I just moved into a new apartment with a beautiful view (see above…oolala) of North Toronto. My fiance and I are both environmental science students and live pretty eco-friendly (as much as we can). So as if moving isn’t stressful enough… add in being environmental? It becomes a mini nightmare. This wasn’t the first time I’ve moved. In fact I counted and I’ve lived in 13 different houses and/or apartments since the age of 16. That’s 13 different places in 7 years. But this was my first BIG move. I wasn’t just moving to British Columbia with a backpack on, or into university residence with my suitcase of clothes and a laptop. No, this was the big one. The big empty apartment that needed desks, beds, shelves, rugs, art, plates, cups… etc.

The first issue was that we had stuff all over. We needed to drive a UHaul to Guelph and back to Toronto to get my stuff and from South East Toronto to North West Toronto (twice!) to get all of his stuff. Stuff Stuff Stuff. Stuff that we don’t even really need, but we couldn’t just leave at our other places. Next was packing. Bubble wrap? … How eco-friendly can those tiny little plastic bubbles really be? Well, we used a lot of it. And what about furnishings? Buying all new chairs, tables and beds didn’t really seem like the right thing to do either. So, here’s a few tips I wish I would have though about before this move:

1. Purge first. I can’t even tell you how angry I was to see the amount of stuff that the fiance got rid of AFTER we moved. It was absolutely ridiculous. On the flip side I’m pretty embarassed about the amount of stuff I brought that I haven’t even thought about using yet, and probably never will. If we would have really gone through all of our belongings and seriously thought about what we needed we probably could have gotten a smaller vehicle, saved on gas, time and packing. So buck up and give those old boardgames to the Good Will.

2. Give and take. Give to the good will, and take from other’s good will. We looked at a lot of different pull out beds and futons (we have people over a lot) from Ikea and different stores. After the first trip to Ikea we looked at what we had in our carts and realized what we were doing. We left our stuff there and started calling friends. We ended up getting a beautiful dining room set, a huge/gorgeous TV stand with built in shelves, a night table, a queen sized bed, a full living room set, a coffee table, lamps, a desk and other little things from family and friends. My fiance’s step-dad’s friend from University’s mother was moving into a old age home, so she had all this really wonderful and great quality items to pass down to it. So you never know who is trying to get rid of their entire house full of great things. Granted the living room set is pretty hideous, but I spent around $300 buying eco-friendly cloth and making slip covers and curtains out of it. If things didn’t match the decorating scheme of the apartment it was very easy to cover it or paint it. Im glad I can look around the apartment and know that we’re reusing so much great stuff.

3. Packing. Ugh. I have a lot of breakable things and we had our cups, plates, wine glasses, etc. We packed most of it with bubble wrap. At the end of it all we had so much bubble wrap and we had NO idea what to do with it. Recycle it? Throw it out? That got us feeling guilty when we thought about how its made. We got rid of some of it on FreeCycle and the rest of it we eventually found a company that would use it. Lucky for American’s you have Earth 911 to help you find recycling places for most things. But besides that I would suggest packing with paper or your clothes. Clothes is one I thought of nearing the end of my packing. I wish I would have thought of that sooner.

4. Find a way to clear your guilt. Offset your carbon footprint from all the driving by planting some trees, volunteering for your local environmental group, donating to your favorite environmental cause or don’t drive for the next year. We got an apartment within walking distance to work, school and friends. This was the big reason we were okay with the big driving trips, was because we’d be making up for it over the next couple years.

5. This is a personal one…. bigger is not better. We looked at 3 apartments in the same building and ultimately decided to get the biggest one. I wish we would have gotten the smaller one. We’ve had to get lamps to light up the big room. It looks empty without more bookcases etc in it. It takes more cleaning supplies. And its a lot harder to keep cool in the hot summer sun.

Anyway, this is my learning experience from my first move. Post your ideas and tips for moving and keeping your green guilt low!

For more information about green music, green music news, green musicians and everything else eco-friendly-music-like visit Green Music Alliance!

It goes without saying that downloading music is more eco-friendly than buying CDs with all their packaging, papering and plastics. Even after factoring in electricity used by your computer and internet provider and your computer its self buying digital versions of CDs is still way more environmental. This has been shown in a recent study.

The result is hardly shocking, but it’s kind of fun nonetheless: a life cycle analysis reveals that downloading music digitally creates less than one sixth the carbon emissions of buying it from a retail store.

The study compares six scenarios:

1. Music purchased from a traditional retail store
2. Music purchased from an online retailer and delivered by truck
3. Music purchased from an online retailer and delivered by plane
4. Digital music purchase (e.g., via iTunes or Amazon.com)
5. Digital music purchase burned to CD
6. Digital music purchase burned to CD and then stored in a plastic jewel case

There are some interesting points to highlight. If you look at the pdf and article you’ll see that over 1/2 of the emissions in producing/buying a cd come from the car ride to the store to buy the CD! So I guess if you’re going to walk or bike there then the footprint you’re leaving is drastically decreased.

Obviously the best case scenario is to get the digital copy and not make a physical copy. But there are downfalls to that. I had an external harddrive of over 400 GBs of digital music. My brother fried it and I lost it all.

But anyway…Even if you’re buying digital or walking to the store to buy your CDs you still may not be getting your fill of eco-friendly music treats. You should check out The Green Music Alliance as it is doing its part in keeping music environmentally friendly with the following goals:

1. Raise awareness,
2. Highlight green resources,
3. Identify “greener” music business alternatives,
4. Reduce your carbon footprint,
5. Grow a green-aware online music community.

They have really fun and interesting green musician spotlights and all the news on what different musicians are doing for the environment! So definitely check that out if you’re a music lover, like me!

Personally I’ve been happy to see Dave Matthews continuing his green initiatives. First with his car pooling in 2008 and now free downloads for eco-pledges. He’s dreamy.

A straw poll of 15 British men and 15 British women between the ages of 25-75 in central London, showed all were willing to make small changes for the environment, such as recycling, but few would commit to more fundamental changes to behavior.

The outcome was pretty surprising. People will “try” to drive less, and others take a shot at proper recycling. But no one is ready for a change in their lifestyle. This inspired me. I was sure I could find better numbers and results here in Toronto, Canada. We are supposed to be eco-friendly up here, right?

Before I post my outcomes there is a tiny bit of background needed… first of all I’m an environmental studies student and some of these questions were asked IN the environmental studies buildings. So that probably skewed the numbers. I eventually moved to the university bookstore (and stood in front of Starre’s book!) and talked to the first year students scurrying around acting like this is the ONLY time to buy textbooks. Also for one question you should know that Toronto recently made a mandatory rule for all businesses… plastic bags are $0.05. It’s actually pretty effective, I know some stores are eliminating plastics entirely.

I was surprised at a couple of things. The first was that people will pay attention to turning lights off in their house, but they don’t really intend on taking things any further. I also found it interesting at home back and forth people were. Some people came off at first as being pretty eco-friendly and then would surprise me with an answer or two. A lot of people didn’t understand the relevance of me asking them if they would stop eating meat. And the last thing that surprised me was that the only question people answered quickly and I didn’t get an “I don’t know” from was when I asked them if they would reduce their consumption of personal items (clothing, electronics…etc). That was a deal breaker for a lot of people.

Suffice to say I was a tad bit disappointed with my campus. I know this isn’t the best way to test the eco-friendly feel of my university, but I thought I was in the generation devoted to change. I guess there’s still a lot of work to do. Like the article I previously linked I came out with the understanding that people will turn off a light (if they remember), they might not complain for paying for plastic bags… but they won’t stop eating meat and they won’t reduce their personal consumption to nearly small enough to make the necessary changes in the world, they won’t grow their own food and they probably won’t stop eating meat.

So here were my questions with responses (this was a simple drill and I had to keep it short because people aren’t very patient in Toronto…). I talked to 50 people all between the ages of 17 – 27:

1. How important is the well being of the environment to you
Very important 11
Somewhat important 26
Not important 13

2. Do you conduct small life changes that you have been told are good for the environment
yes 19
no 15
maybe 10
dont know 6

3. Would you grow your own food?
yes 5
no 33
maybe 7
dont know 4

4. Would you cut down your personal consumption (clothes, cds, electronics) by a quarter
yes 32
no 17
maybe 1
dont know 0

5. Would you cut down your personal consumption (clothes, cds, electronics) by a half
yes 9
no 36
maybe 5
dont know 0

6. Do you go out of your want to conserve energy at home?
yes 30
no 16
maybe 1
dont know 3

7. Would you stop eating meat
yes 5
no 37
maybe 5
dont know 3

8. Would you pay more to invest in ecologically friendly products
yes 10
no 22
maybe 6
dont know 12

9. gender
male 23
female 24
other 1
prefer not to answer 1

10. What do you think of Toronto’s new plastic bag policy?
Love it 14
Hate it 18
Dont care 2
Dont know 16

For interests sake, what is your major
Environmental studies 6
Political science/Law 4
English 2
Fine Arts 9
Social Science 12
Science 13
Business 4

If you drive a car, or even have to take a bus in any sort of major city you know that traffic is a terrible thing. When I went to India I was shocked to see that the streets there are at least three times as packed as the streets of Toronto, not to mention they’re usually smaller streets too. People get into grid locks that are near to impossible to break out of. The last thing that needs to be on the street is more cars. It’s bad enough that somehow the Western countries have been convinced that “hybrids” and environmentally friendly cars are a smart choice. The dumbest bike is still smarter than the smartest car.

Yet still for some reason people are praising the new car that is to be released this July in India. Boasted as the “people’s car” The Nano is said to bring new opportunities for families in the lower income bracket of India. Costing only $2000/USD or apx 1 000 000 rupees because of its lack of airbags, radio, electric windows and other luxuries it is definitely something feasible for these families. Currently the only options for them are bicycles, scooters and walking. With this new “cheap” car nearly anyone will be able to afford a motorized vehicle. And people will buy it. Economists have speculated that this new car will boost India’s car sales by 65%.

Between the years 1980 and 1998 there was a 69% increase in motor vehicle traffic, 82% of this increase was from cars alone. The world can expect to see an additional 22% increase from the current levels of 321 billion cars by next year. A quarter of all car trips are for distances less than 2 miles, and just over half for less than 5 miles of travel. A single double-decker bus can hold the same amount of people as 20 fully occupied cars can. There are too many cars. Cars are one of the leading contributors to global warming, and it doesn’t look like they’re going anywhere, any time soon. What then is an environmentalist supposed to think of “The Nano”? I’ll tell you what this environmentalist thinks, this is a complete disaster.

On one hand there is a really reasonable argument. Here in the Northern “privileged” societies citizens have been able to use cars as much they want to. If people can’t afford it, they can take out a loan or lease a car. People can buy used cars, and even get junk cars and fix them up. If someone can’t afford a car then there is usually an option for carpooling or public transportation that is good enough to serve the majority of populations. What sort of injustice would it be for the Northern world to deny access to the same conveniences that has been happening here for generations?

Many people would argue that the North has no right to keep underdeveloped Southern countries from developing. The fact of the matter is if India, China and Africa all start living like the West there is going to be ecological disasters so huge that it will all be completely irreversible. The answer doesn’t lie is allowing India to develop the same as Canada, the United States and Europe. Instead the answer lies within a complete overhaul of the car as a status symbol. As with most environmental suggestions this unfortunately falls into the category of us needing a huge systemic change in the way that we view something that we’ve already grown so accustom to.

Not only does the North have the responsibility to have a change in transportation and cars, but also there lies onus on the wealthy countries to start putting money, energy and time into education underdeveloped countries. Education about the unequivocal dangers of development, huge numbers of cars on the road and increasing pollution need to be spread until people start to listen. Development doesn’t necessarily mean developing like the North. Development can be sustainable, and there are enough education individuals in the North who can teach this sustainable development to places like India.

Although Tata claims that the car pollutes 12% less than the average car, this still isn’t good enough. This is a time when people shouldn’t be encouraging the production of cars that are efficient. This is a time when people should be advocating for re-education of what transportation is and how we get around. There should be nothing glamorous about owning a car. Although this car opens up important social development for people in India, it is not good. The world doesn’t need more cars, it needs more bikes, buses and educated people about the pressure that motor vehicles put on our earth and that with more of them we could all be walking with masks on in short order. Start walking, taking the bus and carpooling to show developed countries that life without a car isn’t impossible. Write to Tata and tell them the social and environmentally irresponsible actions the company is participating in. Cars are not what should be held up on a pedestal in the world any longer.

To produce that single ounce, miners have to quarry hundreds of tons of rock, which are then doused in a liquid cyanide solution to separate the gold. Payal Sampat, the campaign director for Earthworks, the mining watchdog, told The Independent: “Gold mining is arguably the world’s dirtiest and most polluting industry.”

My boyfriend proposed not too long ago (so I guess he’s not my boyfriend anymore) and he said the hardest thing wasn’t worrying about if I’d say yes or no…or getting the mood right…or doing it at the right time…or any of those small things. He said the hardest part, by far, was finding a ring that wouldn’t make me go into a rant about mining and health or cry because of child soldiers.

Recently National Geographic put up a slide show about gold – its effects on people and the environment.

A wedding ring which costs around $2000 (CND) which is about 1 ounce of gold creates up to 30 tons of toxic waste. This toxic waste effects us all here in North America as our lakes are not only threatened to be turned into dump sites, but already are in some cases.

CBC News has learned that 16 Canadian lakes are slated to be officially but quietly “reclassified” as toxic dump sites for mines. The lakes include prime wilderness fishing lakes from B.C. to Newfoundland.

Environmentalists say the process amounts to a “hidden subsidy” to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat.

And really…The real cost of gold is a dirty one that could be with us for centuries as shown be previous studies.

Environmental Fate of Mercury

* “Hot spots” at mine sites
* Contaminated sediments
* Transport to downstream areas
* Bioaccumulation and biomagnification in food chain

Risks to Human Health

* Consumption of contaminated fish
* Improper handling of contaminated sediments
* Inhalation of mercury vapors
* Low risk in municipal drinking water
* Some mine waters unsafe for consumption

And although there are attempts to make it cleaner, you can do your part to make sure your bling is ethical. My engagement ring is from Brilliant earth, which was his final choice after checking out blue nile, polar bear diamonds and greenKarat.

“The science is beyond dispute… Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

I never thought I’d see the day when the President of the USA would be considered “more green” than the prime minister of Canada. I’m happy to say, that I truly believe Obama is just that. (Although…to be fair – being “more green” then the Canadian government isn’t super hard right now.)

The future looks mostly friendly with Obama on leading the way. Originally there was some skepticism over his support for “clean coal” support – but won the environmentalists back with his incredibly aggressive and undeniably ambitious plan for climate change and renewable energies. This plan focuses on an attempt to reduce 80 % emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 along side auctioning 100 % of the pollution permits. If he holds true to his plan it will also include a $150 billion investment for green jobs and clean energies.

He is calling for 30% of all the government’s electricity to come from renewable energy within the next 11 years, and 25% of ALL U.S.A electricity to come from sustainable/renewable sources by 2025. All “new buildings” would be carbon neutral by 2030 and U.S oil consumption would drop by at least 35%. He opposes oil drilling in the Arctic, supports Nuclear energy (although doesn’t want it stuck under Yucca - but did accept $159 800 in contributions from Exelon) and supports labeling foods for GMOs and country-of-origin.

So it looks as though that America is rolling into a new year with some bright light ahead of them. To the east Spain is putting forth intense efforts to start a competition for the biggest and baddest solar energy device this world can offer. They’re not even going to keep it to themselves, but have said that they will export the technology to places such as Algeria and Morocco.

The 20MW solar tower is also a forerunner for an even more ambitious idea, one that Abascal [Abengoa’s CTO] hopes will become a standard for CSP plants in future — a 50MW version that could generate electricity around the clock. “During the day, you’d use 50% of your electricity to produce electricity and 50% to heat molten salt. During the night you use the molten salt to produce electricity.”

Molten salt technology is in its early stages but Abengoa is testing the idea at a power plant in Granada. So far the company has demonstrated that it is possible to store up to eight hours of solar energy by heating tanks containing 28,000 tonnes of salt to more than 220C. “This will make it possible to have almost constant production or at least it will be able to produce energy for most of the day,” said Abascal.

India is doing it’s part by introducing such technology as the solar rickshaw!

The solar version reaches a pretty impressive speed of about 15 kilometres per hour and, fully-charged, the battery can keep going for 50-70 kilometres. The goal is to develop the current four Soleckshaws into more advanced models in time for the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi.

Hopefully these sorts of technologies will only keep going so that the everyday rickshaw driver can afford one. But for less costly environmental efforts we can turn to Japan where they’re using recycled bottles to save people’s lives.

All over the world there are people devoting their lives, or simply just doing their best to help save the environment. I look forward to this new year, when I suspect that we’ll see many changes in America, Canada and all over the world. Although some of the governments may not have the best plans, at least they’re starting to have plans at all. And it’s going to take the effort, passion and devotion of every single person to see some major changes starting to take place.

So Happy New Year! I hope this coming year brings you lots of green-filled surprises and cool new technologies for us all to try out. Throughout the year I’ll keep you updated on coral reefs, endangered species, deforestation, pollution and the hardships that people are facing because of global warming and other environmental disasters.

“We are not acting as good stewards of God’s Earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet.”
— Obama Oct. 14, 2007, in a speech at an interfaith forum on climate change

It seems as though anyone with any sort of science background is scurrying around trying to solve the problem of global warming. Recently some geoengineers proposed a “solution” that would just make matters worse. It’s an idea that really makes me think that real and professional scientists shouldn’t be left to solving global warming. Their idea? Clouding the atmosphere up with man made aerosol particles. This would deplete the ozone in “some” regions, mostly the North and South poles, making those regions colder, yes, but also creating irradiated dead zones. But to them it seems like a pretty fair trade off.

These aerosol particles that would be added to our atmosphere would in theory reflect sunlight away from the earth thus cooling the planet. But consider that for a second. Instead of investing money into long term life changing solutions to global warming, we’re going to add more chemicals to our atmosphere so we can shift weather patters, and deplete our ozone to the point where areas of our Earth would be considered “dead zones”. Save one part of the earth by destroying another? It seems like such a scheme would cost a gigantic amount of money and would be a huge logistical challenge.

Playing with the Earth like this is just crazy. We’ve seen time and time again (with trying to move waterways and using chemicals to grow food) that playing around with nature is rarely, if ever, a good thing. When it comes to our atmosphere, there is so much that we don’t understand and so much that we’re still discovering. Where would geoengineers even get an idea like this? In 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted and it released sulfur into the atmosphere. There was a direct correlation with the temperature decreasing.

All of these newfangled attempts at cooling the planet are getting out of control.

There’s the man-made volcano that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space “sun shade” made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet’s temperature. The forest of ugly artificial “trees” that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the “Geritol solution,” named after a multi-vitamin and mineral supplement with extra iron — in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.

All of this time, energy and money is being poured into these ridiculous attempts at using science to cool the planet, when really humanity would be better of pursuing changes within their industrial, economic and home lifestyles. All of these crazy ideas could lead to disastrous weather patterns, cloudy skies through which we’d never see the sun again, droughts and famine. We have no idea. Changes on Earth take millions of years for a reason, we can’t just start dumping tonnes of sulfur on the planet and expect everything to be okay. The Earth’s systems are just not that simple.

David Suzuki is a Canadian hero, one of our top 10 Canadians even. He is best known for his television show The Nature Of Things airing across the world. He is a scientists and avid environmentalist. In 1990 he founded the David Suzuki Foundation which as the mission of finding a balance in the environment around us in our everyday lives.

Dr. Suzuki has his PhD in Zoology from the University of Chicago. He worked as a professor at the University of British Columbia for over 40 years until his retirement, but can still be found doing a packed lecture every now and then. He has been awarded 22 honorary degrees. Due to his love for the environment he isn’t found in too many different places. Although he purchases carbon credits his touring puts him tonnes over his carbon footprint. Thus he has stopped vacationing and attempts to appear by video conference as often as possible. His university tour of 2008 comprised of UBC and McGill.

He has been a very vocal in the fight against climate change. He has claimed that Canada should be international outlaws for reneging on Kyoto and that scientists who deny climate change are funded by big corporations. Suzuki is disgusted by these scientists who are funded from inappropriate sources because it is these skeptics and deniers that aren’t allowing the public to be convinced that climate change is an extremely pressing issue of our days.

Suzuki’s most recent big news campaign is his Nature Challenge, which I urge you all to take a look at and join. What is the challenge? It’s all pretty simple. The way you travel, what you eat, the energy you use and public action. Way to implement the challenge into your life are outlined here. Most of the thing are things that a lot of us will already do – but it’s good to reevaluate your life and see where you can improve. I for one and shutting the computer off at night, and turning the heat in the house down a couple degrees. Sure – it takes longer for me to check my email in the morning because the CP isn’t just on, and I’m slightly colder but it’s not doing me any harm.

Check the nature challenge out! David Suzuki is someone I look up to so much. He has devoted his entire life to spreading the word about climate change. He lived a hard life as a prisoner of war in Canada, but has moved on to become one of the greatest environmentalists of our time. Love!

It’s a good way to keep people aware and more accountable for their environmental degradation, while keeping the economy strong. The new tax will be implemented on July 1st. The tax will initially appear at the gas pumps where consumers will be paying approximately 2.4 cents per liter.

For Prius and Smart Car drivers you’re looking at only about $20 per yer – if that. But a Chevy Avalanche? Dodge Ram? An additional $70. The tax won’t only be appearing on gas, but on all fossil fuels.

Gas, natural gas, coal, propane and even home heating. You won’t be able to BBQ or keep warm in the winter in BC without seeing these taxes come up. The tax will steadily increase over the next 4 years capping out at about 7.2 cents per liter.

At the 4 year mark the tax will be up for review to see if anything good is coming out of it. The good parts about this are that the tax is low, so that people will be able to adjust and not having something swamping them, but it will be enough (especially after 4 years) for them to think twice about just driving to the grocery store instead of walking. (You live in BC! Bike!) It has the possibility of giving people a new mindset that generating greenhouse gases actually DOES cost money! However, the problem I see in this is that there are a lot of people out there that won’t be fazed by this new tax. People are already willing to pay more and more at the pumps simply because the price is rising.

The only green they’ll be thinking about saving is their money, and if they’re well off it won’t even be an issue. Not only that but all residents will be receiving $100 in June to offset the cost of the tax. It seems a little counterproductive. If you know you’re going to, essentially, get reimbursed then why would you attempt to save money anyway?

The only thing that will see the pain of this new tax are larger corporations, and there is nothing wrong with that either. Companies will end up paying for the majority of the tax, as they use the majority of the fossil fuels, but they won’t be getting money back – the people will be. Will this be incentive for companies to turn green?

I hate that living modestly is starting to be equated with disregarding the comforts that we’ve been given… instead of a noble and earth saving way of life.

I have a group of friends who all live together. In a maximum 6 person house (4 “real” bedrooms) there are 13 people. They have no television, only a couple of them have a computer, when I go over there are rarely lights on and they in no way went out of their way to buy new furniture or anything for the house. On top of these smaller things they also bike around – no one owns a car – cook together with vegan, organic, dumpster dived food and they run the house on grey water.

Just a quick summary for those who don’t know – dumpster diving is when you take food out of a dumpster to eat it. A lot of people get a little grossed out by this thought however having worked in a grocery store I assure you there is more than plenty of completely fresh and fine food being thrown out. Before knowing people who dumpstered I often thought “why would those dumpsters be locked???” but now I know that for whatever reason some grocery stores don’t want people stealing their garbage.

Grey water is essentially just reusing water. Most houses that are being built in Guelph are already implementing grey water systems directly into the house by connecting washing machine water to toilets. Said friends put the plug in during a shower and use shower water to flush toilets. And to be honest – the toilets don’t get flushed that often anyway.

For me, this would be an almost impossible way of living. I hate being cold, they never have the heater one. I live on my computer, they don’t have internet. I drink a liter of milk a day, they never drink milk. I will never will with a roommate ever again in my entire life unless I’m getting married, they live with 12 other people. It takes a lot of dedication and passion for the environmental movement to live this kind of lifestyle.

When I told my brother and a friend of mine about this they had the same reaction “that’s disgusting”. … I said that you would just have to get used it, but then they corrected me. Neither meant that it was physically disgusting, but that it was disgusting to see people choosing to live like “the poor”. They felt as though this was a mockery to people who couldn’t afford food, who couldn’t afford to live with just one family in a house and who couldn’t afford to keep their hydro on. Instead you have a household of by no means rich, but by no mean poor… group of kids who are choosing to not work and live like that. They choose to eat “garbage”, to be cold and to stay in the dark.

I brushed it off at the time, but it is now one thing that has been running through my head day in and day out. The only reason grocery stores throw out “almost” expired food is because if they lower the price people won’t buy the higher priced food – so they just keep it until it doesn’t make sense to sell it at the same price point and then toss out the perfectly good food.

Granted, dumpstering started out as a way to beat economic struggling but soon became a haven for “freeganism” (those who want to escape the consumerist life and culture) so it is backpacking off something poor people WERE doing. But with grey water… 50 – 80% of all residential water waste is from grey water.

Is what they are doing inherently wrong because they’re not taking advantage of all that is available to them? Or is it noble because they are not adhering to an overly comfortable lifestyle knowing what damage it does to the world.

I personally take the latter – I think that if you’re going to live in guilt or if you know that what you’re doing is wrong for the world and wrong socially then you just flat out shouldn’t do it. Sure, my friends aren’t taking advantage of a lot of “comforts” that are available to them, but they can also say that they are contributing less to huge problems. Continuing to simply “enjoy” and frivolously go about life without considering the impact that this “comfortable” life is doing is far more of a disgusting way to live than to try and do something about it.

If everyone here in Canada (or anywhere, really…) lived like that we’d have way less water waste, more food to distribute to the actual poor, we would create less of a carbon footprint in general and we’d be more in touch with the “real world” as opposed to being consumed in television and internet.

I can understand that people who have grown up in Canada or “western” life styles wouldn’t be comfortable living like my friends. However, unless you’re able to say that you are helping or lowering your over all impact on the world as much as they are – you should just shut your mouth. Living like that is a choice, it is not a mockery of people who can’t afford more “comfort” it is a choice to do the right thing for the world.