Consumerism – do we need prohibitions?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

We are living well above our means, in more than one way. Thus the question as to whether we need prohibitions that will halt our over-consumption? Maybe we do need someone who raps us over the knuckles when we go too far? That maybe the only way that the Planet can be saved. But this is not going to happen, not from the side of those that think they are in charge as economic growth is what they are on about and growth – according to them – can only be achieved in that people consume more and then still more. Only growth on a finite Planet does not compute.

But do we really need some higher authority to tell us. Should we not be able to restrict ourselves?

On the other hand most people, even many who think of themselves as as having a high degree of eco-consciousness, are into consuming. Fair enough, we all have to eat, need clothes, etc., and thus we consume and are consumers, obviously, but with consuming in this context I mean the many, often unnecessary, things that we buy, thus consume, just because we are lazy, we believe we need them, and because our friends have them.

Coffee to go, obviously in the one-way cup, because it is so convenient. Coffee from the pod, the most wasteful and expensive way to make and consume coffee. Another new cellphone or even smartphone though the old one that we have is still perfectly good and does what we need it for. But, hey, there is a new version out that has more bells and whistles, not that we will ever use any of those bells and whistles.

Using the car to go to the shops – even though you only live a few minutes away from them on foot or by bike – because it looks like rain. Take out pizza or whatever simple because we can't be bothered to cook. OK, there are people who are so busy and work so many hours just to sustain a lifestyle nowadays who really do not have the time to cook at home, I know, but. And so on and so forth.

But would prohibitions really make a difference. OK, with prohibitions people could not do this or that but is it really so hard for us as individuals, as people, to understand that we must change for the good of the Planet and also for the good of our own finances.

Unnecessary driving costs fuel and unnecessary purchases cost money, but at the same time both have an impact on the Planet in many ways. The prepackaged salads and all the rest generates a great deal of packaging waste, more often than not in the form of plastic, some of which is, while others is not, recyclable and it then ends up in landfill or, via the not so environmentally-minded, in the countryside and eventually in rivers and the sea.

For a change to come about industry, especially, will have to play its part and reduce the amount of packaging, and that includes food producers and supermarkets as much as online retailers like Amazon. Legislation could come into play there in that packaging could be regulated and a reduction demanded by government because we, as consumers, can do little there except shop where we do not have everything prepackaged – and that is not all that easy – and sending a message to industry and supermarkets that way.

Waste or squander is no peccadillo, no trivial offense. Nobody has the right to take more than what he/she needs.

I can hardly see, however, government legislating against consumption per se. That is definitely not going to happen. A change in that department will only come about when the mindset of people changes and you cannot do that by degree and prohibitions. Most people will rebel against any kind of prohibition and unless and until industry actually changes its manufacturing processes which are designed that products break down after a relatively short time or, in the case of PCs, for instance, that software (updates) is no longer compatible with old sets (and that also applies to smartphones, for instance) we have little choice to buy new products every year or every couple of years or so. If products would, like they used to, last for a long time and can be repaired, ideally by the user or in small shops, then we would not have this waste that is generated by having to continually buy new.

On the other front, that of packaging, we don't need to look much further back than half a century or so and we can see that things were not over-packaged in the way they are today. Fair enough, that was also the time when the so-called convenience foods were not about. There were no ready-made salads in plastic bowls and such to be found in the isles of the supermarkets. Produce was sold predominately loose, and was packed in brown paper bags, other things came in simple cardboard boxes, tin cans or glass jars, and almost nothing was double or triple packaged, as today.

There was also once a time when packaging, such as glass jars, and others, had an obvious – obvious to all but the very dense – second use and some manufacturers still do so today. Let's get back to that and maybe, just maybe, we have less of packaging waste. We can hope, can't we?

But when one sees that even people who think of themselves as green and environmentally-minded throw away glass produce jars into the recycling and then go and buy recycled glass jars, in the believe that they do good for the Planet doing that, rather than using the glass produce jars as storage jars then one has to wonder where we have gone wrong.

I think no one can deny that we have to stop this malarkey but can we be made to stop with and by government intervention and should that be done?

Most of us know that much of what we buy and consumer is not good. With that I do not mean that it makes us fat or gives us all manner of diseases. Our consumer behavior does hurt us, but mostly it hurts others. Others who also live with us on this Earth and who we do not see because the live far away, those that still would like to live on Earth after we have long gone, and also the Planet as a whole.

While no one can deny that we have stop (with) this madness of consumption – for the sake of it and the economy, as our respective governments keep telling us – the question is how many of us, of our contemporaries, are prepared, voluntarily, to give up this mad pursuit. But, if we want to sustain ourselves and the Planet we will have to do just that for, as I have said above, our governments are not going to do all that much in that department as it would interfere, as they see it, with economic growth. However, perpetual growth – economic or otherwise – is not feasible on a finite Planet with finite non-renewable resources. And, no, the good Lord is not going to put more oil and whatever into the ground for us, as some, including some American lawmakers, believe and declare from the “pulpits”.

As I have said while legislation might be a way to go I don't see it happening. For one the powers-that-be (but really should not be) won't do it because it fuels economic growth and that is all that they seem to be able to think about and on the other hand legislation often does not work because the mind of the people per se rebels as soon as they are not allowed to do something. Persuasion towards a voluntary reduction appears to me the only way. Though disallowing the use of plastic bags or taxing the use of them might just do something.

© 2017

Be thrifty in the downturn

by Michael Smith

Cooking with leftovers, swapping clothes, growing vegetables, baking bread... all of it is coming back in vogue.

With recession worries growing in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, no doubt, people are trying to rediscover the ways things were done in years gone by and how people adapted to the dire shortages of World War II and the Great Depression before that. Books on that subject are now well on the way to becoming the new bestsellers. In the same way, I should think, books that describe the skills of even farther back will too.

There is a slow-down in the housing market, which makes everyone feel less confident financially. Credit not only will be harder to come by, it is getting harder to come by. We all should and more than likely may soon have to be tightening our belts. The lest we must learn to – once again – live within our means and not beyond them. If you have not got the money saved to buy this or that then, well, you cannot buy it and, as far as I am concerned, that also applies for a car. With a house it may be a little different, I grant you, but in general the way should be that if you have not got the ready money in cash or in the bank account then you will just have to wait until you have managed to save up for it.

It's not quite as difficult as it sounds. Recession thinking tends to be practical but also ordinary and rather simple. Most of it sure is not rocket science.

Switch off the lights when you leave the room. Turn the heating down and put on a sweater. Turn off the tap when cleaning teeth and take showers instead of baths. Take your shoes to the mender rather than throwing them away.

The biggest problem at times is that, in our throwaway society, it is often cheaper to buy new than to have something repaired. This is utterly stupid, I know.

Personally I find it ridiculous that a printer, for instance, that costs £30 the company wanted to charge over £100 for repairs and when they were told that for that time about three of those printers could be bought the comment just was “suggest you get a new one then.”

Folks are also starting allotment gardens again and those with gardens at their own homes turn much of it over to food production.

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardens, says that demand for allotments has been so huge that some London boroughs have a 10-year waiting list.

There are area though also where allotments are still going begging and no one has as yet taken a real interest in the plots, and that in areas in the outer boroughs of London.

"Fresh air, exercise and fresh food, what could be better?" says Geoff Stokes. "And because so many younger people have started working on allotments, and mothers come with their children after school, there tends to be a real community spirit."

Here are some tips from the book “Austerity Britain 1945-1951” that might come back into vogue:, and not too soon either:

1. Turn over old cuffs and collars: If a shirt cuff or collar looks frayed, instead of throwing the shirt away, simply turn them over.

Though there is a problem with that too and that is that, unlike in the days of old, collars and cuffs are rather attached and unless one is rather good in sewing it might b e a slightly difficult affair.

2. Refashion old sheets: There is an old phrase, "sheets sides to middle," which refers to the fact that bed-linen tends to wear out more in the middle. During the war, women would cut threadbare sheets down the middle, turn them over, then sew them back together.

3. Make the most of leftovers: In the spirit of thrift, nothing should be thrown away. Therefore leftover vegetables become bubble and squeak; the Sunday roast becomes Monday's cottage pie.

In order to do that, however, people will have to learn, once again, how to cook from scratch. “bubble and squeak” and “cottage pie” are not made in a microwave.

4. Create a soap ball in the kitchen: Collect tiny fragments of soap from elsewhere in the house, then stick them together to form a soap ball for the kitchen or scullery.

5. Wash and re-use silver foil: A common practice in the '40s and '50s, typical of that generation's attitude to recycling.

6. Buy from thrift stores and Charity Shops rather than new as and where practicable. I do for most of my clothes and books.

7. Walk, use public transport or cycle instead of using the car or taxis. Not only does this save yu money; it also keeps you fit – well, the walking and cycling at least.

8. Cut out the latte in the coffee shop and have ordinary coffee at home. Take your own homemade sandwiches and a thermos flask of coffee to work with you.

Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves and it can be incredibly rewarding, this lifestyle.

Thrifty thinking is also about making creative, imaginative choices, even down to the cuts of meat you buy. Then again, does it really have to be meat all the time and nigh on every day. It did not used to be thus. Meat was for the more special occasions, and that includes chicken.

Thrifty food shopping is not only restricted to meat. Buying vegetables in season is also recommended and being experimental.

Again, however, the being experimental is linked to actually being able to cook from scratch, a skill which, alas, is sadly missing with so many people nowadays.

The current way of waste is not just scandalous, it is, in fact, immoral and must be stopped. We got into the habit of being sensible in the war; we managed beautifully when money was scarce. We used up our food instead of throwing it away.

We live in a disposable culture; everything is designed to have a short life, to be thrown out and replaced as soon as it no longer works – or even before that when it is “obsolete”, according to the manufacturers. No one has any idea how to mend things or repair them or when they do then the charges are astronomical and one can buy new several times over. Other things hjust are designed not to be repairable. This is not sustainable.

It is not only that we cannot do this ourselves – in fact many electrical things you are, theoretically, no longer allowed to fix yourself - it's almost impossible to find someone who will repair a toaster, say, because toasters have become dirt cheap. All this makes people think very little about stuff - where it comes from and the effort and energy that has gone into making it.

If you can buy a new T-shirt for £1, why bother to mend it when it gets ripped, so at least the attitude of the masses. I was taught me to mend stuff. We had leather patches on our jumpers,on the knees of our pants – or patches from other pants - but you never see a man with that these days, unless they have stitched on by some fancy designer.

Being from a large Gypsy family I was raised with the values of “waste not, want not” and not just as regards to food. Clothes were hand-me-downs, often that our Mom got given by people when out “calling”, that is to say, hawking. Shoes were only worn, I must say, at certain times of the year and occasions. Toys were very rare and certainly things that had been someone else's before us. I must say though that we did not even mind. At least I cannot remember ever doing so.

How many things might you not have to spend money on buying if you could and would make them for yourself either from scratch or by reusing or re-purposing some items of what would normally considered trash. It is always a challenge to me to see what I can turn this or that item of trash into for use on my desk or elsewhere in the home or office.

Our parents and grandparents re-purposed glass jars and tin cans for various tasks, from keeping buttons in them, or nuts and bolts, to measuring cups and a variety of other uses.

In an economic downturn heading for a recession and may be even, as some analysts of the economy reckon, a depression that could equal the Great Depression of the 1930s, such measures must be employed for sheer survival. In addition to that it is good for the environment and the Planet too.

© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>

OECD report finds that lowering energy consumption is better than biofuels for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Well, now that was obvious, was it not... How much did this study cost?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), entitled "Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies", not only is public support of biofuels costly, it also has very little impact on reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

All the tax incentives, blending targets and other public support policies in the European Union, the US, and Canada total $25 billion per year but will ultimately result in less than a 1% reduction in emissions from transport by 2015, according to the OECD report.

The benefits of biofuels are very often more than overstated

The OECD said that if Brazil’s ethanol produced from sugar cane cuts greenhouse gas emissions by around 80%, biofuels from feedstocks in the United States, the EU or Canada tend to have a far lower environmental benefit. Biodiesel from vegetable oil cuts greenhouse emissions by around 40-55% and ethanol from corn…generally cuts them by less than 30%.”

The worst offender in this list, biodiesel from palm oil, according to some estimates actually increases greenhouse gas emissions compared to ordinary diesel by 800%, and in addition possibly contributes to Orangutan extinction in the wild.

Lowering energy consumption is by far a better solution than biofuels

In its recommendations, the OECD says that governments should offer more support for second generation biofuel feedstocks that don’t use food crops, but more importantly, policies designed to reduce overall energy consumption should receive more funding.

A study recently has also shown that instead of lowering and reducing CO2 and other emissions biofuels can actually make matters worse. Therefore, we need to look at new sources and also at old ways of transport. Yes, I did say, OLD ways, and this includes especially the bicycle and the horse and mule.

From the report’s policy recommendations,

A priority focus, said the mentioned report, needs to be given to reducing energy consumption. This is especially important in the transport sector where the growth in energy use and related environmental problems is most pronounced. In particular, this includes the gradual move from highly energy intensive modes of transport to less intensive ones, and improvement in fuel efficiency in all transport sectors. Generally the costs of reducing GHG emissions by saving energy are lower than by switching to alternative energy sources, in particular biofuels.

While this is being said by the OECD the UK government still supports the 10 percent target by 2020 but wants the indirect effects of biofuels to be part of the sustainability criteria, and the UK wants a rigorous review of the target in 2013-2014.

Why this continuing support of the 10 percent target? One can only assume that jobs and money is at stake here, and votes and promises of investment here and there.

Essentially, in the report, the OECD is recommending that government embrace the factor that energy efficiency is crucial for combating climate change and for making renewable energy technologies most effective.

A recent World Bank report estimated that, alongside drought and speculation, biofuels derived from crops such as grains, oil seeds and sugar were responsible for up to three quarters of recent hikes in food prices which have hurt the world's poorest.

Global demand for agricultural land would soar by 2020 meaning in future all biofuel demand must come from marginal land, including use of hi-tech fuels derived from waste like straw and wood chips instead of food. Other sources could be, as apparently the Brazilians have pioneered, ethanol from grass clippings. Then there also is good old methane, as a gas, which could be cerated in methane digesters.

We also, as I have already stated, must get away form the overuse, and overuse it indeed is, of the motor car for transportation.

Why does anyone have to use the car to pop round to the corner shop for the newspaper or that packet of cigarettes? Why do the children have to be taken to school by car, seeing the school is only a block away?

Yes, I am a cyclist and do not even own a motorcar. I do not even have a driver's license. So, I know that people might think me biased as regards to the car but that is not the case. It is the needless use that I am against.

I am also against the needless use of other motorized operations when human-powered would do nicely. We must liberate ourselves from the over-reliance on gasoline or diesel powered appliances and vehicles. While there is a case for such appliances and vehicles, etc. at times, there are more often than not occasions where starting up the lawnmower or the car would take longer than doing it in a more old-fashioned way.

We must reduce our energy consumption, and that on a number of levels. The survival of mankind, to a great degree, depends on this. Do we want food or fuel? We must decide.

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
<>

Recycling alone will not do

Even if we would recycle everything that can be recycled in the UK – and the same is probably true also for elsewhere – there would still simply too much waste. Something must be done with that.

There is only one answer to this problem; we simply MUST reduce our waste; the waste that we produce in households, in industry and especially the packaging waste and I am not only referring here to the plastic carrier bags.

The problem is that, probably even then, after the step above, there will still be some stuff left that needs to be disposed off. In an ideal world, maybe, that would not be the case but...

...we do not live in an ideal world and won't be, I am sure, for some time to come.

Therefore the non-recyclable waste must be used to produce energy, whether this is by means of incineration in waste-fuelled electricity power plants – no NIMBYS please – or by anaerobic digestion and the use of the resultant methane gas for the generation of electricity, or as gas for heating and cooking, does not matter. What matters is that holes in the ground are no longer an option.

Other countries can do it and are doing it rather well. However, when this even gets as much as suggested in Britain firstly everyone – especially the likes of those that claim that they are all for the environment – gets up in arms against such incinerating electricity generators and we are also being told that it cannot be in Britain as, apparently, Britain is different to Germany, Holland or Sweden. Then again we are also told that Britain is different when it comes to, say, micro-generation of electricity and selling of possible surplus from such activities back to the national electricity grid, but then, that is rather another story.

Regarding waste we have only one major option and that, aside from recycling, is reducing the waste that we produce. We must look at recycling maybe also in a different light, e.g. Not so much to the large commercial operation but in fact looking at the craftsman or -woman who has ideas of how to turn waste into reusable items. This, however, also requires a different approach by banks and grant-giving bodies. I guess this is, however, again something that could not possibly be done in the UK.

Food for thought, I hope...

...now let's go and make a change.

© M V Smith, November 2007

Recycling is not enough

Recycling on its own is not enough to tackle the UK's ever growing waste problem. people must change their habits and consume less in the first place, but even more important is the reduction of packaging waste and we must reuse and repair more. We have become, in the UK and the USA especially, it seems, a throw-away society where it is also cheaper, unfortunately, to buy new rather than to repair. As an example we should see the fact that an Epson computer printer of the low range costs UK£29.99 but when the ink reservoir was full up six month into its use and the warranty did not cover that a quote of £72 for a new ink reservoir was given and another £70 for fitting the said ink reservoir. How come that the unit itself, with the ink reservoir, can be sold for £30 while a repair would cost £110 more than a new one? This just is the wrong way round. We must change this, again.

In its report, “Consumption: reducing, reusing and recycling”, the Economic and Social Research Council argues that the process being made by increasing recycling rates is undermined by the sheer volume of waste that is being generated by all of us. Therefore the ESRC advocates 'social marketing' as part of the solution.

It estimates that, if household waste output continues to rise by 3% a year, the cost to the economy will be £3.2 billion and the amount of harmful methane emissions will double by 2020.

The report highlights the many ways that social science can contribute to waste policy development, either by devising initiatives, by providing tools to evaluate their relative effectiveness or by helping to understand why they did or did not work.

Commercial marketing tools could be used, said the ESRC's Professor Ken Peattie, to influence public behavior for the benefit of society as a whole.

This social marketing, he said, can be successful because if focuses on the target audience's point of view, taking account of any emotional or physical barriers that may prevent people from changing their behavior.

We must return to the old ways of glass bottles that have a deposit on them which is refunded when the bottle is returned, as well as take on board tried and tested methods from other countries, such as the reverse vending machines for aluminum soda and beer cans. In the USA many families – especially those forced to live on the street, but also others – make a living from collecting, including removing them from litter bins, such cans and feeding them into the reverse vending machines where they are paid a couple of cents each per can. We will not be getting far by punishing households for not recycling “properly” but will get a lot further if we give people incentives to recycle.

Guilt messages are ineffective, as are punishments, in this instance. A better way is to focus on the benefits of a greener lifestyle as encouragement to people to reduce their consumption. If people can see no benefit it it for them – the greater good may appeal to some but not all – then many will not do it. But do we have the political will to see this through as a country? Do we also have the will as individuals to make this work by firstly reducing our consumption and secondly by ensuring that everything can be recycled in one way or the other?

© M V Smith, July 2007