Even in the era of Lipitor, lifestyle matters more than we realize.

Sean Lo furrows his brow as he tries to make sense of the cocktail of medication he is about to take. On his table lie oblong pills of pink and white, round tablets of gray, and little discs colored like olives. Inside each hermetically-sealed capsule lies a precisely measured, bioactive ingredient: 4mg of doxazosin, for his high blood pressure; 90mg of Cardizem, to treat angina; and 20mg of sennosides, used as a powerful laxative. These drugs are every bit as potent as they are difficult to pronounce, and knowing which ones are safe to take can be more of a black art than a medical science. In the last year, Lo has had his drug regimen changed three times by three separate physicians, each time without explanation. The only medication he could recognize today was a pouch of pills containing nitroglycerin. This was a precursor for making dynamite, that much he knew. What he couldn’t figure out was how an explosive could help his heart problems.

These drugs—over ten of them lie scattered on Lo’s desk—represent the triumphs of modern medicine. They have kept Lo alive for over three decades, the time since he first suffered from a cardiac arrest. Now at the age of 83, he has far-outlived his ancestors, who could not grasp the concept of a heart attack, much less treat one. Yet Lo has been far from well: apart from keeping him alive, the pills have done little to improve his overall health. In addition to hypertension, Lo has been troubled by new conditions like constipation, fatigue, and insomnia. His physicians responded by doubling his medication and prescribing a new set of muscle relaxants designed to relieve his general malaise. They calmly reassured him that the new formulation was safe to take—only, it wasn’t. For the next three days, Lo—my grandfather—stumbled around the house in an exhausted stupor, spending half the week collapsed in bed.

Side effects may come and go, but trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild. For patients like my grandfather, disillusionment may eventually set in. This can become dangerous if a desperate patient turns to quackery when he instead needs real medical treatment. Snake oil salesmen, however, will continue to flourish until modern medicine fixes its deficiencies. One such shortcoming is the tendency for doctors and patients alike to solve serious ailments through quick fixes in the form of a pill. All too often, a patient’s first reflex to suffering is to reach for more drugs. Patients with high cholesterol often take one of dozens of statin drugs such as Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor. Out of instinct, they reach for histamine antagonists like Zantac or proton-pump inhibitors like Prilosec whenever he suffers from heartburn. Sleeping meds like Ambien may lead to addiction, but doctors prescribe them to insomniacs anyway because fixing poor sleeping habits is too much work. Building lasting health and wellness is simply not worth the trouble when high-tech treatments are available.

This reliance on chemical expedients is one reason Americans are not living to their full potential. This year, the pharmaceutical industry is expected to generate almost $900 billion dollars in revenue worldwide, almost half of which will come from the United States alone (1). It is not uncommon in the US for a patient to spend over $1500 per year on prescription drugs alone. Our life expectancy, however, has only improved marginally considering how much we spend. Globally, the USA ranks at #50 (78.37 years), only slightly ahead of Cuba (#57 with 77.70 years), and even behind a few impoverished nations like Bosnia and Jordan (#45 with 78.81 years, and #29 with 80.05 years, respectively. 2). Some officials are even worried that life expectancy will slide backwards in the coming decades, from around 78 years today to less than 75 (3). Today’s newborn infants might die younger than their parents.

The fault lies with the drugs themselves. Rather than curing the disease, most drugs merely treat symptoms. A pill can provide immediate relief and remove imminent danger, but it must be taken daily remain effective. By itself, it cannot remove the underlying cause of illness. Eventually, large doses of medicine can cause irreversible damage to vital organs. I witnessed this first-hand with my grandmother, who as a diabetic had to take a multitude of drugs. Eventually, this poisoned her liver; she died, in part, due to hepatitis complications.

A more permanent solution requires a hard look at lifestyle rather than drugs. For my family, the health culprits are painfully obvious. Most of my extended family members live unhealthy, Westernized lifestyles, from my father-in-law who returned from heart surgery this year, to my mother who is fighting high-cholesterol, to my father who was recently diagnosed with hypertension. The recurring patterns are unmistakable: junk-food diets, couch-potato habits, high-stress jobs, and not enough rest. When I paid a visit to my grandfather, I saw the same tell-tale signs. His meals often consisted of candies, processed meat, and greasy take-out; fresh fruits and vegetables are virtually ignored. I once left him a bag of brown rice, hoping the extra dietary fiber would help with his constipation. When I returned two months later, I found the bag untouched. “It’s too rough,” he told me, before helping himself to a second portion of dessert. After dinner, he spent the next four hours watching TV.

Should we measure a person's health in push-ups and mile runs?

Not everything stems from lifestyle. Old age, genetics, and pathogens can bring illnesses that even fruits, veggies, and exercise cannot cure. For many common illnesses, however, lifestyle can make a tremendous difference. Heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease are just a few of the dozens of illnesses linked to a high-stress, consumer lifestyle. Even patients who do not directly suffering from Western illnesses could certainly benefit from a healthier way of living. My grandfather, certainly, would have aged better with less sugary desserts.

Most of us would benefit tremendously from simple lifestyle changes. A more wholesome, simpler life—one without fast food, traffic jams, and television shows—is the proverbial ounce of prevention, worth pounds in high-tech cures. It is far better to prevent a disease early than to react to one after it becomes expensive and life-threatening. A decades-long habit of eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet could prevent the agony and expense of chemotherapy. Perhaps an hour-long, daily bicycle commute could prevent the onset of colon cancer, and perhaps a good night’s sleep could stave off the flu (while saving electricity, too).

Most of all, what is needed is a more holistic approach towards health. Quality of health—feeling good as opposed to feeling sick—matters just as much as a long lifespan. Until a person can wake up each morning without feeling tired, he is not healthy. Until he can climb up a flight of stairs unassisted, do a hundred jumping jacks, and jog for a mile each morning, he is not healthy. Crossing the street should not cause shortness of breath. Day-to-day tasks should not require constant medical intervention, whether that’s in the form of drugs, hospital visits, or surgery. And so the elusive quest for true health often ends up, not in a scientist’s lab of modern elixirs, but with a brisk morning walk and the spinach served on a dinner plate.

1. Activery forecasts global revenue to be $897 billion for 2011; Wikipedia reports that 2006 revenue was $643 billion.
2. The USA ranks #50 according to the CIA World Factbook’s data on life expectancies.
3. Obesity is lowering our life expectancy according to epidemiology professor S. Jay Olansky.
4. Photo credits: Greg I. Hamilton, Official U.S. Navy Imagery, CC BY.

Learn how to fish, eat for a lifetime. Browse CD3WD, stop shopping forever?

We all know the proverb of teaching a man how to fish; the challenge is in getting us to practice it. Self-reliance, according to the saying, is far more useful than continual outside aid. Yet each year, droves of consumers still choose to abandon small-scale, local production in favor of high-tech factories run by international corporations. Over time, many local communities have lost their local artisans, and with them the means for self-sufficient production. Without the butcher, baker, and candle-stick maker to pass on their traditional knowledge, practical skills are quickly forgotten. Eventually, basic life necessities must come entirely from imports thousands of miles away.

More than nostalgia is at stake here. Keeping production local is the key to a sustainable culture, since local producers can better use appropriate technology suited for the environment and local economy. Compared to centralized factories, local producers burn less fuel, use less chemicals, and profit more from the long-term health of the land. Small-scale producers can better substitute unsustainable machinery with human labor and local know-how, and they help communities avoid depending on distant, unreliable supply chains for basic survival.

One way you can bring self-sufficiency back to your local community is by learning to do things yourself instead of shopping. By doing things yourself, you can bypass our dysfunctional consumer culture while saving money, learning practical skills, and having fun. The possibilities are endless: you can learn to sew clothes, make fruit preserves, fix bikes, build furniture, repair old electronics, start a vegetable garden, and even build a solar thermal heater. In fact, there has probably never been a better time for the do-it-yourself hobbyist. Anyone with an internet connection today is a mere hyperlink away from the largest collection of self-sufficiency books ever compiled.

Read books on how to make your own chairs, tables, cabinets, and drawers.

For over a decade, software engineer Alex Weir has been hosting CD3WD, a massive digital library with the mission of helping the poor learn to do everything themselves. CD3WD contains over 10,000 e-books (14GB of digital data) of high-quality, public-domain material stored on CDs (now DVDs) for distribution to the third world. Nearly every aspect of self-sufficient living—from vegetable gardening to assembling a low-tech washing machine to building adobe houses—is covered in this massive compilation. For the third world, CD3WD currently offers free DVDs of the entire digital library. For the rest of us, the compilation can be downloaded from the website at no-cost, or DVD copies can be purchased for a nominal price of $20. It’s a bargain when you consider its amazing value. Aside from the Bible, this may be the most useful collection of books in the history of mankind.

It’s difficult, however, to discern this on your first visit. CD3WD is very humble about the way it presents itself. Visitors will at first notice the complete lack of attention paid to visual aesthetics: the retro-style HTML design, mismatching color scheme, and chaotic organization of books doesn’t inspire much confidence. CD3WD also describes itself as a set of books for the poor, which creates a subconscious stigma for those of us reading in richer nations. So as you browse the site, just keep in mind that CD3WD is truly a diamond in the rough.

From another angle, however, the humble nature of CD3WD is its greatest strength. Because this project is geared towards helping the poor, it has a very pragmatic focus. The collection strives to include only practical, technical books with limited fluff. Its books are written with depth, and yet, simultaneously, are written in simple English for accessibility. Unlike typical DIY books, CD3WD focuses on sustainable development through appropriate technology. These books use techniques that are cheap, reliable, and simple to set up. Since the poor often don’t have access to electricity, gasoline, or industrial chemicals, these books recommend locally-available resources instead.

There are do-it-yourself projects inside this collection to match everyone’s interests. For those who can’t garden, consider checking out manuals on woodworking, home construction, and making clothing. Other interesting books cover preserving food, blacksmithing, and building composting toilets. Suburbanites who bicycle commute can benefit tremendously from the bicycle repair books; fellow homesteaders should check out those gardening books published by VITA (Volunteers in Technical Assistance) and BF (Better Farming).

Fix up your old bicycle for commuting to work.

More than anything else, this compilation is worth checking out because it teaches us that we can survive without shopping. It is a refreshing message in a consumer culture where all life’s needs are currently satisfied by malls and chain stores. There is joy in discovering that modern people can indeed be self-sufficient, even if they can’t practice it all right away. Gradually, these books might encourage us to be self-sufficient in ways we had never thought possible before. Perhaps then we can get one step farther away from buying fish fillets and one step closer to actually fishing.

Update (10/12/2011): CD3WD is a great project overall; however, it has come to my attention that the huge CD3WD library may include a tiny amount of material on family planning. Often, this involves the practice of abortion, which the Bible teaches is murder. Please enjoy CD3WD’s library, but don’t support or practice abortion in any form.

As a former consumer, I used to produce mounds of garbage each week after grocery shopping. Last year, however, I realized just how harmful and expensive packaging truly was. I decided to spend a few months of trial and error to live a package-free life. Today, I now produce 95% less garbage than a year ago, and in the process I save thousands of dollars in food costs. The best part is that now, apart from composting kitchen scraps, I hardly ever take out the garbage anymore. Here’s how I did it, and how you can, too:

1. Buy directly from farmers. Avoid shopping at convenience stores and supermarkets. Instead, buy your food closer to its source by shopping at farmers markets and the farms themselves. Local farmers tend to be smaller in scale, and so they stand to save time and money by using less packaging. Most farmers markets sell produce without any packaging by default. I’ve even heard of dairy farmers that help you reuse old milk jugs (cleaned and sanitized after each use, of course). You might also consider supporting organic farmers and signing up to a community supported agriculture program as well.

   

   Why not shop directly and visit a local farm?

   Example: Why buy fruit juice from the supermarket when you can easily make your own with fresh fruit? When you go shopping at the local farmers market, remember to bring a burlap sack, cardboard box, or reusable tote so you can buy fruit in bulk. These fruits can be blended at home using a blender or food processor to give fresher fruit juice without plastic bottles. Homemade juice is more nutritious, since you can keep all the healthy fiber while omitting preservatives, food coloring, and added sugar.

2. Buy fresher, less processed food. Processed food generally uses far more packaging than fresh food. Whenever you can, then, try to buy unprocessed food and instead cook your food from scratch. You can easily spot highly-processed food by looking for the nutrition facts label. The best foods have no label at all, whereas the worst foods have ingredients you would never put in yourself. For example, the presence of hydrogenated oils, fructose syrup, or hydrolyzed soy protein is a sure sign that a food is highly processed.

   

   Don't buy microwave pasta; make it from scratch and save on packaging.

   Example: I used to buy TV dinner pasta, but later I realized that I could save plenty of packaging by purchasing the starting ingredients in bulk. In place of microwaveable pasta, I now buy bulk whole wheat noodles (in 20lb. quantity) along with fresh tomatoes and herbs at the farmers market. I make my own tomato sauce instead of buying canned sauce at the stores: not only is it tastier and healthier, but I have less garbage to take out afterwards.

3. Buy in bulk. Buying in larger quantity results in less packaging expenses for the manufacturer, who in turn passes the savings back to you. Whenever possible, buy items that come in warehouse quantities rather than individually-wrapped packages. When you buy in bulk, moreover, you can often bargain for a lower price—especially if you shop at farmers markets.

   

   Chickpeas (and other legumes) can be bought from bulk bins. Don't forget to pick up spices while you're at it.

   Example: Instead of buying beans in small cans, you can buy dried beans in large sacks (20lbs. or more). The overall per pound cost of dried bulk beans is extremely cheap since you no longer have to pay for the weight of water and for expensive aluminum cans. To cook the beans, simply soak them overnight and boil for an hour. If you blend salt, oil, spices, and lemon juice to boiled chickpeas, you get a simple, delicious hummus dip. Buying dried food in bulk is an extremely important tactic for bicycle commuters, since they should always avoid carrying unnecessary water weight during shopping trips.

4. Buy generic. Generic items have no branding, so they avoid most unnecessary shrink-wrap. This save on marketing costs, which again helps save you money. As a rule of thumb, avoid food containing logos, advertisements, commercials, and even health claims.

   

   Avoid excess sugar by making your breakfast from scratch.

   Example: Instant oatmeal is a popular breakfast food that is often individually-wrapped packets and loaded with sugar. Not only does this waste cardboard and paper, but it also defeats the health benefits of oatmeal. Why not try plain rolled oats instead? You can buy rolled oats in generic 10lb. sacks from a warehouse for pennies on the dollar. Other stores might carry rolled oats in a bulk bin, which uses even less packaging. Boil the oats, then add maple sugar, nuts, and fresh fruit for a far more nutritious breakfast at about the same price.

5. Buy from bulk bins. These bins are often tucked away in the minor corner of the store, but don’t overlook their value. Bulk bins allow you to control your purchase size by filling it yourself with a plastic bag. This helps to reduce the amount of packaging you use, since you only use a single, thin plastic bag. In fact, I sometimes even reuse plastic bags. Vendors save on expensive marketing packaging, and you often pay less per pound.

   

6. Bring your own bags. Bring a reusable shopping tote with you on your next shopping trip. If you don’t already have one, there’s no need to buy one: almost everyone has a spare bag lying around. Any plastic bag, cardboard box, or backpack can serve as a reusable tote.

   

   Don't recycle your cardboard boxes! Re-use them to store fruit and veggies the next time you shop.

   Example: In addition to bringing a reusable tote, I like to bring old plastic bags along while shopping. This lets me reuse old bags instead of grabbing new ones for when I buy food from bulk bins and when I need to wrap produce. So far, I’ve only tried this at local farmers market, where most vendors have actually been very supportive. Supermarket clerks might not understand, but that might be another reason to avoid shopping at chain stores.

Not every suggestion worked for me, so I don’t expect every tactic to work for you. As one example, I never could find a dairy in Southern California that would accept reusable milk jars, so I simply moved on and practiced the other tactics. However, since there are a lot of options available, just pick a few tips and stick to them for a month. You’ll be amazed at how much less garbage you produce. Perhaps you will, like me, discover that not having to take out the trash is incentive enough all on its own.

Can you imagine a world without packaging? Today’s modern shopper probably could not. Whether it’s the jar that holds peanut butter or the plastic jug that stores milk, some form of packaging—paper, plastic, or metal—always coats the food of the modern consumer. Food packaging has become so ingrained in his eating habits that he cannot remember how he survived without it. Without packaging, there would be no cans to put tomato soup in, no bags for salad, no cardboard for TV dinners, and no Styrofoam cups for instant noodles. In a way, packaging is what makes modern food, modern. A grocery store would hardly be recognizable without all those candy-wrappers, cardboard boxes, and aluminum cans.

Food packaging, however, has not always been so commonplace. Two centuries ago, eggs did not come in cartons, nor did soda in bottles, tuna in cans, cookies in Saran wrap, and bread in aluminum foil. Shoppers of this era did not expect every basic piece of food to come wrapped in packages. Fruits and vegetables were simply sold fresh at farmers markets, milk was distributed in reusable glass bottles, and cooked meals in durable plates. No one could have foreseen the idea of wrapping fresh apples in polystyrene.

Gradually, however, shoppers began to fall in love with packaged food. There are many possible explanations for this rise in popularity. Manufacturers claim that food packaging helps to deliver better food: packaging protects food from physical damage; it seals out air to prevent staleness; it preserves freshness by keeping out insects and microbes; and it keeps portions in a nice serving size for stock-keeping. I suspect, however, that the modern shopper doesn’t choose packaging entirely for reasons of health, hygiene, and quality. This is because most packaging, in fact, is purely cosmetic.

Food packaging could be merely utilitarian, in which case it would simply be functional, colorless, and bland. But it is not. Bread is not wrapped in dull, brown lunch-bags, nor is fruit juice stored in generic plastic bottles. Even the humblest of wrappers contains a colorful potpourri of logos, mascots, slogans, health claims, and celebrities. This is no mere accident, but rather the result of the multi-billion-dollar food-advertising industry (1).

Packaging is often purely a marketing tool.

Packaging today has become a form of marketing. The average cardboard box is more about building brand loyalty than it is about storing food. For example, each box of breakfast cereal usually contains two packages: the inner plastic bag, which preserves freshness; and that unnecessary, outer cardboard box. The main function of the outer cardboard is to act as a billboard. For children, it might feature a mascot or celebrity; for adults, a health claim. After all, those omega fatty acids won’t advertise themselves.

Cereal boxes bombard your kids with advertisements.

Breakfast cereal can be sold cheaply in bulk bins instead of in expensive, wasteful boxes.

In a way, even the functional, inner plastic bag is a marketing tool. Subconsciously, the modern shopper associates plastic bags with quality and freshness. Heavily packaged food appears cleaner, more hygenic, and ultimately, more sophisticated and cultured. Deep down, even grown-up shoppers harbor a childish love for shiny foil, glossy plastic wrap, and colorful logos. It’s the same reason why cookies are individually-wrapped, and why popcorn is encased in fancy tins. Heavy packaging has always been associated with greater elegance and class. It’s no wonder food processors use as much packaging as they can get away with. There may be other methods to preserve food quality, but none that are quite so profitable.

Packaging creates a multitude of environmental problems because modern packaging isn’t made from organic materials. Natural materials like straw, hay, and peanut shells are biodegradable, which means they can be recycled back into the earth. Modern packaging, on the other hand, is made using synthetic materials. These deplete natural resources that can never be replenished, and produce pollution that never degrades.

Plastic, the most common packaging material, provides an excellent example. Although there are a myriad of different plastics, all forms share very common characteristics. All plastics are easily molded, light-weight, durable, cheap, and most importantly, petroleum-based. To produce plastic bags, oil must first be extracted, a process which depletes limited petroleum reserves while damaging aquatic and forest ecosystems.

Once a plastic wrapper has been manufactured, it quickly turn into pollution. Ironically, the very packaging shoppers associate with cleanliness and hygiene quickly becomes a massive source of filth. Whether it’s in the form of a cereal bag, soda bottle, milk jug, or egg carton, plastic packaging turns into garbage at the end of its life-cycle. It often ends up as litter scattered along the road.

The current solution to this pollution problem is to gather up all this spent plastic and toss it into a burial pile, otherwise known as landfill. This removes the eyesore, but it does not address the fact that plastic fails to biodegrade. Most plastics will never be recycled back into the earth. As landfill piles up, these plastics can pose health risks to nearby communities. The same synthetic chemicals used to manufacture the plastics can leach into nearby soil, polluting both land and groundwater.

Recycling this plastic would be an improvement, but this has its share of problems as well. Recycling on a large-scale is a logistical challenge, with the result that recycled plastic might be more expensive than virgin plastic. First, consumers must actively participate in recycling programs (they usually don’t bother; in the USA, for example, only around 1 in 4 plastic bottles are actually recycled (2)). Next, vast fleets of expensive trucks are needed to haul all this rubbish back to costly recycling facilities. These materials must then be sorted, since most facilities can only recycle a handful of the different plastic types. Even of those types that can be recycled, not everything can be reclaimed, and even the fraction that is reclaimed is generally of an inferior quality. In the process, massive amounts of fuel and electricity are consumed. Recycling is definitely better than land-filling, but it’s not as sustainable as it sounds.

Modern civilization could keep drilling for oil and continue producing garbage, but perhaps everyone would be better off without packaging altogether.

After all, life without modern packaging certainly is possible. For millennia, humanity has survived without any of the types of disposable packaging used today. Styrofoam, polyethylene, aluminum cans, and laminated cardboard simply did not exist two hundred years ago.

But even if returning to a package-free food culture would be possible, the real question is whether this would be desirable. Most shoppers believe that it would not. To most consumers, packaging is the very embodiment of modern progress. Shrink-wrap, they argue, has improved modern health by keeping food clean and sanitary. Without it, modern man would revert to a poor, nasty, brutish, and short existence.

These fears are greatly exaggerated. In some cases, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Shoppers who are sincerely concerned for their health should avoid packaging whenever possible, since it turns out that heavy packaging tends to harm more than protect.

For one, packaging itself can actually become a potential source of toxins. A classic example involve packages made with Bisphenol A. Over a million metric tonnes of this chemical was produced globally in the 1980s, which then doubled to over two million tonnes by 2009 (3). The majority went into the production of polycarbonate plastics (used in some baby bottles and water bottles), and a lesser fraction went into the production of epoxy resins (used to line soda cans). It was well-known since the 1930s that Bisphenol A was estrogenic—that is, it could bind to sex hormone receptors that influence development. Despite this knowledge, manufacturers continued using this chemical in food packaging until recent studies demonstrated that the plastic had the potential to leach into food. Researchers concluded that packaging made from Bisphenol A might harm development in children and cause cancer in adults. As a result, many manufacturers have since recalled these plastics and discontinued its further use.

Yet even when packaging does not pose a health risk, the food inside it usually does. Heavily packaged food is usually heavily processed, which can result in Western diseases like obesity and diabetes. Processed food is filled with extra chemicals in the forms of preservatives, sweeteners, food colorings, and flavor additives. To make matters worse, dietary fiber and vitamins are often lost in the process.

Heavily packaged food is often junk food.

Food quality can also suffer in another way. Fresh, unpackaged food often has a short shelf life. Even with refrigeration, ripe fruits and vegetables simply won’t keep for a long time. Packaged food, however, can often be stored for decades, which means that a box of instant noodles could spend spend years in the stockroom before finally being sold. Food that has been packed for freshness, then, may not really be all that fresh.

For most foods, avoiding packaging is simple. Fresh fruit, such as apples and oranges, often have peels which naturally protect them from dirt and microbes. These peels are biodegradable, which means they can be composted after being used up. Many vegetables are also very hardy, so they don’t require much effort to go package-free either. Shoppers should take advantage of natural packaging, like the hard outer skin of squash, the husks of corn shells, or the skins of potatoes. All this fresh produce can be loaded directly into a clean, reusable tote instead of a new plastic bag, without any sacrifice in hygiene.

Most fresh foods don't need packaging.

Fragile foods, like ripe tomatoes and eggs, require some extra forethought. The best packing materials are use old, biodegradable waste products, which are both low-cost and sustainable. Shoppers can use straw, corn husks, lawn clippings, peanut shells, and old newspapers to cushion fragile foods. These materials can then be tossed into a compost bin after use.

Use real peanut shells (right), not Styrofoam packing peanuts (left).

Shoppers can also bring their own reusable containers. For example, instead of buying shrink-wrapped rice and beans, I often buy them from bulk bins to save money and use old plastic bags as containers. For fluids like milk, vendors from small farmers markets sometimes let you reuse clean milk jugs. Some coffee shops will even offer discounts for customers that avoid paper cups and instead bring their own reusable mugs. Not only does this avoid waste, it also saves money.

Grains, beans, nuts, and other dried foods can all be bought from bulk bins.

Living package-free is neither time-consuming nor difficult; even a few seconds of effort can make a difference. The real issue, instead, is overcoming the inertia of old cultural attitudes. The challenge rests in the hands of each shopper. I hope he won’t take good advice and treat it the way he treats old food packaging—by throwing it away.

1. Over $10 billion dollars each year is spent advertising the food we eat. Consumers Union.org reports that processed food advertising (estimated around $11.26 billion as of 2004) vastly overwhelms advertising for healthy eating ($9.55 million).
2. 1.5 billion pounds of plastic bottles were recycled in the USA, but this only accounts for 22% of total production. Where did we trash the other 5.3 billion pounds?
3. This Wikipedia entry provided production statistics.
4. Photo credits:
   Billy Brown, Michelle Tribe, Jayanthi, Samuel C. Blackman,
   Julien Menichini, Natalie Maynor, Ian Munroe, Steven Depolo, Laura de Marco, all CC BY.

Clothes dryers are unnecessary luxuries that waste both energy and money. On one hand, they harm the environment since natural gas or coal must be burned to dry clothes (electricity comes from burning coal). On the other hand, clothes dryers are expensive. The cost of energy for a single load of laundry is around 40¢, which adds up to around $160 per year for a typical household (1). Yet besides the price of fuel, there’s also the cost of the clothes dryer itself, which is around several hundred dollars even before installation. The clothes dryer, then, is an expensive energy guzzler, a runner-up to the heater and air-conditioner.

Heat production inherently requires lots of energy, so even an energy-efficient clothes dryer wastes massive amounts of fuel. Producing any heat at all, however, is a silly idea; most of us enjoy an abundance of free heat each afternoon. Wherever there is sunlight, clothes can be hung-dry to harness no-cost natural sunshine. Hang-drying your laundry is minimalist, cheap, and low-tech — no drying machines or solar panels necessary.

Besides saving money on your energy bill, there are other reasons to avoid the clothes dryer. Clothes that are tumble dried get damaged quickly and need replacing more often. The tumble dry cycle, moreover, leads to static charge buildup (yes, you could add fabric softener, but why not just get rid of the source of the problem?). And most importantly, clothes dryers produce extra heat, making hot days more unbearable. When I used to live in sunny Southern California, daytime temperatures often exceeded 90°F (32°C) during the summer. When people used clothes dryers, it would feel 10°F (5°C) hotter inside the laundromat than outside. The sweltering heat would have been perfect for hang-drying laundry, but sometimes our culture forgets the painfully obvious.

Clothes can even be dried when it’s raining. If there’s no sunlight, simply hang your wet clothes indoors and allow the moisture to evaporate. Just make sure that the clothes get plenty of aeration. Sometimes, I use a fan to accelerate drying. I never let the occasional rainy day stop me from hang-drying my clothes during the rest of the year.

It’s simple to do laundry without a clothes dryer. Here are a few different methods:

1. Use a simple clothesline. A sturdy clothesline can be made of metal wire, plastic, or natural fibers. Tie each end of the clothesline to a solid support (bars, poles, trees), then use clothespins or clothes hangers to attach your clothes to the line. In my house, we tie a piece of braided wire to the bars on our windows to support the clothesline. You probably don’t need to buy any equipment for this setup.
2. Buy a retractable clotheslines. There are a few luxury models available that are much more elegant than my makeshift clothesline. Retractable clothesline fold away nicely for people living in tiny apartments.


A 4-line retractable clothesline

3. Buy a clothes rack. There are two types: the traditional, heavy-frame variety, and the newer, collapsible models. Both types will provide a vertical support for when you can’t find a pole to tie your clothesline to.

   

   A collapsible drying rack

   Before we gave away our possessions, we used to own a lightweight, folding clothes rack. It was perfect for our tiny apartment, since it was designed for high-density stacking, allowing us to dry plenty of clothes even on a tiny patio. Hsinya used them for delicate clothes that had to be laid flat to dry (some delicate fabrics stretch under their own weight when hung). It was flimsy, however, so it quickly broke under the weight of wet clothes.

   

   A sturdy collapsible clothes rack vs a flimsy broken one

   Traditional, heavy-frame clothes racks are much sturdier. You can get these used at a garage sale or flea market for very cheap. Because they can handle far more weight, these clothes racks are more practical for larger families. The only drawback is that they take up a lot of space.



A rotary dryer

4. Improvise. When you only have a few clothes that need to be washed, you can hang-dry them on chairs, nails in the wall, closet poles, or even staircase rails. Let your imagination run wild.

---

Hang-drying your laundry is cheap, simple, minimalist, and low-impact. Why would anyone ever use a drier again?

1. Mr. Electricity estimates a sample load of laundry to cost 49¢ using electric power and 31¢ using gas. If the average household does 7.5 loads of laundry each week, that comes out to 49¢ × 7.5loads/week × 52 weeks/yr = $191 for electric and 31¢ × 7.5loads/week × 52 weeks/yr = $120 for gas.
2. Photo credits: Mike Lacon, CC BY-SA. greenlagirl, CC BY-NC-SA. ario_, CC BY-NC-SA. Noel Zia Lee, CC BY. Sarah Mae, CC BY-NC. Melissa Sanders, CC BY.
]]> http://greenimalist.com/2011/07/hang-dry-your-clothes/feed/ 7 http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/my-move-to-the-country/ http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/my-move-to-the-country/#comments Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:30:11 +0000 aaronjlin http://greenimalist.com/?p=1791

Planting a Squash Seedling

When I first started Greenimalist, I began with lifestyle changes that were compatible with life in the modern city. On one hand, I am amazed at how far I have come towards lowering my impact while living in the city. At the same time, however, I have always felt stifled by life in the urban jungle. Without land of my own, I could never take Greenimalist to the next level. In a small apartment, it can be a challenge to make compost, start a vegetable garden, or even test out a solar oven (we didn’t have a sunny patio for the cooker to sit on). Hsinya and I have wanted to raise poultry for several months now, but we have always hesitated to raise them indoors. A lack of space, combined with uncooperative neighbors and landlords, has made it difficult to experiment with Greenimalist living. For this reason, I had been planning to buy land of my own someday. In the meantime, however, I had little recourse but to watch other homesteaders with envy.

All this changed last week when my aunt offered me a chance to start a garden in her vacant country-house. Located in a rural farming town, this unoccupied house has a backyard over half an acre in size — plenty of undeveloped land for experiments in self-sufficiency. I was essentially given free reign to experiment with any project related to homesteading, such as organic gardening, setting up off-grid solar panels, collecting rainwater in barrels, and composting chicken poop. I could hardly contain my excitement.



Hauling Compost to the Garden

I had very few expectations for the house itself. In fact, I was fully expecting to live in a low-tech, off-grid primitive shelter, more resembling a log cabin than a house. In a strange way, the idea of roughing it in the countryside seemed almost enjoyable. To my surprise, the country house was modern and luxurious for a homestead — it had electricity, refrigeration, natural gas, and indoor plumbing. I could, in fact, sign up for broadband Internet at any time — so much for roughing it. After a quick reflection, however, I concluded this was probably better anyhow. I should be concentrating my efforts on gardening for now, not on how to build an off-grid shelter.

The backyard also far exceeded my expectations. There was plenty of fertile land for subsistence farming. Having never been sprayed with pesticides, the soil was teeming with a healthy ecosystem of insects and microbial life. (In fact, some pests from this ecosystem ate my pumpkin seedlings last night.) Trees dotted the backyard, and underneath the leaf litter, there were rich layers of humus perfect for gardening. The land was definitely excellent for gardening.

Without hesitation, I knew I wanted to stay. Sure, there were minor flaws — hordes of virulent mosquitoes, the lingering smell of cow manure — but I couldn’t pass up the offer. That very night, I packed all my minimalist possessions, took the bus to the countryside, picked up the house keys, and became the new tenant.

This is a big step forward for me in my journey towards a more sustainable and natural lifestyle. As always, Greenimalist will still be about simple, green living: shopping less, owning fewer possessions, conserving natural resources, and protecting the environment. Since many of us will continue to live in the city or suburbs, I’ll definitely keep writing tips for green living in the cities. However, I’m excited about the latest saga of my Greenimalist adventure: low-impact self-sufficiency on a country homestead.

---



Coconut Palms on the Frontyard

Why I Want to Homestead

Homesteading is the most ecologically-sound lifestyle possible. Unlike the modern, consumer lifestyle, homesteading is gentle on the land, good for your health, low on stress, and very cheap. It does require plenty of patience and hard work, but that’s a small price for sustainability, independence, and a healthier way of living.

A More Wholesome Life

Healthy food is difficult to find nowadays. Most supermarkets are filled with junky, processed food. Even the fresh food section is contaminated with the poisonous pesticides used by conventional farms. These toxins harm the earth, the farmer, and your health. Only unprocessed, organic food is truly wholesome. Growing my own food is one way to ensure that I will have plenty of fresh and nutritious food year-round, even in towns that don’t sell organic food.

Ultimately, I want my home to be the nucleus of a sustainable family life. A good homestead provides a retreat from all the unhealthy stressors of modernity. It’s a place to get away from traffic, smog, cigarette smoking, pesticides, and synthetic food. When we have kids, we want them to have a wholesome childhood — free from potato chips and video games.

Financial Independence

By homesteading, I also plan to save money. Not only does growing my own food help save thousands of dollars each year, but a house in the woods represents a huge savings compared to a house in the suburbs or city. Undeveloped rural land is much cheaper than urban land; I can buy acres of land for just a few thousand dollars. If I learn how to build my own house, I can also save on housing construction costs. My goal is to continue working online while ruthlessly cutting expenses to build up savings.

---



Homegrown Papayas, Set to Ripen In A Few Weeks

My Goals

I don’t expect to be totally self-sufficient this year. Instead, I plan to use this opportunity as more of a learning experience. This country house will be a sandbox for self-sufficiency experiments, including organic farming, permaculture, country living skills, and alternative energy.

Our first goal is to produce all of our own vegetables by the end of this year. I’ll also experiment with growing quickly maturing fruits like melons and strawberries, as well as rice and beans by the end of the year.

Our second goal is related to the first: we will try to process all the food we eat on the homestead. Hsinya will make everything we eat (e.g. soymilk, cheese, bread, and soy sauce) right on the country house. We experimented with some of these ideas before, but having more space allows us to process on a larger scale.

Our Homesteading Principles

Organic Gardening

Obviously, we’re not going to be using toxic pesticides and chemical fertilizers on our homestead. Not only do these poisons harm the soil, they also poison the farmers that use them. Organic agriculture, however, means much more than just abstaining from chemicals. Growing food organically is also about cultivating a richer ecosystem for the farm through building fertile soil.

As I homestead, I hope to strengthen the ecosystem in our backyard. Unlike modern farms, which destroy the soil over time with chemicals, I’m hoping to actually increase the amount of topsoil over time. I plan to compost kitchen scraps, mulch the soil, practice companion planting, sow cover crops, plant fruit and fodder trees, and encourage beneficial insects. Farming organically is like buying carbon offsets, only better: instead of paying someone to plant a tree for me, I’ll plant my own apple tree and harvest the literal fruits of my labor. It actually pays financially to make a positive impact on the environment, because it improves the fertility of each year’s harvest.

Self-Sufficiency

I will try to avoid shopping — not even for farming supplies. Whenever possible, I want to live off the land and be totally self-sufficient. My main motivation is to save money: it’s expensive to rent rotary tillers, import compost, and buy lumber. Many aspiring homesteaders fail because they waste too much money buying expensive farm mansions loaded with fancy appliances and equipment. Such a facade is not true self-sufficiency; even worse, it is outrageously expensive.

Appropriate Technology

Whenever possible, I will opt for low-tech, simple tools on my homestead. So far, all my gardening tools require human labor rather than gasoline or electricity. It may be tempting to use high-tech machines for homesteading, but there are often cheaper, more sustainable solutions. When I lived in the city, for example, I discovered that bicycling was more cost-effective than driving. This homestead will give more opportunities to explore appropriate technology for self-sufficient living.

---

We’ll keep you updated on our homesteading as we learn from our mistakes. I hope these articles help provide a candid look at one ordinary couple’s journey towards self-sufficiency. Until then, our homestead awaits.

]]> http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/my-move-to-the-country/feed/ 11 http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/save-money-on-electricity/ http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/save-money-on-electricity/#comments Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:30:50 +0000 aaronjlin http://greenimalist.com/?p=1739

A typical American household might spend $100 this month on electricity. Over the course of the year, that bill will total $1200. Not only is our hard-earned money disappearing into thin air, but we are also destroying the environment in the process. That’s because to produce electricity, power plants must burn coal. Not only does this contribute to carbon emissions and smog, but forests are often destroyed in the coal mining process. The great tragedy, ultimately, is that saving electricity — and our money — is actually very simple. It only takes a few minutes to learn how to conserve electricity, but afterwards, you could save around a thousand dollars each year. That’s not a bad reward for helping to preserve the environment.

Many homeowners won’t bother with conservation simply because they don’t understand how electricity is being billed. Electricity isn’t tangible like gasoline is, so it’s difficult to figure out how electricity is measured, how much our devices use, and how all this is priced. As a result, it’s difficult to predict whether one electrical device is more wasteful than another. For example, most people know that a Hummer wastes more gasoline than a compact car, but few know whether a hair drier is more wasteful than a television. The mystery behind electricity pricing is what makes conservation difficult to practice, so before we start saving money, let’s first understand how electricity is billed.

Power, energy, and time are three related variables that follow this equation:

Energy = Power × Time

To better visualize these concepts, let’s use a rough analogy. Imagine we decide to build an old-fashioned water mill on a fast-flowing river to grind flour. The rate at which water flows influences how quickly the watermill works: the faster the river, the more flour we can grind. In a way, the rate of flow is similar to the power usage of a device: the more power your air conditioner uses, the more energy you will be charged for. Although we might measure water flow in units of feet per second, we measure electrical power in units of watts (W).

Power, however, is not what you are billed for (1). If a farmer rented a watermill to grind flour, he would probably be charged based on the amount of flour he grinds, not on the speed of the river. The amount of flour produced depends not only on the rate of water flow but also on the length of time spent milling. Likewise, our utility company doesn’t bill us for the power used but rather the total energy used. According to the equation above, the total energy is a product of power and time. Since the unit of power is in watts (W), and the unit of time is measured in hours (h), it would make sense to measure energy in units of watt•hours (W•h).

A single watt•hour, however, is a trivially small amount of energy. It’s the amount of energy that a one-watt device uses in one hour (1W × 1h = 1W•h), or what a two-watt device would use in half an hour (2W × 0.5h = 1W•h). For comparison, a single alkaline AAA battery contains around 1.15W•h (2). Measuring energy in watt•hours only makes sense for a tiny sliver of ultra-efficient devices, such LED flashlights. For the typical home appliance, however, it makes far more sense to price electrical energy in the much larger units of kilowatt•hours (1 kW•h = 1000W•h).

For our calculations, we’ll use the sample rate of $0.14/kW•h, which is the price of Tier 2 electricity from Southern California Edison as of June 2011 (3). (You’ll need to check your own electric bill to find out your exact rates.) Using this knowledge, let’s try to figure out how much it costs to operate some typical appliances:

1. How much does electricity cost to run my laptop? I use my 2007, 13″ Macbook for about 4 hours/day, 5 days/week. During normal operation (light web surfing), it uses around 25W of power (4). 25Watts × 1kW/1000W × 4 h/day × $0.14/kW•h = $0.014/day. That is, I would pay around one and a half pennies each day to power my laptop. To figure out the cost per month, we multiply by the number of days per week, then by the number of weeks per month: $0.014/day × 5days/week × 4.5weeks/month = $0.315/month, or about 32¢ each month. To calculate the cost per year, we multiply by the number of months per year: $0.315 × 12 months = $3.78/yr, or almost four dollars each year.

   As you can see, laptops are actually cheap to power. In general, electronics designed to run on batteries are energy-efficient. (Just remember to turn them off or sleep them when not in use.) If you’re looking to save significant money, you’ll need to hunt around the house for big energy hogs. Let’s take a look at a more interesting example: central air conditioning.

2. How much does electricity cost to run the AC during the summer? Let’s say we live in sunny Arizona, so that the AC is blasting 12 hours a day, everyday for 6 months of the year. We’ll estimate the power use of a 2.5-ton central AC at around 3500W during operation (5). One detail to remember for ACs is that they don’t usually run continuously. Air conditioners only operate when the room temperature exceeds what is set on the thermostat; all other times, the AC is in sleep mode. With this in mind, let’s estimate that the AC is powered on around 33% of the time. With the AC turned on 12 hours each day, we estimate that it is actually operating for about 4 hours each day. 3500W × 1kW/1000W × 4h/day × $0.14/kW•h = $1.96/day. The cost of operating monthly is $1.96/day × 30.5days/month = $59.78/month. The cost of operating it each year is $59.78/month × 6months/year = $358.68.

   With central AC, you would waste over $350 dollars each year. Part of the reason it’s so expensive is because central AC is cooling the entire house, when really all you need is to cool a single room. Air conditioning is also much more energy-intensive than using a fan.

3. How much money would you save by using a fan in place of the AC? On the medium setting, a box fan might use around 60W power (6). 60W × 1kW/1000W × 12hours/day × $0.14/kW•h = $0.1008/day. The cost of operating monthly is $0.1008/day × 30.5days/month = $3.0744/month. The cost of operating it each year is $3.0744/month × 6months/year = $36.8928/year. Compared to the central AC ($358), that’s a savings of $321, or nearly 90%!

   As you can see, it pays to focus on the biggest energy-guzzlers first. Heating and cooling account for over 70% (7). The runners-up are probably lighting and refrigeration.

Monthly Cost = Power (in W) × 1kW / 1000W × h/day × Price (in $)/kW•h × days/month

---



Save 100% compare to the clothes dryer

---

Keep in mind five key tactics:

1. Small is beautiful. All other things equal, a smaller device uses less power than a larger one. Central heating wastes much more energy than a portable space heater, and a widescreen-TV uses much more electricity than a smartphone. Save money by using the smallest appliance possible.

2. Less is more. The less you use a device, the more money you save. Remember that saving electricity is not simply about lowering power consumption but also about lowering time used. Even Energy-Star appliances, if you leave them on all day, can waste money. So turn off devices when you’re not using them, paying special attention computers, monitors, televisions, lights, fans, air conditioners, and heaters.

3. Not too hot, not too cold. The higher the setting on a device, the more power it uses. Turn the power on your device to the lowest setting to save plenty of cash. You can lower the power settings on most devices, such as hair driers, fans, desk lamps, and even kitchen ovens. This will make a huge difference in your heating and cooling bill. In the summer, keep your AC’s thermostat set above 80F, and in the winter, set your heater’s thermostat to lower than 60F. You could easily save hundreds each year (see above calculation).

4. High-tech is nice. Check out compact fluorescent lightbulbs, energy-star appliances, better home insulation, front-loading washers, geothermal heating/cooling pumps, tankless water heaters, and top-opening refrigerators. Although these inventions all require an upfront cost, they will more than pay for themselves after a few years, if not a few months.

5. But low-tech is even better. You’ll save the most money when you ditch electrical devices altogether. For example, I don’t use an air conditioner, fan, TV, smartphone, drying machine, or treadmill. Low-tech does more than save money on electricity; it saves on the upfront costs of buying equipment in the first place. If you’re serious about going green, low-tech is usually lightest on the environment.

Just like with gasoline, electricity prices will surely increase in the future. But if you lower electricity consumption today, you might be able to power your home using only renewable energy. This can help you lock in the cost of electricity, saving you plenty of money and lowering your carbon impact. Conservation, as always, is the key to financial and environmental sustainability.

---

1. Usually you will be billed for energy alone, but a few utility companies have a demand charge based on your peak power usage. To illustrate, suppose you had three appliances: a washing machine, a microwave, and a vacuum cleaner. If you ran all three appliances at once, you would have a much higher peak use of power compared to if you ran one appliance after the other. The demand charge is based on the maximum power used at any instant for a given day (or month).
2. Some batteries and the amount of energy they store.
3. See Southern California Edison’s website.
4. Two different estimates on Macbook power usage. I just approximated.
5. Estimate provided by Mr. Electricity.
6. Power data for different fans from SaveGreenly.com.
7. According to the EIA, space heating accounts for 41% of energy consumption while water heating and air conditioning account for another 20% and 8%, respectively.
8. Photo credits: Brian Talbot, CC BY-NC. alessandraelle, CC BY-SA.
]]> http://greenimalist.com/2011/06/save-money-on-electricity/feed/ 6