Living Car Free - Article - How to be an Environmentalist

This is one of two articles I wrote as an audition piece for a temporary guest spot in the Denver Post's Perspectives section. I was not selected, and the articles were not published, so I thought I'd put them up here. Both of the articles are related to cycling and living car-free.



How to be an environmentalist (or at least claim to be)

My neighbor considers me an environmentalist because I recycle. I suppose it also helps that I get around a lot by bicycle, including the four mile round trip to the recycling drop-off and back. On the other hand, I tend to take long showers, which in this dry country is arguably not such a good thing for the environment. But I help counteract that by not doing my dishes very often.

What does it mean to be an environmentalist? To me it’s someone who is not only concerned about the state of the environment, and our effects on it, but who also does something about it. I’m not sure I would typically call myself an environmentalist, but since my neighbor brought it up, okay, I guess I am. However, the upside is more than a cleaner Earth. Here’s what apparently qualifies me to be environmentalist, along with some of the additional personal and community benefits:

I do nearly all my shopping locally. This eliminates the pollution and oil depletion that would be caused by me driving to another town to buy my food, clothing, and general supplies. It also saves me money, not having to pay for an unneccesary trip. In the case of local businesses, it also eliminates the transportation expenses and impact involved in shipping products to a branch store from a distribution center, and helps support my neighbors who own the local businesses.

I recycle my paper, newspaper, cardboard, aluminium, and plastic. I reuse some plastic and all glass for things like food storage. Between newspaper subscriptions and food packaging alone, I produce quite a bit of “waste” for one person. By recycling all that I can, my actual dumpstered trash is reduced to about one paper grocery bag full every two months. This helps reduce the expense and impact of producing new materials, and keeps a lot out of the landfill.

For winter, I keep the heat turned down. When not at home, I keep it high enough that the pipes won’t freeze. When at home, I keep it low enough that it’s more comfortable to wear an extra layer. This helps reduce the use of the natural gas my heater runs on, as well as the electricity for the blower, probably produced with natural gas or coal. This in turn again helps reduce pollution and oil depletion.

For summer, I don’t use an air conditioner. I’m originally from Missouri, so the dryer summers in the Banana Belt of Colorado are spectacularly comfortable. I open windows, and if I’m not getting enough breeze that day, I might use a small fan. Another reduction in electricity use, and the resultant oil use and pollution.

I don’t drive a car. I mean not at all - not that I’m against it, or think that everyone else should follow suit. For many people, it would not work. Only one other time in my life have I been able to live without a car, considering my job and where I lived. Living in a small town, buying locally, and most importantly, enjoying walking and bicycling, allows me to completely avoid driving. This, once again, reduces pollution, depletion of oil, and saves me money.

So perhaps many of the things I do make me an environmentalist, even if they’re not done solely for the environment. I am aware that they have a positive effect, and that’s just another good reason to do them. Are these things everyone can do? Many are, yes. Are they things everyone should do? I think that again, many are – they should at least be considered. Driving deliberately, to avoid unnecessary trips, benefits everyone. Recycling benefits everyone. Buying locally may not benefit the big box stores, but it helps your community. And even shopping at the local branch of a franchise store keeps some of your money in the area. And any of these small actions can bring a good feeling, knowing you’re doing your part to help out.

the recycling is something I should do but dont, at least not like I could, I think I could build a small house with all the mt dew bottles Ive had over the years (scary but probably true).........the idea crossed my mind a few times, seems like the ultimate way to both say "F you" to our lifestyle and values we hold in general at the moment in the US and do something thats both flaky and weird but practical at the same time

Nice little article, yet the author doesn't mention their diet. Eating meat and other animal products is one of the most environmentally damaging activities that people do.

And yet when I read articles that give tips on how to be less environmentally damaging they usually say "take shorter showers, turn off the sink while brushing your teeth,etc." Here's a good statistic-- 25 gallons of water to produce 1lb of wheat & 2500 gallons to produce 1lb of meat http://www.shaka.com/~jai/articles/101.html



From what I've read, the most environmentally damaging behaviors are -eating animal products(less so if they are organically produced), buying nonlocally produced products such as food, and (most despicably) driving.

Nice little article, yet the author doesn't mention their diet. Eating meat and other animal products is one of the most environmentally damaging activities that people do.

I am not vegetarian, and never plan to be. I believe that animals are here for humans to use, including eating them. It's unfortunate that "we" currently (for the most part) overindulge in meat just as we do many other things, and that the majority of food animal "production" techniques are at least approaching unsustainability.

I am not vegetarian, and never plan to be. I believe that animals are here for humans to use, including eating them. It's unfortunate that "we" currently (for the most part) overindulge in meat just as we do many other things, and that the majority of food animal "production" techniques are at least approaching unsustainability.

Interesting statement - "animals are here for humans to use". I suppose Chinese girls exist to glue our Nikes together and Mexicans are born and bred for picking our strawberries. Hey, I'm not a vegetarian either, but that's a pretty unethical viewpoint. Maybe humans are here for grizzly bears and great white sharks to eat. Personally, I think animals are here for themselves. (If animals only exist for us to use, should we kill off all the "non-usefull" animals? Damned useless tree sloths! Friggin' good for nothin' salamanders!)

I am not vegetarian, and never plan to be. I believe that animals are here for humans to use, including eating them. It's unfortunate that "we" currently (for the most part) overindulge in meat just as we do many other things, and that the majority of food animal "production" techniques are at least approaching unsustainability.

The vast majority of environmental institutions, watchdog groups, and scientific communities would say that going vegeterian, or better yet vegan, is possibly the MOST impactful positive thing you could do for the environment besides cutting back your energy use.

It's unfortunate that many people feel the same way as you do about animals, that they are here for us to do with as we please. It's just another expression of how self centered, uncompassionate, ignorant, and disconnected from the rest of the world our society has become.

If you want to know where your biggest impacts are, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/060980281X/sr=8-1/qid=1149079613/ref=sr_1_1/102-3372863-8468141?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It's a life-cycle impact assessment of personal consumption in the U.S. It will help you identify where your biggest impacts are and how your choices can affect the overall impact (or footprint).
One caveat: It uses a method called economic input / output, which uses economics and broad industrial sector data. Direct calculations of life-cycle impact for all activities would be too much trouble.

Very roughly, the average americans impact is in three equal parts (transportation, food, and housing <including energy use in the home>). The book breaks down the environmental impact of each one. For instance, it discusses the impact of eating vegetables, grains, poultry, pork, and beef. It also discusses the relative impact of food production and food packaging. This shows that what you eat is very much more important than how it is packaged, what type of grocery bags you use, or whether or not you re-use them. Recreational activities, such as building wood fires and motor boating are called out for what they are.

If you might be interested, the book is not preachy. It doesn't say that you shouldn't do any particular thing. It just helps you quantify what your impacts are and find a rational method of lowering them, if you so desire.

attercoppe- I think it's a good article, and shame on those Denver Post people for not publishing it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not mentioning diet in the article, although i agree with gqsmoothie that diet is a significant part of a person's environmental impact. You don't have to be a vegetarian to lower your impact there- just replacing some of the mammal meat that you eat with poultry, eggs, seafood, hummus, or tofu or something will make a difference.

To Attercoppe:

If animals are here for humans to use them what the heck were all the (non-human) animals doing for the millions and millions of years before H. sapiens evolved? Huh....do you think the other animals were sitting around just waiting for humans to evolve so that they could be eaten by our species?

You're a freakin' idiot! If I wasn't vegan, I'd eat you!!!

To Attercoppe:

If animals are here for humans to use them what the heck were all the (non-human) animals doing for the millions and millions of years before H. sapiens evolved? Huh....do you think the other animals were sitting around just waiting for humans to evolve so that they could be eaten by our species?

You're a freakin' idiot! If I wasn't vegan, I'd eat you!!!

Those other animals, for millions of years, were sitting around EATING EACH OTHER. You know, that's what animals do. There are plenty of carnivores in the world, including humans. Animals *DO* serve the purpose of being food for other animals.

If you can't look outside and see that, theh I guess you're a "freakin' idiot".

freakin idiot

Whoa, calm down folks.

Don't worry, there's no objectively measurable purpose to animals, or humans, for that matter. Y'all be tiltin' at windmills tryin to convince each other about stuff as subjective as the "purpose" of animals.

Those other animals, for millions of years, were sitting around EATING EACH OTHER. You know, that's what animals do. There are plenty of carnivores in the world, including humans. Animals *DO* serve the purpose of being food for other animals.

Omnivores. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores.

I think in order to be an effective environmentalist, a person has to first be a realist.

Humans are omnivores, very much like bears and raccoons, et. al., in that respect.

Like it or not, we are in the food chain and do get eaten by other omnivores and carnivores once in a while.

Your evironmental footprint in eating meat can be greatly reduced by killing some of your own food. Particularly if you use a bike as transportation to get there and back.

Your evironmental footprint in eating meat can be greatly reduced by killing some of your own food. Particularly if you use a bike as transportation to get there and back.Oh, I thought you were going to say "if you use a bike to kill them", like with all the suicidal ground squirrels here.

As the population increases, all arable ground will need to be exploited. Meat production sucks up several times more land than plant production. By the time we hit 12 million, which will certainly happen by the end of the century, most everyone will be priced out of meat eating. And if we reach 16 million, which some say could happen before the century end, no one will be eating meat.

Of course, our numbers may be reduced by war, plague, or drought, in which case there will be plenty of meat -- for animals. This appears to be the direction the world is headed, following the American lead of amoral self-indulgence and excess.

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 06/01/06 at 15:59 GMT (EST+5) is 6,519,505,048.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

I think a series of events and circumstances in this century will reduce this by 9/10ths. The planet will right-size itself in relation to the human population which has been artificially high as a result of increasingly high technology and high tech modern agriculture. This will begin as we increasingly run out of oil to fuel technology.

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 06/01/06 at 15:59 GMT (EST+5) is 6,519,505,048.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

I think a series of events and circumstances in this century will reduce this by 9/10ths. The planet will right-size itself in relation to the human population which has been artificially high as a result of increasingly high technology and high tech modern agriculture. This will begin as we increasingly run out of oil to fuel technology.

Well if you're right, I'm gonna move to the Alberta foothills within this decade. I'll build an energy efficient house, with solar panels and a wind generator. On my 2 acres of land I'll plant all the food I need. I'll keep chickens, but only for the eggs. I'll have a satellite or radio hookup to communicate with the world. Oh yeah, I'll have a bicycle, too. Techno-rustic, if you will.....

I suppose Chinese girls exist to glue our Nikes together and Mexicans are born and bred for picking our strawberries. Hey, I'm not a vegetarian either, but that's a pretty unethical viewpoint.
The viewpoint re: Chinese girls and Mexicans is pretty unethical, yes, but it's really not comparable to my statement re: animals - unless you think Chinese girls, Mexicans, and animals are all equivalent, and I certainly don't.


It's unfortunate that many people feel the same way as you do about animals, that they are here for us to do with as we please. It's just another expression of how self centered, uncompassionate, ignorant, and disconnected from the rest of the world our society has become.

Has become? People have believed that animals are here for our use for how many centuries? I'd say the widespread vegan / PETA / ASPCA type movements are pretty recent. I don't condone cruelty to animals, but I believe that (as has been mentioned) humans are meant to be omnivores.


If animals are here for humans to use them what the heck were all the (non-human) animals doing for the millions and millions of years before H. sapiens evolved? Huh....do you think the other animals were sitting around just waiting for humans to evolve so that they could be eaten by our species?
Well, that's easy - I don't believe in evolution either. Now that I've opened that can of worms, let's quick close it back up. If you want to debate it, please take it to P&R.


Thanks to those of you who read and appreciated the article without getting hung up on my diet.

I could summarily refute most of your points, but I won't..I largely agree with what you wrote..but I also like arguing..I also like being lazy..

I don't really buy the buying local jazz..not really a realistic, legitimate, or comprehensive solution..but whatever..




I will leave you with this- work within the existing system, or work outside the system?

I will leave you with this- work within the existing system, or work outside the system?

Is that question really profound, really clich&#233;, or both? ;)

Amazing, I started reading this thread and was enjoying the posts and even learning a few things...and then...BOOM! No wonder we still have wars..

Has become? People have believed that animals are here for our use for how many centuries? I'd say the widespread vegan / PETA / ASPCA type movements are pretty recent. I don't condone cruelty to animals, but I believe that (as has been mentioned) humans are meant to be omnivores.



As a note, people have probably abstained from killing other forms of life for about as long as they had time to stop worrying about where their next meal came from, and I suspect long before any current religion even was a distant seed in the brain of someone.

Consider the Pythagoreans, whom assumed a vegetarian diet. They were around since 6th century BC. I am not sure, but I'd imagine a restriction of killing existed on some ancient Buddhist groups as well.

The vegan/PETA movement are recent and vociferious because the capacity for humans to dole out grotesque conditions on a mass scale are much more effective now than, say, 100 years ago.

Nice article. I'm vegetarian (not vegan). I don't really enjoy the taste of meat, although I recall liking Popeye's spicy fried chicken breast 20 years ago, when I last ate meat.

Without the taste aspect though, my reason for being vegetarian is simple. I can't think of one good reason to eat meat!