Think Bigg

Not that the death of the planet isn’t entertaining on its own, of course, but global warming is always so much more fun when you can turn it into a computer game! No?

American Public Media — producer of public radio programs like “Marketplace” — has put together a light-hearted little game called Consumer Consequences that lets you “find out if you are living a sustainable life.” (Hint: you’re not.)

Select your avatar, select your neighborhood, and Consumer Consequences asks you a series of questions about your lifestyle — do you recycle? do you take public transportation? do you fly first or economy? As you play, it will show you how many “Earths” of natural resources it would take to sustain all 6.6 billion humans if everyone lived like you.

Once you find out what a resource hog we all are, the game gives you a chance to modify your choices and reduce your footprint.

According to the website,

Consumer Consequences is built using data that represents average U.S. consumer habits. When you answer the questions, you increase or decrease your score, which is expressed in global acres.

If you divide the number of global acres by the number of people on the planet (6.6 billion), then each human’s fair share is 4.5 global acres. So, if your lifestyle requires more than 4.5 global acres, you’re using more than our planet can sustain.

I gave up when halfway through I found out I had already blown through 6.1 Earths. I must admit that it’s a bit self-defeating when you see how much you (I) consume and realize how hard it is to make the lifestyle changes that are really necessary in order for life to be sustainable.

But enough wallowing in self-pity! Get on over to Consumer Consequences and remind yourself why you feel guilty enough to read my blog!

Share This

Now that kids are back to school, it may be time to reconsider what you’re sending in their lunch bags. With an estimated 17 percent of kids overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control, teaching good eating habits must begin at a very early age.

Image Source

According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer,

Water and fruit may be important, but the building blocks of a healthful lunch are carbohydrates, not the white kind, but the complex ones, according to Berkeley’s Cooper.

Then parents can load those grain breads and pitas with healthy peanut butter, other nut butters, turkey and other protein sources. Of course, nutritionists suggest tossing in fruits, vegetables and dips.

What goes between the bread is critical, says the UW Medical Center’s Simon. She encourages people to focus on buying quality meats and chicken, then using it in sandwiches, rather than slapping in lunchmeats.

Fat isn’t always the enemy, Simon says, noting that there is good fat in nuts and hummus.

And next time you head to the grocery store, don’t forget to take along the EWR’s free guide to Pesticides in Produce! It turns out that conventional apples — a lunchtime staple for my mom’s brown bag lunches — have the second highest pesticide load of any fruit or vegetable except peaches.

Leaving an apple for the teacher suddenly got a lot more complicated…

Share This

Just last week, the World Bank launched a new program called “Lighting Africa,” to provide safer, greener alternatives for the 250 million people in sub-Saharan Africa who have no access to power.

Image Source

Because the World Bank estimates that $17 billion a year is spent on inefficient and polluting light sources, such as kerosene, they are turning loose the private sector with a competition and the promise of cold, hard cash (something that’s always alluring to aspiring entrepreneurs!).

Ten to 20 winners will receive grants of up to $200,000. More than 350 companies have already expressed interest.

According to the article,

Working with its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, the bank intends to develop market conditions for the supply and distribution of non-fossil fuel lighting products.

These products can include fluorescent light bulbs and light-emitting diodes for use in rural and urban areas not connected to an electricity grid. Power would come from the sun, the wind and mechanical devices such as pedals.

Perhaps some of you out there have a good idea to throw into the mix? The prize might be small, but the reward is immeasurable!

Share This

Here’s a cause that even your grandmother could get behind! Despite many local laws that outlaw the practice of hanging laundry outside to dry, Project Laundry is fighting for your right to laundry!

Image Source

According to their website, here are just six of the great reasons to dry clothes on a line:

1. Save money (more than $100/year for many households).
2. Conserve energy and the environment.
3. Clothes and sheets smell better.
4. Clothes last longer.
5. It is physical activity which you can do in or outside.
6. Clothes dryer fires account for about 15,600 structure fires, 15 deaths, and 400 injuries annually.

And from now through October 31st, if you purchase a 14″ X 11″ print of this image at $90, the artist will donate $50 per print to Project Laundry.

For a bunch of other online green laundry accessories, click here.  Why not step outside and get some fresh air?

Share This

In case you missed it, the newest environmental bogeyman is not your gas-guzzling car or your kid’s disposable diapers: it’s your bottled water!

Whether you go for high-priced status symbols like Voss, or you’re a more mainstream fan of Pepsi’s Aquafina or Coke’s Dasani, you’re contributing your share to what is now a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry.

Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets–$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year. Source

According to a recent article in the NY Times,

The argument centers not on water, but oil. It takes 1.5 million barrels a year just to make the plastic water bottles Americans use, according to the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, plus countless barrels to transport it from as far as Fiji and refrigerate it.

FastCompany’s frank editorial is what initially got me thinking:

A chilled plastic bottle of water in the convenience-store cooler is the perfect symbol of this moment in American commerce and culture. It acknowledges our demand for instant gratification, our vanity, our token concern for health. Its packaging and transport depend entirely on cheap fossil fuel. Yes, it’s just a bottle of water–modest compared with the indulgence of driving a Hummer. But when a whole industry grows up around supplying us with something we don’t need–when a whole industry is built on the packaging and the presentation–it’s worth asking how that happened, and what the impact is.

While I was in India, we each had one 1L disposable water bottle that we used and re-used for an entire week. It wasn’t ideal from a sanitary standpoint, or from a durability standpoint for that matter, but it definitely made us conscious of how much trash we generate in the course of an average day, and how much of it is truly unnecessary.

When we’re blessed to live in a country where safe, clean water comes right out of the tap whenever we want it, and then we proceed to spend $16 billion a year to purchase something that we could ultimately drink for free, what does that say about us as a society?

According to Forbes,

In 2004, the U.S. budget for international assistance programs around the world was $17 billion, less than 1% of the federal budget overall. Now the U.S. may spend more than that on a single country. The current U.S. budget allocates $4.4 billion of the $17 billion to what the Office of Management and Budget calls “foreign military financing.” The second-largest line item is “economic support,” which comes to $2.5 billion.

So the total amount we spent drinking water out of fancy bottles last year was at least $1 billion more than we spent in foreign aid in 2004 (and $3.6 more if you don’t count the money we spent to provide military assistance).

Bottom line? I’m loving my new Nalgene bottle.

Share This