View Full Version : Sustainable Hiking
In general, most days spent hiking probably reduce our impact on the environment compared to our everday lives, but I'm wondering if we can do better than that while hiking. I am not a big advocate of 'leave-no-trace' except in more sensitive areas. I think 'sustainability' should be the overall focus, and 'leave-no-trace' a means of practicing 'sustainability' in more sensitive eco-systems.
What leave-no-trace doesn't cover is the energy and resources used in our clothing and gear and transportation to and from the trail heads. How might these be improved. What are some better choices for gear, and clothing, and food, and fuel, and transportation, from the point of view of sustainability?
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
I don't think there are single answers. Some solutions are better in some situations than in others. But what are some good ideas or observations, and is it enough that we do better when we are hiking than in our everyday living, or should we try and set a higher standard for ourselves when hiking?
I'll go first. I use alot of plastic bags when hiking. I am not sure that all plastic bags should be eliminated, but I have never really tried to come up with better alternatives. Also, I've re-used some plastic bags, but not as much as I would like. I used to always carry a big orange garbage bag for my sleeping bag, and just use it as a garbage bag when I got home, which works great, but I'm thinking the real value in reducing plastic use when hiking is that it forces us to look for alternatives. Re-using from and to our daily lives is legitimate, but a bit of a cop out if it keeps us from thinking and learning. I just wrap my sleeping bag in my bivy now, and inside my Jam2 pack that seems to be enough, as it is pretty waterproof. Of course nylon and polyester fleece are plastics too, but its not that I am against plastics completely, just when there might be better alternatives. We have to start paying per bag next year for garbage disposal. That should really get me thinking. I go through an aweful lot of clothes. Mostly they just pile up but they will all end up in a landfill eventually, even if they go to goodwill first, and even if they came from there. :)
It is somewhat ironic when we say "Take only photos. Leave only Footprints."
The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. It would be interesting to measure how large of a footprint is taken up off the trail, from our hiking activities, for each footprint we leave on the trail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
Thought I would try some numbers.
It takes about 5,000,000 footsteps to hike the trail.
Each footstep is about 0.03 square meters.
So we leave about 15 hectares in footprints, about 6 acres.
In North America our ecological footprint is about 10 hectares per person. So if we hike the AT in 6 months, and reduce our ecological by 50% while hiking, we are walking 6 footprints on the trail for each footprint we are taking up off the trail. If we were to reduce our ecological footprint to the world average while hiking, 2 hectares per person, we would be able to leave 15 footprints on the trail for every footprint we are taking up off the trail.
Not sure what our biggest impact is while hiking. If we still have a house, and a car, but burn less fuel and use less electricity in them while hiking, its hard to measure. The food we eat in North America, because of the way we produce it, is 20% of our carbon footprint. Perhaps the biggest contribution we can make while hiking is in the food we purchase when we resupply. Some food has a much smaller footprint than others.
The Weasel
03-06-2009, 12:27
Since moving to California, I've found that it is easier to recycle things. Here, there are separte household cans for garbage, recyclables (all kinds except plastic bags) and yard waste. Bottles/cans can be returned, and bags go back to the grocery (bins there). So as for recycling/minimizing other things, there are some decent choices here.
So far as lowering impact on the trail, "pack it in/out" is the best. A few other things can be using alternatives to TP (reducing use), minimizing using foods that come with packaging (i.e. use fresh and dry at home, etc).
Hitching is essentially carpooling, which helps instead of shuttles. Major benefit there, I would think.
Care in selecting new campsites to avoid creating overuse helps.
TW
Pedaling Fool
03-06-2009, 12:57
I think the biggest impact is from slackpacking. The appalachian mountains will one day be gone and the footprint is a negligible factor in their erosion. Mother Nature is destroying the appalachians, not us.
You know the appalachians are a very old mountain chain and was once grander than the himilayas (sp?), however the himilayas are still growing.
Pedaling Fool
03-06-2009, 12:59
Since moving to California, I've found that it is easier to recycle things. Here, there are separte household cans for garbage, recyclables (all kinds except plastic bags) and yard waste. Bottles/cans can be returned, and bags go back to the grocery (bins there). So as for recycling/minimizing other things, there are some decent choices here.
So far as lowering impact on the trail, "pack it in/out" is the best. A few other things can be using alternatives to TP (reducing use), minimizing using foods that come with packaging (i.e. use fresh and dry at home, etc).
Hitching is essentially carpooling, which helps instead of shuttles. Major benefit there, I would think.
Care in selecting new campsites to avoid creating overuse helps.
TW
It's pretty easy to recycle just about anywhere nowadays. We here in Florida also have special containers provided by the city for recycling.
jersey joe
03-06-2009, 13:05
It's pretty easy to recycle just about anywhere nowadays. We here in Florida also have special containers provided by the city for recycling.
In NJ Recycling is mandatory. I get fined if I put a can or bottle in my trash and they catch me. Seems the "blue" states are more progressive with recycling. I don't recall recycling very much of my garbage on the trail. Maybe there should be more trailside recycling recepticals.
As mentioned, Slackpacking is much worse than hiking thru because of the car emissions. Also, when you do go to and from trail heads, carpooling helps.
I've heard that works. I try to reduce portion size at supper time. Wife's a good cook though. The rest of the day I seem to get by best with just one meal, so far anyways, day 3. I put off breakfast as long as I can and then have my oatmeal and currants. Eventually I should try and reduce my stomach size, which is another benefit of portion control, because you feel less hunger if your stomach is smaller. I understand it actually needs to atrophy some. I think a little fasting now and then is probably ok. I might try fasting once a week, just to see if I can do it.
4eyedbuzzard
03-06-2009, 14:13
As you noted there is the "footprint" left by
Manufacturers of hiking gear, clothing, food, insecticide, batteries, etc.; and transportation.
But also consider the "footprints" left by:
Rangers, NPS, USFS, etc, trail maintainers, caretakers, ridgerunners, etc
The ATC and regional trail organizations.
All the labor hours worked that fulfill the tax appropriations that pay for the trail.
Vagrant Squirrel
03-07-2009, 12:59
I read somewhere that something like 3700 people attempt to thru-hike every year, but only about 10% make it the entire way. And of these 3700 people, 90% of them are starting in Springer. It isn't hard to see that there is a lot of overcrowding in the south and that the beginning areas of the trail may see far more impact than the latter. I do think that we should try to eliminate or minimize our footprint, but the real issue becomes one of sustainability as you mentioned. Leaving behind things isn't a real issue as long as they are biodegradeable. Sure, animals might dig up your cat holes and there will be TP strewn throughout the woods... But the majority of hiking is done in the warmer months and from one season to the next all of that TP will have broken down and nature will be as it was before. So year after year, leaving TP behind isn't really having any effect on the sustainability of nature. However, overcrowding in the south may lead to erosion of the soil, which isn't something that can easily be undone. And for all of those people who are really into the "Leave No Trace" ideology, even to the point of preaching to others, I believe the best thing you could do to try to eliminate your footprint is to hike SOBO.
I was mixing metaphors somewhat.
Real human footprints on AT are good, and we should maximize those.
Maybe add more trails also, to spread people out more.
Its the ecological footprint per hiking footprint that I wish to minimize.
As you noted there is the "footprint" left by
Manufacturers of hiking gear, clothing, food, insecticide, batteries, etc.; and transportation.
But also consider the "footprints" left by:
Rangers, NPS, USFS, etc, trail maintainers, caretakers, ridgerunners, etc
The ATC and regional trail organizations.
All the labor hours worked that fulfill the tax appropriations that pay for the trail.Good points. That stuff probably adds up also.
Food produced inefficiently is probably the biggest environmental footprint directly associated with hiking the AT. I suppose better food choices might be the biggest impact we could make.
Secondly perhaps, the fossil fuels used to transport people to and from the trail for hiking and maintaining. If those vehicles could simply have less horsepower, they would be more efficient. Perhaps more passengers per vehicle also, or fewer vehicle miles to and from the trail. Inefficient use of fossil fuels is probably is probably just as big an impact as inefficient food choices, and probably has just as much room for improvement. Perhaps more trails connecting residential communities with hiking trails, and more natural habitat in residential communities is the best long term solution.
Thirdly, the amount of clothing and gear we buy per mile hiked could be greatly improved. We should wear stuff out before buying more. Perhaps the best and easiest way to do that is by hiking more. :)
Also, if we use clothing and gear that serves everyday purposes, as well as hiking and other recreational purposes, we would be getting real multi-use out of our gear. The best way to do that might be to make our everyday lives more like out hiking lives. Hike to work, and of course, wear a wool sweater and shorts. :D
4eyedbuzzard
03-07-2009, 14:34
I read somewhere that something like 3700 people attempt to thru-hike every year, but only about 10% make it the entire way. And of these 3700 people, 90% of them are starting in Springer. It isn't hard to see that there is a lot of overcrowding in the south and that the beginning areas of the trail may see far more impact than the latter. I do think that we should try to eliminate or minimize our footprint, but the real issue becomes one of sustainability as you mentioned. Leaving behind things isn't a real issue as long as they are biodegradeable. Sure, animals might dig up your cat holes and there will be TP strewn throughout the woods... But the majority of hiking is done in the warmer months and from one season to the next all of that TP will have broken down and nature will be as it was before. So year after year, leaving TP behind isn't really having any effect on the sustainability of nature. However, overcrowding in the south may lead to erosion of the soil, which isn't something that can easily be undone. And for all of those people who are really into the "Leave No Trace" ideology, even to the point of preaching to others, I believe the best thing you could do to try to eliminate your footprint is to hike SOBO.
ATC lists a bunch of suggested alternate "2000 miler" itineraries (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805565/k.67EA/Alternative_Itineraries.htm) for many of the reasons you mention. But aside from the logistical problems of flip flopping or others, many don't consider such hikes as having the same feel, continuity, or even merit(whatever that means). I have to agree with some who don't like such alternate itineraries in that there is an allure in "walking with spring" that is stronger than the opposite "walking with fall" for a SOBO, and even more so than breaking the trail up into three or more sections. That said I think the cool breeze itinerary is a very interesting option.
The appalachian mountains will one day be gone and the footprint is a negligible factor in their erosion. Mother Nature is destroying the appalachians, not us.
Appalachia is more than rocks. It's a renewable and sustainable living entity which is constantly changing and influenced by man including A.T. hikers.
theinfamousj
03-07-2009, 16:10
I try to use biodegradable paper bags wherever possible in place of plastic ziploc. I was all about some freezer bag cooking, until I realized that I could boil up water in my pot, pour some into my cup so I could have a hot drink and then dump the contents of what is normally in the freezer bag into my cookpot and cook there. Then, it was easy to switch over to paper lunch sacks (which can burn in a fire if need be or I can bring them home and toss them in the compost bin).
Sure, it takes me a few more minutes to clean my pot then it would to just toss a freezer bag into my garbage sack, but in some small way I feel like I'm helping the Earth by choosing a bag made from a renewable resource (wood) rather than one made from petrochemicals.
(And Sarbar, your recipes are still a god-send!)
Vagrant Squirrel
03-07-2009, 16:50
ATC lists a bunch of suggested alternate "2000 miler" itineraries (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805565/k.67EA/Alternative_Itineraries.htm) for many of the reasons you mention. But aside from the logistical problems of flip flopping or others, many don't consider such hikes as having the same feel, continuity, or even merit(whatever that means). I have to agree with some who don't like such alternate itineraries in that there is an allure in "walking with spring" that is stronger than the opposite "walking with fall" for a SOBO, and even more so than breaking the trail up into three or more sections. That said I think the cool breeze itinerary is a very interesting option.
I just think that above all else, if we could get it closer to a 50/50 split between Nobos and Sobos, this would provide the best ecological balance across the entire trail. And it is true that most people don't want to walk Sobo, but if one feels that adamantly about the trace they'll leave behind, than it's fairly clear that Sobo is the only answer, yet many still ignore this answer. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, as I am sure the Earth will be around long after we die out as a race. But I do appreciate it's beauty so I'll try not to do any serious damage while I'm out there, but if anyone thinks I'm packing crap covered toilet paper into a ziplock bag they've got another thing coming. :welcome
I like the idea of SOBO because I would be walking away from home, being from the North.
I like the idea of ending at the Big K though, but I might do the IAT first, at least from New Brunswick.
I like the idea of brown paper bags, and using a mug or pot or bowl.
It might be nice to make a bowl or mug from natural materials also, like birch bark.
I also use the packaging the food comes in, but buy food with the least packaging.
garlic08
03-07-2009, 18:44
I also use the packaging the food comes in, but buy food with the least packaging.
Food packaging is definitely something to think about--good point. There's a pretty wide spectrum, from those who get everything in bulk at food coops where stuff is grown locally, to those who live off packaged energy bars, bottled drinks, etc. There was a thread not too long ago, someone looking for smaller containers of peanut butter because they thought 18 oz was too heavy! I try to pay attention to it, and once fit all the (non-reusable) trash from a 160-mile hike into the empty peanut butter jar.
There are those who say that curbside recycling has been actually harmful to the environment. It makes urbanites and suburbanites feel better about consuming. The better solution, they say, lies in the first two sides of the triangle--Reduce, Reuse, then Recycle. It's hard to disagree with that.
I also agree with the issue about slackpacking. Last summer, when gas prices were skyrocketing, I was surprised at the amount of car shuttling I saw on the AT. It didn't seem like anyone was at all concerned about it.
Cabin Fever
03-07-2009, 19:45
Excellent article about the pros and cons of recycling by Popular Mechanics here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/how_your_house_works/4291566.html). I recall LW making a poignant statement about this subject several weeks ago and he hit the nail on the head. Essentialy, he said that it is no big deal for us to recycle because in the big scheme of things it is industry that is doing the most damage. LW was right. It is morally good for us to recycle, but in reality we are throwing stones at a moving train. Industry is what has to make the biggest change. I can speak to this specifically because I work for a global chemical company and I hear about this stuff everyday.
I try to use biodegradable paper bags wherever possible in place of plastic ziploc. I was all about some freezer bag cooking, until I realized that I could boil up water in my pot, pour some into my cup so I could have a hot drink and then dump the contents of what is normally in the freezer bag into my cookpot and cook there. Then, it was easy to switch over to paper lunch sacks (which can burn in a fire if need be or I can bring them home and toss them in the compost bin).
I'll say it one more time. I tried the FBC method and was pretty taken by it until the bags started mounting up AND stinking.
I had two long distance trips where several of my crew were using FBC and after a couple days, even after rinsing them, we had scads of stinking plastic bags.
Since we were staying out for 2 weeks we built a big bonfire about every 3 days and burned them. Which can also be an ecological hot point for some.
For an overnighter or even a weekend it's prolly OK, but if I'm going to be out for any length of time I don't want to mess with the mess of dirty plastic bags.
I have since gone to carrying my foodstuffs in bulk quantities, and making up my meals as I go along. A cup of pasta or mashed pots or dehydrated beans (or all three if I'm feeling adventurous) with some burger gravel or sausage and veggies and gravy mix. I use a bowl and my mug for rehydrating and as ImfamousJ says they are easily washed out.
I'm not knocking Sarbar or her FBC cooking method. To each their own, I tried it, it wasn't for me.
There are those who say that curbside recycling has been actually harmful to the environment. It makes urbanites and suburbanites feel better about consuming. The better solution, they say, lies in the first two sides of the triangle--Reduce, Reuse, then Recycle. It's hard to disagree with that.
There is a good book called "The Last American Man" and he adds to the R's with REFUSE. I think recycling is great, BUT, if you are drinking bottled water instead of easy and cheap tap or filtered tap what's the point?
Where I live I can't recycle unless I drive it to the plant...
Anyway, I am embarassed to admit that until recently I didn't realize how polluting air travel is. I didn't realize that a flight across the US is akin to driving an SUV around all summer. So as far as getting to the trail head, not flying would probably actually reduce your foot print instead of just evening it out by the time you are done hiking.
shelterbuilder
03-07-2009, 22:45
I just think that above all else, if we could get it closer to a 50/50 split between Nobos and Sobos, this would provide the best ecological balance across the entire trail. And it is true that most people don't want to walk Sobo, but if one feels that adamantly about the trace they'll leave behind, than it's fairly clear that Sobo is the only answer, yet many still ignore this answer. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, as I am sure the Earth will be around long after we die out as a race. But I do appreciate it's beauty so I'll try not to do any serious damage while I'm out there, but if anyone thinks I'm packing crap covered toilet paper into a ziplock bag they've got another thing coming. :welcome
While thru-hikers seem to get the lion's share of publicity, you need to understand that it is the local hikers (day hikers and short-trip folks) who comprise the largest user-group on the AT. And it's the local hikers who, by virtue of their numbers, have the greatest impact on the trail's environment and degradation.
LNT is a good concept. (It can't really be practiced completely, since you will always leave some trace wherever you go, but the idea has, as the Madison Avenue boys would say, "brand recognition". When you say "leave no trace camping", people understand what you're trying to say.) But LNT is basically a conservation philosophy. Our culture, no matter what anyone tries to tell you, is a culture based upon CONSUMERISM. The two concepts do not co-exist well together.
We love the wild places - in fact, we love them to death! Look around at any popular campsite; you'll see a scarcity of firewood, trampled underbrush, trash in the firerings, compacted soil, overused toilet fields. We have been trained by our culture to consume, with little regard for conserving. NOBO or SOBO doesn't matter - if the underlying concept is the same, then the end result will be the same.
"Sustainability" has a nice sound to it. I'd like to think that the wild places that I now enjoy might be around for my grandchildren's grandchildren to enjoy.
4eyedbuzzard
03-07-2009, 22:46
Commercial jet aircraft average about 50 passenger miles per gallon of fuel, so unless you're carpooling with 3 or more in that SUV it likely isn't less efficient than driving across country from a fuel usage perspective. There's also the elements of highway capacity to be considered-more cars=more road building "footprint", and the footprint left by the manufacturing of personal motor vehicles-a coast to coast trip represents a lot more of a car's useful life than that of a commercial aircraft. Aircraft do have higher NOx levels in their exhaust than cars, but I have a suspicion that 500 people flying to LA on one airplane leave less of an environmental impact than 500 people carpooling in 250 SUV's driving across the country for 4 to 5 days(think of food and lodging footprints as well). Just my thoughts.
It is morally good for us to recycle, but in reality we are throwing stones at a moving train. Industry is what has to make the biggest change.
I don't see how your analogy relates to this issue. Let me see if I have it right according to both you and our resident expert on all things. Because the bulk of the lifting needs to be done by industry, individuals who recycle wastes they generate are really doing nothing by lifting their share of the burden.
I love it when posts here encourage those who can do something to do nothing, but I have come to realize it's the WhiteBlaze way.:rolleyes:
I'd like to think that the wild places that I now enjoy might be around for my grandchildren's grandchildren to enjoy.
That's only 5 generations by my count.:-?:(
My personal views are a mixture of many of the views that have already been mentioned here.
I believe that we should all make a very strong effort to do whatever we can to help minimize our impact upon the environment--such as practicing LNT camping. My own practices would PROBABLY fall somewhere in between the LNT and "sustainable camping" positions.
I would also agree that our hiking and camping "damages" the environment in such an extremely small way when compared to the large damage done by things such as road construction, factories, cell phone towers, etc. It would be very nice if we all changed our camping and hiking practices to be more "eco-friendly". However, such a change--even if practiced by all campers and hikers--would probably do very little to improve the overall status of the environment. (But, that does not mean that we should not at least TRY to be as "green" as is REASONABLY possible).
I think it is "silly" (and even hypocritical) that some "environmentalists" get extremely upset over the fact that someone's tent temporarily bent over some blades of grass--when just 5 miles away that same "environmentalist" spends many happy hours at a nature conservancy center, Birkenstock sandal store, and organic food market that have asphalt parking lots which have "destroyed" several acres of land.
I do not make "Leave No Trace" camping my religion. LNT is merely a philosophy that I like to follow as much as is REASONABLY possible. Many LNT fanatics would get extremely upset that a hammock strap or a bear bag rope left a SLIGHT mark on a tree. Personally, I would try to avoid leaving a mark if all all possible--but I am not going to lose sleep (or feel suicidal) if I left a slight mark on a tree. In most cases, "mother nature" will recover pretty quickly from any "minor" trace that I might leave. There would be much more damage caused by buck in rut, a beaver building a dam, a heavy wind storm or a lightning strike. Nature recovers pretty quickly from such "natural" events--and nature will recover pretty quickly if I happen to move some leaves when I set up a tent.
I don't view humans as "intruders" or "invaders" in the wilderness. I view humans as just another VITAL part of the ecosytem. Thus, I believe that it is perfectly O.K. for us humans to hunt, fish, build a campfire, hike, eat some berries, etc.
Just a note on using paper bags vs. plastic bags. Some studies have shown that the manufacture of PAPER bags does more overall "harm" to the environment than the manufacture of plastic bags. Thus, using paper instead of plastic is probably not as "eco-friendly" as most folks might believe.
There is a good book called "The Last American Man" and he adds to the R's with REFUSE. I think recycling is great, BUT, if you are drinking bottled water instead of easy and cheap tap or filtered tap what's the point?
Where I live I can't recycle unless I drive it to the plant...
Anyway, I am embarassed to admit that until recently I didn't realize how polluting air travel is. I didn't realize that a flight across the US is akin to driving an SUV around all summer. So as far as getting to the trail head, not flying would probably actually reduce your foot print instead of just evening it out by the time you are done hiking.That's a really interesting thing, the 4th R. Some jurisdictions use the 4th R, but in most jurisdictions its only the 3 Rs. I think it has to do with the taboo of suggesting that peoples first option should be to try and do without. That gets alot of people uptight.
I was surprised also how relatively efficient air travel is, or perhaps how inefficient automobiles are. Of course air travel is worse when you include commutes to and from airports. I think short hop flights are comparable to single passenger SUV commutes,
and longer hop flights are more comparable to single passenger mid-size cars. Has to do with the ammount of fuel used for take-off and elevation gain, and the reduced drag in the upper atmosphere. Of course how full the plane is makes a big difference also.
4 people in a mid-sized car isn't that bad.
If we just cut the horsepower of vehicles in half efficiency would go up alot.
Personally, I love pickup trucks, but come on, 300 horsepower for a 1/2 ton ???
The WWII GMC 2-1/2 ton truck had only 91.5 horsepower, and a 40 gallon gas tank.
http://www.vehiclesofvictory.com/GMC%20Specifications.htm
I used this Carbon Footprint Calculator in researching my comments below.
http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/#road
If someone were to fly ROUNDTRIP from Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport (1813 miles roundtrip)----they would create 874 lbs of CO2 per person.
Conversely, driving 2,000 miles in a Toyota Prius creates 833 lbs of CO2. (I get the impression that is NOT a per person number. Additional people travelling in the vehicle would obviously increase the amount of CO2. However, it certainly would not increase by 833 lbs of CO2 per person.
So, travelling to the trailhead in a motor vehicle MIGHT actually be more "green" than air travel--especially if it was an economy motor vehicle and definitely if multiple people rode in the motor vehicle.
Just a note: A 2,000 mile trip in a 2009 GMC Yukon Denali All-Wheel Drive creates 2,609 lbs of CO2. If four people rode in the vehicle, it MIGHT be more "green" than air travel (but it would be a close call).
shelterbuilder
03-08-2009, 22:01
...That's only 5 generations by my count.:-?:(
Hey, if we get 5 generations down the road, we might have this whole sustainability thing figured out.
JAK, the WWII GMC 2 1/2 ton truck had only 91 horsepower - but they weren't trying to fly down the interstate at 65 MPH with it, either. (Hey, maybe that's part of it - we all just need to slow down a bit. :D)
Hey, if we get 5 generations down the road, we might have this whole sustainability thing figured out.
I was hoping someone might want to talk about the concept of 7 generations and its origin.
Most businesses have a hard time seeing 5 years into the future. Some people would have us believe things would be easier with a smaller human population, but businessmen probably disagree.
We sure could use another a major technological breakthrough comparable to what hand-held calculators and PCs did to change the way we do things!
Hey, if we get 5 generations down the road, we might have this whole sustainability thing figured out.
JAK, the WWII GMC 2 1/2 ton truck had only 91 horsepower - but they weren't trying to fly down the interstate at 65 MPH with it, either. (Hey, maybe that's part of it - we all just need to slow down a bit. :D)That's right. Slowing down helps. It doesn't take much horsepower to go 65 mph though. We 'need' the horsepower so we can accelerate and pass people going 65 mph, uphill. Actually going 65mph might only take 10hp, 55mph only 7hp. That's for a small car. Duece and a Half, maybe 45hp.
The 90hp truck, using 50hp, would be operating near maximum efficiency, which for a diesel might be 30%. The automoble using 10hp, and lets say it has a diesel engine, but 200hp, would be operating considerably below its optimum, perhaps 10%. So the big truck would only be using 1.5 times as much fuel, rather than 4.5 times as much fuel.
That helps explain why we won WWII, and are losing this economic war.
I live in an area where recycling is NOT very commonplace or easy to do. The Village recently put some large recycling bins at ONE central location. So, we must burn gasoline or diesel to drive our items to the central recycling bins. (That almost defeats the "green" effect of recycling).
Prior to a few months ago, the only household items that we could routinely recycle in our area were aluminum cans--and that involved making a 40+ mile roundtrip drive to a recycling center. So, recycling is not always as easy (or as green) as you might think.
The hybrid vehicle isn't so much an attempt to produce low gas mileage.
It is more of an attempt to keep the sticker price high.
Gas mileage can be improved simply by reducing horsepower.
If we could be satisfied with tractor trailer performance,
i.e. no accelleration up hills, and slowing down on steep hills,
we would be getting 2 or 3 times the gas mileage that we do.
shelterbuilder
03-09-2009, 08:45
...Most businesses have a hard time seeing 5 years into the future. Some people would have us believe things would be easier with a smaller human population, but businessmen probably disagree.
We sure could use another a major technological breakthrough comparable to what hand-held calculators and PCs did to change the way we do things!
This goes right back to the concept of a consumer-based culture, instead of a conservation-based one, with "making more" instead of "making do". Of course, there's no money to be made by "making do". Understand, I'm not against technology, because it can make our lives better. What bothers me is "mindless technology" - technology for its own sake - doing things just because we CAN do them, rather than doing things that will make positive changes.
Too much philosophy here - sorry....
I'm concerned the hybrid/electric/hydrogen revolution is an attempt to continue and shift our consumer driven oil based economy to an area that, in the end, won't work.
The world is a much smaller place. We may not want to admit it but the share of the pie is getting smaller with each generation. We in the US have reaped a couple generations of easy living from our discoveries and inventions but at what expense?
I believe we have had the best in my generation (Boomers). From now on it's going downhill. We need more mass transportation, more locally based consumer options, more people bicycling to the store. The days of surburban sprawl and jumping into the family car for some cheap WalMart shopping are coming to an end.
If we do not voluntarily adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, it will be forced upon us by conditions beyond our control.
We need more mass transportation, more locally based consumer options, more people bicycling to the store.
Yes, I WISH. Where I live you take your life into your own hands if you attempt to ride or walk anywhere. When gas was $4/gal people would try to ride their bikes on the road but at least once a week someone would get hit. Not worth it. Yet they are improving and widening roads, and STILL in 2009 there is no accomodation for bicyclists/walkers. Insane.
I used to walk to work which was wonderful but I made a conscientious decision to get a place nearby. BUT it was an older neighborhood that had sidewalks and was close to a bike path (the ONLY bike path in town) and a univeristy (Indiana U.) so it was easier to get around without getting killed.
It seems like areas that are being built now are out and out purposely built with the auto/oil industry in mind, since I live outside/suburbanized part of town, you can't go ANYWHERE without your car. Ironically, to me, I live in the nice, suburban part of town, you know, where people want to ultimately end up. My old neighborhood is older, and some people find it not very nice and even dangerous (it wasn't, I walked around at night all the time and never had a problem.)
My guess that unless a place isn't sterile and everyone isn't hermetically sealed into a car or house, it's a dangerous place.
Ugh, I'm starting to not make any sense. Rant over!
Yes, I WISH. Where I live you take your life into your own hands if you attempt to ride or walk anywhere. When gas was $4/gal people would try to ride their bikes on the road but at least once a week someone would get hit. Not worth it. Yet they are improving and widening roads, and STILL in 2009 there is no accomodation for bicyclists/walkers. Insane.
Well, Howdy Neighbor! I live in Indy. Last year a suburbanite woman ran her Cadillac right over two bicyclists in Carmel. One dead, one hospitalized. Clear day, sun shining and a straight road. They say she was talking on her phone...who knows? She said she "didn't see them" yet the bicyclists were wearing their neon colors and IN A BIKE LANE. The ditzy Hamilton County Prosecutor declined to press charges!
I bike daily (my season is spring, summer and fall) and there isn't a ride where I am not accosted in some way by rude obnoxious and clueless "cagers" (Cagers are automobile drivers.) I've been buzzed by trucks, honked at by cars, and even had soft drinks thrown at me. One axxhole threatened to "beat my axx" if I didn't get out of his way. (He got the one finger salute.) Everyone wants you off the street, they might have to slow down and miss the first three minutes of "American Idol".
Rant over for now...
Well, Howdy Neighbor! I live in Indy. Last year a suburbanite woman ran her Cadillac right over two bicyclists in Carmel. One dead, one hospitalized. Clear day, sun shining and a straight road. They say she was talking on her phone...who knows? She said she "didn't see them" yet the bicyclists were wearing their neon colors and IN A BIKE LANE. The ditzy Hamilton County Prosecutor declined to press charges!
I bike daily (my season is spring, summer and fall) and there isn't a ride where I am not accosted in some way by rude obnoxious and clueless "cagers" (Cagers are automobile drivers.) I've been buzzed by trucks, honked at by cars, and even had soft drinks thrown at me. One axxhole threatened to "beat my axx" if I didn't get out of his way. (He got the one finger salute.) Everyone wants you off the street, they might have to slow down and miss the first three minutes of "American Idol".
Rant over for now...
Oh, brother. My SO was the one who got to walk to work last year. He would get there by running across 5 lanes of traffic, because GOD FORBID there be a cross walk! No kidding! And every single day someone would yell at him from their car. Not that anyone deserves that, but he worked at B&N, so he would be wearing khakis and a tie, just another person going to work. I told him that he should start carrying rocks or possibly a gun for people that do s*&t like that. Well maybe that's an over reaction but I DO NOT understand what makes people want to yell at pedestrians for no reason! Drives me crazy!
You are a brave soul for riding your bike to work! Sometimes I feel unsafe in my car (since I don't drive a huge truck/SUV) watching the stupid things people do...and yes, they usually are on their cell phone.
That woman REALLY needed to have charges pressed against her, especially since those poor riders were in a bike lane. When you drive in a residential area or a road that has bike lanes, you have a responsibility to pay attention. So selfish.
4eyedbuzzard
03-09-2009, 16:04
Here in the north country of NH(above the notch) we stop for pedestrians even if they're not in a crosswalk (and especially if the pedestrian is a moose!;)). Can't tell you how many times I've almost been tailended by a tourist when I've stopped for someone crossing the street. Biggest problem is that people start to expect it--a woman was killed here last year when she walked right out onto Main St. in Littleton while not paying attention. You still have to make eye contact so to speak and make sure the car is going to stop.
I have to retrain myself every time I go visit relatives in Jersey. The friggin nutcases in suburbia are all in such a hurry they'll run you over in a grocery store parking lot.:(
garlic08
03-09-2009, 18:19
No, no, please keep ranting! I'm enjoying it, 'cause I'm an urban cyclist, too, nodding my head.
I have a slightly better outlook towards drivers. I estimate that 1 out of about 10,000 I encounter is truly a jerk, and that's just a couple of times a year. There are a lot more frustrated people in a hurry, and I try to forgive them (and watch out for them, big time). I'd probably be the same way if I were stuck in a car.
On the large scale, our towns and roads are designed for how they are used 99.9999% of the time. It's hard to justify pavement and markings for a few cyclists a day. (I used to work for a roadway engineering firm.) Now if more people (and legislators) cycled, the roads would look different. Just go to Boulder, Denver, Seattle, or San Diego, places I've lived that are excellent for cycling.
Pedaling Fool
03-09-2009, 18:26
No, no, please keep ranting! I'm enjoying it, 'cause I'm an urban cyclist, too, nodding my head.
I have a slightly better outlook towards drivers. I estimate that 1 out of about 10,000 I encounter is truly a jerk, and that's just a couple of times a year. There are a lot more frustrated people in a hurry, and I try to forgive them (and watch out for them, big time). I'd probably be the same way if I were stuck in a car.
On the large scale, our towns and roads are designed for how they are used 99.9999% of the time. It's hard to justify pavement and markings for a few cyclists a day. (I used to work for a roadway engineering firm.) Now if more people (and legislators) cycled, the roads would look different. Just go to Boulder, Denver, Seattle, or San Diego, places I've lived that are excellent for cycling.
That's the way I see it.
Biking now and then yourself makes you a much better driver also. Besides being more courteous, to cyclists and motorcyclists, you get a much better feel for slippery road conditions, like after a long overdue rain when the roads are greasy, or rain around 32F.
Celeritas
03-10-2009, 09:59
Biking now and then yourself makes you a much better driver also. Besides being more courteous, to cyclists and motorcyclists, you get a much better feel for slippery road conditions, like after a long overdue rain when the roads are greasy, or rain around 32F.
Excellent point. In my opinion, all mentioned here has to do with awareness. You can't appreciate that bicyclist until you've been a bicyclist yourself. Well, not to say that you can't, but most people aren't mindful enough to try and see another's point of view without it being shoved in their face (ie. running over a biker, pedestrian, what have you). Some might say "Stop riding your bikes on the roads where it is dangerous." I say "Stop driving your cars so dangerously so we can ride our bikes and save the Earth for your ignorant selves!" :rolleyes:
I think the point that needs to be made here, is we all need to be a little more AWARE of the negative aspects of our everyday activities. Fortunately, we have people like JAK to start discussions like this! :D
On the topic of reducing, reusing, and recycling, OBVIOUSLY the best option is indeed REFUSING. But like someone mentioned earlier, that makes people uncomfortable. Why does it make them uncomfortable? They've never been on the other side, they can't see it like we see it. Until you take that step and accept the fact that you may be wrong or there may be another way, you'll never see the light.
And on the point of blaming industry, and looking to them to lead the way.. What do you think industry is supported by? Consumers. If we all stop supporting these evil wasteful companies, they will disappear. Simple as that. Everyone will say, "What about the economy?!" Frankly, F the economy. We are supporting methods that are not sustainable, and if we continue to do so, human life will not be sustained. It can't go on for much longer, and people are realizing this. This is why the economy is bad, and will get worse before it gets better. We need changes and we need them sooner than later.
This topic needs to enter all aspects of our lives, not just hiking, but there are definitely easy ways to apply it to backpacking as well. I, for one, if I need something, always try to find a used option for sale before buying new. And when buying new, look for sustainable materials (ie. hemp, organic wool, recycled plastics, etc.) Of course, food is obvious. Buy in bulk, local and organic when possible. Always opt for the choice with less packaging and less miles on it. REUSE ZIPLOC BAGS! How hard is this? Someone said they don't like it because they smell, so they use their cookpot instead. Do you not wash your cookpot or else it would smell too? Give the same due diligence to your Ziplocs.
I'm sure I can think of more techniques for sustainable hiking but this is getting to be a lengthy rant and I want to touch on one more subject : Recycling. Recycling as mentioned has become a much accepted word meaning "I can buy whatever I want because it's recyclable." This is not so, people! Recycling uses many resources, the same as production, be it more or less or anywhere in between. Recycling is just simply not the best option! In transistioning to a more sustainable way of life, yes, I certainly encourage you to recycle anything you like. But when we get down to it, PLEASE consider never owning the item in the first place. Look for other options that will allow you to either reuse an item or maybe be more creative and come up with a totally new option! That is what we really need, is more creativeness to deal with what we already have. It sickens me to think of the millions (billions? trillions?) of products being fed into the consumer stream as I speak.
Honestly, we all love Nature, otherwise we wouldn't hike. Take an interest in protecting the Earth, if not for your own enjoyment, then for that of your children or grandchildren. It ultimately comes down to selfishness. Are you willing to use up all the natural resources and pollute the heck out of the land and oceans for your enjoyment of what is ultimately your very short time on this Earth? I hope you will consider others (and maybe the plants and animals too?) and do what is best for them, if not yourself.
And for those inclined to bash me for being a purist, I am not. I am not perfect. I do my best and expect the same of everyone else. Do what you can. I leave you with some inspirational quotes:
"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little." - Edmund Burke
"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. " - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr
REUSE ZIPLOC BAGS! How hard is this? Someone said they don't like it because they smell, so they use their cookpot instead. Do you not wash your cookpot or else it would smell too? Give the same due diligence to your Ziplocs.
I consider it "due diligence" NOT to use 2-3 ziplocks per day when hiking. Rinsing them out in the field does very little to reduce the stinking odor that comes after a hot day of hiking, unless you are washing them with soap (biodegradable??) and air drying.
Plastic bags that have been used to rehydrate food are gonna smell, and after a week to 10 days out they are gonna smell A LOT.
garlic08
03-10-2009, 12:00
Plastic bags that have been used to rehydrate food are gonna smell, and after a week to 10 days out they are gonna smell A LOT.
True, but I think one lesson to take from SB-AT's excellent rant is to not use ziplocks that way at all if it uses up the resource so quickly. For example, I know at least one hiker who uses one sturdy container with lid to rehydrate food as he's hiking (Scott Williamson, first PCT yo-yo). If you can use one plastic container for a 5300-mile season (and still have the container after the hike), that's pretty good. I guess that's an example of the "Refuse" idea--refuse to use ziplocks, use something sustainable instead.
Not to concentrate on ziplocks, but it's a good analogy. I started my AT thru with a half-dozen ziplocks, picked up a few from hiker boxes along the way, and ended the hike with three or four. I just used them for dry bulk goods like cereal, crackers, and cookies.
I did some work in the pulp and paper industry, and made a vow to cut my paper use in half after working in a few pulp mills. It was pretty easy--I learned to edit drawings and specs on-screen, saving literally tons of print-outs, use one paper towel in a public restroom instead of two or three, use towels and rags at home, use the backs of envelopes for notes. We just can't afford to mindlessly throw things away.
But here we all are, preaching to the choir.
True, but I think one lesson to take from SB-AT's excellent rant is to not use ziplocks that way at all if it uses up the resource so quickly. For example, I know at least one hiker who uses one sturdy container with lid to rehydrate food as he's hiking (Scott Williamson, first PCT yo-yo).
We are in agreement on that point.
What I was responding to in SB_AT post was the admonition to reuse ziplock bags. When I'd prefer NOT to use them at all.
From my post #23 above:
"I have since gone to carrying my foodstuffs in bulk "quantities, and making up my meals as I go along. A cup of pasta or mashed pots or dehydrated beans (or all three if I'm feeling adventurous) with some burger gravel or sausage and veggies and gravy mix. I use a bowl and my mug for rehydrating and as ImfamousJ says they are easily washed out.
I just mapped it and when my wife drops me off and picks me it adds 6km to her driving, which is about 1500km a year. If I walk it instead I'll be burning an extra 25-30 pounds of body fat each year. It's rather scenic also, with trees and beavers and stuff, depending on the route I take. Should be a no brainer for someone that likes to hike, but the most I've managed is about 1 day in 5. I'll try and make it 80%, and save 1000km a year anyway, which is also about $100, and it would probably keep 40 pounds off once I lose it. Hiking wise, I'll try and bike or paddled to my trailheads more often, or at least plan my trailheads to minimize the driving time. The money I save will pay for my hikes.
garlic08
03-10-2009, 12:59
My apologies, if needed, hoz. I misunderstood. Now that I reread your post, your point is very clear. Yes, we are in agreement.
Jak, I'll be doing a lot of more hiking and biking in the next few weeks. I just sold an unused second car, and a few days later my wife crumpled up the only remaining car (non-injury accident) and it will be in the repair shop for a few weeks. We are already planning out which trailheads we can bike to, long hikes we can take from home, who we can carpool with, even how much money we'll save on fuel (very slight offset to the deductible!).
No apologies necessary. Just clarification in the muddled world of the internets...
Celeritas
03-17-2009, 21:22
Also agreed! :)
We should do our best to try and use less ziplocs, and when using them, try our best to wash them out (with biodegradable soap of course) so they don't stink. No one likes a stinky sack.. er, baggie. :D
Personally, my method will be to carry my foodstuffs in ziplocs, rehydrate in these tight-sealing lightweight plastic containers I have, and transfer to my pot for cooking when necessary. When the ziplocs are empty, I will wash them and save them for future use. Same with the plastic containers, wash after each use.
I've been trying to think of more methods for sustainable hiking but it all really just comes back to the best option being abstinence. If you don't need it, don't use it. I, for one, think about where all my "garbage" goes and feel responsible for every item I have in my possession. But that's just me..
stumpknocker
03-20-2009, 06:38
I haven't read the rules of this site, so hopefully a YouTube video can be posted. I'm signing off anyway and going for a walk. :)
I agree with Carlin on this subject; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFD4NC60EA
Don't want to "upset" anyone here, but I just have to laugh at your Ziplock thread.
Thanks for reminding me...I have to buy more Ziplocks for my bounce box. :)
Hit and run...good strategy.
Old George was an entertainer, a comedian, a good one I'll admit. But he's is gone now so when the **** starts hittin the fan it won't matter to him.
"Men come and go, but Earth abides".
George Stewart
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 08:37
6+ billion people on this planet isn't sustainable, but we make it work. Partly through dire poverty in most of the world. Count yourselves lucky.
George was a funny guy, and that was an excellent video.
He makes some very good points. We need more people like him.
But if you think his point was business as usual, you ****ing missed it.
6+ billion people on this planet isn't sustainable, but we make it work. Partly through dire poverty in most of the world. Count yourselves lucky.
We have been lucky, and it's worked mainly due to cheap power (oil, gas, coal). From the family farm to the supermarket to pharmaceuticals, construction, transportation, banking, the electricity that powers your computer, all the "advances" of the 20th century have been based on cheap power.
Oil has peaked, now comes the accounting...
If something isn't sustainable it isn't working.
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 09:44
If something isn't sustainable it isn't working.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Transient vs Steady State
Sustainability means it has to work in the long term.
If what we are doing won't work in the long term, it isn't working.
In other words our way of life doesn't just depend on poverty in the third world,
it also depends on needless misery and destruction in the future, and not just in the third world.
Sustainability is a measure of how things are working in the long term. What we got, ain't.
shelterbuilder
03-20-2009, 09:56
In other words our way of life doesn't just depend on poverty in the third world,
it also depends on needless misery and destruction in the future, and not just in the third world.
Sustainability is a measure of how things are working in the long term. What we got, ain't.
Yes, but sustainability can't reap OBSENE corporate profits and CEO bonuses - only needless misery and destruction can do that!:eek:
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 10:01
Transient vs Steady State
Sustainability means it has to work in the long term.
If what we are doing won't work in the long term, it isn't working.
In other words our way of life doesn't just depend on poverty in the third world,
it also depends on needless misery and destruction in the future, and not just in the third world.
Sustainability is a measure of how things are working in the long term. What we got, ain't.
We live in a transient world, it's called "change". Longterm is relative. Can we have 6 billion people live at our standard of living? -- No way -- not until we have some more technological breakthroughs. We cannot support our country on organically grown foods, yes it's better for the environment, but not an option to feed our population.
This is a large complicated issue that is oversimplified by the environmental freaks and the anti-environtmetal society-loving freaks.
As long as this issue remains a political issue the truth will remain hidden.
I'm sick of the word "sustainable" it's just another politicized word that has lost its meaning
Jayboflavin04
03-20-2009, 10:02
I think Garlic has posted some really great points here!!! You also JAK.
"We" as a society are in a hurry! We pick up our disposable bottle H2O with our little disposable drink pack. To save 30 seconds. We race to the next stop light to sit there with our cars idling.
I have made some reductions in my life.....
A) I dont use big name chemical cleaners in my house. Examples comet, spic n span....yata yata yata
Baking Soda
Washing Soda(Sodium Carbonate...baking sodas cousin)
Vinegar(Natural Febreeze....wait an hour the odor disappears)
Borax
Mild liquid detergent(dawn palmolive...nothing "anti bacterial"
I can make GALLONS of cleaners and use them in my refillable spray bottles.
Old t-shirts instead of paper towels.
You can clean damn near anything with these products, sometimes it takes a little elbow grease!
B) When gas was through the roof. I started driving really conservatively.
Best ways to save gas without buying the next best newest things are!
Excellerate SMOOTHLY dont tromp on the gas pedal.
Brake SLOWLY (More important in automatics)
When you do leave the house make round trips and do everything while you are out driving
Keep your car tuned up and alligned.
I found out 8 outta 10 times I was sitting right next to the people who passed me in frustration at the next stop light. I just smile and wave. :)
I agree with Gault. But I don't think there will be a "technological revolution" to save us. What will happen over the next century is a decline of our standard of living, maybe slow maybe by fits and starts.
Them that have, will do their best to keep it, them that don't, will suffer and have to do without.
Whether do to natural, ecological or man made disasters, world population will decline to a more "sustainable" level.
Perhaps we won't live to see it, but our children will. And it won't be pretty.
Take them hiking, plant a garden, teach them tool use, not just how to play games on a computer.
B) When gas was through the roof. I started driving really conservatively.
Best ways to save gas without buying the next best newest things are!
Excellerate SMOOTHLY dont tromp on the gas pedal.
Brake SLOWLY (More important in automatics)
When you do leave the house make round trips and do everything while you are out driving
Keep your car tuned up and alligned.
I found out 8 outta 10 times I was sitting right next to the people who passed me in frustration at the next stop light. I just smile and wave. :)
I currently drive a Ford 250 Cargo van, 14mpg. Yeah it's big but I need it for work. (Our other car is a CRV).
I've been driving conservatively since the 60's! And I frequently get hassled in traffic for it. Tailgater's, honking horns as they pass, hard looks. I shine them on. The few times I tried that smile and wave at the stop sign only triggered road rage in the clueless driver.
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 10:41
..I've been driving conservatively since the 60's! And I frequently get hassled in traffic for it. Tailgater's, honking horns as they pass, hard looks. I shine them on. The few times I tried that smile and wave at the stop sign only triggered road rage in the clueless driver.
That's funny and true. Try and drive the speed limit and if you slow anyone down they are on your ass. NO ONE (pratically) drives the speed limit. I drive pretty slow, not the speed limit, but not much above it. And I piss off everyone, even the ones that have those "Coexist" bumper stickers. I've also been passed in a dangerous manner, by cops (no lights) they are just in a hurry.
People just talk about being sustainable they don't really want it to get in their way. When the gas prices went up people blamed the oil companies, but it was primarily an increase in demand (in other words the standard of living for other people was on the rise).
High gas prices is just a small part of squashing poverty around the world.
.
Celeritas
03-20-2009, 13:23
You said we make it work. I think JAK is saying it's not working because it's not sustainable. Even with all the poor offsetting the trinkets and luxuries of the wealthy, the scale is not balanced. The poor may not be doing any harm, but they're not doing any good either. We need to be building the soil, not polluting it, as we (and the poor) continue to do every single day.
Garbage goes somewhere, guys! A blindfold does not make the world invisible.
Celeritas
03-20-2009, 13:40
Oops, I was on page 3 when I replied above. :rolleyes: Point still stands.
Anyways, on the point about technology being the savior and organic farming not working.. I have to disagree. No amount of technology is ever going to "save" the world until it's given away without profit. Otherwise there's always going to be some that go without.
On organic gardening, I am a firm believer that it can indeed save the world. The only reasons it won't are people's disbelief and disconnection with their food. If everyone had a small garden and took some amount of interest in their own health and responsibility for feeding one's self, I believe we could certainly turn around a lot of world problems. Food industry drives everything, it's up there with money making "the world go 'round".
Point being; if you're not at least trying to even do so much as feed yourself, you're not helping. A certain amount of independence (meaning becoming less dependent on industry) is the key theme here.
shelterbuilder
03-20-2009, 14:09
Oops, I was on page 3 when I replied above. :rolleyes: Point still stands.
Anyways, on the point about technology being the savior and organic farming not working.. I have to disagree. No amount of technology is ever going to "save" the world until it's given away without profit. Otherwise there's always going to be some that go without.
On organic gardening, I am a firm believer that it can indeed save the world. The only reasons it won't are people's disbelief and disconnection with their food. If everyone had a small garden and took some amount of interest in their own health and responsibility for feeding one's self, I believe we could certainly turn around a lot of world problems. Food industry drives everything, it's up there with money making "the world go 'round".
Point being; if you're not at least trying to even do so much as feed yourself, you're not helping. A certain amount of independence (meaning becoming less dependent on industry) is the key theme here.
With the economy being as sour as it is right now, I've heard that there are a lot of folks who are talking about going back to having a small garden to try to help make ends meet. And it is truly amazing how much food can be produced in a backyard plot, if it's done properly. We live in a row home in the city, and the yard is all concrete (for the dogs!), but even growing food in containers runs toward sustainability. I've got some HUGE planter boxes that have been laying dormant for several years, and I think that I might just "crank up the backyard farm" this year. :-?
I've also grown a garden of some kind since the early 70's. At one time I plowed, planted, picked and preserved slightly over an acre. Now it's down to a 20x30 plot, but I'm planning on expanding a little this year!
I was out yesterday turning the compost, the warm weather has me itchin to get busy...
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 15:52
Oops, I was on page 3 when I replied above. :rolleyes: Point still stands.
Anyways, on the point about technology being the savior and organic farming not working.. I have to disagree. No amount of technology is ever going to "save" the world until it's given away without profit. Otherwise there's always going to be some that go without.
On organic gardening, I am a firm believer that it can indeed save the world. The only reasons it won't are people's disbelief and disconnection with their food. If everyone had a small garden and took some amount of interest in their own health and responsibility for feeding one's self, I believe we could certainly turn around a lot of world problems. Food industry drives everything, it's up there with money making "the world go 'round".
Point being; if you're not at least trying to even do so much as feed yourself, you're not helping. A certain amount of independence (meaning becoming less dependent on industry) is the key theme here.
The reason why we need technological innovations is because people won't live a "sustainable" lifestyle. Even the "eco-friendly" among us use resources far exceeding that of the people of undeveloped countries.
You plant a garden, but how many people really do that? If it was a signifcant # (by significant I mean all the people the blab about it) than food prices would be going down and we would hear about this crazy trend on the news.
Truth is, of all the people that blab about us needing to live a more "sustainable" lifestyle; they themselves don't practice what they preach. And that's because it's a tough thing to do year around -- even on a part-time basis, combine that with the fact that they don't have to because it's so easy to get food in our society most people will go to the grocery store -- even the eco-friendly types. And since the population will be shopping for food they have to find methods to grow enough to provide and organic farming is not efficient enough.
You're dreaming if you think people are going to start farming in today's world. That's just not realistic.
Pedaling Fool
03-20-2009, 15:56
With the economy being as sour as it is right now, ...
This is really the only way we will start farming again (in significant #s), but the economy will have to get a lot worse than it is right now.
4eyedbuzzard
03-20-2009, 17:30
What is sustainable? And if someone can honestly define it, exactly how long is sustainable--50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000...?:-?
Sustainable lifestyle - an economic and lifestyle hypothesis that sought to reduce the use of and impact on the planet's natural resources to sustainable and replenishable levels. Term coined by H. s. sapiens at the technological height of their species' habitation of Earth during the last brief warming period between ice ages, prior to later full extinction level cataclysmic volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts.:rolleyes:
Celeritas
03-23-2009, 00:23
You're dreaming if you think people are going to start farming in today's world. That's just not realistic.
Well what you're saying is that people aren't willing, not that it's not possible. And it's always possible for people to change their minds. Especially when, like you said, it gets really bad and it becomes a necessity. And I'm sure I've said already, I'm not perfect, but I do try my best. Never hurts to be prepared either.. "It wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark." :-?
We live in a transient world, it's called "change". Longterm is relative. Can we have 6 billion people live at our standard of living? -- No way -- not until we have some more technological breakthroughs. We cannot support our country on organically grown foods, yes it's better for the environment, but not an option to feed our population.
This is a large complicated issue that is oversimplified by the environmental freaks and the anti-environtmetal society-loving freaks.
As long as this issue remains a political issue the truth will remain hidden.
I'm sick of the word "sustainable" it's just another politicized word that has lost its meaningI agree with all your points except the last.
I don't believe the words "sustainable" or "sustainability" have been politicized.
"Sustainability" has largely been ignored. or deliberately avoided.
The exception is the term "Sustainable Development".
What the heck does that mean?
It means whatever people want it to mean. It is purely political.
"Sustainability" is just common sense. Something a child might understand.
"Sustainable Development" is just a way of confusing and avoiding the issue.
What is sustainable? And if someone can honestly define it, exactly how long is sustainable--50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000...?:-?
Sustainable lifestyle - an economic and lifestyle hypothesis that sought to reduce the use of and impact on the planet's natural resources to sustainable and replenishable levels. Term coined by H. s. sapiens at the technological height of their species' habitation of Earth during the last brief warming period between ice ages, prior to later full extinction level cataclysmic volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts.:rolleyes:Something that will work for 100,000 years is more sustainable than something that will work for 100 years.
Did I really need to tell you that?
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability from the OP
"Daly Rules" of Sustainability:
1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.
2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.
3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.
A good definition of Sustainability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability
"Sustainability, in a broad sense is the ability to maintain a certain process or state. It is now most frequently used in connection with biological and human systems. In an ecological context, sustainability can be defined as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future."
Sustainability might also involve actively reclaiming sites as this article (http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=131695) about a local native plant seed bank printed in today's Reading Eagle illustrates.
TrippinBTM
03-30-2009, 21:58
Well, there's lots of things one can do to be sustainable on the trail, same as when you're at home. Look for ways to reduce fossil fuel usage. This means less slackpacking, fewer shuttles (come on, you're there to hike anyways). It can also mean using an alcohol stove, or a wood burner. For the latter, you won't have to carry fuel, and it's 100% sustainable (you aren't dependant on the grain crops and the shady way they're grown for your alcohol). No, it's not as fast, but you'll still have boiling water in 5-10 minutes. Why be obcessed with speed in the woods? Relax!
Someone mentioned clothing. Multi-use is big here, and also the first R: reduce. I've seen stuff on the news about all the clothes we Americans donate to Good Will being burned. See, there's so many clothes, and alot go to the third world, where there's still too much. So sometimes they just burn it. We need to really look at our habits about clothes. Why say your jeans are dirty after wearing them for one day of sitting on the couch?
Americans are a little weird about things being dirty. We bathe and wash clothes far more than most other countries. Though I'm not advocating the funk of unwashed bodies, to a certain extent there's nothing wrong with smelling like a human. Think of the energy savings from reduced hot water consumption, less consumption of soaps and shampoos (thus less production of them and their packaging/bottles), etc.
For all equipment, try to go with salvaged stuff that you yourself make into whatever it is you're needing. If not that, buy used. As hikers, we're good at "trimming the fat" for pack weight issues, but still, keep asking yourself if you really need this item or not. Electronics, like Ipods and cell phones, are terrible for the environment, as they utilize metals which have to be mined, plastics and other oil products that need to be pumped, refined, and produced, and all the chemicals that go into them. Yet we keep buying the newest models, junking the old. Why?
And lastly, buy quality things when you do buy. Don't go for the stuff that will be obsolete or broken in six months. Get things that will last (easier said than done, these days).
It's really hard to keep this to hiking, since this all applies to all of our lives. Naturally; sustainability demands we think holistically.
Tilly
Where I live you take your life into your own hands if you attempt to ride or walk anywhere. When gas was $4/gal people would try to ride their bikes on the road but at least once a week someone would get hit. Not worth it.
I hear ya, I've been hit myself, while on a cross country bike trip. But we cyclists can't give up. At some point we'll hit a critical mass and we'll start getting noticed. In fact, there is a movement called Critical Mass where bicyclists take to the streets en masse, i think on the first friday of each month. Pretty cool as a statement.
whew! sorry I wrote so much; it's a subject near and dear to my heart :)
TrippinBTM
03-30-2009, 22:00
With the economy being as sour as it is right now, I've heard that there are a lot of folks who are talking about going back to having a small garden to try to help make ends meet. And it is truly amazing how much food can be produced in a backyard plot, if it's done properly.
Check this guy out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q&feature=channel_page
Check this guy out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCPEBM5ol0Q&feature=channel_page
I admire this family. Reminds me of my Hippie Days in S California. Glad to hear someone has "carried on".
What isn't mentioned is the amount of work that goes into a garden that intensive. There certainly won't be much time for hiking.
With a yard that looks like a jungle, chickens, goats and all the other rural paraphernalia I'm sure they are a hit with their Pasadena neighbors!
In fact, there is a movement called Critical Mass where bicyclists take to the streets en masse, i think on the first friday of each month. Pretty cool as a statement.
Cool as a statement, but CM has gotten a lot of bad press in certain cities from aggressive tactics. things like holding up cross traffic at busy intersections, intentionally massing up and riding slow to hold back cagers (drivers), and even attacking drivers who are trying to get by.
I agree there needs to be more cyclists on the roads and coexistence with the cagers. But I'm not sure Critical Mass is the way to go about it.
What isn't mentioned is the amount of work that goes into a garden that intensive. There certainly won't be much time for hiking.
After leaving a secure job, and city life I returned to my small rural hometown to reorganize my life. With unsecure employment, huge student loan, and a recent divorce I was unable to get a morgage to buy or build a home... So I saved enough money to purchase a 3 acre plot of land, and have spent the last 4yrs building my home peice by peice using a portion of my paycheques each week to buy materials. For the first 2yrs, I lived in an outfitter tent beside my soon to be new home.. Almost 5yrs since the start I'm a home owner without a morgage!
I now have a beautiful 1600 sq/f loft, with a 1600 sq/f work shop below, in a barn style.. I went to great length's to seek out and use sustainable or enviro friendly building materials, right down to soya based insulation (that you could eat if need be) or soya milk paint. I avoided the traps of eviro friendly bambo floors etc... which when you consider they have to be shipped half way around the world first, kinda defeats the purpose. And instead purchased another 10 acre wood lot, and began harvesting and milling my own lumber and firewood.
Also, while building, I knew I would eventually be using solar and wind energy to power my home, but simply could not afford the panels and turbines at the time of construction. So instead I wired the home with a parallel electrical system that will when complete switch back and forth between grid and off grid power. I'm hope to eventually sell energy back to my utility company as a source of revenue. Purchase of the pannels and turbines to complete the system is currently a 5yr plan.
I've burried water tanks next to my vegetable garden that uses grey water from my home. This is water coming from my bath tub, sinks and shower. It runs through a filtering process that removes the heavy matter that then gets composted..
We now have a good size vegetable garden, apple tree's, rasberry's, blueberry's, strawberry's, etc.. We currently produce about 1/4 of our own food, and hope to increase that to 1/2 within 2yrs. Also, in the process of building a greenhouse to extend my Canadian growing season and adding chickens and a coup to the mix.
I will admit that it is a fair amount of work to maintain this level of self suffiency, but well worth it, IMO... I simply replace my TV watching time with yard chores... I also keep my neighbors well supplied with fresh produce, so that when I want to disappear for a few weeks for a hiking trip, I know I have people willing to do some watering and picking while i'm away..
Looking around at the world we live in, I see no other option other than making it our personal responsibility to lessen the load on the planet... That said, i'm going to look for ways to green up my hikes... Excellent thread!
You are to be congratulated. Any online journals/pics of your homestead? Where in the country do you live?
No sorry, I have never set up an online journal or anything like that for my home...
I live in St. Stephen, NB Canada, which is right on the border with Calais, ME or roughly 2hrs from Katahdin.
Also, i'd like to say, prior to building my house, i'd never built anything larger than a birdhouse... So this was a steep learning curve, but with the right attitude, patients, practice, a bunch of books, and knowing when your over your head and asking for help, anyone could do it..
Pedaling Fool
03-31-2009, 16:58
...In fact, there is a movement called Critical Mass where bicyclists take to the streets en masse, i think on the first friday of each month. Pretty cool as a statement...
Critical mass rides are complete BS and counter-productive to cyclist-motorist relations.
TrippinBTM
03-31-2009, 19:24
I agree there needs to be more cyclists on the roads and coexistence with the cagers. But I'm not sure Critical Mass is the way to go about it.
me neither, a real critical mass would be something else entirely. But it's interesting anyways
I admire this family. Reminds me of my Hippie Days in S California. Glad to hear someone has "carried on".
What isn't mentioned is the amount of work that goes into a garden that intensive. There certainly won't be much time for hiking.
With a yard that looks like a jungle, chickens, goats and all the other rural paraphernalia I'm sure they are a hit with their Pasadena neighbors!
I've had 50' by 50' home garden for the past 52 years -- and I sense I've managed to get far more hiking in than most members of White Blaze.
Just avoid reading Mother Earth News. I just give my crops a head start on the weeds and then let survival of the fittest prevail.
My wife and I spend a couple of weeks in late summer and early fall canning and freezing. I store root crops in a cold spot in my basement; keep squash and pumpkins in a dry cool hallway. The whole process is really pretty easy.
And we manage to eat garden crops year round with very little effort on our part.
My gardens supply more vegetables than we can eat. We give a lot of stuff away. People frown on my weedy gardens. But they appreciate the cukes and tomatoes I offer them.
Just don't try to outwit mother nature. Never try to get a head start on summer. Never try to extend summer into chilly autumn. The extra effort is rarely worth it, and cuts severely into hiking time. My gardens produce more food than we can eat. Sure it's nice to still be eating fresh tomatoes a month after the first killing frost.
But the effort to extend the season cuts too much into other activities.
Gardening need not be time consuming. JUst eat whatever grows the best and easiest.
Weary
You are to be congratulated also.
I garden too, since the early 70's. At one time I had an acre under cultivation. Now that the kids are gone it's down to 20x30'.
I till until July 4th, by then the crops are "made".
When I referred to "gardening that intensive" taking a lot of time I was talking about the video. The family in question lives in Pasadena California and garden year 'round.
TrippinBTM
04-01-2009, 09:49
I like weary's approach. I always thought weeding was pretty stupid; talk about creating an endless job for yourself. There are thousands and thousands of weed seeds in every square foot of soil, and every time you disturb it (by hoeing, for example) you wake more of them up. Get your plants going with some early weeding, then let it all grow. There's enough nutrients for all, if you're composting right.
I wish I could garden more. I'm not settled enough, don't have my own place and don't plan to for a few years, as adventure continues to call. But having massive gardens is a future goal of mine. I want to be as self sufficient as possible... someday.
By the way, what's wrong with Mother Earth News?