Living a low-impact life - any suggestions?

[Maha Vailo]

I've read many articles on the Internet that suggest that our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign resources is wrecking the environment. Therefor, I'd like to live my life by consuming as few resources as possible. Any suggestions as how to live a low-impact life?

Your input will be greatly appreciated.

- Maha Vailo

[mickal555]

Soler heating
I had this idea: you know how when you drive it gets windy 8-[ I reaken you could stick a wind turbide out your window to power your car :)

[sarongsong]

It's all relative, of course, but going off-grid is one option.
http://www.realgoods.com/
http://www.solarliving.org/

[Grey]

Here (http://magazine.audubon.org/features0103/greenhouse.html)'s an article about someone who might have some suggestions. You could look here (http://www.sage.wisc.edu/people/foley/foley.html) and find out further information. If you happen to talk to Dr. Foley, tell him his old college roommate sent you. That ought to freak him out! :D

[aurora]

And don't forget compost, and organic gardening!

And recycling.

[Tranquility]

Question: Are all deodorants now without CFCs?

[Gullible Jones]

Yes. CFCs are prohibited by law, at least in the United States.

[Tranquility]

Yes. CFCs are prohibited by law, at least in the United States.

Thanks.

[Maha Vailo]

Thanks, folks, but I live in an apartment and can't afford to move into/build a new house of my own. I'll take something like that into account when I do move out of my house, though.

I can do a little bit of organic gardening in the backyard, though (beats the heck out of paying through the nose for it in the supermarket). Also, there is a compost pile where I work.

Am I screwed then?

- Maha Vailo

[frogesque]

Use low energy light bulbs, turn down the heating a couple of degrees and wear a jumper 'till you get used to the new regiem, re-cycle as much as you can, avoid fashions like the plague - marketing is there solely to get you to consume stuff you don't need, buy and keep well maintained a diesel auto - more efficient thermodynamically than gas/petrol because of the higher compression ratios, switch off all appliances at the mains when not in use - a lot of TVs are kept on hot standby if switched off at the set, cycle to the shops or work/college if you can - you'll be fitter for it and save cash into the bargain, wash with a kettle of hot water - you will be just as clean as if you would be taking a shower or bath, heat/aircondition only the space you use - a lobby or garage does NOT need to be at 70F!

I could go on but basically think Grannys. Think how they coped through war years or depression and you have 90% of your answer to a cleaner, greener future.

[Glom]

Solar heating may work depending on your climate. Your best bet is to secure a bit of plutonium-238 or some other solid radioisotope and use that to heat your water. You could also use it in an RTG for some low power items.

Screw the organic farming. A moderate bit of ammonium nitrate will be a good way to ensure your crops actually grow healthy. And pesticides are not evil. They prevent bugs from eating your food. You grew them. Why should the bugs benefit?

I hate the jumper suggestion. I don't like the idea of being forced to live uncomfortably just to satisfy the luddite agenda of the Greens. There are plenty of ways to generate energy in vast quantities that are environmentally benign.

Be wary of recycling. It is very energy intensive and the environmental cost can exceed the benefit.

The walking short distances suggestion is good. I do that a lot.

There are many ways to live a low impact life, but the first thing to do is to think of everything you've learned from Greenpeace and their ilk and disregard it. Just remember, we are not headed to anthropogenic climate catastrophe, so there is no need to feel guilty about it. On the contrary, by directly or indirectly emitting carbon dioxide, you are making the atmosphere far more fertile for plants and the planet will become greener.

[frogesque]

Glom Nothing Luddite or woowoo Greenie about wearing a jumper, just plain ecconomic sense. Why sit in a heated room that would melt you if you can save on energy (= £,$) and be just as comfortable. I really don't care if energy is generated via gas, oil, coal, lignite, peat, nuclear, wind farm, solar, tidal, geothermal or heatpump from a compost heap (did I miss any?) What I do care about is the assumption that we can continue with exponential consumption without due regard to how finite resources are stressed. This not only includes product use but also waste management as well.

If you have ever seen a good clear Scotish loch poisoned by blue-green algae growth caused by over-use of phosphates and nitrates from surrounding field water run-off you would know what I'm getting at. Once a fish goes belly-up it's too late to say, "Sorry!"

[mickal555]

SNip...via gas, oil, coal, lignite, peat, nuclear, wind farm, solar, tidal, geothermal or heatpump from a compost heap (did I miss any?) siNP
Hydrogen, Ocean energy ect...

[Ut]

I agree with Glom for the most part, but I think keeping the thermostat down low is a good idea. If you have it up high, you'll always be too cold. Right now, it's 5 degrees outside, and for some ungodly reason my apartment is hot and humid. There are only 2 heaters on, too. I hate it. Give me the cold, and a nice blanket. I don't need to spend all that money on heat when I am my own personal radiator.

[kylenano]

Suggestions/thoughts:

Don't eat meat. Being vegetarian isn't enough, because milk production involves the slaughter of male calves. Turning crops into meat is inefficient. When Chicago was installing its sewage system they had to take account of the meat packing plants which produced pollution to the equivalent of a population of I million. (I'm a vegan, but seem to be odd in that I dislike alternative medicine and won't have anything to do with animal rights campaigners.)

Whatever you do is going to have some impact, it won't be zero unless you're dead! Didn't someone recently say it would be possible to solve the problems of global warming by reducing the world (human) population to 1 billion?! I wouldn't advocate that, but without a reduction in consumption we will be in trouble.

I think Glom is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with his dislike of the greens :) Amongst all the fluff there are some important messages. One point that seems to come from climate studies: at the moment the Earth is cooler than is has been for a very long time. However, the climate is also more stable than in warmer periods. To grow crops for a large amount of people you need a reliable climate and we could lose that with a rise in temperature.

Again, I can't remember the details, but there is an idea that humans still have a Neolithic attitude to the environment. In the Stone Age, your actions usually had little effect outside your local environment. People still think like that, as long as their own patch is OK, never mind what is out of sight, out of mind. They don't have to live eg by the smelly landfill sites filled by their overflowing bins or the holes in the ground from the hideous orange bricks used to pave front gardens (a pet hate of mine. I also hate cars, but won't go into that!).

Another thing I find bewildering is that any damage can be put right by throwing enough money at it. eg carbon tax on flights. Once the pollutants etc are in the environment money isn't going to get them back! Not all damage is repairable.

BTW, I don't believe in ordering people about, but if nothing changes, it may well be that we have no choice, the choices will be made for us.

[edit] PS, I'm sitting at the computer wrapped up in a blanket!

[enginelessjohn]

The point about reducing energy consumption, is not <hippy voice> so we can be kind to the environment, man </hippy voice> but to try to conserve the finite reserves of fossil fuel that we actually have. I have no idea of how big those reserves are, but they are finite.

The developed world consumes a disproportionate amount of energy for it's population, and the developing world will want it's people to have the same benefits (power, transportation etc). That means that more fuel will be consumed. Surely a better course of action is not to say "lets all use nuclear energy and not think to hard about what to do with the waste" but to say "Lets try and use a bit less energy, so there will be enough fossil fuels for everyone".

Additionally trying to reduce the amount of rubbish that gets taken away is worthwhile. The amount of packaging on food beggars belief at times, especially on readymade food. Or individually portioned food... Layers and layers of lovely plastics, ready to spend years in a landfill.

Cheers

John

[Careless]

Yes. CFCs are prohibited by law, at least in the United States.

Thanks.
And they have been for a long time. I'm thinking around 1980. (checking)
in 1978 the United States banned the nonessential use of CFCs as aerosol propellants
link (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html)

[Glom]

I generally like a room a bit colder than most people. I don't like wearing jumpers in doors though. They're too heavy. In principle, I don't have a problem with turning down the thermostat a couple of degrees, it's just I don't like the insinuation that you'd have to make your home less comfortable.

kylenano, I'm not throwing out the principles of protecting the environment. I'm throwing out the Greens, who wouldn't know environmentally friendly if it slapped them across the face. They do know luddism though. "Split wood, not atoms." Yeah that's right. :roll: Saruman did that and look what happened to him. If he'd used nuclear power to run his furnaces, the Ents would have left him alone and he would have been able to destroy Middle Earth. (Okay so the end result was a happy outcome, but you see the point I'm making.) Air pollution, eutrophication, poisoning of water tables all suck and we can and should do things about them. The problem of course is that we do and civilisation goes on, which is the last thing the Greens want.

The point about crop growing. What you need is a fertile atmosphere laden with water vapour and carbon dioxide (which should not be referred to as a pollutant because it is not). We won't be able to stop climate change. It's been happening for four and a half billion years. Even we are somehow affecting climate change signicantly (and the suggestion it's purely down to carbon dioxide and nothing else is non-sensical when you think about it), how do we know what the effects will be if we stop whatever it is we're doing? GCMs? :lol:

[aurora]

Screw the organic farming. A moderate bit of ammonium nitrate will be a good way to ensure your crops actually grow healthy. And pesticides are not evil. They prevent bugs from eating your food. You grew them. Why should the bugs benefit?


I had to respond to this.

There really isn't any reason to use inorganic fertilizers.

For example, my lawn is green, and the only fertilizer it gets is top dressed with compost once a year combined with use of a mulching lawn mower (set high) which puts the nutrients back into the lawn. It's really easy to get a lawn into a state of chemical dependency with the usual weed and feed which results in poor soil.

My strawberry bed gets compost and then a few times in the summer it gets some alfalfa meal (I think it is 1-0-0 or 2-0-0, just a little nitrogen but at such a low concentration that it won't burn the plants). I had a great crop of strawberries again this summer, all summer (everbearing). Yum.

Compost is also good monetary sense. I've got a bin of finished compost out back right now that is 4x4x3 feet in size. Let's see, 48 cubic feet at about $3 US per cubic foot (to buy it bagged) comes to $144. My cost was basically nothing, except some of my spare time to turn the pile. I won't get rich, but I won't have to buy compost or fertilizer either.

I don't put chemicals on my lawn or garden. Many of the bugs and birds that get killed would be beneficials. Once all the beneficials are dead, then you have no choice but to keep putting on more and more chemicals to kill the pests. I use mechanical removal for some critters.

One product I do buy, for slugs I use the iron phospate (I think that is what it is, one brand name is Sluggo) rather than the poisons. I could mechanically kill slugs, but I don't find the time to keep on top of it. The iron product kills them over a few days as they starve. And it ends up adding a little iron to my soil, which probably needs some anyway.

[Sheki]

Having most of life revolve in some way around environmental issues, I feel a need to interject here. The fact of the matter is that the environmental issues are some of the most complex (both technically, and socially) facing the world. As evidenced by the point-counterpoint above, the "greenest" solution is not always self-evident. In fact, the most environmentally friendly choices can often be entirely counter-intuitive.

Unfortunately, there is alot of misinformation out there. Before relying on someone's advice about low-impact living you should always check the source. For instance, many "pro-environment" groups have core values that would see all of humanity revert to a low-tech, family unit-based, agricultural (agrarian) society. Consequently, all of their recommendations and lobbying are biased toward that goal. As I do not personally share this vision for the future, it does not surprise me, when upon thoroughly reviewing environmental policy statements froms such groups, I find myself in disagreement. The classic case is the typical anti-nuclear slant of many environmentalist organizations.

Personally, I am pretty keen on "advancement" - I have no problem with well-planned urban living, technological "progress", etc, and their many boons. Being a realist, I accept that this necessitates a certain amount of environmental impact/disruption. Being a biologist, I also understand the value of biodiversity, and the importance of maintaining a healthy environment - our environment is our life support system. As such, I make lifestyle choices, consistent with the future that I am hoping we achieve, and am prepared to accept the environmental consequences.

To summarize, I do not begrudge anyone their opinion(s) (as articulated above), but before jumping on board with eg. our vegan friend (kylenano) or, say, Glom, I would caution everyone to try to understand where everyone is coming from, and what their agenda is, before taking their advice. Whenever I am debating environmental policy matters with people I often try to categorize the other participants in the following categories:

1. Wants agrarian future with no heavy industry, most of planet unaffected by human influence.
2. Wants a future world pretty much like the current world or maybe slightly better (ie. "this bad but no worse")
3. Don't care what the planet looks like, so long as humanity survives (ie. pave everything so long as we have good mechanized life support systems).

(note: by no means a complete list of all possible philosophies - but sufficient to my ends)

Depending on your own outlook, it should be pretty obvious which of the other two categories you would be willing to take advice from!

Cheers,

Sheki

[Glom]

One product I do buy, for slugs I use the iron phospate (I think that is what it is, one brand name is Sluggo) rather than the poisons. I could mechanically kill slugs, but I don't find the time to keep on top of it. The iron product kills them over a few days as they starve. And it ends up adding a little iron to my soil, which probably needs some anyway.

See, there ya go. That's what I mean. You don't have to kill everything. Just the ones that get between you and your crop. You don't have to spray your crop with cyanide if you don't want to. (You do realise you're going to get fire bombed by the ALF with that admission, don't you?) I suppose iron phosphate is old and so made the organic chemicals list. But the question is would a modern chemical be any worse? The thing about "organic" farming is that it works on the assumption that any modern chemicals are bad. Some are bad. Some are good. Some old chemicals are bad. Some old chemicals are good. We shouldn't be prejudiced by the time period. It should be on which chemical does the job best. That's what I don't like. Do some of your own farming, but don't work on the principle that it has to be "organic" to be low impact. If organic fertilisers work better (and I suppose the situation is different when you're just growing a bit of fruit in your own back garden versus farming for your livelihood) then fine. It's the pretensious label that gets me.

[aurora]

I suppose iron phosphate is old and so made the organic chemicals list. But the question is would a modern chemical be any worse? The thing about "organic" farming is that it works on the assumption that any modern chemicals are bad.

I don't think Sluggo is a pesticide. It isn't a poison. I suppose if you ate a whole box of the stuff it would be like eating a whole bunch of iron vitamin supplement tablets -- not exactly poisonous, but probably not a good idea healthwise. But eating a few of the tablets won't hurt dogs or cats or kids or birds. Not that I keep them where critters or kids can get at them, but if they picked up a few tablets off the lawn I mean.

I don't know what ALF is, but as far as I know minerals like iron are not considered to be pesticides or herbicides.

I don't know if is is old or young. I know that Sluggo has only been on the market for a year or two. At least at the nursery and hardware store near me. So I would think that would make it young.

I detect a lot of anger and frustration in your tone. I must imagine that you had a bad experience where you were not allowed to use some poison that you wanted to use or something?

Edited to add comment on:

I suppose the situation is different when you're just growing a bit of fruit in your own back garden versus farming for your livelihood

Well, maybe yes and maybe no. I know quite a few organic farmers. There are real advantages (short term financial advantages as well as longer term sustainability issues) to doing it. There are some difficulties getting started, especially if the soil quality is poor. It takes time to build it back up, especially if we're talking about the type of farm that covers multiple sections -- then it would be probably impossible to switch over all at once.

[Glom]

ALF is the Animal Liberation Front, top of the US terrorist list before 9/11.

You're probably right that I get a bit frustrated. It's because of all the holier-than-thou preaching of the "environmentally conscious" where they decry GM foods with only fuddite scare tactics despite the fact that they can provide the benefit of not requiring excessive use of fertilisers and chemicals, as well as allowing crops to be grown in varying climates, while at the same time being space and resource efficient. At the same time they support organic farming as the pinnacle of sustainability, even though it is far less space efficient.

I probably got this off my biochemist friend who is really frustrated at all the obstructionism to GM foods saying that there is nothing wrong with them. He also told me that organic food is the biggest con ever producing food that is neither healthier, higher quality or environmentally friendly despite taking up more space. We both feel victims of the same eco-fallacy.

I guess it works for you though.

[Tunga]

1. Become Amish. No cars, no electricity, ride around in horse and buggy.
2. Weigh you trash and track it. A low impact society will produce around one garbage bag of trash per year.
3. Walk or ride a bicycle.
4. Set thermostat on low during the winter. Keep your bedrooms cooler.
5. Cut your living space by a third. A family of four can live in around 300 square feet. One room can serve as a dining room, living room and bedroom. You would be surprised what sleeper sofas can do. Economy of space.
6. Heat with a renewable energy source: wood.
7. Build an energy efficient house - underground with south facing window wall with overhang.
8. One of the large energy users in a home is the refrigerator/freezer. Special refrigerators exist that reduce energy cost by over 1/2 from the models you find in the stores.
9. Learn food canning. Farmers can live off from a couple thousand quarts of food canned and set aside.
10. Don't consume processed foods. Go with the basics: meat, raw vegetables and fruits.
11. Question the validity of your assumptions. Many of the environmental theories thrust upon civilization as facts are built on weak premises and do not hold up well under scientific scrutiny.

[rleyland]

6. Heat with a renewable energy source: wood.


Okay, most of your points are valid, but this one is over the line.

Woodsmoke, while pleasant smelling at a distance, is actually a pretty bad pollutant. It can severely irritate your bronchial passages, and causes breathing difficulties for many people

Many cities and communinties have banned wood fires for years.


Personally I love a good fire, but to assume it should be used as a primary heating source because it is _low_ impact is foolish.

R

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately, there is alot of misinformation out there. Before relying on someone's advice about low-impact living you should always check the source. For instance, many "pro-environment" groups have core values that would see all of humanity revert to a low-tech, family unit-based, agricultural (agrarian) society. Consequently, all of their recommendations and lobbying are biased toward that goal....

The classic case is the typical anti-nuclear slant of many environmentalist organizations. Nuclear power is, indeed, the benchmark issue for determining where one stands on environmentalism.

There are essentially 2 environmentalist positions:

1. Those who want to revert to a pre-industrial agrarian society.
2. Those who want to improve the environment without adversely effecting the human condition (and perhaps, even improving it).

Those in #1 are against nuclear power because it is industrialization.
Those in category #2, if informed (yeah, I know, thats a big "if"), should advocate nuclear power.

Unfortunately, those in category #1 are the most motivated, since they are the most extreme. Those in category #2 are the vast majority, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease - and category #1 is mostly what you see. And that leads some in category #2 to the wrong conclusions about what to do to help the environment.

'Ensuring there are enough fossil fuels for everyone,' as someone else put it, doesn't fit either position.

[russ_watters]

ALF is the Animal Liberation Front, top of the US terrorist list before 9/11. No, that's Earth Liberation Front. :wink: http://www.earthliberationfront.com/main.shtml

[Tunga]

rleyland wrote

Tunga wrote:

6. Heat with a renewable energy source: wood.


Okay, most of your points are valid, but this one is over the line.

Woodsmoke, while pleasant smelling at a distance, is actually a pretty bad pollutant. It can severely irritate your bronchial passages, and causes breathing difficulties for many people


Most woodburning stoves today have catalytic converters built in to remove harmful pollutants.
Been heating with wood for over 20 years. Modern wood stoves have energy efficiency ratings comparible with natural gas furnaces. If you purchase the wood instead of cutting it for yourself, it cost around $200 per year to heat my house. In my neck of the woods that is 1/5 the cost of fuel oil or electricity. And it is renewable. An acre of forest will produce a half cord of wood that would other rot if it wasn't used.

[Maha Vailo]

1. Become Amish. No cars, no electricity, ride around in horse and buggy.
2. Weigh you trash and track it. A low impact society will produce around one garbage bag of trash per year.
3. Walk or ride a bicycle.
4. Set thermostat on low during the winter. Keep your bedrooms cooler.
5. Cut your living space by a third. A family of four can live in around 300 square feet. One room can serve as a dining room, living room and bedroom. You would be surprised what sleeper sofas can do. Economy of space.
6. Heat with a renewable energy source: wood.
7. Build an energy efficient house - underground with south facing window wall with overhang.
8. One of the large energy users in a home is the refrigerator/freezer. Special refrigerators exist that reduce energy cost by over 1/2 from the models you find in the stores.
9. Learn food canning. Farmers can live off from a couple thousand quarts of food canned and set aside.
10. Don't consume processed foods. Go with the basics: meat, raw vegetables and fruits.
11. Question the validity of your assumptions. Many of the environmental theories thrust upon civilization as facts are built on weak premises and do not hold up well under scientific scrutiny.

Impossible for me.

1. I don't want to beocme Amish since I like living in the perks of a tecnological world. I just want ways to reduce my impact while living in a modern world, that's all.

2. Produce one bag of trash/year? Are you mad? It can't be done. Show me how it can be done and I will believe you.

3. I'm fine with walking (if it's not too far), but I can't afford a bike. How am I going to carry heavy loads that way? And what about long distances?

4. I live in the tropics, so how is setting my thermostat on low going to help me there?

5. Cut my living space? Where am I going to put all the stuff I own? I can't just throw it away - that would be bad for the environment, too.

6. Can't use a wood-burning stove - I live in an apartment. Besides, if everyone did this, there wouldn't be any trees left to burn, and that wouldn't be good.

7. Can't afford to build a house of my own. And I especially can't build it underground, since the water table where I live is too high.

8. Can't replace the fridge/freezer right now, but I'd like to know where I can get one of these hyper-efficient designs you talk about. Any sources?

9. Where can I learn canning? I'm afraid I might screw it up and poison myself with one of my creations.

10. Only meat, raw fruits, and veggies? What about grains - don't you need them for a healthy lifestyle? Beisdes, I don't have much time to cook all of this. Any ideas as to recipes I can make from scratch in as little time as possible?

11. What do you mean by "question my assumptions?" I'm not sure what all that entails.

I appreciate your concern, Tunga, but I'm afraid that I can't do any of those things right now as I'm broke. Besides, I'm afraid if everyone did what you suggested, the environment would be worse off as we'd have to tear down and throw away most of our existing infrastructure to do it.

- Maha Vailo

[Glom]

ALF were pretty high though.

[Sheki]

I don't think Sluggo is a pesticide. It isn't a poison.

Whoa! Pet peeve alert! Let's look at this for a second:

Slug = pest
Sluggo = substance that kills slugs (a pest)
Pesticide = substance that kills a pest

Thus, Sluggo = pesticide.

Actually, in my neck of the woods the pesticides Legislation quite clearly defines "pesticide" as anything that is or can be used to kill a pest - where a pest is any living thing (other than an infectious agent) that someone decides needs killing. Thus, a flyswatter is a pesticide. Boiling water is a pesticide. Regular water is a pesticide. Compressed air is a pesticide. Sluggo is most definitely a pesticide.

The only difference between most "homegrown" or "organic" pesticides and "commercial" pesticides is that by-and-large commercial pesticides have undergone rigorous ecotoxicology testing and are subject to a variety of regulatory controls. The "homegrown" options are just "presumed safe". One of the classic cases that springs to mind is that some people are very much against using certain herbicides for weed control (because they are "poisonous"). But those same people propose the use of nicotine for weed control as a "safe, organic, non-poisonous" alternative!

As for sluggo not being a "poison" - well one of my favourite quotes springs to mind: "I don't think that I can rightly comprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead to this statement". Sluggo kills slugs right? So how could it not be poisonous?

Hint: basic premise of all toxicology - "the dose makes the poison".

Sorry for the rant. This stuff just really bugs me - pardon the pun!

Sheki

[Glom]

A ha!

Okay, I'll go now.

go GM

[jrkeller]

I don't think Sluggo is a pesticide. It isn't a poison.

Whoa! Pet peeve alert! Let's look at this for a second:

Slug = pest
Sluggo = substance that kills slugs (a pest)
Pesticide = substance that kills a pest

Thus, Sluggo = pesticide.


Then wouldn't salt fall into that category?

[Glom]

Yes, especially as it kills little children who can also be pests. (Where's the evil grin smiley?)

"New McDonalds chicken McNuggets. Now made with tasty chicken breast and less salt."

Now made with tasty chicken breast? What were they made from before? Turkey breast? Or worse?

[mickal555]

Yes, especially as it kills little children who can also be pests. (Where's the evil grin smiley?)

:evil: HERE :evil:

"New McDonalds chicken McNuggets. Now made with tasty chicken breast and less salt."

:^o

Now made with tasty chicken breast? What were they made from before? Turkey breast? Or worse? 8-[

[Sheki]

Then wouldn't salt fall into that category?

Yes. Absolutely. I had even considered listing it as an example in my last post. The point is that EVERYTING is poisonous. Every substance has what is known as an LD# (typically LD50) that is used to qualify how toxic it is. LD50 = Lethal Dose for 50% of the test population. Which is to say you take a test population, say a hundred rats, and the LD 50 is the dose that you have to give each rat that results in 50 of the 100 becoming dead.

Salt toxicity data:

Oral toxicity (The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1986):

Human; TDLo: 12,357 mg/kg/23 D-C
Mouse; LD50: 4,000 mg/kg
Rat; LD50: 3,000 mg/kg
Rabbit; LDLo: 8,000 mg/kg

Acute aquatic toxicity (U.S. EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride, 1988):

Rana Breviceps (frog); No observed effect concentration (NOEC): 400 mg/L.
Daphnia pulex 48-hour LC50 or EC50: 1,470 mg/L
Daphnia magna (water flea); 48 hour EC50: 3,310 mg/L
Myriophyllum spicatum (water ****oil); Phytotoxicity (EC50 for growth): 5,962 mg/L
Pimephales promealas (fathead minnow); 69-hour LC50: 7,650 mg/L
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) LC50 or EC50: 7,846 mg/L
Anguilla rostrata (American eel) 48-hour LC50 or EC 50: 13,085 mg/L


However, there is another (strictly non-technical) definition for "poisonous", wherein a substance is generally not considered to be "poisonous" if there are no negative health effects at expected everyday exposure doses. Eg. using the numbers above, a normal 70kg human would have to ingest about 840 grams of salt to experience a negative effect (not death, just a negative effect). As it is quite unlikely that you would ever eat (almost 2 lbs) of salt in one sitting, it is generally not considered "poisonous". The thing to keep in mind is that pesticides are no different - just because something is designed specifically to act as a poison (eg. a turf pesticide), does not necessarily mean it is more toxic than many everyday items (like salt).

Example:

Turf pesticide (2,4D) toxicity data:
mammals - 639 to >5000 mg/kg

Obviously more toxic than salt, but still in the same ballpark. However, your likely exposure to 2,4D is orders of magnitude less than salt!

http://www.scotts.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=productGuide.productDetails&p artnerId=99999&poeSiteId=10926&strCategoryId=23679 &strProductId=101432&strAdditionalBrandId=&dsvs=F9 7CF8B5-65BF-F00C-0324-C8D621BF2D75,x,x&CFID=6063083&CFTOKEN=46113234

[Tunga]

Maha Vailo wrote:

8. Can't replace the fridge/freezer right now, but I'd like to know where I can get one of these hyper-efficient designs you talk about. Any sources?

Might try the following link:

http://www.sunfrost.com/refrigerators_main.html

[Glom]

Or radiation.

[jrkeller]

Here are some tips that you can use.

1) When you wash clothes only use the necessary amount of water.
2) Close your window blinds to reduce the amount of sun entering your place (for the summer that is). If your working, you won't even be home to notice.
3) Make sure you the air filters and evaporator for your AC are clean. Your apartment complex should do that free of charge.
4) If possible, save the condensate water from your AC unit and water your plants.
5) If you subscibe to a magazine, give it away to someone else. Similarly, borrow magazines from your friends.
6) Instead of buying books, go to the library.
7) Move close to work. I live only a mile away. I only fill up about once a month.
8 Recycle. As has been pointed out, some recycling actually wastes more than it saves. I think Aluminum and most metals are a good bet to recycle.
9) Use online bill paying. I've found that most of my utilities, credit cards and a host of other things now have that service for free. Saves the stamp and the envelopes.
10) Ask junk mailers to stop sending you catalogues. I get stuff from places I never heard of.
11) Get one or have the apartment complex install a programable thermostat. During the time you work, you can have your apartment temperature set a bit higher.
12) Make sure you car tires are inflated to the proper pressure.

[Sheki]

jrkeller:

=D>

I can get behind those. Even if the environmental protection value is debateable for some, they make good economic sense.

Sheki

[Glom]

But think of poor Barnes & Nobles.

If you live a mile away, why the smeg aren't you walking you polluting capitalist? :P

[aurora]

I probably got this off my biochemist friend who is really frustrated at all the obstructionism to GM foods saying that there is nothing wrong with them. He also told me that organic food is the biggest con ever producing food that is neither healthier, higher quality or environmentally friendly despite taking up more space. We both feel victims of the same eco-fallacy.

I guess it works for you though.

Well, I don't know about your "working for me" comment. I would have to disagree with the points that your friend made about organic food, though. Certainly I am not even sure what "taking up more space" is supposed to mean. Unless it means that a compost pile takes up space in order to hold materials while they decompose instead of materials that could be buried in a landfill instead? If so, then yes that is true. And the studies I have seen have indicated that foods that are organic are healthier, pesticides can be pretty nasty.

[aurora]

Thus, Sluggo = pesticide.


Then wouldn't salt fall into that category?

In my world, things like salt and water are not pesticides. Yes, in large quantities they can kill creatures (and too much salt on the sidewalk can kill the lawn), but certainly most people wouldn't think of them as poisons. Nor would they fit a reasonable definition of pesticide.

Disclaimer: I know little about the laws in Canada regarding pesticide use or definition.

[mike alexander]

Just intelligently apply what PJ O'Rourke called the Circumcision Principle: you can take 10% off just about anything.

Things our family do. Nothing big, but:

Consolidate car trips. Saves gas AND time.

Cook dinners for several days and reheat portions in microwave. Saves energy AND time.

Use both sides of the paper. This is especially good for student's scrap paper.

Recycle metal, especially aluminum (already mentioned).

WATCH WHAT COMES IN. The best recycling is what doesn't go in the waste stream to begin with. Packaging is my particular tick. Especially that bubble-pack plastic that could double as shields on the Enterprise.

Track usages. Like a scale in the bathroom, we watch the KWhours on our electric bill and see where we can turn things off/down, then watch for a change. This can provide positive feedback.

[Sheki]

Aurora,

In my world, things like salt and water are not pesticides.

I see. Well, all I can offer is that every dictionary definition that I can find for "pesticide" indicates the same thing: "a chemical that is used to kill pests". Not surprizing when you look at the root word components "pest" (an injurious organism) and "cide" (from the latin for "killer"). Perhaps in your world water and salt are not chemicals?

I hate to harp at you about this, but it is an important point: Just because something is familiar to you, does not mean it is harmless. Conversely, just because something is unfamiliar does not make it dangerous. Obviously, salt and water are the "examples absurdum", but the principle is no less sound.

You also said:
I would have to disagree with the points that your friend made about organic food, though. Certainly I am not even sure what "taking up more space" is supposed to mean. Unless it means that a compost pile takes up space in order to hold materials while they decompose instead of materials that could be buried in a landfill instead?

While this is not really my issue, as a point of clarification about "space" used for "organic" vs. "conventional" farming, consider crop yields. If you take a look at organically farmed goods, they are typically smaller (smaller apples, smaller bananas, etc.). Also, the number of produce items per plant is typically lower, and the number of plants that you can successfully grow on a spot of ground is typically less (all arguable points I guess, but I'll let Glom go down that road if he likes). Thus, it has been argued that you can get significantly more produce from an acre of conventional farmland than from an acre of organic farmland. Consequently, if you want to feed the same number of people, you need more "organic" farmland than you would need if you used conventional methods. I believe the rest of the arguement centers around the environmental effects of converting more pristine lands into organic agriculture vs. the potential negative environmental effects from comparatively low-acreage, pesticide and chemical fertilizer intensive conventional agriculture.


Sheki

[Ilya]

The amount of packaging on food beggars belief at times, especially on readymade food. Or individually portioned food... Layers and layers of lovely plastics, ready to spend years in a landfill.


Years, yes... then they oxidize and disintegrate. One of the most widespread (although relatively harmless) environmental misconceptions is "plastic is forever". Except for fluorocarbon kind, plastics DO degrade, especially when exposed to sunlight. It just takes them on the order of 20 years to disintegrate, which is rather longer than most people's attention span - also much longer than disintegration time for most animal and plant products. Hence "plastic is forever" fallacy.

Unless immersed in water, paper lasts much longer than most plastics.

[frogesque]

Ilya wrote:

snip ....
Unless immersed in water, paper lasts much longer than most plastics.

I would have to disagree there. Paper, essentially wood cellulose, readily breaks down on my compost heap but 40 micron plastic crisp (potato chip) bags will last in pristine condition when protected from sunlight. Fungi mycelia are very efficient recycling agents for almost all bio derived waste if the heap is kept well turned and aerated but they aren't much use on plastic. Landfill sites are just that, land you tip waste on, bury, forget and hope it goes away.

[royb]

Hi Maha, You ask how to attain a low impact life style.

OK! The technology is out there. The technology is not difficult. What is difficult is to get systems together. Man wastes energy through being tied to current practices.

The last thing anybody should do is burn fossil fuel simply to generate heat for heat’s sake. Future generations will laugh (or cry) when they read that we simply burnt fossil fuel in boilers, no matter how efficient.

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) CONNECTED TO A HEAT PUMP.
If you have fossil fuel, the best thing to do with it is to use it in a generator to generate electricity. If you want space heating you use the waste heat from the generator. If you need more space heating you use the electricity to run a heat pump. Not familair with CHP, it's just generating electicity without wasting the heat. (How basic is that?)

How does a heat pump work?. A heat pump is basically the same as the compressor unit in a refrigerator. It is far more efficient to use power to move heat from a place where it is of no benefit to a place where you want it, than it is to convert that power directly to heat. A typical heat pump will enable you to obtain 4KW of heat from 1KW of electrical energy. In winter you can typically obtain the spare heat from air, a river, underground strata etc. The technology of heat pumps is roughly 100 years old (dating back to the first refrigerator based upon a compressor).

Nevertheless the concept of a heat pump (no matter how simple) is not widely understood and that is probably the main reason they are not ubiquitous.

Using CHP with a heat pump, it is possible to obtain 500% improvement in efficiency compared to a fossil fuel power station or the best condensing boiler.

The only reason that a heat pump costs more than a few hundred dollars, is that they are rarely used and therefore do not benefit from mass production. Likewise the CHP.

HYBRID AND ELECTRIC CARS
Other ways to save fossil fuel would be to use sensible electric or hybrid cars. (Not the high performance Toyota Prius, that is merely a sop to low impact life style. To be taken seriously, the Prius would at least need to be provided with a means of charging the battery from the mains and a larger battery to increase its range under battery power alone. As it stands the Prius is a just a very nice rich mans toy. Sensible electric or hybrid cars could be charged from a CHP unit when it is running to provide space heating. IE the heat is then free.

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS
All of the above technology has been known for more than 50 years. During this time much more development effort could have been put into storing energy from electricity and fuel cells. The easiest way to store energy from electricity is to generate hydrogen, but we are not very good yet at storing hydrogen and even worse at using hydrogen in fuel cells. In principle hydrogen generator cells could cost only a few tens of dollars. (We are simply talking electrolysis here.)

SOLAR WATER HEATING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS
At present photovoltaic cells are too expensive to be of much use. However in Florida with all your sunshine, you should not be burning any fossil fuels to provide domestic hot water. I don’t know the situation in Florida, but I imagine that in a technically advanced state with plenty of sunshine, low-tech water solar heating panels would be the norm. (It would be the intelligent thing to install with a quick payback of the installation cost).

WIND TURBINES
Another low technology solution would be to install relatively small wind turbines at all convenient locations. These could feed power into the grid. At present small wind turbine are prohibitively expensive. Made in sufficient quantities they would be cheap enough to pay back the investment in one, two or three years. Thereafter electricity would be FREE.

AIR-CONDITIONING
Air-conditioning is a killer in terms of carbon emissions. This is especially true since China is now overtaking the US in terms of numbers of units installed. I think the Chinese now manufacture more units than the rest of the world put together. (They have already undercut Western manufacturers prices by more than a factor of 10)

THERMAL MASS HELPS AIR CONDITIONING.
The answer is to design or modify buildings so that they require a minimum of cooling. Things to do are to provide external shading of windows, good insulation,Heat Recovery ventilation and Intelligent control of ventilation. (This can be as simple as windows open at night and closed during the day.) Intelligent use of high thermal mass within the building should be used to smooth thermal variations. (Think in terms of a matrix of water filled tubes, or stone blocks, over which air is circulated night and day as required.)

HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATION.
This works in summer and winter. A heat exchanger preserves the differential between outside and inside temperatures. There is a downside that the internal air humidity is reduced in winter and raised in summer and therefore should be treated with some caution under extreme conditions. (Nobody wants very high humidity on a hot day no matter how low the temperature is maintained.) Unfortunately few people are aware of heat recovery ventilation, the key component is a large heat exchanger.

TRAVEL.
In Europe we burn huge amounts of fossil fuel transporting people across the globe so that they can simply lie on a beach in the sun applying sun-block to avoid skin cancer etc. Or more likely they huddle in the shade, consuming iced drinks just to stay cool. Even worse, Richard Branson is promoting Space Flight Tourism. How many forests would you need to offset a cheap thrill space flight. In general the more we avoid travel and traffic congestion the better all round.

BUILT IN OBSOLESCENCE AND RECYCLING
This speaks for itself. Try to avoid upgrading your computer, TV etc. every year and chucking out the old one. Resist that plastic and electronic gadgetry that you will only play with a few times. I know your drawers are cluttered with Gismos that you have forgotten about. Selling on Ebay is a great idea. That is the best form of recycling.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS
One of the best investments ever for harnessing the power of the sun is a packet of seeds. These will grow you wood for your stove, plus much else (food, bio-fuels). This is the age-old nature’s solution to sustainability. Don’t knock it.

In short there are a myriad ways in which man can better attain sustainability. It requires a complete rethink of everything. We need to step back from ingrained practices and vested interests and start more or less from the beginning. It is all very easy in detail but very difficult in the coordination. First man needs the will attain sustainability. There is no alternative in the longer term. Think what the word sustainability means.

[mike alexander]

At least a generation ago Arthur Clarke pointed out that, given its value as a feedstock for so many processes and products, burning petroleum is somewhere between blind and idiotic.

[HenrikOlsen]

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) CONNECTED TO A HEAT PUMP.
If you have fossil fuel, the best thing to do with it is to use it in a generator to generate electricity.
NONONOONONO, if you have fossil fuel you use it as the basis for plastic.
Burning it, or even calling it fuel is just plain shortsighted stupidity.

Future generations will laugh (or cry) when they read that we simply burnt fossil fuel in boilers, no matter how efficient.
Future generations will laugh (or cry) when they read that we simply burnt fossil fuel. Period.

[Maksutov]

I've read many articles on the Internet that suggest that our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign resources is wrecking the environment. Therefor, I'd like to live my life by consuming as few resources as possible. Any suggestions as how to live a low-impact life?

Your input will be greatly appreciated.

- Maha Vailo1. Practice birth control. Fewer people means less demand on resources.

2. mike mentioned P. J. O'Rourke. He wrote a book called Give War A Chance. Nothing like a reduction in the general population to achieve results similar to that aimed for in item 1.

3. Stop using your computer. If you don't turn it on then you won't be consuming electricity, which means that l

[farmerjumperdon]

Suggestions/thoughts:

Don't eat meat.

That seems like an odd solution. Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of humans. Even if it does have some sort of beneficial effect, it would be as a "patch" over some other destructive behavior. (If eating meat is the problem, then we should have went extinct long ago).

[farmerjumperdon]

Hi Maha, You ask how to attain a low impact life style.

OK! The technology is out there. The technology is not difficult. What is difficult is to get systems together. Man wastes energy through being tied to current practices.

The last thing anybody should do is burn fossil fuel simply to generate heat for heat’s sake. Future generations will laugh (or cry) when they read that we simply burnt fossil fuel in boilers, no matter how efficient.

COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP) CONNECTED TO A HEAT PUMP.
If you have fossil fuel, the best thing to do with it is to use it in a generator to generate electricity. If you want space heating you use the waste heat from the generator. If you need more space heating you use the electricity to run a heat pump. Not familair with CHP, it's just generating electicity without wasting the heat. (How basic is that?)

How does a heat pump work?. A heat pump is basically the same as the compressor unit in a refrigerator. It is far more efficient to use power to move heat from a place where it is of no benefit to a place where you want it, than it is to convert that power directly to heat. A typical heat pump will enable you to obtain 4KW of heat from 1KW of electrical energy. In winter you can typically obtain the spare heat from air, a river, underground strata etc. The technology of heat pumps is roughly 100 years old (dating back to the first refrigerator based upon a compressor).

Nevertheless the concept of a heat pump (no matter how simple) is not widely understood and that is probably the main reason they are not ubiquitous.

Using CHP with a heat pump, it is possible to obtain 500% improvement in efficiency compared to a fossil fuel power station or the best condensing boiler.

The only reason that a heat pump costs more than a few hundred dollars, is that they are rarely used and therefore do not benefit from mass production. Likewise the CHP.

HYBRID AND ELECTRIC CARS
Other ways to save fossil fuel would be to use sensible electric or hybrid cars. (Not the high performance Toyota Prius, that is merely a sop to low impact life style. To be taken seriously, the Prius would at least need to be provided with a means of charging the battery from the mains and a larger battery to increase its range under battery power alone. As it stands the Prius is a just a very nice rich mans toy. Sensible electric or hybrid cars could be charged from a CHP unit when it is running to provide space heating. IE the heat is then free.

HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS
All of the above technology has been known for more than 50 years. During this time much more development effort could have been put into storing energy from electricity and fuel cells. The easiest way to store energy from electricity is to generate hydrogen, but we are not very good yet at storing hydrogen and even worse at using hydrogen in fuel cells. In principle hydrogen generator cells could cost only a few tens of dollars. (We are simply talking electrolysis here.)

SOLAR WATER HEATING AND PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS
At present photovoltaic cells are too expensive to be of much use. However in Florida with all your sunshine, you should not be burning any fossil fuels to provide domestic hot water. I don’t know the situation in Florida, but I imagine that in a technically advanced state with plenty of sunshine, low-tech water solar heating panels would be the norm. (It would be the intelligent thing to install with a quick payback of the installation cost).

WIND TURBINES
Another low technology solution would be to install relatively small wind turbines at all convenient locations. These could feed power into the grid. At present small wind turbine are prohibitively expensive. Made in sufficient quantities they would be cheap enough to pay back the investment in one, two or three years. Thereafter electricity would be FREE.

AIR-CONDITIONING
Air-conditioning is a killer in terms of carbon emissions. This is especially true since China is now overtaking the US in terms of numbers of units installed. I think the Chinese now manufacture more units than the rest of the world put together. (They have already undercut Western manufacturers prices by more than a factor of 10)

THERMAL MASS HELPS AIR CONDITIONING.
The answer is to design or modify buildings so that they require a minimum of cooling. Things to do are to provide external shading of windows, good insulation,Heat Recovery ventilation and Intelligent control of ventilation. (This can be as simple as windows open at night and closed during the day.) Intelligent use of high thermal mass within the building should be used to smooth thermal variations. (Think in terms of a matrix of water filled tubes, or stone blocks, over which air is circulated night and day as required.)

HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATION.
This works in summer and winter. A heat exchanger preserves the differential between outside and inside temperatures. There is a downside that the internal air humidity is reduced in winter and raised in summer and therefore should be treated with some caution under extreme conditions. (Nobody wants very high humidity on a hot day no matter how low the temperature is maintained.) Unfortunately few people are aware of heat recovery ventilation, the key component is a large heat exchanger.

TRAVEL.
In Europe we burn huge amounts of fossil fuel transporting people across the globe so that they can simply lie on a beach in the sun applying sun-block to avoid skin cancer etc. Or more likely they huddle in the shade, consuming iced drinks just to stay cool. Even worse, Richard Branson is promoting Space Flight Tourism. How many forests would you need to offset a cheap thrill space flight. In general the more we avoid travel and traffic congestion the better all round.

BUILT IN OBSOLESCENCE AND RECYCLING
This speaks for itself. Try to avoid upgrading your computer, TV etc. every year and chucking out the old one. Resist that plastic and electronic gadgetry that you will only play with a few times. I know your drawers are cluttered with Gismos that you have forgotten about. Selling on Ebay is a great idea. That is the best form of recycling.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS
One of the best investments ever for harnessing the power of the sun is a packet of seeds. These will grow you wood for your stove, plus much else (food, bio-fuels). This is the age-old nature’s solution to sustainability. Don’t knock it.

In short there are a myriad ways in which man can better attain sustainability. It requires a complete rethink of everything. We need to step back from ingrained practices and vested interests and start more or less from the beginning. It is all very easy in detail but very difficult in the coordination. First man needs the will attain sustainability. There is no alternative in the longer term. Think what the word sustainability means.

The wind turbine would not pay back that shortly; at least not in my case. Maybe for some very narrowly defined or special case installation. I've checked out the cost of purchase, installation, and maintenance. It might, just might, pay back in my lifetime. (I'm 51). And it is never free. Equipment needs repair, batteries do not last forever, my time is worth more than nothing, etc. I figured my payback period to be about 15 to 20 years if nothing significant breaks and if the batteries last that long. This would probably be about the time the major components of the system start becoming unuseable and it would be time to upgrade to the latest technology, . . . again.

Might be better for the environment, but lands on me as an individual as a huge burden. I think the better approach is to focus on new construction, phasing in new technologies rather than forcing expensive retrofits on older homes.

[farmerjumperdon]

1. Practice birth control. Fewer people means less demand on resources.

2. mike mentioned P. J. O'Rourke. He wrote a book called Give War A Chance. Nothing like a reduction in the general population to achieve results similar to that aimed for in item 1.

3. Stop using your computer. If you don't turn it on then you won't be consuming electricity, which means that l

Off topic a bit - but IMO he is one of the better writers of our times. And funny to boot. My favorites: Parliament of Whores and Republican Party Reptile. Great stuff.

[ToSeek]

Now made with tasty chicken breast? What were they made from before? Turkey breast? Or worse?

Tasteless chicken breast?

[farmerjumperdon]

Tasteless chicken breast?

Probably worse. Most likely much worse.

[mugaliens]

Thanks, folks, but I live in an apartment and can't afford to move into/build a new house of my own. I'll take something like that into account when I do move out of my house, though.

I can do a little bit of organic gardening in the backyard, though (beats the heck out of paying through the nose for it in the supermarket). Also, there is a compost pile where I work.

Am I screwed then?

- Maha Vailo

1. Buy fresh fruits and vegetables instead of prepackaged food. Less energy, less waste.

2. Mend clothes instead of throwing them away.

3. Keep the thermostat lower in winter, warmer in summer.

Either that or live in a cave...

[Maksutov]

[edit]Either that or live in a cave...But all the good caves have already been taken by persons from Washington State and that place just to the south.

[Ronald Brak]

Switch from consuming what you earn to investing it. This expands the economy and improves the rate of technological development. In general, the richer the economy the more willing people are to protect the environment. The faster scientific and technological development, the more environmentally friendly options will be available for filling our wants and needs. (Try to avoid investing in things that produce a lot of filth.)

[Noclevername]

Depends entirely on how much change you're willing to make. You could live on just what you can grow/make (would require learning a LOT of skills; organic gardening/farming, candle and soapmaking, food preservation, etc.)-- think Amish lifestyle. It would require being a full-time farmer an craftsmaker, but would be as close to zero-impact as possible (hunter-gatherers aren't really practical in a world full of six billion). Or you can go lesser routes, depending on what you can afford and are willing to change.

[mugaliens]

As for sluggo not being a "poison"...



By that line of reasoning, the small strainer I use to corral moths which keep getting in the way of my watching movies is a pesticide.

More power to it!

[Gillianren]

Did no one notice that this thread was resurrected from 2004?

[Noclevername]

Did no one notice that this thread was resurrected from 2004?


That even beats my record for thread archeology!

[mugaliens]

Yes. Absolutely. I had even considered listing it as an example in my last post. The point is that EVERYTING is poisonous.

Wow.

Someone here seems to be quite worried.

Every substance has what is known as an LD# (typically LD50) that is used to qualify how toxic it is. LD50 = Lethal Dose for 50% of the test population. Which is to say you take a test population, say a hundred rats, and the LD 50 is the dose that you have to give each rat that results in 50 of the 100 becoming dead.

Salt toxicity data

Ok, let's break this up. Everything vital to the human body, including water, oxygen, and glucose is toxic. It's all about proportions.

[Noclevername]

Mmmm... Toxic glucose...

[cbacba]

Wow.

Someone here seems to be quite worried.



Ok, let's break this up. Everything vital to the human body, including water, oxygen, and glucose is toxic. It's all about proportions.

I would carry a coin with two sayings on it were one to be available that describes it all.

Side 1 - Everything is poisonous, it's only the does that varies.

Side 2 - That which does not kill you, makes you stronger.

As for low impact, one can determine that what ever is bought contains to some extent, its cost to society as part of the amount paid. Some is profit, the rest - cost of production - tends to indicate what the cost was to society. This is assuming that one is shopping for the best price and not just paying exhorbitantly to purchase a 'brand name'.

What that tends to mean is if you buy a solar panel system that costs more money (at best competitive pricing) than it can produce in electricity - then the odds are - it's a bad deal for the buyer and an overall negative contribution to society.

[HenrikOlsen]

Side 1 - Everything is poisonous, it's only the does that varies.
With a picture of Bambi's mother on it:)

[neilzero]

Most of the above are good sugestions, but don't try to do all of them, or you will become discouraged and frustrated. ie I think 79 degrees f is cold, so I save a lot in the summer, and huddle by my wood stove much of the winter. I burn mostly limbs that fall from my neighbor's trees, so I am reducing the filling of landfills, even though my stove produces some polution and carbon dioxide. Neil

[Spock Jenkins]

I doubt the OP is around to read this - so being a smart alec isn't as fun, but here goes:

Move to a warm climate. Find a nice empty cave. Gather grains, berries, and fruit in season. Kill your own meat with stone tools. Of course in half a million years - people will still know you were there because of your trash.

[Noclevername]

Live off-Earth. Then you'll have zero impact on the planet (unless you're a really bad navigator ;))