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.
I’m off to a terrible start with Plastic Free July, since we’ve been out to eat three days in a row. Because of COVID, there is still a lot of single-use plastic in circulation. Our collective need for single-use plastic creates a lot of waste, but it also creates a lot of demand for the component materials, one of which is natural gas.
Some of my most controversial, infamous, and still-talked-about Facebook posts of all time involve something that seems to draw opinions from even the most reserved people I know: expiration dates. Many people believe that the “sell by” or “best by” dates stamped on food are the end-all, be-all, definitive line between “safe” and “not safe” for food, and in almost every case that is not accurate.
After a month of immersive research into various lifecycle impacts of aluminum, steel, and asphalt shingles, we have come to a decision that incorporates product affordability, energy efficiency, ecological impacts, and recycling feasibility. I am confident that we made the best decision, and I am looking forward to the fact that I won’t have to think about roofs again for the next 50 years.
In general, it appears that CSAs can help out in the area of reducing one’s carbon footprint, but not why we think. It’s not so much because the food is local; rather because they generally encourage you to eat more in-season produce and less meat. In this final post, we’ll review what aspects of your food purchases make more (or less) of an impact.
I recently saw some deadly misinformation circulating on my neighborhood’s message board app related to hummingbird care. Since they are so tiny, their bodies are incredibly sensitive to what they consume. Pesticides, herbicides, and even some hummingbird nectars contain chemicals that can hurt or kill them. In this post is information that can help ensure the health and safety of your beautiful neighborhood hummingbirds.
Monarch butterfly populations are dropping at alarming rates on both coasts, and we may soon see them on the endangered species list. Their habitats and food sources are in danger from illegal logging, industrial herbicides, climate change, and urban expansion. There are plenty of steps we can take to help these beautiful creatures, and it involves more than just planting milkweed.