There are plenty of debates right now about energy independence and what that means, especially in light of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting boycotts of Russian fossil fuels. There’s not much I can do as an individual, but these events prompted my switch to a third-party electricity supplier, particularly one that focuses on utility-scale wind and solar projects here in Pennsylvania.
The second and third posts on this blog were about third-party electricity suppliers in Pennsylvania and my impending switch to support one of them. Three years later, spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I finally got around to making a choice and making it happen. This two-part series is my renewed argument for an easy shift away from fossil fuel-based electricity generation.
As climate change projections become more dire and necessary action lags, younger members of society are stepping up to take control of their future. While it should not be their responsibility to find solutions, it is nonetheless inspiring to see how individual actions create ripple effects that lead to change. Those who will be impacted the most say it is not the time to give up the fight.
Breaking down barriers (particularly political ones) is essential to collaboration and, therefore, progress. I am not a fan of labels, but I still subconsciously assign them to myself and others. Depending on the label, the result can be helpful or (more likely) detrimental. Finding common ground with each other is the first step to building trust and unlocking meaningful solutions to the collective challenges we face.
Impending apocalypse got you down? Me too. Fortunately I got a boost of hope from a book I recently read that is designed to help its readers create meaningful connections despite differing opinions on climate change. This book helped me prepare for a conference that was ultimately canceled, but the learning remains and will hopefully continue to guide me through a more thoughtful 2022.
I arrived at vegetarianism 20 years ago to support animal welfare; I upped the stakes to vegan this month to decrease my carbon footprint. Cutting animal products out of your diet is one of the best things you can do for the environment, and more people are taking steps in that direction for just one meal a day or one day a week, rather than going cold-turkey.
Although we know that “Reduce” is the most important component of the Three R’s, it’s hard to advocate for reducing consumption during the biggest commercial holiday of the year. Examining our motivations during the holidays (to understand why we choose to spend our time and money the way we do) can help reduce our consumption and may help improve our mental health as well.
At least according to some, the decision of whether you buy a real or plastic tree doesn’t have as much of an environmental impact as what you choose to do with it once you have it. Getting rid of your real tree at the end of the season can be confusing, especially if it’s unclear what the most eco-friendly end-of-life decision is.
People have been asking the question for years: are real or artificial trees better for the environment. My husband says that reusing his plastic tree for years is better than cutting down a live one. I say that carbon footprint is an important factor, but not the only one. Will a Life Cycle Analysis funded by the artificial tree industry put this question to rest?
A variety of factors are making Christmas trees (both real and artificial) harder to come by this year. Because of climate change and clogged supply chains, availability is dropping and prices are rising. We’ll take this opportunity to look at the pros and cons of each and see if there is a “correct” choice of tree, based on aspects of conservation, health, and economics.