Published March 14, 2008
biodiesel , carbon footprint , climate change , culture , environment , food , life , simplicity , sustainability , transportation , Uncategorized
Tags: Columbia Gorge, entertainment, exercise, food, locavore, Oregonian, pear brandy, transportation, wine
My post cooking for climate change needs freshening here as sustainability’s body of knowledge keeps growing. As per Michael Specter’s well-researched piece in The New Yorker, it turns out that being a locavore — eating just things grown close to home — does not necessarily reduce our carbon footprint.
Come again? How could two Oregonians (my husband Thor and I) possibly drink wine from Australia and create a smaller carbon footprint than if we drank pear brandy from Hood River, just one hour up the Columbia Gorge?
The Australian wine may have been shipped by sea, which shipping would use one-sixtieth the fuel that flying it in would use. Its grapes may have been grown without petroleum-based fertilizer, and harvested and processed with low-energy methods. If the pear trees in Hood River had been grown out of season in a heated greenhouse, sprayed and fertilized to the nth degree and watered with water pumped uphill– then the pear brandy’s carbon footprint to us sixty miles away in Portland might be holistically bigger than the wine from Australia.
Holistic is the key word. Our culture trains us to think in compartments, not in a unified whole. But sustainability is always about the interdependent whole: everything is related to everything else.
A last note about food in general — while I enjoy good meals as much as the next person, I don’t think we should lean on it as heavily as we do in our culture for entertainment. If we invested less of our time and money on food and spent more time using our bodies for honest physical work and transportation, we’d be much stronger both financially and physically.
Published November 2, 2007
culture , environment , global warming , life , Uncategorized
Tags: culture, environment, exercise, global warming, life, problem-solving, sustainability
Maybe you’re like me in this respect: when I see problems, I want to find solutions.
I don’t just want to find solutions, I want to live them out. I feel more alive that way, more connected. Lots of problems are both personal and public, both micro and macro. Ditto their solutions.
Here we have a national epidemic of obesity and a global climate problem of overusing fossil fuels. It doesn’t take a think-tank of Nobel prize winners to generate this little light-bulb: Ah . . . we need to use our bodies more and fossil fuels less. Two birds with one stone.
Some examples (please write me with your additions):
- using stairs instead of elevators
- raking, mowing & trimming our yards with human power instead of engine power
- washing dishes and lightweight clothes by hand instead of machine
- bicycling for short trips instead of driving
- dancing for recreation instead of watching TV
- planting seasonal foliage in our front yards instead of doing light displays
- walking around to visit neighbors instead of a sedentary evening “chatting” on email
You and I can model these behaviors to others, or we can ask others to join us in developing these habits in the first place. The point is that the status quo is not working, folks. It’s not working for either individuals or our shared home, the planet.
Problems: Overweight Americans and a climate overheating with fossil fuel use. Solution: Use our bodies twice as much as we’re doing. It even makes us feel sexier, which is more than you can say for many solutions to problems.
Two birds, one beautiful stone.