Living Car Free - Steps for going green(er)

Reduce dependence on car
Reduce international trade
Buy more local stuff
Reduce vacatlons abroad, in fact, take vacations closer to home
Dont buy new stuff when old will do

Apart from reducing car-dependence, have you done any of the above? Done anything else to make yourself more green? Have you tried any green-initiatives but failed because it didn't meet your lifestyle?

It seems to me to become more green means to reduce consumption of any kind. Have any of you managed this and still progressed in your career? Or, does becoming more green also mean lowering expectations in your career?

I have personally eliminated car-dependence.

Sorry, international trade has helped my cause. Parts from overseas....

I vacation AT home!

My whole family loves Goodwills and Salvation Army stores!

Local stuff isn't much of an option, other than produce; our biggest manufacturing product locally is the GM truck.

It seems to me to become more green means to reduce consumption of any kind. Have any of you managed this and still progressed in your career? Or, does becoming more green also mean lowering expectations in your career?

It depends on the career. I'm a programmer, so an expectation that might be set is that I keep the most recent computing equipment in my house so that I can keep up to date.

However, a reasonable low-consumption method might be to rebuild an older machine, even though it consumes more electricity, based on the fact that it spares a lot of toxic material in the landfill.

However, with advances in cloud computing and remote applications, I could buy a cheap, low-power netbook and have a pretty reasonably functioning computer. I might have to think about how I was going to dispose of the old clunker, particularly its rather toxic boards with integrated circuits.

There are a lot of ways to tackle this issue. I'm sure few of them are ideal, but we can keep striving in the right direction.

Check out the book, or iPhone application called Better World Shopper. You will be greener instantly@!

Quit buying crap from China is a good start.

Quit buying crap from China is a good start.

Yeah, sound advice but so hard to do...especially if you have a computer :)

BUT, how we dispose of our computers can help, just saw a great 60 minutes clip on this tonight. Here's a link, seriously, take the 12 minutes and watch this http://cnettv.cnet.com/60-minutes-wasteland/9742-1_53-50004413.html

Reduce dependence on car
Reduce international trade
Buy more local stuff
Reduce vacatlons abroad, in fact, take vacations closer to home
Dont buy new stuff when old will do

I have done all of the above. I don't have a car, and I don't take too many vacations. I don't think it's hurt my career, but then I'm in my first-ever office job that wasn't a temp thing.

I do computer work for a living but I don't need to do any work whatsoever while I'm not at the office, so I don't own (and don't need to own) a good computer. One of my interests, actually, is making computers work well with minimal processor speed and RAM (for example, 1Ghz and 256MB ram)

While I'm not perfect, I've done several things to go green:

When our second car was totaled, we never replaced it. We get along fine without it. When the weather is nice, we cycle almost everywhere. I don't think we'll ever be totally car-free because of our severe winter weather and rainy springs and falls. But we have definitely gone car-light.

We have a clothes dryer, but only use it to dry towels (to keep them from getting stiff). We hang our clothes outside when it's sunny and in our basement when it isn't. We also wash full loads of clothes, which saves on electricity.

For my last vacation my son and I took the train. It was much faster than driving because most of the trip was on the German bullet train. We either walked or used public transportation at our destination. My son has a friend who lives about 30 km north of us. He takes the train instead of having us drive him there. It actually takes less time on the train, even with the stops, because the route is more direct than the roads. When we have to fly somewhere, we take the train to and from the airport.

In Germany it's mandatory to recycle. Germans also use a lot of returnable glass bottles, which saves the energy and resources required to produce new ones.

We frequent our local thrift shops for good deals on clothing and books. We also go to our local ski club's annual swap meet for ski clothing for our son. In addition, we rent my son's ski equipment for the season instead of buying him new stuff every year (he's still growing). My husband bought my son's current bicycle second-hand. He also rescued another bike from the dumpster, which he's slowly fixing up for our son. It will still be 1-2 years before he grows into it.

Don't buy anything packaged in plastic if you can help it. Recycle glass and steel cans, they are 100% recyclable. Food is packaged in virgin plastic, and it only a small percentage of plastic can be/is recycled. I was shaking my head in wonder at the capital city in our state. It seems they only take certain types of plastics for recycling, basically whatever there is a market for, drink bottles, but not yogurt cups:rolleyes:

Reduce, reuse, recycle, and do I REALLY need that item.

Do away with lawns and parking lots, plant edible landscaping and plant things that will survive in your area with minimal care.

Aaron:)

Although many of these ideas sound great - it is not always so simple. As an example, I am car free, which means that when I need something which is bulky, it is a pain to get it home on the bike or via public transit, which in turn means that I am more likely to purchase online and let UPS deliver. If I am buying food - I agree mostly, buy local, carry it home on the bike. If I am buying something like a computer, it is much easier, and from an overall sense more efficient, to purchase from someone who will deliver.

From an environmental standpoint, even food is not black and white. Some foods are much more efficiently grown further away, and then shipped, than to try to grow them locally. Does it make sense to grow rice, a very water intensive crop, in California, which suffers from a shortage of fresh water? - might it be better overall to ship the rice from a place where water is plentiful? So if I am concerned about the environment, and I live in California, am I better off buying california rice, or rice from the southern US?

I do make a conscious attempt to by as little disposable stuff as possible. I believe that one of the big issues with our society today is the large percentage of our productive capacity that is devoted to making things that are not intended to go almost directly into the landfill - from paper coffee cups to paper plates to automobiles. I try not to eat at restaurants that do not use reusable plates and utensils, I don't use razors with disposable cartriges, I repair rather than replace as often as possible.

Bottom line is that I believe that to really be green, you need to think about everything, you can't just jot down some rules on a postcard and follow those blindly. It's disengaging our brains that got us into the place where we are now.

Does it make sense to grow rice, a very water intensive crop, in California, which suffers from a shortage of fresh water? - might it be better overall to ship the rice from a place where water is plentiful? So if I am concerned about the environment, and I live in California, am I better off buying california rice, or rice from the southern US?

Just thought you might want to know...

The California rice industry annually produces nearly 2 million tons of rice making it the second largest rice growing state in the nation behind Arkansas. Our ideal climate, ample water supply and innovative farming techniques result in some of the highest rice yields in the word, while at the same time providing rice of the highest quality.

Most rice grown in California is consumed domestically as table rice, in restaurants or as any number of food products. An average of 60 percent of the annual rice crop goes on America's dinner table, into sushi restaurants, made into beer, rice mixes and even pet food.

Exports markets are also a key destination for California rice. Countries such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Turkey account for 40 percentof annual production. http://www.calrice.org/c4_production.htm

Just thought you might want to know...
http://www.calrice.org/c4_production.htm

It may seem to the california rice commision that california is the ideal place to grow rice, but here is another view of the California water supply:

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/spring95/Water.html

To quote one part of it:

Growing water scarcity in the arid and semiarid West has fostered a number of bold proposals to utilize the enormous quantities of water stored in polar ice (Table 1) or to divert northern rivers in the largely uninhabited areas of Canada and Alaska. However, the technical, economic, legal, and environmental obstacles to transporting and using icebergs to supplement water supplies in an area such as southern California currently appear insurmountable. The enormous financial and environmental costs of proposals such as the North American Water and Power Alliance that would transport 110 million acre-feet of water annually (about eight times the average annual flow of the Colorado River) from Alaska and northern Canada to the western United States and northern Mexico have relegated them to the realm of science fiction for the foreseeable future.

The view here seems to be that Dr Frederick (Who is now a fellow at 'Resources for the Future' and prior to that was a professor at Cal Tech), would not agree witht he california rice commission that california has an ample water supply.

The view here seems to be that Dr Frederick (Who is now a fellow at 'Resources for the Future' and prior to that was a professor at Cal Tech), would not agree witht he california rice commission that california has an ample water supply.

One issue that tends to get forgotten whenever "California" enters the discussion, is how big, and diverse, California is. California is bigger than a lot of nations, both economically and geographically.

Even when it is broken out by region, the regions are still huge and diverse. There is almost no way to compare the Northern California counties of San Marin and Modoc other than they both have a capitol "M" in their names.

If you made a trip to the area around the town of Maxwell, and Glenn and Colusa Counties, a large rice growing region, you would see a very different environment than the Arid and Semi-Arid environment of the densely populated Southern California.

Reduce dependence on car
Reduce international trade
Buy more local stuff
Reduce vacatlons abroad, in fact, take vacations closer to home
Dont buy new stuff when old will do


Extremely simple for me- just retire. Buy food at the farmers market (local event), don't need a thing - so don't buy {except yard sales by trike which limits what I can't carry}, live in a tourist trap and hate travel so everything is within a few miles. But that was previously known as economise, then frugality, now green!

Extremely simple for me- just retire. Buy food at the farmers market (local event), don't need a thing - so don't buy {except yard sales by trike which limits what I can't carry}, live in a tourist trap and hate travel so everything is within a few miles. But that was previously known as economise, then frugality, now green!

Some of these steps were well-known to previous generations. The only difference is that nowadays the impact of a lifestyle where you jet here and drive there and get your apples from New Zealand is that we are starting to see evidence that the earth we live on cannot bear an endless amount of this extravagance.

So... really... it's frugality with a twist of lime!

The Earth can bear it. If it gets too upset at us it can just pop open a volcano and smack us back down to size.

However, we cannot support ourselves sustainably in the manner we are now doing.

Then again, I hear rumors that the Yellowstone supervolcano might be rumbling back to life. ;)

The view here seems to be that Dr Frederick (Who is now a fellow at 'Resources for the Future' and prior to that was a professor at Cal Tech), would not agree witht he california rice commission that california has an ample water supply.

As long as you guys are talking about water, I've noticed that homeowners are returning to using rain barrels to parcel out their roof runoff to their gardens over time rather than all at once at each rain.

We do many things to reduce consumption and are very happy with how we live. Two big suggestions:
1- Grow as much food on your land as possible. We buy no produce from June - Sept. If no land of your own and no possibility of planters at all, then buy at the farmer's market and ask where the food is grown. No apples from New Zealand when I can pick them on my walk home from the Y!
2- Track your energy consumption daily. We read our meters (elec, gas, water) every evening and it becomes something of a challenge to figure out how to reduce it. Invest in power strips and kill all phantom loads. Get a kill-a-watt to see how much elec any given device uses to help you on your quest.

I make my own bread and cereal.

As long as you guys are talking about water, I've noticed that homeowners are returning to using rain barrels to parcel out their roof runoff to their gardens over time rather than all at once at each rain.

Pretty common in the UK. Indeed, local councils are encouraging it because it reduces the amount of water that hits the drains all at once when it rains. The real problem is that a lot of green space (front gardens in particular) has been paved over in the cities, but there's still only the Victorian drainage system underneath it all which wasn't designed to cope with such large volumes of water.

Reduce dependence on car
Reduce international trade
Buy more local stuff
Reduce vacatlons abroad, in fact, take vacations closer to home
Dont buy new stuff when old will do

These I do.
I'll add to the list.
Go veggie.
When taking vacations, try to use train (or at least bus) rather than plane.
Make your home more energy efficient.
Avoid reproduction.

My biggest green challenge right now is to eat less meat and fish. I still enjoy them, but I go a couple days a week without any meat, and I try to eat less than 4 ounces a day when I do eat it. I'm not totally successful yet, but I'm getting better. :)

Mixing you hair coloring product incorrectly can get you really green...don't ask me how I know.

Mixing you hair coloring product incorrectly can get you really green...don't ask me how I know.

Or it could be the chlorine in the Jacooze interacting with your platinum dye.

Mixing you hair coloring product incorrectly can get you really green...don't ask me how I know.

Melting down pennies for their copper so you can have red hair?

I guess my biggest green challenge would be all the air miles that play into my life. I usually make one air flight a year travelling about 4K miles.

Worse, however, are the air miles go into the food I eat. I eat enough bananas that if I stopped, the Guatemalan economy might tumble. The other day I scored some apples at the local grocery store only to realize they originated in New Zealand (which is insane this time of year... when there are literally tons of apples in local groves.)

Worse, however, are the air miles go into the food I eat. I eat enough bananas that if I stopped, the Guatemalan economy might tumble. The other day I scored some apples at the local grocery store only to realize they originated in New Zealand (which is insane this time of year... when there are literally tons of apples in local groves.)

But aren't most food stuffs shipped rather than flown around? Okay, there are arguments about the emissions due to the low quality fuel that ships use but it should involve less energy.

Still bonkers flying in apples from New Zealand if locally produced ones where available though!

But aren't most food stuffs shipped rather than flown around? Okay, there are arguments about the emissions due to the low quality fuel that ships use but it should involve less energy.

Still bonkers flying in apples from New Zealand if locally produced ones where available though!

A lot of seafood is flown in from the far east, particularly fresh shrimp and other sea foods.

I started doing some research and it is amazing how far some foods travel prior to reaching your local supermarket. I have a hard time believing that they can sell a product from across the country (or across the world) cheaper than they can a locally produced product. I live in central NC and outside of coffee, tea, tropical fruits and exotic foods everything you need is produced within a 100 mile or so radius, but the stores still stock stuff from around the world. I noticed this during Hurricane Katrina when the shipping was interrupted at the Port of New Orleans as well as Jacksonville, FL.

Aaron:)

Reduce international trade
Buy more local stuffWhether or not that's greener in terms of energy consumption really depends on what's being bought. International shipping is roughly ten times more efficient than trucking, so for every thousand miles something is shipped, it can only be trucked a hundred miles or so. Depending on the product, it may be greener to buy imported, or it may be greener to buy domestic. It really depends on the product, the manufacturing process, and the supply chain. I think eating mostly cheap grains/veggies is where bigger gains can be made for most people.

Another problem is the efficiencies of agri-business. Like it or not, shopping local costs more. I have checked. Shopping at local producers and from the farmers market costs about two to three times as much for similar items.

A lot of good things bet bandies about in this forum, from a total car free life to consuming local products. However, untill these good ideas are less evpensive than the alternatives they remain luxury goods and lifestyle.

The book Hot, Flat, & Crowded focuses on green being the economical choice. However, even he, Thomas Freedman, mocks people who think that being green is just a few lifestyle changes that can be worn like werit badges.

We need meaningfull socal changes, th egreen can come from that. For example. A poor person can not afford a car free lifestyle becaus eeven if they did move close to work (which in many places really is impossible) they may be "right-sized" and left looking for work in a short period of time.

We can do more for the environment by promoting affordable housing and stable employment than we can by parading our bicycles at the farmers market

Another problem is the efficiencies of agri-business. Like it or not, shopping local costs more. I have checked. Shopping at local producers and from the farmers market costs about two to three times as much for similar items.

The usual argument here is to ask you to define food. You can get a lot of cheap fodder at the grocery store. Perhaps real food just costs a bit more.



A lot of good things bet bandies about in this forum, from a total car free life to consuming local products. However, untill these good ideas are less evpensive than the alternatives they remain luxury goods and lifestyle.

The book Hot, Flat, & Crowded focuses on green being the economical choice. However, even he, Thomas Freedman, mocks people who think that being green is just a few lifestyle changes that can be worn like werit badges.

We need meaningfull socal changes, th egreen can come from that. For example. A poor person can not afford a car free lifestyle becaus eeven if they did move close to work (which in many places really is impossible) they may be "right-sized" and left looking for work in a short period of time.

We can do more for the environment by promoting affordable housing and stable employment than we can by parading our bicycles at the farmers market

We could probably do more for affordable housing and stable employment if we adopted some basic tenet of the so-called "green" movement. A good example is the trend towards recycling industries and one excellent example is the growth of house demotion that specialize in recycling and reselling used lumber. It's a lot "greener" way of demolishing a house than simply bulldozing and moving the results to the landfill. It also creates a lot more employment, since a bulldozing crew is pretty lean whereas demolition and recycling is very labor intensive.

I do agree with one subject you are hinting at. There are a large number of people trying to jump on the "green" bandwagon for the sole purpose of making money. I just read a review of a number of books where the authors are all up to some "green" stunt or another. It's a lamentable situation, but to be expected.

But I do think that quite a large number of people are drawn to some basic tenets of the green movement. Less wasteful consumption, a simpler way of living. That sort of thing. I don't think you can claim that all these people are insincere.

Another problem is the efficiencies of agri-business. Like it or not, shopping local costs more. I have checked. Shopping at local producers and from the farmers market costs about two to three times as much for similar items.


This price discrepancy probably is mainly due to our federal agricultural policies. Giant agri-businesses get almost all of the farm subsidy payments, and use them to grow crops with little nutritional value. Small-scale farmers who produce nutritious food for local markets receive absolutely no subsidies whatsoever. This is what makes local produce more expensive, even when the middlemen are eliminated, as at farmers markets.

This price discrepancy probably is mainly due to our federal agricultural policies. Giant agri-businesses get almost all of the farm subsidy payments, and use them to grow crops with little nutritional value. Small-scale farmers who produce nutritious food for local markets receive absolutely no subsidies whatsoever. This is what makes local produce more expensive, even when the middlemen are eliminated, as at farmers markets.

Reasons are fine; but, when faced with reality people make choices. As I have said before, you are promoting a more expensive lifestyle that is, often, based on the consumption of luxury goods and making the extension that it is somehow morally superior. I will give that in some cases, when viewed in isolation, it may be morally superior. However, I will not give that, when viewed in full context, people who make different choices are, somehow, making morally inferior decisions.

You claim that it is because of subsidies that Americans enjoy relatively inexpensive food and supply agricultural commodities to the world. I am not even going to try to deny that one. Further, as a small farmer, I know that the support (not always direct subsides) and agri-infrastructure are not as accessible to small farmers. However, these programs have done great things.

The level of education of American farmers is stunning compared to the educational level of farmers in the third world and developing nations. This education is obtained at universities universities that consider it to be a subject worthy of both teaching and researching. This all leads to the continued upward spiral in the productivity in American agriculture. Unfortunately, due to certain efficiencies of scale and the very high cost of labour in North America, mechanised farming a necessity; but, this simultaneously leads to a need for large farms to amortize the cost of the expensive equipment.

The small farmer benefits from the education and the research but cannot fully capitalize on it because of scale. If the direct subsidies, many of which are promoting environmentally positive, but expensive projects, were to go away the small farmer would still not be able to compete on a dollar for dollar basis.

This price discrepancy probably is mainly due to our federal agricultural policies. Giant agri-businesses get almost all of the farm subsidy payments, and use them to grow crops with little nutritional value. Small-scale farmers who produce nutritious food for local markets receive absolutely no subsidies whatsoever. This is what makes local produce more expensive, even when the middlemen are eliminated, as at farmers markets.

I read a review of a book (can't remember the name) that claimed the very thing you are discussing. The author claimed that if you removed agriculture subsidies the cost of many vegetables that we eat would actually go down do to increased competition from producing crops people actually purchase, the cost of animal feed would increase (much of that is what is subsidized) and the cost of meat would increase. My guess is without the subsidies meat consumption would be reduced, vegetable consumption might well increase and as a result we would be healthier and be able to reduce our taxes to boot (we wouldn't have to foot the bill for the subsidies). I wish I had written down the name of the book so I could read it but it did look interesting.

vegetable consumption might well increase and as a result we would be healthier and be able to reduce our taxes to boot

If we ate more vegetables nationwide, our country would spend less money treating illnesses that occur most often in people who don't eat vegetables. Wouldn't solve our lots-of-people-have-no-health-insurance problem, but it wouldn't hurt either!

Reasons are fine; but, when faced with reality people make choices. As I have said before, you are promoting a more expensive lifestyle that is, often, based on the consumption of luxury goods and making the extension that it is somehow morally superior. I will give that in some cases, when viewed in isolation, it may be morally superior. However, I will not give that, when viewed in full context, people who make different choices are, somehow, making morally inferior decisions.

You claim that it is because of subsidies that Americans enjoy relatively inexpensive food and supply agricultural commodities to the world. I am not even going to try to deny that one. Further, as a small farmer, I know that the support (not always direct subsides) and agri-infrastructure are not as accessible to small farmers. However, these programs have done great things.

The level of education of American farmers is stunning compared to the educational level of farmers in the third world and developing nations. This education is obtained at universities universities that consider it to be a subject worthy of both teaching and researching. This all leads to the continued upward spiral in the productivity in American agriculture. Unfortunately, due to certain efficiencies of scale and the very high cost of labour in North America, mechanised farming a necessity; but, this simultaneously leads to a need for large farms to amortize the cost of the expensive equipment.

The small farmer benefits from the education and the research but cannot fully capitalize on it because of scale. If the direct subsidies, many of which are promoting environmentally positive, but expensive projects, were to go away the small farmer would still not be able to compete on a dollar for dollar basis.

I don't recall saying that one food source is morally superior, or that people should try to eat foods that they can't afford.

I was just saying that the reason for cheap commodities like corn, wheat, meat, dairy, soy and sugar is government support for those particular foods. Also, the reason for expensive locally grown fruits and vegetables is government interference in the production of these foods. Local and even organic food is not inherently more expensive to produce than industrially grown food. If there was a level playing field, local food would be cheaper, as logic and reason dictate.

When I was a child, almost 50 years ago, the farmer's markets were by far the cheapest places to buy food. This was before Earl Butz and subsequent agriculture policy makers put the current system into place, starting in the early 1970s. Since that time, almost all agricultural policy decisions have benefited the agri-industrial complex at the expense of small family farmers.

If you want to look for deeper reasons, look to lobbyists for the meat, dairy and food-commodities industries, and the influence they buy for their clients in Washington.