Green (Living) Review

Reducing your ENVIRONMENTAL footprint

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Many people refer to it as the “carbon” footprint but I like to take it a little step further an talk about the environmental footprint rather. Carbon is one thing; the environmental impact of our species goes further than any carbon per se. Therefore we should really be looking at it in that way too.

Much is being talked about our need to reduce CO2 emissions – and that may be so – but nothing seems to be said about all the other things. As I have said before, it would appear as if Climate Change, previously called Global Warming, has pushed all the other, often more important issues, to the background.

What good is a cool planet if we no longer have a healthy soil, fish in the sea and all that? None whatsoever. All things must go hand in hand and we must not forget the other issues that may not have much to do with CO2.

We all hear the disaster scenarios – and actually I do take them pretty seriously – but not many of us can personally start building wind-farms, and many also do not have the funds to even have their own little wind turbine and photo-voltaic cells for the home, so how do we make some deep cuts in our emissions?

First of all measure. There are a great number of on-line calculators now where you can feed your energy bills, gasoline usage, and such like, in – and out pops your supposed CO2 footprint. This is a must to get started on reductions (otherwise, how are you going to know what you should be reducing and how you're doing?!). Just type 'carbon calculator' into any search engine.

Next shop with an eco-eye. But how do I do that, I hear you ask. Find recommended Eco Stores online or in the real world. There is a warning here though that I may like to give and that is that there are many things out there claimed by the green stores and many green magazines too be real great and good for the Planet, such as they claim as regards to bamboo fiber clothes, or the Eco Button, and other things, that are, in fact, nothing but greenwash. Some reviewers either have no idea as to how to review or they have links to the reviewed products in one way or the other. At the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW we pride ourselves on being impartial and we will not award good marks to any product, book or service, that does not deserve it.

Make a record. Reducing CO2 will reduce your bills – because, for example, you are using less energy produced from burning fossil fuels like coal. But, I think it is also important to note down what you are doing and what the impact is. It will help you see the reward. Again, there are various websites that will give you a chance to input data and save it.

Forget about carbon offsetting despite of what some might like to advise to the contrary. Carbon offsetting is nothing but gimmickry. And in the large scale it is basically indulgences. Let's be serious and if you wish to help some solar project in India or wherever then do it out of the goodness of your own heart or because of how much you have saved following your energy audit rather than as an indulgence for the CO2 emissions for which you are still, directly or indirectly, responsible.

Many eco-stores on the high street and the Internet try to sell you this or that gadget with which to, supposedly, reduce you carbon emissions, etc., and you may also, and that is true, save some money in the long run in that you reduce your heating or electricity bill.

However, many things you do not even have to buy in order to do and here is and idea...

Instead of, for inctance, falling for the sales pitch and buying a Radiator Booster (fan) you can do something yourself though and that is much cheaper: Put a panel of reflective aluminium foil behind each and every radiator. That will reflect the heat away from the wall and prevent loss to the outside. It also will reflect heat back into the room, obviously.

There are also other ways that you can do – without having to spend any or much money – in order to reduce heat loss, for instance.

The draft snake, for instance, that you can easily make yourself, instead of buying for between $10 and $20 from the green stores and craftspeople. And I could go on but won't, at least not for the moment ...

Rory Bremner to kick off London green business event, May 27

Playwright, impressionist and satirist Rory Bremner, has agreed to kick off BASE London, a day long conference for business and the public sector to hear more about the opportunities coming from London's transformation to a low carbon economy. BASE London is being organised in conjunction with the London Development Agency on May 27th at the ExCel Centre.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, will deliver a keynote speech at 10am, to outline his plans for London's ambition to become a world leading sustainable city.

Break-out sessions and seminars will fill the day, punctuated by other keynotes, and panel sessions. Tim Smit, founder of the Eden Project, and one of the country's foremost green entrepreneurs, joins a late morning session designed to identify the practicalities to achieving a sustainable economy.

BASE London is at www.baselondonshow.co.uk.

Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

By Carl Watner

Introduction

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

The Epistemological Argument

Violence is never a means to knowledge. As Isabel Paterson, explained in her book, The God of the Machine, "No edict of law can impart to an individual a faculty denied him by nature. A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence." Or, as Baldy Harper used to put it, "You cannot shoot a truth!" The advocate of any form of invasive violence is in a logically precarious situation.

Coercion does not convince, nor is it any kind of argument. William Godwin pointed out that force "is contrary to the nature of the intellect, which cannot but be improved by conviction and persuasion," and "if he who employs coercion against me could mold me to his purposes by argument, no doubt, he would.. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because he is weak." Violence contains none of the energies that enhance a civilized human society. At best, it is only capable of expanding the material existence of a few individuals, while narrowing the opportunities of most others.

The Economic Argument

People engage in voluntary exchanges because they anticipate improving their lot; the only individuals capable of judging the merits of an exchange are the parties to it.

Voluntaryism follows naturally if no one does anything to stop it. The interplay of natural property and exchanges results in a free market price system, which conveys the necessary information needed to make intelligent economic decisions.

Interventionism and collectivism make economic calculation impossible because they disrupt the free market price system. Even the smallest government intervention leads to problems which justify the call for more and more intervention. Also, "controlled" economies leave no room for new inventions, new ways of doing things, or for the "unforeseeable and unpredictable." Free market competition is a learning process which brings about results which no one can know in advance. There is no way to tell how much harm has been done and will continue to be done by political restrictions.

The Moral Argument

The voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn't guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of "better" on someone else, it protects us from having someone else's idea of "better" imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.

The Natural Law Argument

Common sense and reason tell us that nothing can be right by legislative enactment if it is not already right by nature. Epictetus, the Stoic, urged men to defy tyrants in such a way as to cast doubt on the necessity of government itself. "If the government directed them to do something that their reason opposed, they were to defy the government. If it told them to do what their reason would have told them to do anyway, they did not need a government." Just as we do not require a State to dictate what is right or wrong in growing food, manufacturing textiles, or in steel-making, we do not need a government to dictate standards and procedures in any field of endeavor. "In spite of the legislature, the snow will fall when the sun is in Capricorn, and the flowers will bloom when it is in Cancer."

The Means-End Argument

Although certain services and goods are necessary to our survival, it is not essential that they be provided by the government. Voluntaryists oppose the State because it uses coercive means. The means are the seeds which bud into flower and come into fruition. It is impossible to plant the seed of coercion and then reap the flower of voluntaryism. The coercionist always proposes to compel people to do some-thing, usually by passing laws or electing politicians to office. These laws and officials depend upon physical violence to enforce their wills. Voluntary means, such as non-violent resistance, for example, violate no one's rights. They only serve to nullify laws and politicians by ignoring them. Voluntaryism does not require of people that they violently overthrow their government, or use the electoral process to change it; merely that they shall cease to support their government, whereupon it will fall of its own dead weight. If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

The Consistency Argument

It is a commonplace observation that the means one uses must be consistent with the goal one seeks. It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political." Freedom and private property are total, indivisible concepts that are compromised wherever and whenever the State exists. Since all things are related to one another in our complicated social world, if one man's freedom or private property may be violated (regardless of the justification), then every man's freedom and property are insecure. The superior man can only be sure of his freedom if the inferior man is secure in his rights. We often forget that we can secure our liberty only by preserving it for the most despicable and obnoxious among us, lest we set precedents that can reach us.

The Integrity, Self-Control, and Corruption Argument

It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.

Death of Dugout Dick ends an era, and not just in Idaho

Richard Zimmerman, known to all as Dugout Dick, dies in his cave age 94 – R.I.P.

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Known to some as the "Salmon River Caveman," but to most as “Dugout Dick”, Richard Zimmerman lived a lifestyle that was essentially a 19th century one. He was a digital-age anachronism who never owned a telephone or a television and lived almost entirely off the land.

Few knew people him by his given name of Richard Zimmerman. To friends and visitors to his jumble of cave-like homes scrabbled from a rocky shoulder of the Salmon River, he was simply Dugout Dick.

Dugout Dick was the last of Idaho's river-canyon loners that date back to Territorial days. They are a unique group that until the 1980s included canyon contemporaries with names like Beaver Dick, Cougar Dave and Wheelbarrow Annie, "Buckskin Bill" (real name Sylvan Hart) and "Free Press Frances" Wisner. Fiercely independent loners, they lived eccentric lives on their own terms and made the state more interesting just by being here.

Most of them, just like Zimmerman, came from some place else. They were drawn by Idaho's remoteness and wild places removed from social pressures. They came and spent their lives here, leaving only in death.

Some became reluctant celebrities, interviewed about their unusual lifestyles and courted by media heavyweights. Zimmerman himself was featured in National Geographic magazine but refused repeated invitations to appear on the "Tonight Show."

Zimmerman's metamorphosis to Dugout Dick began when he crossed a wooden bridge over the Salmon River in 1947 and built a makeshift home on the side of a hill. He spent the rest of his life there, fashioning one cavelike dwelling after another, furnishing them with castoff doors, car windows, old tires and other leavings.

"I have everything here," he said. "I got lots of rocks and rubber tires. I have plenty of straw and fruit and vegetables, my dog and my cats and my guitars. I make wine to cook with. There's nothing I really need."

Some of his caves were 60 feet deep and though he never intended to build an apartment house, he earned spending money by renting them for $2 a night. Some renters spent one night; others chose the $25 monthly rate and stayed for months or years.

He lived in a cave by choice and he walked out and hitchhiked home after having been moved by a friend to a care center in Salmon at age 93 because he was in failing health.

People say that he was the only person they have ever known who was absolutely self-sufficient. He didn't work for anybody. He worked for himself. And, as far as he was concerned, he needed little or nothing.

An era has passed and we are the poorer for it.

THE ‘GOOD LIFE’ TO BE WON IN BBC TV FARMING PROGRAMME

BBC Television is looking for couples who want to make a life-changing decision and take up a career in farming and there’s just days left to apply to take part in the programme.

If you know of friends or relatives who are attracted to all that farming has to offer, the deadline to apply to take part in this BBC TV search for such a couple is Wednesday 28 April.

This summer ten lucky couples selected for the programme will learn about the skills needed to farm in the British countryside. They will experience all areas of farm life, from animal husbandry to coping with the unpredictable weather, when they compete for the opportunity to live and work on their own small farm.

Lantra, the Sector Skills Council for the environmental and land based sector, highlighted the fact that there is a critical shortage of people choosing farming as a career and that 60,000 new entrants are needed in the next few years just for the industry to stand still. Many experienced farmers are soon to retire and new blood is needed to follow in their footsteps.

This high profile BBC series will highlight what farming has to offer when their ten chosen couples compete to win the chance of a lifetime to get into farming.

Lantra welcomes the BBC’s decision to commission the reality-style show as it will highlight the often high-tech skills needed in farming today and will bring agriculture right into the living rooms of millions of TV viewers, demonstrating how rewarding working in agriculture can be.

The BBC is looking for couples of all ages and types of relationships who are serious about wanting to change their lives and who think they will relish life on a farm. Whether it's a love of animals or a passion for the great outdoors, the series producers want to hear from you.

To apply to take part in the six week series, couples – married, friends or siblings – need to contact the TV company at farm@splashmediatv.co.uk and an application form will be emailed to you. The deadline is 28 April.

To view case studies of people already working in the industry visit Lantra’s website at www.lantra.co.uk/businesses/agriculture/case-studies.

Source: LANTRA

Earth Day in Bolivia

From Copenhagen to Cancun, Indigenous Peoples Vow to Defend the "Rights of Mother Earth" & Condemn Predatory 'REDD' Forest Programs

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Cochabamba, Bolivia: As Earth Day celebrations commenced around the world, Indigenous Peoples from across the Americas gathered in Cochabamba, Bolivia to close the historic conference on climate change and the "Rights of Mother Earth" hosted by President Evo Morales.

Morales, the only Indigenous Head of State in the world, called this conference in the wake of failed climate talks in Copenhagen. As the world prepares for the next round of talks in Cancún, Mexico, Indigenous Peoples vowed on Earth Day 2010 to push for proposals that keep fossil fuels in the ground, protect Indigenous rights, and reject predatory policies like REDD (Reducing Emissions Through Deforestation & Degradation).

"REDD is branded as a friendly forest conservation program, yet it is backed by big polluters and climate profiteers. We cannot solve this crisis with out addressing the root cause: a fossil fuel economy that disregards the rights of Mother Earth," said Alberto Saldamando, legal counsel for the International Indian Treaty Council.

"President Morales has heard our recommendations on the structural causes of climate change and predatory carbon schemes like REDDs, and will bring our voices to the world stage in Cancún later this year."

President Morales was joined by representatives of 90 governments and several Heads of State to receive the findings of the conference on topics such as a Climate Tribunal, Climate Debt, just finance for mitigation and adaptation, agriculture, and forests.

The working group on forests held one of the more hotly contested negotiations of the summit, but with the leadership of Indigenous Peoples, a consensus was reached to reject REDD and call for wide-scale grassroots reforestation programs. The final declaration on forests states, "We condemn the mechanisms of the neoliberal market, such as the REDD mechanism and its versions REDD+ and REDD++, which are violating the sovereignty of our Peoples and their rights to free, prior and informed consent and self determination." The working group on forests also challenged the definition of forests used by the United Nations, which permits plantations and transgenic trees, saying, "Monocultures are not forests."

"REDD is not a solution to climate change," said Marlon Santi, President of CONAIE, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador, the largest Indigenous organization in that country. "REDD has been created by multilateral institutions like the World Bank that routinely violate Indigenous Peoples' rights and pollute Mother Earth. It is perverse that these institutions are pretending to have the 'solution' when they have actually caused the climate crisis. REDD should not be implemented in any country or community."

"REDD is a predatory program that pretends to save forests and the climate, while backhandedly selling out forests out from under our Indigenous Peoples," said Tom Goldtooth, Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), based in Bemidji, MN. "REDD will encourage continuing pollution and global warming, while displacing those of us least responsible for the crisis, who have been stewards of the forests since time immemorial."

The declarations forged by the working groups in Cochabamba will be taken to the Cancún summit by President Morales as a counter-proposal to the widely criticized "Copenhagen Accord." Movements of Indigenous Peoples, trade unions, farmers and environmentalists are also building momentum out of Cochabamba with plans for mass demonstrations in Cancún.

While it may be true that monocultures of trees are not natural forests, per se, they still are much better than no forests at all, I would like to add to this.

It is true that I am a professional forester and hence commercial forestry is part of my metier people may say that I have a vested interest but the wholesale condemnation of professional forestry and commercial forestry is getting us nowhere either.

Commercial forestry can be sustainable and the operations in Britain and continental Europe show this. Any group of trees is a forests or at least a woodland, unless those trees are fruit trees and they they are an orchard.

So, let's get real. None of those constructed programs are any solution and the changing climate is but one problem that we are facing. Climate change is, however, hijacking the entire environmental agenda.

When it comes to carbon capture, forests are more important than anything and a young growth forests absorbs more carbon than any old growth, thus plantations of trees, for commercial forestry, and especially in management systems such as coppicing are an ideal solution.

Stuff won’t make you happy, experiences will

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A new study conducted at Cornell University and reported in the January 2010 issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that experiences bring greater happiness and satisfaction than buying and owning possessions.

The study revealed that people often feel buyer’s remorse, stress, and a sense that they may not have purchased the best or right product after shopping. In contrast, after a vacation, hike, bike ride, or game of softball in the park, there are rarely negative feelings or associations with these experiences.

At one point the conclusion of the study that:

… satisfaction with material purchases tends to decrease over time, whereas satisfaction with experiential purchases tends to increase.

Over one’s lifetime, it is his or her experiences that are more valuable than any product ever owned or purchased.

If you are worried that getting rid of clutter will have a negative impact on your life, this study shows that that is not likely to happen. Clearing the clutter will make room for you to have more experiences, which will ultimately make you happier.

From many angles, the pursuit of experiences over possessions seems to be the firmer path to happiness.

Such and similar studies from other sources have shown the same; that possessions do not make people happy and neither does the permanent pursuit of the “more, more, more” to which we are even encouraged by our governments.

One can but wonder how much this academic research has cost, yet again, to prove only something so blatantly obvious that a blind man with the cane would see it.

I must say that the more I see those research results the more I am wondering as to whether those academics need something to research in order to get grants, however silly and obvious the research might be.

I mean the recent discovery that elephants are “four-wheel drive”, proving something that the eye was telling them, is an example in hand, aside from the ones done in the UK to discover – yet, statement by the government – that waste wood can be burned and that inland waterways and canals can be used for the transportation of freight.

Is it me who is mad or the scientific world?

UK should and could be leading Europe on wind power

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Britain is the windiest country in Europe yet lags behind some of its more progressive neighbors when it comes to tapping into the energy potential of this resource.

That needs to change, according to the chief executive of the British Wind Energy Association Maria McCaffrey.

Speaking at Energy & Environment 2009 in London she said: “The bulk of our energy generation is still coming from fossil fuels but the good news is that the entire energy sector has bought into the belief that a greater contribution must come from renewables.

“Within that the greatest contributor is going to be wind energy - both on and offshore.”

“That can help us reduce our dependency on imports and create greater independence by harnessing our own natural resources.”

“The biggest cost is of deployment is the capital cost up front – the fuel itself is free.”

She said there were four key things needed to make wind power a reality – plenty of wind, the technology, capital investment and political will.

The first two are, she argued, a given.

The UK has the best wind resource in Europe, both on and offshore, but has yet to tap into its full potential, said Ms McCaffrey.

Germany, by comparison, has one of the worst wind resources on the continent but currently manages to produce ten times more energy from wind than Britain.

Turbine technology is now well-proven, with bigger and more efficient machines being built all the time.

Investment is also still looking promising on the whole, said Ms McCaffrey, even in these gloomy economic times, and the Renewables Obligation framework makes the UK highly attractive.

"It's a very capital intensive process but then so also are most other forms of electricity generation," she said.

"There's still a healthy investment market in the UK despite the economic situation over the past 12 months."

But there are obstacles, she said.

“Working against us is the fact that we still have problems with the planning system and access to the grid.”

“Our national grid is over 50 years old and is in radical need of upgrading and replacement in many parts.”

“If it has to be replaced anyway, let's make it fit for the purpose of modern energy.”

Ms McCaffrey said political will is needed to cement all the other factors together and the right regulatory framework is needed to keep investment in the UK to secure jobs and wealth creation.

She claimed that Government has taken big steps in the right direction over the past six months, with the creation of DECC a sign that it is serious about climate change, but it must now translate good intentions into action to ensure the UK reaches its full potential.

The absolute biggest problem, aside from the apparent lack of political will and the fact that government is still in bed with the fossil fuel industry, or better, and more precise, the government nigh on is the fossil fuel industry, are also the NIMBYs who are – again and again – permitted to steamroller proposed wind farms.

Has anyone ever questioned who bankrolls those supposedly grassroots NIMBY movements that – mysteriously – tend to spring up from nowhere when a wind generating facility is proposed somewhere and who also – more often than not – oppose small wind?

The fingers of the vested interest groups are showing through there for certain, for no supposedly small grassroots groups can get funds as most of them seem to have from just “members”. There just is no way.

It is so strange, is it not, that things are so much different in Germany and Denmark. The latter country really profited from the Danish government's farsightedness in those early days in that the investment of the government now brings in an annual revenue several times bigger than the initial investment.

While Britain could be leading we are not and this is due to the fact that the political will simply, regardless of all the positive noises from government and the back benches, is not there to push the cause for renewables, overruling objections.

It can be done and must be done ...

Less is More - Book Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Less is More
Embracing simplicity for a healthy planet,
a caring economy and lasting happiness
Cecile Andrews & Wanda Urbanska
Paperback - 288 pages – 5inches x 8inches
Published by New Society Publishers, September 2009
ISBN: 9780865716506
CAD 16.95
USD 16.95

Less can be more. What a strange thought, though true.

As millions of us, and not just in America and Canada, are finding ourselves waking up with less disposable income, fewer job prospects, and such, some are rediscovering the joys of growing our own food, sharing picnics with others in our community, going for hikes in the woods, or spending more time with our family. Instead of working at a job they hate, they’re starting their own enterprise that makes the world a better place. Good on them.

Our obsessive pursuit of wealth just is not working, and is making us all sick. People are afraid and anxious and we are destroying the Planet, undermining happiness, and clinging to an unsustainable economy.

Most of the global economy is nothing but a ponzy scheme that sooner or later is going to come tumbling down like a house of cards.

But there is another way. Less can be indeed be more.

Throughout history wise people have argued that we need to live more simply and that only by limiting outer wealth can we have inner wealth. “Less is More” is a compelling collection of essays by people who have been writing about Simplicity for decades – including Jim Merkel, Bill McKibben, Duane Elgin, Juliet Schor, Ernest Callenbach, John de Graaf, and others. They bring us a new vision of Less: less stuff, less work, less stress, less debt. A life with Less becomes a life of More: more time, more satisfaction, more balance, more security.

When we have too much, we savor nothing. When we choose less, we regain our life and can think and feel deeply. Ultimately, a life of less connects us with one true source of happiness: being part of a caring community. “Less is More” shows us how to turn individual change into a movement that leads to policy changes in government and corporate behavior, work hours, the wealth gap and sustainability. It will appeal to those who want to take back their lives, their planet and their well-being.

A new version of happiness, it would appear, is emerging, based on relationships and connections to each other and nature, not on all the goods found at the Mall. There are now many people who are choosing to live and work in a world where the economists – who presently dominate the national and global economy – do not matter.

The new book from Cecile Andrews and Wanda Urbanska, “Less is More: Embracing simplicity for a healthy planet, a caring economy and lasting happiness”, is just the right tonic for these upside-down and troubled times. The book gives, though the essays by a variety of writers food for though of how to side-step stress and to learn to live and thrive, instead, in a world of abundance, where freedom and cooperation still reign.

It can be done and must be done and “Less is More” can be used as one of the guide books to set ourselves and our world on just that course.

Less is More is divided into three parts – simplicity defined, solutions, and policies – each containing short essays, analysis and inspiration from some of the leading sustainability, simplicity and community thinkers and doers.

About the Editor(s)

Cecile Andrews is a community educator, author of Circle of Simplicity and contributor to several books on living more simply and taking back our time. She and her husband are founders of Seattle's Phinney Ecovillage, a neighborhood-based sustainable community.

Wanda Urbanska is producer/host of Simple Living with Wanda Urbanska. She is author or co-author of numerous books, including Simple Living and Nothing's Too Small to Make a Difference.

Celebrate Earth Day with HP

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Hewlett-Packard (HP) in time for Earth Day 2010 on Thursday, April 22, has brought out a number of downloadable and printable items that could be of interested to many a reader.

Fair enough, printing may not be all that green, at least not in some people's eyes but we are talking here calendars. Stickers, guides, and such, that make you and your family's path to going green a little easier with handy tips and reminders.

You will find those on the pages of the HP Creative Print Studio under the “Earth Day” tab.

The direct route is to go to http://www.hp.com/hho/hp_create/themes_otherthemes_environment.html and here you will find even some more projects, including the Martha Stewart “No-Sew Market Tote Bag”.

Also of interest might be the paper saving tips on: http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/505121-0-0-225-121.html?hhosnl=hpn_1901|757286|DEDF0852877F9B5E|66A9988B768A2F456ED35DA6986C132A.

Happy Earth Day Everyone!