Sunday, September 28, 2008
Used Clothing: Sustainable, Eco-friendly, and Socially-Conscious
So I was looking for Socially-conscious and Sustainable clothing and I came up with this site: http://www.alternativeoutfitters.com/index.aspx. It's a Vegan clothing boutique in L.A. The clothes are really amazing. One T-shirt(made of Organic cotton) had a Hummer on it and said "Bummer". I am however skeptical. I would not be surprised if all of it was made in China. Plus, the most eco-conscious thing to do is to buy very FEW clothes [USED] from LOCAL thrift-stores. I already have more clothes than I know what to do with. Why would I buy anymore clothes than I already have? Sustainable clothing is clothing that you already own, and will keep for many years. Hipster "Eco-chic" clothes spread consciousness for the environmental movement but also distaste from the general public who come to see it as a trendy option for wealthy individuals. The "Eco-chic" movement promotes the same Consumerism that we disdain. It's easy to get sucked into these things isn't it? Well, as much as I like this website, I will be patronizing the Amvets(American Veteran's Thrift Store) on Elmwood(towards Valu Hardware) and skipping the "Eco-chic" clothes.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Response to Richard's 4 Reasons Recession Is Bad for the Environment
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession_bad_environment.php
Richard is not entirely fair when he says that recession is bad for the environment. His first point is that companies will reduce their investments into research and development and green programs. That is not entirely true. Although we are in the midst of a recession, Toyota is developing a more efficient hybrid-an electric/gas plug-in that should receive 125 miles per gallon. Toyota is pursuing this goal because the company realizes that such a product has the possibility of selling well in the marketplace, and there is an opportunity for greater profitability by producing the most innovative vehicles. See [http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/tech/ena.html] Furthermore, not all environmental initiatives by companies cut into profits-some actually create profits. Consider this: if the cost of oil rises enough, the cost of producing plastic will be higher. Therefore, it will be more expensive to use plastic packaging than recycled cardboard in packaging at some point in time. If recycled cardboard was cheaper than plastic, it would save companies money on their bottom-line. A company would then be more profitable when pursuing the "right" thing!
Richard's 2nd point is that in the midst of a recession, people will buy less expensive products, which are worse for the environment. This is true in the case of Chinese products which are sold cheaply and hurt the environment greatly but isn't true in the sense that environmentally conscious food, transportation, and clothing can be the MOST inexpensive choices. A pound of tofu is $2 while a pound of beef is $5.75(http://shop.netgrocer.com/shop.aspx?&sid=24028222&sid_guid=17b5ea75-d995-4db5-8bdc-cefba06a5660&strid=2D462&sc=wwwNG_D1A024EE&ns=1) Men's pants from Walmart run $9.86+, which is not produced to socially or environmentally conscious standards:child-labor is involved. I have purchased much more environmentally conscious clothing from other sources for much less than that: from Craigslist, Freecycle, Goodwill, Amvets(American Veterans). I purchased a Burberry blazer in very fine condition for $7 at an Amvets and a gorgeous Harris Tweed jacket for $9 at a Goodwill. Those are 1000% nicer than what you get from a Target or a Walmart and since they are used, I do not feel that I am serving to perpetrate child-labor uses. They are very fine clothing items and they cost me very little money. Furthermore, the fossil-fuels involved in their production have now been distributed among multiple individuals. Also, my bicyle from my father's garage that I use to commute daily cost me $0. An environmentally degrading automobile would cost me much more. True environmentalism is actually the most cost-effective lifestyle!
In addition, the best policy for the environment is to buy less or buy nothing at all. That is why Vegan ice-cream, an expensive "eco-chic" kind of thing, is such an idiotic idea-if you don't want to consume regular ice-cream, why not just skip ice-cream altogether? It uses fossil fuel to produce, and if your a Vegan why do need ice-cream? The environmental movement needs to be about frugality, not hipster "eco-products." If an individual was to live a truly environmentally friendly lifestyle, he could live on $15,000 per year, assuming he lived in a small city, didn't own a car, rode a bike and fixed it himself, lived in an apartment with a room-mate, bought only used clothes, turned down the heat in the winter and wore thick wool sweaters, ate out only once per week for no more than $10(hopefully at an organic food cooperative), and pursued other simple measures.
Richard's 3rd point is that in a sore economy loans are going to be harder to get so "green start-ups are going to be harder to get." Maybe the idea of loans for businesses is foolish. Isn't it possible for entrepreneurs to save wages from their current jobs and invest them into their businesses at a later time, all without reliance on banks or external lenders? It is a fallacy that a business needs a lot of upfront capital. And a lot of times businesses could function with less capital. A local venture in my area sells ice-cream bars with a bicycle with a cooler-attached to it. That's about $100 worth of capital for the bike and cooler, and a couple hundred dollars worth of ice-cream. Each bar is sold for $2 or $3. That venture is extremely green(goods sold on a bike) and profitable. That venture is successful without 1000s of dollars of capital!
His fourth point is that voters want the government to do something about the environmental crisis. Here's an idea. How about we abandon the idea that the government can do anything effectively regarding this movement? Wasn't our country was founded on the principle of personal initiative? We have forgotten that personal initiative is an effective means of solving problems. Too-little recycling occurred in our local-business district. As a counter-measure, local business owners installed recycle boxes in front of their shops and had local artists decorate the exteriors of these recycle boxes. More recycling is taking place in that area than ever before! Furthermore, local business owners have installed bike-racks in front of their shops (we still could use more). Their actions of personal initiative have been extremely effective in encouraging recycling and supporting clean-transport(bikes)! None of these measures required any government intervention, or a large amount of capital. They only required some insight, some brains, a small amount of capital, and a bit of elbow grease.
Richard is not entirely fair when he says that recession is bad for the environment. His first point is that companies will reduce their investments into research and development and green programs. That is not entirely true. Although we are in the midst of a recession, Toyota is developing a more efficient hybrid-an electric/gas plug-in that should receive 125 miles per gallon. Toyota is pursuing this goal because the company realizes that such a product has the possibility of selling well in the marketplace, and there is an opportunity for greater profitability by producing the most innovative vehicles. See [http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/tech/ena.html] Furthermore, not all environmental initiatives by companies cut into profits-some actually create profits. Consider this: if the cost of oil rises enough, the cost of producing plastic will be higher. Therefore, it will be more expensive to use plastic packaging than recycled cardboard in packaging at some point in time. If recycled cardboard was cheaper than plastic, it would save companies money on their bottom-line. A company would then be more profitable when pursuing the "right" thing!
Richard's 2nd point is that in the midst of a recession, people will buy less expensive products, which are worse for the environment. This is true in the case of Chinese products which are sold cheaply and hurt the environment greatly but isn't true in the sense that environmentally conscious food, transportation, and clothing can be the MOST inexpensive choices. A pound of tofu is $2 while a pound of beef is $5.75(http://shop.netgrocer.com/shop.aspx?&sid=24028222&sid_guid=17b5ea75-d995-4db5-8bdc-cefba06a5660&strid=2D462&sc=wwwNG_D1A024EE&ns=1) Men's pants from Walmart run $9.86+, which is not produced to socially or environmentally conscious standards:child-labor is involved. I have purchased much more environmentally conscious clothing from other sources for much less than that: from Craigslist, Freecycle, Goodwill, Amvets(American Veterans). I purchased a Burberry blazer in very fine condition for $7 at an Amvets and a gorgeous Harris Tweed jacket for $9 at a Goodwill. Those are 1000% nicer than what you get from a Target or a Walmart and since they are used, I do not feel that I am serving to perpetrate child-labor uses. They are very fine clothing items and they cost me very little money. Furthermore, the fossil-fuels involved in their production have now been distributed among multiple individuals. Also, my bicyle from my father's garage that I use to commute daily cost me $0. An environmentally degrading automobile would cost me much more. True environmentalism is actually the most cost-effective lifestyle!
In addition, the best policy for the environment is to buy less or buy nothing at all. That is why Vegan ice-cream, an expensive "eco-chic" kind of thing, is such an idiotic idea-if you don't want to consume regular ice-cream, why not just skip ice-cream altogether? It uses fossil fuel to produce, and if your a Vegan why do need ice-cream? The environmental movement needs to be about frugality, not hipster "eco-products." If an individual was to live a truly environmentally friendly lifestyle, he could live on $15,000 per year, assuming he lived in a small city, didn't own a car, rode a bike and fixed it himself, lived in an apartment with a room-mate, bought only used clothes, turned down the heat in the winter and wore thick wool sweaters, ate out only once per week for no more than $10(hopefully at an organic food cooperative), and pursued other simple measures.
Richard's 3rd point is that in a sore economy loans are going to be harder to get so "green start-ups are going to be harder to get." Maybe the idea of loans for businesses is foolish. Isn't it possible for entrepreneurs to save wages from their current jobs and invest them into their businesses at a later time, all without reliance on banks or external lenders? It is a fallacy that a business needs a lot of upfront capital. And a lot of times businesses could function with less capital. A local venture in my area sells ice-cream bars with a bicycle with a cooler-attached to it. That's about $100 worth of capital for the bike and cooler, and a couple hundred dollars worth of ice-cream. Each bar is sold for $2 or $3. That venture is extremely green(goods sold on a bike) and profitable. That venture is successful without 1000s of dollars of capital!
His fourth point is that voters want the government to do something about the environmental crisis. Here's an idea. How about we abandon the idea that the government can do anything effectively regarding this movement? Wasn't our country was founded on the principle of personal initiative? We have forgotten that personal initiative is an effective means of solving problems. Too-little recycling occurred in our local-business district. As a counter-measure, local business owners installed recycle boxes in front of their shops and had local artists decorate the exteriors of these recycle boxes. More recycling is taking place in that area than ever before! Furthermore, local business owners have installed bike-racks in front of their shops (we still could use more). Their actions of personal initiative have been extremely effective in encouraging recycling and supporting clean-transport(bikes)! None of these measures required any government intervention, or a large amount of capital. They only required some insight, some brains, a small amount of capital, and a bit of elbow grease.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Horrified: My Neighbors Barely Recycle?
Today when I was putting out my recyclables-one bin of paper and one bin of plastics I walked down my street. There are 16 houses on my side of the street. Only two houses in sixteen-I checked at 5pm-so 2/16 houses on my side of the street had put out recyclables. I'll have to check later. But if this is an accurate count, 1/8 of all houses recycling is not an acceptable amount!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Help Your Parents Recycle
Goal: "Green Your Parents"
Step #1: Help Your Parents Recycle
I am trying to persuade my father to recycle the many documents from his office. Currently, the majority of his papers end up in the trash, and his confidential documents don't get shredded. I created two bins for his office. The first is labeled "Recycle, as is." for magazines, newspapers, invitations, letters, etc. The second is labeled "Confidential, shred, then recycle." Consequently, I stuck a label on his trash-can "Germ ridden, trash only." Hopefully, everything but his dirty Kleenex will now be recycled, saving 1/2 of a large black bag of trash each week, about 15lbs of paper.
Step #1: Help Your Parents Recycle
I am trying to persuade my father to recycle the many documents from his office. Currently, the majority of his papers end up in the trash, and his confidential documents don't get shredded. I created two bins for his office. The first is labeled "Recycle, as is." for magazines, newspapers, invitations, letters, etc. The second is labeled "Confidential, shred, then recycle." Consequently, I stuck a label on his trash-can "Germ ridden, trash only." Hopefully, everything but his dirty Kleenex will now be recycled, saving 1/2 of a large black bag of trash each week, about 15lbs of paper.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Most Eco-Friendly Colleges and Endowments
I leafed through the sustainability reports for over 200 colleges.
Carleton College(A-)
State Minnesota, Blue
Dartmouth College(A-)
State: New Hampshire,Blue
Harvard University(A-)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
U. California (B+)
State: California,Blue
U. Michigan (B+)
State: Michigan,Blue
U. Wisconsin(B+)
State: Wisconsin,Blue
Stanford (B+)
State: California, Blue
Oberlin College (B+)
State: Ohio, RED
Brown University(B+)
State: Rhode Island,Blue
Columbia University(B+)
State: New York,Blue
Dickinson College(B+)
State: Pennsylvania,Blue
M.I.T.(B+)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Duke University(B+)
State:North Carolina,RED
Amherst(B)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Clark University(B)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Cornell University(B)
State: New York, Blue
Grinell College(B)
State: Iowa, RED
Macalester College(B)
State Minnesota, Blue
Michigan State(B)
State: Michigan, Blue
Northeastern(B)
State: Massachusetts, Blue
Penn. State(B)
State: Pennsylvania, Blue
Ponoma College(B)
State: California, Blue
University of Minnesota(B)
State: Minnesota, Blue
U. Pennsylvania(B)
State: Pennsylvania, Blue
Vassar College(B)
State: New York, Blue
Of the 25 greenest, most eco-friendly colleges, only 2 were from Red-States: Duke University and Grinnell College. 23/25 of the most eco-friendly colleges were from Blue States. The numerical equivalent is that 92% most eco-friendly colleges were located in Blue states while 8% of most eco-friendly colleges were located in Red States.
Carleton College(A-)
State Minnesota, Blue
Dartmouth College(A-)
State: New Hampshire,Blue
Harvard University(A-)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
U. California (B+)
State: California,Blue
U. Michigan (B+)
State: Michigan,Blue
U. Wisconsin(B+)
State: Wisconsin,Blue
Stanford (B+)
State: California, Blue
Oberlin College (B+)
State: Ohio, RED
Brown University(B+)
State: Rhode Island,Blue
Columbia University(B+)
State: New York,Blue
Dickinson College(B+)
State: Pennsylvania,Blue
M.I.T.(B+)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Duke University(B+)
State:North Carolina,RED
Amherst(B)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Clark University(B)
State: Massachusetts,Blue
Cornell University(B)
State: New York, Blue
Grinell College(B)
State: Iowa, RED
Macalester College(B)
State Minnesota, Blue
Michigan State(B)
State: Michigan, Blue
Northeastern(B)
State: Massachusetts, Blue
Penn. State(B)
State: Pennsylvania, Blue
Ponoma College(B)
State: California, Blue
University of Minnesota(B)
State: Minnesota, Blue
U. Pennsylvania(B)
State: Pennsylvania, Blue
Vassar College(B)
State: New York, Blue
Of the 25 greenest, most eco-friendly colleges, only 2 were from Red-States: Duke University and Grinnell College. 23/25 of the most eco-friendly colleges were from Blue States. The numerical equivalent is that 92% most eco-friendly colleges were located in Blue states while 8% of most eco-friendly colleges were located in Red States.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Unfortunate Economic Behavior of Contemporary Society Vs. The Merits of Bicycling
Now, you must know, I am not delusional. I know that Americans will never give up their cars. I know that Americans will never cease to be major consumers in the world market place. I also realize that with China's lack of Environmental standards, the world may be decimated ecologically, over the next century. I do not, however, believe that an ecological doomsday is in our near future. The environment will be gradually degraded by our irresponsible lifestyles. We must however, try to live rightly in the midst of a wicked world(I must acknowledge that the cynics are probably sticking their fingers down their throats right about now...) We must ride bicycles and walk to work, at a great inconvenience to ourselves because it is the right course of action. It will however, save us monetarily. Driving is an expensive habit. If we can kick it, or curb it, there will be thousands more dollars in our pockets. Consequently, bicycling can save time. The high school I attended was approximately one and a half miles from my house. When I drove to school, through the city, the trip took about fifteen minutes. When I biked to school, the trip took about 5 minutes. So, within city driving conditions, bicycling can take 1/3 as long as driving. Furthermore, bicycling is incredible fun. One feels youthful exultation when riding a bike mid-morning down a bustling city street, a soft wisp of breeze coming against one's face, and the sun-shining brightly. Romanticism aside, bicycling is fine exercise in the morning, and a better way in which to wake up than the travails of caffeine. Bicycling gets your blood flowing, so when you do finally arrive at work, you are incredibly awake, and ready for action! Bicycling makes me feel like a Super-hero!(Again the cynics are about ready to hurl) Bicycling then is the most moral, financially-sound, efficient, feel-good, and physiologically positive way to get to work.
Sincere Christians won't drive cars
Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as thyself." A rudimentary analysis of his statement suggests that every individual should strive to treat those in their surrounding area as kindly and as respectfully as is possible. Now, I believe "neighbors" can refer to the individuals that live next door to you, that live across the street from you, that attend your school, that participate in your workplace, that live in your city, your country, and in the world. Christ's commandment then, is meant to be applied universally. So, how can this be applied in the "real" world? Well, we can begin by treating our friends, our family members, colleagues, and higher-ups more respectfully. Next, we can modify our lifestyle choices to coincide with what creates "the greatest amount of good." So, how does the automobile fit into all of this? Well, automobiles create air-pollution. This is a proven fact, unlike "global warming" or the other fallacies "liberals" are rumored to have perpetrated. The cities of Los Angeles, Fresno, CA, Bakersfield,CA, Pittsburgh, PA, and Springfield, OR have terrible air quality because of their high concentrations of cars(courtesy of http://lungaction.org/reports/sota05_cities.html) Consequently, individuals in such said cities have some of the worst cases of asthma in the country. That, in my consideration, is an extremely unfortunate predicament. Now, "whatever is of God, is good." But air-pollution is bad, so it is not of God. Therefore, Christians should not be driving cars because the air pollution that is created is not in their neighbor's best interest, nor is it of God.
Transportation Infrastructure in the United States Summary
The transportation infrastructure in the United States is pathetic. We are a car-centric nation that has neglected sound city-planning: over 50% of individuals in the United States live in suburbs, many miles outside of the city proper, which they commute to via private automobiles. We have also neglected to implement efficient, effective mass transportation in many of our major cities (NYC, Boston, Portland, and a handful of cities are the exception). Furthermore, we have overlooked the possibility of fuel efficient motor scooters such as Vespas and bicycles as a regular form of transport, as well as the possibility of walking regularly. The unfortunate result,however, is that many people are confined to cars to pursue their daily work, errands, and social life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)