Tuesday 7/21/09 Gulu, Uganda
I came across this blog post the other day when it showed up on my WordPress Blog Stats page. In it, Kirsty, a woman traveling around the world indefinitely while earning a web-generated income, profiles 24 travelers on strange and/or inspiring trips. Because she included Teacherontwowheels in her list, I saw her website listed as one that sent me some web traffic.
Reading through the different profiles, I felt honored to be included on a list with a traveler walking around the world for 10+ years, one unicycling across Canada for a few months, and a couple who spent three years walking the length of Africa, to name a few. The list is heavy on human-powered travelers, and for this, it takes on a certain degree of awesome-ness in my book. 
Check out the list here.
This past week, I also received an email from Tripbase.com, a travel-help website. Tripbase decided Teacherontwowheels was the third best “low carbon blog” on the net in 2009. I’m not sure what this means exactly, but regardless, you can read about it over here.
It’s funny: I often think of bike travel not as a means to a low carbon end, but instead as simply the best way to travel. I see the bike as a tool that allows a traveler to meet people, smell food, feel air, hear birds (and Hellos! and Good mornings!), and…well…feel alive. Originally, the fact that bike travel was a no-carbon affair was only a secondary benefit for me when considering whether or not to travel long-term by bike. The opportunity for slow travel, the way that cycling makes you vulnerable and exposed to people you meet by the roadside, and the solitude and thought-time that the bike affords a traveler were some of the main perks that originally pulled me to the bicycle.
Once I started riding, though, after I watched smoke-spewing ‘chicken buses’ in Guatemala rocket past me at the speed of sound, after I nearly choked to death pulling into different capital cities, I started thinking more and more about the importance of low carbon travel. (Pius, you’ll be happy to know that talks about your solar-powered car projects set my brain spinning about this, as well! So thank you!)
Now, having seen how easy it can be to knock out 10 miles or so on a bike once your body has built up muscle endurance, I find it frightening that so many people around the world don’t commute by bike AND know about the way in which Earth is spiraling into new, chaotic climate frontiers. That healthy intelligent people find ways to justify car use for short commutes to work is nothing short of baffling.
Some people today still consume gas, jackets, cars, phones, computers, steaks, TVs, and heaps more as if the world is a bottomless pit of magical resources. It’s not. We know this. Yet people still turn a blind eye to it. The time for this type of selective ignorance has long been over, in my opinion. Human-caused climate change is no joke. The world is peppered with climate-change-related conflicts, every one real enough, grave enough, and blood-soaked enough to convince anyone of the consequences (and consumer responsibility) involved in over-consumption.
With companies like eBay, Better World Books, Craigslist, Amazon, and others that offer smart secondhand buying options, it’s almost impossible to think of any good reason to buy certain items new. I bought a new computer in Ecuador last year for fear of inheriting someone else’s viruses/computer problems via a used one, and I still feel bad about it when I turn the thing on in the morning. Whenever possible, I buy used not because it’s always cheaper (which it is anyway), but because as a guest on Planet Earth, as someone who believes in the relatedness between all things and man’s existence as a creature at the mercy of the natural world in which he lives, it’s the only right thing to do. Doing anything else equates to shooting myself and my future generations of kin in the feet.
If you must buy new, check out the companies that are creating products consciously. Clothing companies like Patagonia and American Apparel make clothes that last decades, use sustainably grown materials, employ workers at fair salaries, and allocate percentages of yearly revenues to positive environmental and social causes. (Patagonia is even striving to create clothing that can be infinitely recyclable. This means a single shirt could be recycled without adding new materials to it. Think of the implications of this!!!) Hearing of new companies listening to the call of the wild (and the call of the money-wielding thoughtful consumer) is exciting—it reminds me that the world isn’t quite slave to foresight-less, profit-driven companies. There’s hope. But it starts with your dollars and the way you spend them.
Your thoughts on this? I’m curious to hear what readers think about some of these issues, especially those of you who disagree with me. If you consider yourself a heavy consumer of stuff, how do you reconcile your actions with what you know about issues like climate change, the Earth’s resource potential, and your position in the universe? (I know, that’s a big question!) For those of you who agree with me on this, what powerful events/conversations/books/movies helped turn you on to this type of thinking? Where did it start?
Leave your responses as comments to this post. Of course, like always, anonymous comments are also welcome.
Sorta off topic, but since you mentioned it, have you had much luck getting amazon/half.com/ebay books shipped to you abroad? Sometimes I can barely get people to ship to my US p.o. box, and sometimes people will ship to moving target general delivery addresses. That’s one of my biggest dislikes of RTW backpacking… lack of ready access to the exact cheap book I want, when I want it.
By: anon mouse on July 21, 2009
at 5:27 pm
http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/product/mens-wavefarer-board-shorts-surf?p=86554-0-193
I think that’s all I need to say to make my argument.
By: Brian on July 21, 2009
at 5:58 pm
What’s up Bri? What’s the point you’re trying to make—-they make ugly stuff?!
(If so, I agree that those shorts are pretty ugly!) Could you elaborate?
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 22, 2009
at 5:48 am
Global warming/climate change/whatever they decide to call it next after their latest predictions don’t pan out, is a scam scam scam. Climate change conflicts, ha ha. There was world peace before industrialization? You need to understand that life for humans was much worse/shorter/brutal/impoverished before the industrial revolution. Wars will be much worse if you get your way. Carbon emissions are good for trees. The sea levels didn’t rise like they said they would. It’s a power grab and a fraud.
By: climate change is bogus on July 21, 2009
at 7:47 pm
Dear Climate Change is Bogus,
I would have sent you my response via email, but you didn’t provide one.
I’m not sure what to respond to and what to ignore in this post (I already edited your post to remove a bunch of different words unsuitable for a site with student readership).
If you honestly believe climate change is not happening and you’ve read what the scientific community has agreed upon and continues to agree upon, you are amongst a small minority of people who have decided to ignore the issue for one reason or another. Based on your post (and the words I had to edit out of it), I suspect climate change does not fit into your political or ideological philosophy. Is this true?
You seem skeptical that climate change can affect global conflicts. Look no further than Darfur today to see how water scarcity is affecting modern society. I’d like you to attempt to tell a Sudanese refugee to his face that life today is not as ‘brutal’ as it once was. Are leg and arm amputations-by-machete not ‘brutal’? Have your ears or lips been cut from your head by the rusty blade of a panga? I’m sorry, but you, from behind the shield of the developed world and all its comfort and excess, have the luxury to jest about such things.
Try to explain to a member of a remote tribe in the Amazon or a community living in near-isolation in the Ecuadorian Andes that contemporary urban living is superior—in terms of multi-century/millennia sustainability, health for its citizens, effect on the planet—to the way people used to live (and still continue to live) in autonomous agrarian/jungle communities. Members of such communities have an advantage that you and I don’t have: They can look at their own society and its history and know—truly know—that the infrastructural systems they have in place will last over the long haul. How long will a skyscraper stand? Can you tell me in any sort of certain terms?
Does a long life automatically equate to a good one, as you imply? Would an octogenarian kept alive by an expansive daily drug cocktail and living a life of solitude in a nursing home agree with this idea?
You throw around the word ‘impoverished’ as if it were some basic, no-strings-attached adjective. Do you really understand what this word means? Have you spoken with people living in extreme poverty and seen that the word ‘impoverished’ fails to describe the totality of their human experience? People are more than the sum of their material possessions. Wouldn’t you rather be materially impoverished and be content with a sound spiritual and familial orientation than be materially wealthy yet morally and spiritually bankrupt? I’m afraid I know how you’ll respond to this question based on your post, but I’ll pose it anyway.
You write that carbon emissions are ‘good for trees’. Are you referring to a tree’s potential to convert CO2 to oxygen? If so, answer me this: How closely do trees rely on the planet for their survival? Isn’t it safe to safe to say that, because trees (like all living things) need the planet to maintain their survival, what is bad for the planet is also bad for trees? What is bad for the planet is also bad for mice, grass, iPod-assembly-line-workers, dogs, fish, and every other living thing?
I guess that’s the real issue at the heart of your implications: You believe in the illusion of human autonomy. You think humans can exist independently of the environment that spawned them. Am I reading you inaccurately or is this safe to say?
All the best,
Andrew
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 22, 2009
at 6:47 am
Now I feel like everyone is ganging up on Andrew. Sorry, Buddy.
My disdain wasn’t for the fashion but the prices. Tell me the average earthling can afford $55 board shorts. Eighty five dollars for “M’s Retrograde Pants”. Andy, the average Saudi Prince can hardly afford these threads.
I think your exact quote is, Think of the implications of this!!!”
The only implication I see is those shorts making Brad Pitt look like a doofus in the next beach scene he shoots.
I’m not putting down the idea of Patagonia or any other business trying to reduce their impact on the planet. I’m questioning the ones that seem to cater to the upper echelons of society. Seems fishy that they’re trying to bring eco-consciousness to the masses by opening up shop on Rodeo. The whole eco-friendly movement costs too much to the average person. Even some of the above average people (whatever that means).
And, Yes, Andy! I know you’re just frothing at the mouth to start rattling off many cheap and effective (and affective) ways to save this planet that carts us through the universe as it cruises through time/space. But that’s not what we hear about. It’s not what we see. We see hybrids starting at $15k. We see organic vegetables costing exponentially more than their processed and canned counterpart. We see Celebrities gallivanting around, sipping Champagne Cattier’s Armand de Brignac at some benefit on P Diddy’s yacht.
Hopefully, we also see the horizon. It’s catching on. Hybrids will start appearing in the used lots. And, with the work we’re doing now, some changes will be made. Maybe not with us but with our poor kids. Just think, our parents probably added lead to the gasoline of their first car. Maybe our children will learn to drive without any gas in theirs.
Please respond on this forum because I’d like to hear anyone’s opinion on this.
By: Brian on July 22, 2009
at 7:57 am
Hey Bri,
I totally agree: The fact that some of these seemingly good things cost so much money makes you wonder exactly what the hell is going on: Are ‘green’ things simply things that earn opportunistic green companies more money than they’d normally be able to charge producing run-of-the-mill products? For most companies in the green category, I don’t think this is what’s going on. Instead, I think the main culprit behind high-priced green products is the fact that this is an emerging industry/philosophy. As such, companies aren’t selling enough yet to make green stuff cheaper than conventional stuff.
Take organics as an example: Organic produce is still expensive in your supermarket because it’s not what everyone’s buying yet AND, at least right now, it is still genuinely more expensive to produce than genetically modified, ‘conventionally grown’ veggies. If everyone started buying organic, though, there would be profit incentive for companies to invest in refining the organic growing process, to grow organic produce, and to get organic stuff to customers at competitive prices. Are customers solely responsible for initiating this shift, for getting companies to change the product options they offer? I think they need to play a huge part in it, but companies, as years pass and the environmental issues affecting us swell and mutate into nastier and nastier things, will have to take initiative and find ways in which making profit overlaps with doing good. They’ll have to do this preemptively to stay ahead of the buying curve, to keep themselves in the market. If they don’t, they’ll GM-and-Chrysler themselves out of business, finding themselves a decade behind more perceptive competitors in regards to product development .
So, in short, it’s still expensive because it hasn’t caught on yet the way other more harmful products have caught on. There aren’t enough companies making green products for those products to be produced both cheaply and in ways that are evolving toward higher and higher levels of efficiency.
I’m hopeful, though: Our generation is acknowledging the consumption issue and looking for ways forward. When our parents’ generation was younger, it never even dreamed these things would be emerging into the forefront of human consciousness the way they are today. A spray-on paint-like material that turns any surface into a solar conductor? This would have blown people’s minds 40 years ago. I’m hopeful.
I know: $55 US is a lot to pay for board shorts. But, think of that price in these terms: What cost do consumers and the planet pay when crappy, short-lifespan products are produced and sold? If every five years you buy a new pair of swim trunks at $15 US from Wal-Mart, a product that came from a non-regulated factory in the developing world, is the overall cost to you and the environment actually greater over time than if you had made a single $55 US purchase from a company that was operating with more than profits in mind?
The infinitely recyclable product is exciting. Industries could shift from resource extraction and manipulation (with the end product as an ultimate goal) to charging customers a fee that would allow them to use the recycling process. You’d pay a single up-front fee to buy an infinitely recyclable product from Patagonia, for example, and then when your shirt broke down, you’d pay Patagonia to turn it into a new one. It’s a crazy idea, but no crazier than solar cells must have seemed to people in the early 1900s.
Thanks for the comment,
A
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 22, 2009
at 9:49 am
I can’t think of the price in those terms. It’s still the immediate impact on your wallet of $55 vs. $15. What are your students in Uganda wearing? Ask them if they would buy shorts from Patagonia. Is their response really any different than someone in Camden? They simply can’t afford this lifestyle. Your carbon footprint is the least of your concerns when your heat gets shutoff in the winter. You don’t see a soulless corporation preying on impoverished minorities when you step into McDonald’s. It’s the only meal in your price range.
I hate to say it but the only way the green movement can catch on for people in this situation is when it’s either the only option because of the law or if they don’t even know it’s happening. The latter is what I’d like to see. Walmart changing it’s business model to achieve a more global and eco-conscious view from the rest of the world. McDonald’s offering all natural burgers. Patagonia selling their clothes at prices that don’t require one to give up eating for a week to buy.
By: Brian on July 22, 2009
at 2:40 pm
Hey Bri,
Everyone here in Gulu wears secondhand clothing that’s shipped here from the United States. The only clothes that make it here are clothes that stores and charities in the US don’t want. American fashion from the 80s and 90s is alive and well in Gulu. When I came to Gulu, I had nothing but cycling clothing and had to buy work clothes. I now come to work each day in collared shirts and khakis that have traveled thousands of miles from their original purchasers. Just as trash from the developed world is sold to scavenging countries in the developing world, so is its clothing. The cycle of global stuff is fascinating. A shirt made in Honduras, sold in the US, and then shipped back down to Honduras as un-wanted secondhand clothing could feasibly end up on the back of the worker who made it. The money, of course, involved in the transactions connected with the shirt doesn’t flow so fluidly and instead stays in the coffers of the country importing the new goods.
I don’t think I’d ever expect someone living in extreme poverty to say they’d spend money they don’t really have on an expensive luxury item like a $55 pair of board shorts. Those people don’t have the opportunity to make those kinds of choices. In developing countries, the change will have to be top-down change, with the government regulating (and greening) industry. Resisting governments in developing countries could be pressured into regulating destructive industries. This pressure could be applied by trade partners and/or the UN in the form of embargoes and the tightening of development/military support funds.
But yeah, I agree that it’s probably going to take legislation to force many companies to change. By their nature, corporations are only beholden to their shareholders. No partnerships with the environment or their customers are inherent in their organizational DNA. Because of this, some strong-arming on behalf of the government is going to be required to initiate change. In my opinion, though, this is one of the most appropriate scenarios that calls for government regulation. This is an example of a way in which the government can step in to protect its citizens on an issue that is slowly creeping beyond control of the citizenry.
If corporations find ways to legally operate in ways that could potentially ravage the planet for the global community, shouldn’t governments be able to step in and regulate? If, despite shifts in consumer consciousness and spending habits (shifts that beg companies to get greener), companies still continue to operate in ways that will bring about apocalyptic devastation in the future, shouldn’t governments step in and force change? I agree with you on this.
I disagree with you on the McDonald’s example: You DO see a corporation preying on its customers when you watch a family eat toxic food in a McDonald’s restaurant. Let me explain. You used the Hey-it’s-the-only-meal-in-their-price-range argument. But why is that? Why is a Big Mac the cheapest thing they can get their hands on? (Which, by the way, it isn’t: No matter how you spin it, groceries and home cooked food will always be cheaper than food purchased in restaurants, even fast food. A family of four can eat for $12—15 US at McDonald’s, right? For that same price, I could cook you a hearty meal that’s far healthier than fast food for the same number of people.) Anyway, like I said: Why is a Big Mac the seemingly cheapest option for people? It’s so cheap because the corporation went to great lengths to change the way the grain was grown that they use in the buns; the cows were pumped full of hormones that caused them to mature faster (and hence make to the slaughterhouse sooner) than they normally would; and the pickles and tomatoes were genetically altered to make them larger and more robust than they normally would be. Isn’t this preying on the consumer??? Knowingly delving into such audacious, unnatural practices can only be classified as preying. Like any compnay, they make their product as cheap as possible within a quality spectrum in the hopes that it would appeal to the largest number of consumers, of course, but they also make it as cheap as possible knowing that a huge demographic of Americans feel as though they can afford nothing else. Tapping into this low-income customer base KNOWING that you’re only able to do so by turning food into high fat, high sugar, low-nutritional value toxic matter is exploitative and predatory. There’s no other way to slice it.
A
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 23, 2009
at 7:01 am
Ha ha ha! Andy, it seems we are eye to eye on the second hand clothes and top down change. And, I guess if you think about it that way, Patagonia could be top down change. At least, it gives the upper class a way to do some good where they can right?
You most definitely misunderstood my comment about McDonald’s. I was saying in the eyes of those who do without they might not see McDonald’s as a soulless corporation but just where they are getting their next meal. Of course everything you said is true and I whole heartedly agree. When you get back, I can’t wait for you to see the new McDonald’s commercials and how they, very specifically, target a certain demographic. But when it comes down to it, its cheap food and that’s why they are doing the business they are.
I disagree about home cooked meals being cheaper, however. At least, not to those living in poverty in a city. I somewhat experienced this in Boston myself. Do not get me wrong! I am not comparing my privileged life to those in real need but the principle is the same. If you don’t own a car it’s difficult to transport any amount of groceries home. Who wants to carry six bags of food during an long hour bus ride home? Who wants to do this after the hour bus ride that brings you to a grueling/demeaning job for at least eight hours?
There are other factors as depicted in the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html
McDonald’s is a very viable option for people in this scenario. I’m not defending them. I think all these points make them the despicable company they’ve come to be and I haven’t eaten there in quite some time and nor will my son. There’s that “the children are the key” message again…
By: Brian on July 23, 2009
at 1:36 pm
Thanks for this link, Bri. The article does an amazing job at explaining all the different ways the urban poor struggle under the weight of poverty.
I encourage everyone reading this discussion to check it out.
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 24, 2009
at 7:04 am
Hi Andrew!
I love how vocal you are about issues that are important to you and many others. I share your views.
This all reminded me of a series that a friend sent me a link to a couple weeks ago that I think you might find interesting. If you have the time (it’s a total of 3 hours), I’m sure you will appreciate Gwynn Dyer’s investigation. It’s called Climate Wars and was aired on CBC radio.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/climate-wars/index.html
All the best!
-P
By: Pam on July 22, 2009
at 11:37 pm
Thanks Pam! I’ll bookmark this for when I return to a place with a decent internet connection. The links attached to this page are great!
Thanks for the comment and info,
Andrew
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 23, 2009
at 5:52 am
Missed you at VT brewers’ fest this year. Which I will have you know was an event that was completely free of bottled water. I don’t know about Patagonia, but does American Apparel really pay fair salaries? Heading off to Maine in a couple weeks to a state fair to hawk and gawk for ten days. Stay well Drew. When you are done doing your part in the name of global stewardship, come visit the Mrs. and I in Vermont.
By: Ol' Benito on July 23, 2009
at 1:04 pm
I agree…Mickey D’s is a revolting predatory entity that is ruining our environment and pumping us full of gentically engineered foods.
By: Ol' Benito on July 23, 2009
at 1:08 pm
Andrew, it is wonderful to see you use this forum as a place to not only launch this discussion, but also to time time to fully explain your views to those who disagree with you.
I personally think that wealth in the world is like a see-saw, or teeter-totter, depending on what it’s called in your neck of the woods. There is a neutral point, were everyone is suspended and supported in balance. The closer one part of the global population gets to reaching the pinnacle of wealth, the closer another part of the world gets closer to the most extreme poverty.
Here in the West, we have become to a society of wealth and prosperity. This is not innately a bad thing; of course we all want a better standard of living for ourselves and our families. Where the problem lies is that so few of us question the extraordinary cheapness of certain items these days. What is the true cost to naturally produce some of the things we consume these days? Can we even begin to fathom what the actual cost is of our daily life? Every time we shop simply based on what is best for our own personal financial situation, we forget that somewhere along the line either employees or the environment (or both) is getting screwed.
One of the other readers and commenters on this post raised the issue that a pair of Patagonia board shorts was $55. This may seem expensive in comparison to a no name brand at Walmart, but in comparison to a brand name pair like Hurley or Dakine sold at a high end sports shop, this seems just in line with the going price for higher end items. Furthermore, while the Patagonia shorts and high end shorts share the same price, the cheap Walmart shorts and the high end shorts likely share the same country of manufacturing. When we fully consider these factors, a pair of high end fully recyclable shorts by Patagonia seem a little more reasonable for what they offer in the long run.
Finally, in regards to getting on wheels and putting a little distance under your feet for both health and the environment. Partly due to inspiration from your site, this school year I have made an attempt to go to work by a low-carbon mode of transport. I would estimate that well over 3/4 of the time I have gone to work by bike or skateboard. Not only do I feel better for helping the environment, I feel more alert and awake during the day, I feel more connected to my community, and in the end it only takes a small fraction more of time compared to my commute by car. I hope that your journey and your insightful discussion with your readers continues to inspire other to think about their place in global society and the ways they can take personal steps to improve the situation for everyone.
Great work,
Cheers from Japan.
-Adam
By: Adam Stokes on July 23, 2009
at 2:34 pm
Adam,
It’s good to hear from you! Thanks for the comment! I’m glad some people are spending time to craft thoughtful responses to this post. I’ve loved reading these comments and using them to get me thinking.
This powerful part of your comment really struck me:
“Where the problem lies is that so few of us question the extraordinary cheapness of certain items these days. What is the true cost to naturally produce some of the things we consume these days? Can we even begin to fathom what the actual cost is of our daily life? Every time we shop simply based on what is best for our own personal financial situation, we forget that somewhere along the line either employees or the environment (or both) is getting screwed.”
This point is a good one: Is it OK for certain things to be cheap? Should we be able to buy a new plastic cup for $0.10 or a new t-shirt for $5.00?
Glad to hear you’re cruising to work under your own steam!! (Which, I hope, is a sign the knee is better. Yay!)
Good to hear from you man,
Thanks again for the thoughtful response,
A
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 24, 2009
at 6:30 am
Hi Andrew!
I’ve been following your blog since you were in Chile. This post definately got my attention!
I’m not sure if I agree with you that being an eco-conscious traveler/consumer is such an easy choice. It is certainly frightening that the vast majority of the developed world does not commute by bike, but it is important to consider infrastructure. I live in the urban-jungle that is Southern California… and being a bicyclist in many of our cities is nearly suicide. Not everyone is brave enough to risk their own life for the sake of the planet’s.
But really, these issues have to be attacked from a million different angles. Despite the fact that I live in a region widely known for inefficient pubic transport, I sold my car and used the bus as my main mode of transportation for a year. Why? Because the my university student card doubles as a free bus pass! I think creative incentives like this (ie: eco-friendly=wallet-friendly) will nudge our population in the right direction…
Even if climate change is a hoax, we are still destroying the planet with our excessive waste. (Just think of all the trash!) It doesn’t have to be political. There are so many different problems with our wastefulness that everyone can have a legitimate reason to rally behind better stewardship of our planet, regardless of whether or not they believe climate change is true.
Tiffany
By: Tiffany on July 23, 2009
at 7:37 pm
Hi Tiffany,
Thanks for the comment! I know—it’s not an easy choice. I think people need to come up with a game plan that matches what they’re able to personally commit to. Public transit is a great option when it’s too dangerous to cycle, as you suggested.
I think your point about getting products/incentives to be both eco-friendly AND wallet-friendly is key. Lots of people, because of what we’ve been talking about in this discussion, are under the impression that all things green will always be expensive. If you search, though, you’ll find different green products/options that kill two birds with one stone—things that are cheap and eco-friendly. Long-life, coil light bulbs, for example, are ways that people can seriously cut back on their home energy consumption over time. The light bulbs are more expensive than regular ones, but quickly pay for themselves by whittling away at a resident’s energy bills.
In many instances, eco-friendly business is less-wasteful, less-expensive business in the long run.
Thanks again,
Andrew
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 24, 2009
at 6:23 am
Hey there,
Thanks a lot for the link back on your site. After reading this post of yours I think a new list is in order, one that gives creidt to all you human-powered travellers out there. If you know of any I would love ot hear about them.
I’m in the ridiculously early stages of planning a trip to Africa and I’m hoping to spend a lot of time biking. I think it’s a great way to get around on a small scale and am excited to have a crack at some longer term trips.
All the best!
Kirsty
By: Kirsty on July 24, 2009
at 12:11 pm
Tiffany summed up what I was trying to say better than I could. Money is not the only issue when it comes to getting folks on the green movement. Sure there are plenty of great alternatives that can actually save you some dough, if you know how to find them as Andy pointed out. But the key to that is if you have to find it. The green movement will not truly kick off until these options are readily available, competitively priced and do the job as well as, if not better, than their less green counterparts. I think hybrids are a good example of this. Originally they looked weird and cost too much. Now, they are coming down in price, save money on gas and the Hybrid Accord shaved time of the regular Accords quarter mile! Just the fact that you can get the same body style but a more earth friendly engine is a huge step towards this goal.
I can’t knock a business for trying but changing your product lineup to be green for the sake of being green isn’t going to work. Changing the business model to be green without changing the way the product appears or functions will.
By: Brian on July 24, 2009
at 2:25 pm
Hey Andrew,
Really interesting post. It made me think of a short film that I use in class to introduce students to topics like obsolescence. It’s definitely designed for a younger audience, but it might be interesting for you take a look at nevertheless.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Heather
By: Heather Carmody on July 25, 2009
at 9:57 am
Hi Andy:
If this looks too long to read I pretty much say three things: you don’t need to consume to be green, support the local economy, try to implement simple things into your daily routine and add to that year after year.
I am incredibly passionate about this topic and have been sitting here at work for the last hour composing and recomposing lengthy emails about this topic but figured I should keep it brief with some bullets….
Background: Grew up in New Jersey, moved to Portland, Oregon four years ago. Work in the field of energy conservation and own a weatherization business. I am by no means radically “green” or a model of living a low impact life but I do my very best and like to believe I do better every single year.
Carbon: I hate carbon. I think the carbon offset industry is fraudulent and just another way of people buying there way out of feeling guilty.
Climate Change: Yes it is happening, but it is still an incredibly polarizing topic. The term is so political that it can change an otherwise healthy conversation into a heated battle.
Green/organic/sustainability: What in the world do these even mean anymore? Everyone has a “green/sustainable” product out there and without good consumer education who even knows what is true.
Conservation: I saw some lengthy discussions about Patagonia boardshorts. I have a cheap way to be green… save the $55 and wear the pair you wore last year
. Does anyone out there swim so much that there bathing suit does not last at least five years? Five years for $55, not so bad. The best thing we can do is to start being more conscious of our consumption and make better choices regarding purchasing things in general.
Simple Starts- Don’t worry about “buying” green, start by bringing a backpack to the grocery instead of picking “paper or plastic”, think ahead and minimize multiple trips to the same place (grocery), turn off the porch light before going to work, print on both sides of paper, or use scrap paper and print on the unused side.
Energy as an example- I consult with homeowners on a daily basis and the first thing I hear is “I need windows or solar panels”. No you don’t need renewable energy until we reduce our current use! There are many non sexy items that conserve far more and pay themselves back in a month (duct sealing/air sealing), but for some reason the general public is told that we must buy
fancy stuff to be “low carbon”.
Lead by example: In my opinion, there needs to be a fundamental change in the way we think about having less of an impact on the environment. Once again if we think of non consumer things that can be done to use less stuff we are further than we were yesterday. When I moved to Portland I thought being “green” was buying Patagonia and driving a Prius; but being around creative leaders has completely shifted my way of thinking. Portland as a city has embraced creative things that reduce consumption, make better use of land, and grow the local economy. If you like to garden why not offer to plant vegetables in your neighbor’s yard and share the harvest? Create a bike commuter challenge at work, try to only buy produce that is local and in season. Don’t even mention you are trying to be “green” because in reality all these things end up being fun and simple and secretly reduces carbon emissions (shhhh).
If you are living in a community that is not at all focusing on consuming less and you are not trying to think of a creative/fun way to get people on board you are losing an opportunity to make a change and potentially start a local grassroots company. I see simple start up companies and think to myself, if this was brought back east it would explode! For example, the rebuilding center (old building products donated to a warehouse and then resold), the depave it project (abandoned parking lots into gardens), urban garden projects that start vegetable and fruit gardens in peoples yards that do not have time and either pay them or do a crop share, start a local brewery, start a weatherization company, frequent farmers markets.
I am fortunate enough to live in a place that has already seen a movement to less consumption grow exponentially. When we go to the grocery it is no longer, “is this organic or not”, but “how far did this travel?”. Andy mentioned that the price will come down as more people buy these healthier products. I agree, the local grocery here sells local/organic or local/non organic stuff for the exact same as an item at the giant grocery. This is because they can guarantee local farmers they can move there product. I eat meat and the local healthy meat is maybe $1 to $2 a pound more. I can think of a million things I waste $1 or $2 on.
One last thing, biking is awesome! I started biking to work when I moved here because it seemed like that is what everyone did. Now I ride every single place I possibly can. A bike adds an entire other element to going out at night or sitting behind the desk in the morning and it improves health! Ride a bike the next time you go out and who knows, maybe your friends will wipe the dirt off there old Schwinn a join you next time.
By: Gregg Robinson on July 28, 2009
at 6:22 pm
Gregg,
Thank you for the comment! So many good things crammed into one comment. I appreciate it. (And thank you for finally leaving a comment on TOTW!)
I agree with you—curbing consumption is a higher priority than deciding whether or not to buy from a company like Patagonia. If we can avoid buying anything new, we should. This point seems obvious. If someone feels like they ‘need’ to purchase an item new, though, I think that they should put serious thought into choosing a company that is operating with some degree of social and environmental responsibility. (For example, if someone was out looking for a product that degrades in quality/ability-to-do-its-job with time—something like a strong rain jacket buying, say—used might not be a good option. In this is instance, someone’s choice about which company to endorse does matter.) But yeah, I agree: Buying used will always be less harmful for the environment than buying new.
I liked your point about how important it is to make all the small changes before we invest in some of the more expensive, sexier, more recognized products like solar panels.
And as you said, I think lessening consumption and one’s impact on the planet incrementally over time is the best way for average consumers to transition into a lifestyle of mindful consumption.
People gardening for people who don’t have the time??? Awesome!!! I love this idea.
Thanks again for the comment! It sent my brain spinning.
All the best,
A
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 29, 2009
at 6:13 am
Hey:
I guess I should have read you and Bri’s diaglogue more closely. You guys already discussed most of what I talked about but did a much beetter job at writing it.
I just wanted to comment on your “less consumption is obvious” statement. First off, it does not appear to be all that obvious to the majority of people as they continue to consume more and more stuff and I really think that by continuing to reiterate the less consumption idea people might actually start to think more when they go purchase things.
I guess my point was that everytime I hear someone talk about “green” it has to do with buying a more expensive product or making some ginormous lifestyle change when in reality any little bit helps.
I equate this to my car that has been sitting for a year and a half. It needs a few simple things, but when I looked at the bill and heard of all the fixes I was so overwhelmed I just let it sit there and did absolutely nothing. Now that I am forced to get it running (expired tags on the street) I really wish I did one thing at a time over the last year and a half instead of spending a whole bunch of time and money all at once.
So I guess the crux of it is, if you can’t afford Patagonia boardshorts then when you buy your next bathing suit at walmart tell them you will carry it out and don’t take a bag or take public transportation to get there or ride a bike. At least do something!
One last thing, I thought you and Brian’s blurb on government stimulus was interesting because that is already going on in a huge way and companies are excited to be on board because it saves money to save energy.
In my line of work, there are many local, regional and national programs that are set up by utlilities that incentivize homoeowners, commercial buildings and industry to do energy upgrades and many are embracing it. Why would a utility give someone money to use less energy? Seems counterintuitive but the reality is that it costs more to build more power plants than it does to save the energy. In sectors like grocery stores that have low margins energy efficiency upgrades are proving to be huge because it pays off fast and increases margins.
And for the poor folks Brian….check this article out, there is a lot of money going into weatherizing low-moderate income households for the same reasons as I mentioned above, but most importantly people on fixed incomes benefit a lot from low energy bills because of the volatility in pricing and weather throughout the year. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5503DP20090601
I have also been looking for clarification on the whole Patagonia thing that you or someone may be able to help me with…..
Is it true that they make the recycled fabric here, ship it to china to have the clothes made and then have it shipped back to be sold? If, so man that is energy intensive!!!!
By: Gregg Robinson on July 29, 2009
at 6:41 pm
Hi Gregg,
Thanks again for an amazing comment! So much to think about. I really appreciate it.
I did some snooping around to find the answer to the question you posed at the end of your post. In a nutshell, this quote from their site addresses what you brought up—”Third-party research shows that shipping garments to Japan does not pose a significant environmental impact, because they go on container ships that usually travel empty to Japan.”
Here’s some info from their website about the recycling process:
What happens to my worn-out Capilene baselayers and fleece garments after I return them to a Patagonia?
1. Garments collected at our stores or dealer stores are shipped to our Service Center in Reno, Nevada.
2. Once we’ve collected enough garments, we ship them to Japan on container ships. (These ships usually travel back to Japan empty, so the incremental environmental impact of shipping the garments is minimal.)
3. New polyester fiber is made using a fiber-to-fiber recycling process.
4. The new polyester fiber is used to make new garments. We are constantly finding ways to incorporate recycled fiber in our products. To find a complete list of garments we make with recycled content, simply enter “recycled” into the online search field on patagonia.com.
What will the old garments be used for?
They will be used to make recycled polyester fiber for new clothing; products like Capilene baselayer, R1® Jackets and Synchilla® Marsupials.
Which Patagonia garments are made from recycled materials?
Since 1993 Patagonia has been making fleece from recycled plastics, such as soda bottles and plastic shower curtains. Over the years, we have expanded our “recycled” offering to include polyester shells, running shorts and even jeans made with hemp-poly blends. To find a comprehensive list of this season’s garments using recycled fiber, simply enter “recycled” into the online search field on patagonia.com.
When will the Capilene baselayer and fleece Patagonia collects be incorporated into new Patagonia products?
Our production cycle is approximately 18 months, so garments collected today will be included in selected Patagonia products sold a year-and-a-half from now.
How does the fabric recycling process work?
1. The garments are cut into small pieces. Zippers and buttons are separated from the fabric.
2. The fabric is granulated and formed into small pellets.
3. The pellets are broken down to the molecular level and purified to produce raw material for polyester.
4. The raw material is polymerized and turned into polyester chips.
5. The chips are melted and spun into new filament fiber.
6. The fiber is used to make new polyester fabrics.
Where are these garments recycled?
They’re recycled in Matsuyama, Japan, at a recycling facility operated by TEIJIN Fibers Limited.
What is TEIJIN?
TEIJIN Fibers Limited is a fabric manufacturer that has supplied Patagonia for close to 15 years. TEIJIN developed the ECOCIRCLE™ recycling system we’re using in the Common Threads Recycling Program. The company also supplies us with the recycled-filament polyester fabrics used in the Eco Torrentshell Jacket and various other products.
Is the process of making polyester fiber from recycled garments less harmful to the environment than making polyester fiber from virgin materials?
Yes. Research shows that the environmental impact of using worn-out clothing to make new polyester fiber is significantly lower than making that same fiber from virgin materials derived from petroleum. By diverting worn-out garments from landfills, we reduce solid waste. Diverting them from incinerators results in an energy savings of 76% and a CO2 emissions [greenhouse gas] reduction of 71%. Garments made with recycled fibers use 50-100% less virgin polyester, which reduces our use of oil.
What is the environmental impact of sending garments to Japan for recycling?
Compared with making polyester from virgin materials, using recycled fiber in the production of new polyester helps divert waste from landfills, uses less energy and generates fewer CO2 emissions. However, the transportation required to move garments from customers’ closets to Patagonia collection centers to the recycling facility in Japan mitigates some of those energy and emissions savings. The greatest environmental impact in this process comes from customers transporting their garments to our stores and other collection facilities. Third-party research shows that shipping garments to Japan does not pose a significant environmental impact, because they go on container ships that usually travel empty to Japan. To help minimize the environmental impact, we encourage customers to mail us their worn-out garments or drop them off at a Patagonia store or dealer while running other errands.
Is the quality of recycled fiber polyester as good as virgin polyester?
Yes. Since the recycling process breaks the fiber down to the basic building blocks of polyester (monomers), there is no difference in quality.
Are recycled fiber garments contaminated or dirty, since they’re made from “used” clothing?
No. They are completely purified. Patagonia garments made from recycled fiber are equal in quality to virgin-polyester garments – and superior when you factor in the environmental impact.
By: andrewedwardmorgan on July 30, 2009
at 9:44 am
Andrew,
I feel I must chime in here given that I am the original ‘cheapskate’, being actually named as an example in Webster’s dictionary.
Economizing has always come naturally to me, even though I always felt like the odd man out. For example, when driving I look for ways to get as many mpg as possible, such as coasting in neutral and looking far down the road to avoid unnecessary acceleration and braking. I often get nasty stares as drivers zoom past me, but then I have the satisfaction of coasting up to them at the next light. I used to rent cars a lot on business trips. When Avis or National thought they were doing me a favor by offering to upgrade me to a full size car, I always answered “What’s the smallest car you have? It’s just me in there.” The response was usually a wide-eyed “You don’t want to be upgraded to a bigger car?” Sometimes they would say “How about an SUV?” “It’s summer in Atlanta. All the streets are paved. Why do I need an SUV? It just uses more gas.” “But your company is paying for it.” “So that makes it OK to waste gas?”
How is it that someone like me, who takes pride in conserving resources, is made to feel awkward and foolish, while those who drive over-powerful cars and trucks and use huge quantities of consumables, are admired? What is admirable about living wastefully?
Practically every day I walk past someone who is parked, with the engine running. Typically they are napping, listening to the radio, or putting on makeup. Can there be anything more infuriating? I think the police should give fines for this behavior.
In a way I am thankful for the recession, because it has made conserving and economizing socially acceptable. Finally people are coming around to my way of thinking. I still see Hummers on the road, but they all seem to have dark window tinting, apparently so the drivers will not be recognized!
Well, now that I have vented a little, I feel better. Time to take a walk, and throw some dirty looks at whoever is idling their car in the parking lot.
By: Dad on August 5, 2009
at 6:43 pm
Thanks for the comment, Dad! This part of your comment particularly stood out when I read it:
“How is it that someone like me, who takes pride in conserving resources, is made to feel awkward and foolish, while those who drive over-powerful cars and trucks and use huge quantities of consumables, are admired? What is admirable about living wastefully?”
This is the million dollar question.
I think that people who over-consume and drive around in massive cars are admired because society views them as successful. Capitalism teaches us to equate nice stuff with success. This is at the heart of the problem: Those who have the most stuff are seen as the most successful. Until consumption is disconnected from our view of success, we’ll continue to race toward the grim end of resource bankruptcy. Instead, we need to start seeing the most intentionally-living, globally-conscious, light-treading members of our society as the most successful.
By: andrewedwardmorgan on August 6, 2009
at 7:54 am
I think the problem here (and with the “green” movement) is that we are a bunch of like minded people. We’re posting on Andy’s website (a site about a man riding his bike to save the world from itself. Jokes, Andy) from, most likely, expensive computers in our beautiful homes or fine offices in a fortune 500s in one of the more progressive, forward thinking countries in the world.
The answer to any of the “why can’t people do this/that/the other” is because they’re comfortable doing what they’re doing. Ask anyone that remembers about the change from unleaded gas. HUGE pain in the ass for so many people. They got over it though, right? How? Because they HAD to.
Well right now, no one HAS to do anything. To be completely honest (and don’t kill me. My sister and I try our best) my parents hardly recycle. Beer bottles and milk cartons. That’s about it.
But think about this: Just as we’re horrified to hear that, they’re horrified to hear things like dolphin/whale fishing in Japan or that some cultures are still using slash/burn techniques for farming. Not everyone is on the same page and here is where I this green movement has an issue. The people who are so gung ho about it can’t understand why not everyone is doing it. Well, maybe it’s because we kind of sound like fools.
“Ugh, you’re not driving a hybrid? You’re a bohemian.”
“Still using plastic bags at the grocery store?! Trader Joe’s sells them right there at the counter next to their overpriced all natural eggs that taste the same as whatever pollutants you’re buying.”
(See the South Park episode about smug. They do an excellent job of illustrating this. No pun intended.) I can’t speak for everyone but I do get the feeling that this stuff can get annoying.
PS: People drive overpowered sports cars because they’re fun. I’m sure that when you can purchase a hybrid Lambo that does 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and runs a 12 second 1/4 mile there will be a market. Yes, I agree some (maybe most) buy these things to flaunt their wealth or power but it’s hard to say the average Joe wouldn’t enjoy tearing down the turnpike or expressway peeling half an hour off their daily commute.
By: Brian McNally on August 6, 2009
at 1:27 pm
Well… I don’t think you were not thinking about the carbon emission problem before we met, but I’m happy to hear PAC-Car II once more had the effect it was intended to have
By: Pius on August 14, 2009
at 4:24 pm