Extreme Pollution in China

Photo: Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

I've never been to China, but I've heard stories from those who have.  There are places where people wear surgical masks just to walk around on the street to filter the air they are breathing.  The New York Times published an unsettling series of articles on the topic, including this one: As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes.  The NYT also published this chilling slideshow of pollution in China.

The article states, "Only 1 percent of China's 560 million urban dwellers breathes air considered safe by the European Union."  Like so many families, in the photo above, a "family of migrants moved to Ningxia Province from Inner Mongolia so that the father could work at a nearby factory."  While the already developed world is beginning to rein in its carbon spewing excesses, China is just hitting its stride.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Consumption in China

The NYT article was published in August of 2007.  It speculated that China might lead the world in carbon emissions by the end of the year.  Several sources say that China had already taken the lead at that time, and by 2008 they were definitely the leader in emissions (not by per capita, however.)

There has got to be a better way.  The planet cannot handle developing nations following this model.  Greenpeace has a website describing the solutions available for mitigating air pollution disaster: The Solutions.  To summarize their ideas, the most important step is weaning off of coal, China's main power source, and instead developing renewable energy technologies.  Next is strict regulation of pollution.  On a more positive note, China is one of the world's leaders in solar technology, producing something like 23% of the world's photovoltaic products.  I hope that they find a way to make solar power take over very, very quickly. 

Beautiful Underground Home

This house is pretty amazing.  Look how little habitat it disturbs!  Incredible.  See the article Beautiful Swiss House is Buried Under the Earth by Diane Pham of inhabitat. The article mentions that "[b]y building the house underground, the architects were able to almost completely eliminate the need for heating or cooling in the winter and summer months."  Kudos to the architects SeArch and Christian Müller for showing us what is possible.

DIY Low Flush Toilet

It's easy to make your home toilet into a low flush toilet!

1. Find a clean half gallon plastic jug with a lid.
2. Add enough sand, gravel, rocks or what-have-you to the jug to weigh it down so it can't float, probably an inch or two of material.  
3. Fill the rest of the jug with water.
4. You can add a few drops of bleach to the jug to prevent gunk build up.  
5. Add the lid to the jug.
6. Place the container into the tank of your toilet, away from moving parts.  
7. If you run into trouble, it will likely be from displacing too much water in the tank.  Don't get in the habit of flushing more than once, as that wastes more water than the original design.  This is an easy problem to fix... just try a smaller bottle, since every little bit helps.  When the time comes to replace the toilet, buy a WaterSense certified model and forgo the jug. 
8. Want to make it more fun?  Check your water bill before and after making this easy alteration.  Ka-ching! 

Photo: Happy Simple Living

Toilets use more water than any other item in the home.  On the website for The ABC's Of Toilets, it says, "If all U.S. households installed water-saving features, water use would decrease by 30%.  This would save an estimated 5.4 billion gallons of water per day, resulting in daily dollar-volume savings of $11.3 million or more than $4 billion per year." 

Have you tried this?  Please tell your story in the comments section below. 

Design To Withstand Climate Change

This is an interesting article, Design for Adaptation: Living in a Climate Changing World, from BuildingGreen.com.

Photo: Global Green

This article explains how buildings should be designed to adapt to a changing world, since the likelihood of climate change abruptly altering the world around us is high.  It's kind of sad, but practical.  It includes advice like raising buildings and mechanical equipment off the ground, since floods and sea levels might destroy the building otherwise.  There's lots of emphasis on passive heating/cooling, use of on-site generated renewable energy, and rain water harvesting.

I would have added, were it my article, a section urging urban food growing and seed banking, since if a community finds itself unable to acquire food from long distances in the event of an emergency, it would be better to have a plan already in place for this important aspect of life.  Communities ought to do this anyway, for their own well-being as well as decreasing dependence on industrial farming and petroleum.  I don't think enough people realize what is happening in the world of farming and how our ability to find viable seeds in the event of catastrophe is rapidly diminishing.

A Hopeful Global Future

The modern mindset that has led to globalization has lots of optimistic ideals in it, like equality of all people and human rights, chiefly.  My understanding of the ubiquitous international style of architecture is that its chief intent is often practical, to bring affordable buildings to average people.  I think so many people associated traditional architecture with out-dated modes of thinking and living that represented oppression to them, that the values therein have largely been forgotten.  When I look around my neighborhood, I understand why the quaint old Victorian houses, with their ornate facades, have been abandoned in the wake of large boxy structures.  Money talks, and it's cheaper and easier to build a box, and so modern building must have seemed liberating in its inception. So much of globalization had goals like that in mind.  Bring a better lifestyle to everyone, and the world will be a better place.  Bring economic uniformity to the world, so that we can all trade together, and let the rising tide raise all boats. Of course, it hasn't exactly worked out that way, as the world's wealth is mostly in the hands of the few.  We've all bought into this system of trying to have more than our neighbors.  Just the other day, I heard of a local teacher exlaining to her grade school students that, "The best you can hope for is a large house.  The next best is a medium-sized house.  If you are poor, you must make do with a small house.  The very worst is living in an apartment." Also, this global paradigm will never work out in the long run, as the environmental consequences are devastating.  That teacher has it all wrong.  The "best" is living tied into nature like any other animal, as an actually helpful member of the local ecosystem. Gaia by Renate Hennessy I am hoping that within our lifetime we will see very drastic changes to this model of thinking.  Let's keep the good parts, like freedom and justice, and then extend that line of thinking to the planet we live on.  Maybe we can collectively get to the point where the Gaia Theory, or something similarly compelling, will have gained enough ground that globally we recognize that the earth is either a living entity or should be treated like one whether it is or not.  Let's extend our ideals of individual rights to the planet we live on, and learn to humble our aspirations so that we can fit into our niche within the living world. I am also hoping that the industrial revolution will eventually be seen as a bumpy spot on the road of evolution.  I am hoping that the long-term outcome of the age of industry is all of the amazing green technology we will have as a result.  Our ability to communicate information in this day and age is probably the grandest achievement of modern times, and if we can just continue on that path in a sustainable way, eventually we can boast a high-tech life rich in biodiversity and regeneration.

Local Vs. Imported Food

The article "Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World" in The New York Times caught my attention recently, and it surprised me a bit.  I have always assumed that it's better, environmentally speaking, to buy local food.  However, the article points out that sometimes imported food has a lower footprint than that which is grown locally in a hot house.  Who knew? 

At our house, it's kind of a mixed bag when it comes to the food we buy.  Every other week, at my kid's school, I pick up a box of veggies from Farm Fresh To You.  I enjoy the surprise factor of not knowing what will be in the box, which sometimes lead to fun, tasty discoveries.  A nice option that the farmer offers in its online payment program is that you can pick the style of the box you want, like whether you'd prefer a small box or a large box, how often you want it, and the types of produce you'd like.  We get a small box of mixed fruits and veggies that don't need to be cooked to eat, since I'm a busy mom who'd rather make a salad than cook.  The box itself gets reused, as you just return the box to the pickup location when you get the new one.  I like how it's very convenient and I don't have to do any extra driving to get my food.

I understand that buying organic, local meat (or not buying meat at all) would make a big dent on our footprint, too, but whether or not we do that depends on who is doing the grocery shopping.  My husband goes to the "just about to expire and super cheap" bin at the grocery store and picks a lot of meat out of there, cooks it all up, and then freezes it for us to eat while he's away.  He's a culinary genius and the chef in the family.

Since we live on a mini urban ranch, we also get a lot of produce just outside our door.  For instance, we get really tasty eggs from the chickens, whose diet we supplement with our kitchen scraps.  My toddler loves visiting the chickens, feeding them, and picking them up.  We get a delicious local honey from our bees.  We also get lots of fruits and herbs from the garden, as well as whatever veggies are in season.  I probably could go without buying the box of produce in the summertime, but I see it as a political act, trying to support organic farmers as they compete with industrial farms.

The New York Times article mentions taxing imported food, and it seems to me like a good idea to pass the true cost of the food on to the consumers.  However, it would be better if alternative fuel consuming transportation methods didn't get taxed in the process.  Some kind of program should give incentives to lower or omit emissions, since it's not necessarily always greener 100% of the time to choose local over imported.

My question is, who gets the tax money and what do they do with it?  It would be nice if that tax money went directly towards carbon trusts or carbon sequestering.  It was also make sense to eliminate the costs involved with taxing and allow companies to purchase carbon trusts in lieu of taxes, minimizing the need for middle men and letting the carbon trust organizations concentrate on how best to do what they do.

How Are You Reducing Your Carbon Footprint?

In my last post, I wrote about my goals for reducing my carbon footprint, which include walking and biking more, buying less stuff, and avoiding packaging whenever possible.  This got me curious what other people are up to, since we are all in this together.  What are you doing?  What are you not doing?  Do you have any goals set for reducing our dependence on burning fossil fuels?  It could be something like figuring out a way to hit two stops in one car ride that used to happen in two car trips.  Or it could be even simpler, like vowing to turn off extra lights after 9 PM.  What can you do to make a difference?  Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.  If you are looking for further inspiration on ways to make a difference, Green Wiki has a good article with tips and suggestions on reducing an individual's carbon footprint.