.com/market-dashboard/feb07-overview.html
¹⁸ Brower, Michael. p. 89
¹⁹ Brower, Michael. 58-59.
²⁰ Ibid. 58-60, 235.
²¹ Pirog, Rich and Andrew Benjamin. “Checking the food odometer: Comparing food miles for local versus conventional produce sales to Iowa institutions.” Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. 2003.
http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/files/food_travel072103.pdf
²² Brown, Allison. “Farmers’ Market Research 1940-2000: An Inventory and Review.” Tufts University. 2002.
http://nutrition.tufts.edu/pdf/publications/afe/brown-research-ajaa.pdf
²³ McKibben, Bill. “Dream A Little Dream.” The Sun. October 2006.
²⁴ US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Laboratory. Excerpt from Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): An Annotated Bibliography and Resource Guide. by DeMuth, Suzanne. October 1993.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csadef.shtml
²⁵ Trask, Crissy. p. 100-110
²⁶ Nettleton, Sarah. The Simple Home: The Luxury of Enough. Newtown, CT. The American Institute of Architects and The Taunton Press. 2007. 20.
²⁷ Brower, Michael. 71, 99.
²⁸ Adler, Margot. "Behind the Ever-Expanding American Dream House." National Public Radio, All Things Considered. July 4, 2006.
²⁹ Brower, Michael. 99-101.
³⁰ Ibid. 65-67.
³¹ Ibid. 71.
³² Ibid. 101-104.
³³ The Green Power Network website. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/
³⁴ Bakst, Brian, Associated Press. "Pawlenty signs renewable energy law." Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune, February 22, 2007.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1018322.html
³⁵ Brower, Michael. 104.
³⁶ Ibid.
³⁷ Ibid. 111-113.
³⁸ Ibid. 114.
³⁹ Ibid.
⁴⁰ Ibid. 115.
⁴¹ Ibid. 109-110.
⁴² Ibid. 117.
⁴³ Ibid. 74, 234.
⁴⁴ Ibid. 126-136.
⁴⁵ Ibid.