Category Archives: Ecology

Ecology, Health

Exercise That Saves Me Hundreds Per Year

Leave a comment

Needing more exercise and reducing fossil fuel use are two birds. My bicycle is one stone, and with it I hit them both by schlepping groceries and other purchases after shopping. Let’s call it ‘schlopping’. My guess is that in the past 2 years of doing so I’ve saved about $1600 and 670 gallons of fuel. It’s also helped me stay in shape.

Having a desk job for over a decade has not made me the healthiest worker. So after my bike’s saddle bags spent a year rotting in the basement I finally got around to installing them. Since then any trip around town has been a good excuse to get some exercise. As long as there isn’t too much snow, ice, or salt in the way it can work well. Even in northern Ohio this has only prevented me from riding twice.

Safety equipment like a helmet, lights, and gloves also reduce some of the risk factors. Careful riding also helps. But to be honest, it is tempting to cut corners and ignore traffic laws; especially on long rides. Thankfully, I’ve only had one moderately serious accident thus far. Strangely enough it was not one of my frequent shopping runs but a relatively rare joy ride.

Still, keep in mind that all our sitting has risks too, more so when when driving/riding. Of course how the risks of walking/riding vs. driving/riding stack up to each other vary quite a bit. Things like distance of trips, traffic volumes, kind of vehicle, physical health, and availability of bicycle lanes are complicating factors. Your mileage may vary.

Despite the modest costs, different risks, and extra time involved in bicycling or walking the gains are certainly worth it for me. Improved health, reduced environmental impact, and net savings of hundreds per year are too much to pass up.

Ecology, Editorial, Ethics, Health

Poisoning Ourselves With Plastic

Leave a comment

It’s easy to overlook just how much plastic one uses day-to-day. But the earth is a closed system that notes every wrapper, foam cup, and throwaway bag on it’s very permanent record. And as the refuse breaks down it works its way back to us through the food chain.

Since the oceans act like a sponge the creatures living there consume the plastic bits left behind. While this isn’t recent news there has been some recent attention. Catalyst ABC’s Plastic Ocean piece explains the situation. Around half way through the video I began to take stock of how I have been unintentionally contributing to the problem myself.

Being ecologically minded I thought I was doing well by shopping with reusable bags, drinking from reusable bottles, and harvesting some tea and coffee grounds for composting. Living in a recycling community also helps reduce the problem. But they don’t accept plastic bags, wax paper, Styrofoam, or complex items like electronic gadgets.

When I began to consider everything I consume it became obvious there is more room to improve. During any given week my non-recyclable consumption breaks down as follows:

  • 4 plastic, single-cup, coffee containers
  • 4 plastic wrappers for tea
  • 3 plastic, vegetable wrappers
  • 2-3 thin, plastic, produce bags
  • 2 plastic, zip bags for nuts
  • 1 wax and cardboard fruit container

Given 52 weeks in a year that makes 754 items that have to go somewhere. One idea is to switch to tea that comes in paper wrappers but even that may not be the optimal considering how the paper is produced. Of course this isn’t the whole picture. There are also holiday gifts, treats offered, and packages purchased at various times throughout the year.

Reuse and recycling can help too. Though ultimately, the best solution is to reduce consumption. Saying ‘no’ to oneself and others can be awkward and occasionally painful. Yet if one wants to enjoy food, especially from the sea, without plastic contamination then the bigger picture must be kept in mind every time temptation arises.

Ecology, Editorial, Ethics

Buying New Often Borrows From The Future

Trying to save the world by upgrading to more efficient models may actually do the opposite. This appears especially true of electronic equipment whose actual lifespans are in free fall because of the race to get the ever shiner, newer model. When those newly produced products are made from non-renewable resources one is subtracting from what would be available in the future. To be blunt, it’s stealing from children to indulge ourselves.

Honestly, I’m no saint in this regard. From 1992 through 2014 I’ve used eight different desktop computers, six laptops, at least six monitors, and eight cell phones. Sadly about half were thrown away or broken.

While some of the upgrades have proven more efficient in terms of processing the trend among desktops and phones is to draw more power. Case in point, my first desktop had a 240W power supply while my latest needed 700W, largely because of the fancy video adapter. Charging has also become more frequent with smart phones. My Blackberry smartphones often went weeks without a charge. Now it’s rare to find a smart phone guaranteeing more than 24 hours of battery life. Even the move from power-hungry, CRT monitors to flat screens has its disadvantages.

SusteIT’s report concludes that one should prefer to maximize what one already has in use considering the total impact of manufacturing computer equipment. Despite the complexities involved I feel confident recommending that any PC or laptop made within ten years should suffice, with proper care. Beyond that point it should still be usable for casual workloads.

Not every household item is the same of course. Some appliances like outdated refrigerators are better recycled for scrap than kept in service. When to draw the line is not difficult to find out. A few web searches on “life cycle assessment” and the kind of appliance should help. Deciding between repair and replacement is a similar situation with a similar solution.

Maintenance is another factor in maximizing use. Taking care can also benefit resale value when it is time to replace something. Until such times are necessary let’s try to resist the urge to prematurely upgrade. Otherwise the legacy we leave will include overflowing scrapyards and landfills.

Buying new products brings with it a responsibility to future generations, whether or not it’s obvious. Next time you’ve the opportunity please do everyone a favor and seriously consider purchasing used or refurbished instead.

Ecology, Editorial, Start-up

Maximum Sustainable Business

Leave a comment

What upper bounds limit, or should limit, the size or scope of a business? Developing the lower boundary of a product is already a proven strategy for launching products. And since the idea of a minimum viable business has already been addressed, let’s consider the upper bound.

Physical limits impose some basic restrictions such as the amount of arable land, number of possible consumers, or the amount of money in a market. Some may change over time while others may be fixed. For example, if Canada’s economy had only 2 trillion units of currency available then it’s impossible for a company to exceed that value in Canada; at least until the economy grows.

Legal restrictions also exist in many markets. Cuba’s Agrarian Reform Law limits farm sizes to protect the workers. In the US there are several anti-trust laws to prevent abuse and promote competition among businesses. Whatever one’s view of government’s place in the economy, the intention is clearly to balance the interests of consumers, producers, and employees.

Having worked at larger and smaller companies I’ve seen the advantages of scale: efficient use of (some) resources like instructors’ time, fewer workers needed for administration, and spreading risk. Smaller scales also have their pros; such as more personal management, less bureaucracy, and often a faster path to promotion. However, I think the disadvantages of larger businesses outweigh the benefits. Some cons I’ve witnessed include compensation not tied to performance (discouraging working harder or even at all), reluctance to change, more careless about environmental effects, and a tendency towards anti-competitive behavior.

Sustainability in the long term is another important goal. If a company wants to exist forever then environmental impact becomes a priority. Thankfully even some larger companies are becoming more aware of the issue.

If all businesses considered the human and environmental factors as heavily as financial ones then perhaps more would choose to limit their size. If government regulation more aggressively addressed anti-competitive concerns and taxation encouraged sustainable, small business then I believe it would also be more humane. As machines are increasingly competing with people for jobs wouldn’t it be better if there were many more, independent opportunities for employment?

Please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments.