Could you live in a smaller home?

It'd be easier to relocate, heat your place, and keep any tendencies to hoard in check. But you wouldn't be able to do as much at home, which could spell a death sentence for your social life.

As the designer says toward the end of the video though, we're more likely to see movement away from larger homes, and not necessarily ones as small as these. The suggestion brings a lot of questions to mind:

• How many things do I really want?

• How many people should I be able to accommodate in my home?

• Is a crippling mortgage or rent worth it?

BBC News - Less is more: Simple living in small spaces

It's the dream of drifters and minimalists - to be free from the burden of physical capital and the liabilities that come along with it. But what makes certain people crave not being tied down? Can smaller homes gain traction with other types of people? Would you want to live in a smaller space?

Plastic might not be my nemesis

Bashing plastics has been one of my more common themes here. I've gone on at length about how they're not truly recyclable and thus create waste management, industrial and public health issues.

At the same time, switching to nontoxic biodegradable substitutes for all current plastic products - packaging, durable goods, medical supplies - would trigger its own set of problems. The additional methane produced from the decay of that much material could feasibly exacerbate climate change, as research from North Caroline State University suggests.

Clearly the solution to waste management issues is not to replace one type of waste with another, but to reduce how much we waste. And within that amount, to have a hybrid solution.

I'm not waiting around for microbes to take care of plastic for me (although bacteria have apparently already adapted to take care of nylon for us), but if we can manage it in a more viable way and avoid the hazards of getting it into our food system, then plastics won't be the enemy. That's precisely what Mike Biddle's succeeding in doing.

He's overcome the challenge of sorting plastics into their respective types for maintaining their integrity and as a result, has turned a nonrenewable petroleum-based resource into a renewable one. His method is cheaper both financially and from a social cost perspective. For that reason it stands to redress a fundamental wildcard that has been distorting our economy.

Occupy Boston Profiles: Eliana

The Occupy movements have got me fascinated. That's led me a little off-track in terms of what I usually write about, but regardless of their agenda - if you can even say they have an agenda - a movement of this magnitude would intrigue me and compel me to consider what it's implications might be for sustainability. (I wasn't around for the Tea Party.)

I decided to check out Occupy Boston myself to understand better what's brewing there. I've had my expectations violated on an occasion or two before - which is something I think everyone can use a healthy dose of - so I knew I wouldn't be able to trust any interpretation of the people there and their activities until I'd seen a fair bit of it for myself. The only way to build up an accurate sense of any collection of people or ideas is to start from the bottom - with individuals. So that's what I did.

Eliana

It proved more difficult to approach people and get their backstories than I thought it would. Even at a protest, people seemed a little shy about being scrutinized by a nameless stranger. I suspect part of that stems from a reluctance to be perceived as speaking for a movement that's still very much in a formative phase. Another reason is probably that, as Eliana articulated, there are different views represented there and you can't be sure how yours will be received.

Especially if I had just come as an agitator.

But luckily, after possibly scaring off some other people, we were able to talk a bit.

What brought her out here

Eliana works in the biomedical research industry. One of the first things she shared with me was that the environment was her top concern. She saw the economic downturn as an opportunity for a government jobs program to bolster our infrastructure and make society more sustainable, such as by expanding renewable energy.

As far as government debt, she didn't see it as a concern. It had not been one under the previous administration. It was only when Obama came into office that it was raised as a major issue, one manufactured by the Tea Party, when in reality the US would retain its solvency.

It was also important that the Tea Party not be the only group of people assembling and expressing themselves in such a visible way. What's interesting is that, as I would later find out, the two groups weren't mutually exclusive either. Tea Party members have been in attendance at the Occupy movements as supporters, as well as Ron Paul supporters. I suspect they have in common a desire for greater accountability in business and government, whatever size they consider ideal for it.

Government measures

That Eliana repudiated criticism of the deficits under Obama isn't to say she's in full support of him. In his attempt to compromise she's witnessed him preemptively make concessions and give up the opportunities he's had to make substantial progress. In recent times it's seemed to me that Obama might be making an about-face and start putting his foot down, but it may be too late to garner the support of the likes of Eliana.

In terms of policy changes, the conversation turned toward Paul Krugman's suggestions; a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial and investment banking from the Great Depression until 1999, thus keeping banks from trying to profit off risky investments funded by deposits; and the Buffet rule, which would levy higher taxes on the mega-rich - at least high enough that they'd be paying the same rate as lower brackets. As of today they pay a lower rate than the middle class on average, since their incomes typically come from capital gains, which are taxed less than wages.

Pulling it all together

The Occupy movements are clearly unified by their frustration (who isn't?) and, as I see it, a longing for a more egalitarian distribution of the political power that determines economic fates. Naturally, people will differ in their thoughts on how that can be attained, in addition to tagging their pet issues onto the momentum that's built up. For instance, I witnessed one general assembly where Occupy Boston was compelled to adopt a position on the wars.

It makes me wonder whether this will solidify into more specific, but broad-based policy initiatives. If it doesn't, it's still getting many of us to pause and reflect on the state of the union, the system that's determined it, and the roles played within it. At the very least, I've gotten a few interesting conversations out of it.

Occupy Wall Street

Like many movements, Occupy Wall Street inspires me with its level of civil engagement but leaves much to be desired. I won't be the first to point out that it could benefit from narrowing its scope to a concrete, productive goal. Indeed, if it doesn't its sole legacy may be disillusionment. My main goal here though is to address a couple aspects of the discourse unraveling around it.

I got around to checking out OWS's declaration and what really drew my attention were the characterizations, both from the side of the protesters as well as their critics.

Who are the corporations?

Corporations are made up of individuals. Just like any organization, they're heterogeneous, consisting of people whose views vary widely. Just as there are individuals who don't have the interests of society at heart in these settings, there are also individuals who share the values embodied by this protest in certain respects. I am one of them.

Any view can dominate at a given level in an organization and thus inform the direction corporations take. Even in their capacity as legal entities corporations differ. I'll give just a couple examples of how corporations don't hold to how they're being portrayed here.

The first is Calvert Investments, which specializes in socially responsible investments and thus helps businesses that don't place profit over people get ahead in the market. The second is Whole Foods, which helps to promote more sustainable lifestyles. Though there's arguably some greenwashing involved in their operations, they're renowned for the treatment of their workers and are certainly an improvement upon the preexisting status quo. Like churches, nations and book clubs, you'll find both good and bad corporations and you should always be wary of letting the whole come to represent its constituent parts and vice versa.

Who are the activists?

There's a tendency in American society to identify a movement with one political extreme or another the moment it strikes the slightest semblance and to caricature its participants accordingly. Critics of Occupy Wall Street and related movements have described their participants as lazy, uneducated, voluntarily unemployed, irresponsible, spoiled and financially supported by their parents. Hippies and hipsters.

There are some to be found who satisfy those definitions, of course. What concerns me though is an incapacity I frequently observe for anything but gross generalizations. I doubt anybody's saying all the participants fall into these categories, but I'm skeptical that even the majority does, in the same way that I'm skeptical that the Tea Party consists mostly of selfish, racist, gun-wielding evangelicals.

To be sure, there are people at the Occupy movements who drive me up the wall, but there's a whole world out there and you can find anything you're looking for. As a case in point, I take myself. I'm interested enough in Occupy Wall Street to at least attend, but I'm educated (I received no funding from my family) and hold a professional job at a corporate entity that I happen to find morally irreproachable.

The Targets

Targeting groups of people whose morals can't be accurately and consistently characterized is bigotry. As I elaborated above, there are both good and bad corporations. There are also both good and bad rich people, with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates immediately coming to mind as examples of wealthy individuals who render a service to society commensurate with their extraordinary affluence.

Even if we can pinpoint the "bad" corporations or the "bad" people in them, is that the appropriate target? There will be exceptions, but I think the main factor behind the frustrations expressed at OWS is preferential treatment of people and organizations that are already so clearly empowered. The enemy here is not big business or the rich, but the mechanisms in place that allow some of them to live with less accountability than their smaller counterparts. It's the arrangement that allows the largest banks to benefit from bad business decisions and taxes billionaires less than the middle class.

As preferential treatment has its roots in political corruption, if the movement is to adopt policy goals, campaign finance reform should probably be one of them.

The Collusion

This movement couldn't have been precipitated without the financial crisis. And the financial crisis couldn't have been precipitated without three culprits, which Raghuram Rajan outlines so clearly in his book Fault Lines: government, corporations (banks), and the consumer.

Government's to blame for pushing better access to credit through Fannie Mae and other organizations as a fix for growing wealth disparity and thus distorting returns in the securities market; the financial sector for responding to those distortions and pursuing unsustainable business models for a quick buck (then pursuing them further to establish systemic importance and thus ensure their longevity despite their decisions); and those consumers who overborrowed to live a life they couldn't afford.

There are improvements to be had in the private sector, as well as in the private sector's relationship to the government and the public. Nevertheless, there are also issues we need to address outside of it, with our government and with ourselves. To be more concrete, I'll advocate here what I have so often elsewhere: leverage what power you have, however small, as an economic actor.

Companies and people don't grow rich on their own; someone has to give them the money. By refraining, or more effectively, opting for or providing a better alternative, people can shape fates and behavior. Disagree with a bank? Move your account to a more responsible one. Keep your money in a sock. Leverage your power as a friend or family member to increase the likelihood that those you come in direct contact with will do the same. Expose wrongdoings and commend good deeds as you see them in conversation and on the internet.

But don't be an imposing jerk because that never works.

It's through this feedback that we can hope to transform an existing foundation into something better, instead of uprooting the establishment with potentially nothing to fill the vacuum. Take the lessons of failed revolutions and shock therapists to heart: it's easy to destroy something, but it's much more difficult to create something better out of it.

The Greening of Ohio State University

So I was making a student loan payment when I stumbled upon this: my alma mater's football stadium is going "zero waste." Okay, that really means 10% waste or less, but that would be a huge stride in the right direction. They're planning to make this happen through recyclable and biodegradable materials and by making only corresponding bins for their disposal available. No more trashcans.

Zero Waste at Ohio Stadium

I'm wondering how well it'll be received. The reason it would be such an improvement is because games generate so much trash, which also means it'll be a tough habit to curb. What if a person comes into the stadium with a load of stuff that can't be recycled or composted? Likely throw it where they please, which threatens to make this new system in practice not much different from the current one.

The fact that the vast majority of products available for purchase at the stadium will conform to these new guidelines, however, is reassuring. Even with a stray wrapper here or there, it could still work. I just hope people don't get frustrated with it or see it as a damper on their festivities. Because they can get really passionate about them.

It seems like OSU really took up their sustainability bent right after I left there, which is awesome but makes me regret that I wasn't around to take part in or be influenced by it. They've got smarter, sustainable buildings now, were pioneering dandelions as an alternative fuel source last I knew, offer courses in that same vein. It at least gives me a little something to brag about.

Speaking of which, one of my many cynical friends was quick to point out that "they're probably only doing it for the PR." My response to which is, of course they're only doing it for the PR! Virtually no organization wants to take on more responsibility and do the right thing for its own sake.

What interests us is the recognition and reward that comes with that responsibility, rarely the virtue in and of itself. Luckily in a more transparent, interconnected world we start dishing those accolades out. The more we move in that direction the better the feedback will be for those who appear to act beyond their own interests.

I think that this arrangement is probably our best hope for steering ourselves toward a brighter future. Sunlight is the best of all disinfectants.

The Future of Lighting

It's easy to take electric light for granted. It's ubiquitous for all but the most marginalized. It's also relatively cheap. It's only on the rare occasion that you find yourself without power that you are reminded of what a big difference it makes. Indeed, light is a factor of production, important enough to warrant switching clocks twice a year as so many places still do. Electric lighting accelerated industrialization, gets kids through school and even makes neighborhoods safer.

On the horizon for this technology are the same trends that are dominating elsewhere in the push for sustainability: smaller, safer, more efficient, longer-lasting. As that process has progressed we have seen compact fluorescent bulbs make their move from offices to homes, and I predict that we will soon see wider implementation of LED lighting.

LED lights are already commonplace in many household electronics. They're bright, sharp and colorful, look like lasers and thus speak visions of a high-tech future. I personally think it would be pretty cool to reside in an environment cast aglow by these lights' particular spectrum, but there are more material reasons to prefer them, not least because they can approach the same quality of light more conventional alternatives offer.

To start off with they use less energy to produce a given amount of light. For instance, straight from Wikipedia I've learned that a 7 watt LED bulb can produce as much light as a 60 watt incandescent bulb or a 15 watt fluorescent bulb. Beyond that LEDs live longer than incandescents by 30 times or more, with the latest fluorescents capable of shining for a comparable length of time. That's at least 30,000 hours, or 25-30 years.

Something lasting that long demands a comparable investment and for that reason LED bulbs are still pretty pricey. As is the case with all good things, that price is coming down. Whether or not it makes sense for you to put that money into a bulb you might forget or smash when you move depends on how inconvenient it is for you to front those funds and how inconvenient it is for society should you opt for something else - I wonder what the social costs of night vision goggles are. As long as you're not living hand-to-mouth though, the higher price should be more than offset by savings on energy and maintenance.

Speaking of a cool sci-fi future I now come to our second prospect on the horizon of lighting technology: bioluminescence. Bioluminescence, that alluring biochemical reaction that led more kids to aspire to become marine biologists than research funding could support, is not just for jellyfish. Genetic engineering long ago gave us glow-in-the-dark tobacco and monkeys as well. The next step is bioluminescent trees to replace street lights.

This idea has already been pretty well-documented. Here I will make the hardly profound observation that lighting in this form wouldn't require electricity. What interests me more though is the idea that overtaxed avenues of energy transformation can be relieved by redistributing that weight to other paths, and that one of those paths runs through life.

Is biology the answer to an electricity shortage? It seems to make increasing economic sense to produce what we need - light, industrial chemicals - not by the conventional means of combustion, electricity or mechanics, but by the pathways that exist within plants, animals and other organisms. That's an alarming thought when one considers the ways in which we have already exploited life. It could lead to some pretty freaky developments. We could also spare other species and engineer ourselves to see in the dark, which, again, would be pretty cool.

As long as such technology is used for the purposes of making human existence - and thus the planet - more sustainable, I find little cause for concern in engineering trees and other organisms. In the development of alternatives for lighting we have captured a glimpse of the greater integration with biology that will take place in many other areas.

Coke's PlantBottle Hits Home

In an earlier post I mentioned that Coca-Cola has already had its green bottle on the market for a couple years now. What makes the bottle green is that 30% of its content comes from materials that are renewable as they're made from plants. I was excited to see at work today that our latest shipment of Dasani, which is produced by Coke, is also housed in the container. It had previously only been available in the Western United States in this form.

As Coke explains on their site, they've been able to create the bottle by using different ingredients in the synthesis of its plastic, polyethylene terephthalate or PET, which is commonly known as Type 1 and the material most plastic bottles are made from. This involved replacing a petroleum-based ingredient with the same chemical derived from sugarcane-based ethanol. This accounts for the renewable component of the bottle. The remaining 70% consists of terephthalic acid, which Coke has not yet been able to derive from plants. With the release of Pepsi's latest green bottle, however, it now seems that they've been beaten to the punch. As it is Coke's aim to take that step themselves and shift all of its packaging to renewable forms I expect that we will soon see plant-based plastics dominate the marketplace.

As Coke astutely points out "Just because a material is made from plants doesn't mean it's necessarily better for the environment or society." For that reason they've made efforts to remedy the issues their campaign could potentially give rise to. By using sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil they've better ensured that their latest operations don't actually produce more additional carbon than is saved. This supply choice simultaneously keeps production from crowding out food supplies. That Brazilian ethanol is so conducive to these aims has interesting implications for the agricultural subsidies in America keeping it out of this country.

It's worth noting here that the plant-based components of the PlantBottle are not necessarily biodegradable and that even biodegradation doesn't always eliminate toxic chemicals. In other words, once Coke launches its 100% plant-based bottle, it still won't be as simple as throwing it into a compost bin, which arguably isn't very effective in terms of energy and resource use anyway. Rather, these bottles will have to be channeled into a recycling system that could conceivably go on to have the materials reused indefinitely if well-managed.

This initiative has highlighted for me a couple of best practices in sustainable business that I have in part articulated elsewhere. First, if you're going to create persistent or harmful wastes as a byproduct of production, make sure the channels for indefinitely reusing them are available and utilized. That's the direction Coke is currently moving in. Second, in the event that wastes escape your recycling system, work it out such that they don't come back to bite us, preferably by making them nontoxic, if not both nontoxic and biodegradable.

I say nontoxic and biodegradable because as I alluded to earlier 'biodegradable' is too vague a term to adequately guide sustainability decisions. It's even been used to describe PET and other plastics, since they inevitably break down into smaller pieces. But that's actually a problem, since their fundamental chemistry remains the same and poses threats to biology. What I propose is coining a new term for these purposes - perhaps bioconvertible - to describe materials that we know can be chemically transformed into something useful or at least harmless by natural processes, a class that would largely consist of time-tested, "natural" materials.

PlantBottle leaves us with some of the same issues that the conventional PET bottle does. We wouldn't want it to get into our oceans, for instance, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. The growing niche for recycling Coke and Pepsi's efforts are creating promises to make the collection process more widespread and efficient and thus reduce the risk of persistent litter. Most importantly, plant-based plastics take advantage of an underutilized resource in the form of agricultural byproducts and reduce our dependency on foreign resources and fossil fuels. Let's just hope that the resulting decrease in oil demand won't lead to a commensurate drop in its price that would tempt us to use it even longer.

This move has come about as a result of public pressure exerted by citizens either at the consumer level or as it translates into government policy. Thanks to consciousness of the repercussions of their actions, market actors are improving the efficiency of how the market operates. That process has afforded us healthier alternatives at no greater financial cost while creating business opportunities in the recycling industry and elsewhere. Without that development, business would have gone on as usual and these advances wouldn't have materialized until precipitated by external shocks, such as spikes in oil prices. This dynamic underscores the importance of continuing to build such awareness of the consequences of our decisions and the responsibility that comes with freedom.

Perhaps Coke's experience will one day lead it to push bioplastics more than carbonated beverages. Who am I kidding?

The End of Growth?

I came across this video recently that aptly summarizes the developments that have led to our current predicament. It turns out that it's part of a promotional campaign for The End of Growth, a book which, predictably enough, argues we are entering a permanent era of no growth. The book in turn is sponsored by the Post-Carbon Institute.



It's worth asking whether growth can be sustained and, if not, whether that change is already upon us, as both answers would have profound implications for our way of life. This is not least of all because it would result in a zero-sum game, the subject of another book.

At first I wasn't particularly convinced that growth could already be coming to an end, but feared that that was only because society and my education had trained me to think otherwise. I even questioned the idea that growth can't go on indefinitely. I'm still not a convert to the idea that the economy is stalling, if only because the theory of no growth requires that environments don't change. As long as shocks still rock our system, and they always will, whether in the form of natural disasters or changing demographics, there will always be some lost ground to make up for.

I also wonder whether it wouldn't be possible to continue expanding economically on the basis of abstract goods that require no increase in material inputs. Equipped with our faculties as humans and a fixed level of capital, we could confer something of value, perhaps even something that makes people more productive, in the form of providing advice or inspiring others, to name just a few. It would only require mobilizing existing resources in a different way. Instead of watching videos, for instance, you could spend an evening disseminating best work habits.

Even this area of activity, however, is subject to diminishing returns. As a result, although we might not see an end to growth, we will at minimum witness it taper off. What we understand least is when and how quickly this condition will materialize. The level of uncertainty surrounding its timing might be sufficient to warrant taking the cautious path and preparing for such developments in advance. It makes me wonder whether that's what the Post-Carbon Institute is hoping to precipitate through its work, quite possibly by making premature predictions and consciously so.

There's a lot to explore on this topic and I've only hit upon the tip of the iceberg. Because of the pressing need to adjust to the end of growth, as PCI puts it, they've made excerpts from the book available on their site. I'm already in the process of reading them over and will likely add more thoughts on the issue at a later point.

Vice gets into the nitty-gritty of pollution with Toxic

Vice, which is probably most famous for the homonymous magazine, also produces its own series these days, including Toxic, a look into the worst consequences of industrial pollution. The company draws a lot of fire for being too "awesome" for its own good and the show tends toward detached doomsaying, but both still bring much warranted attention to these issues.

So far the show has shown me how corruption is hampering waste disposal in southern Italy, how the oil sand industry is transforming Alberta and given me a closer glimpse into what's playing out in the Pacific Garbage Patch, but it covers several other themes, such as the gulf oil spill. The few episodes I have watched have elucidated some lessons for me as regards the sustainability movement.

Biting the hand that feeds you

It's no secret that people go where the money is. At the same time, they may not necessarily agree with the work they're performing. In fact, many of those who work in the most environmentally destructive industries are poignantly aware of the repercussions of their actions. It's a situation where individual interests - the need to make a living - diverge from the common interest of preserving our resource base. That doesn't always have to be the case - I don't know that society could exist if it were - but for many individuals there are few other choices.

When promoting sustainability and many other initiatives it's important to take into account the consideration that conscientiously objecting is often a luxury. However, while portions of the population have no choice but to participate in activities they regard as destructive, there are opportunities to make up for them in other realms. The need for employment has significant implications for personal responsibility in one's capacity as a consumer and elsewhere in society.

That certain industries rely on the desperation of hires or inflated salaries to staff operations also makes a strong case for gradualism. The motive behind my interest in sustainability is to improve the quality of people's lives. That would hardly be attained by snuffing out petroleum and other industries overnight. There is currently a trade-off between material security and environmental health in the short-term for considerable sections of society. It doesn't have to stay that way, but it will as long as sufficient incentives are not in place to get the ball rolling toward an alternative equilibrium.

Instead of milking unsustainable industries for every last drop, whether that behavior's spurred by renumeration or mere inertia, professionals should be given the incentive to shift their skills and other investments to different areas. As those incentives come from the market, that will not happen until we exercise more responsibility as consumers and citizens. That process starts with the simplest of choices: what will I eat today?

What will I consume?

As things currently stand you won't be able to find a green version of every product you need or would like, but some are clearly better than others. The obvious choice is the one that uses less packaging, or the one that was produced in a closer location. While the World Wildlife Fund continues to make headway in its project to work with major companies and thus establish sustainability standards for industries from the top down, making informed choice from the other end is one of the greatest outlets for progress on this issue that we can exercise.

I spoke with my sister the other day about gas prices and told her that she shouldn't expect them to get lower. It's supply and demand, I explained. There's less of a resource to go around as more and more people desire it. Since the likelihood of discovering new oil deposits substantially large enough to offset that demand is extremely low, it's only a matter of time before prices rise enough so as to make production financially impossible. Before that day comes though, but for the wealthiest people, that trend will make many of today's lifestyles financially impossible.

I predictably suggested that, in light of its other undesirable side effects, people should start limiting their use of gasoline. For her that would mean not going to work or relocating, neither of which are very feasible. People typically can't move on a whim and centralized cities don't sprout up in any short amount of time either.

Yet these practical constraints as they are inherent to any grassroots movement give industry time to restructure without disenfranchising too many people. But that change will only come about with the right encouragement and at the end of the day it necessitates conscious effort. Perhaps you can't move or giving up driving would be professional suicide for now, but you can send the message in other ways. Don't buy the styrofoam or plastic container produced from petroleum. Tell the business world oil's no longer as profitable as it once was.

In addressing individual incentives to purchase more responsibly there's a great role for the informal sector to play. It's often family and friends or considerations regarding them that keep us in line. These communities play a critical role in keeping us on track and the consequences of living without them are all too evident. It is a sense of connection and the resulting trust that keeps some societies more free of crime and other social ills than others.

Fashion forward

Unfortunately for citizens of the USA in this respect, it has become very easy to selectively pick out who to associate with, isolate yourself and generally avoid pressure from others to change. This typically manifests itself in individuals surrounded by people with the same views. I guess this might be one manifestation of freedom, but it's self-defeating when it divides society and threatens to shut down government.

To make up for a lack of social cohesion in our society, status symbols have grown in importance. In a world where you know no one, superficial identification has become critical. In some ways it helps to reinforce the divisive phenomena already in play, but on other occasions it can and has lent itself to ameliorating issues.

Despite the best efforts of tobacco companies, for instance, smoking in the most public of places has become so stigmatized as to be shameful. There are certain settings where cigarettes remain a symbol of membership in an inner circle (see Vice), but in general they're on the decline thanks to conscious efforts to make them unfashionable. The easiest way to accomplish that is to forge an association between the product or behavior you're targeting and low class or inferiority.

It would be foolish to think that uprooting our society in the name of sustainability would achieve the desired effect, as the attempt to privatize Russia overnight all too clearly illustrates. Society is a "smart" organization and the only organization we've got, but it still has a learning curve. Momentum toward a more sustainable industrial ecology will have to be graduated for that reason and garnered through existing avenues of influence.

At the same time, gradualism has been invoked to keep things from changing at all. In keeping with the theme, this is the rationale by which dictators have propped themselves up in Uzbekistan and other formerly Soviet nations. However, if people don't start implementing changes in their daily lives, shocks might come - not from top-down - but from outside. And nature has no regard for how long it takes us to adapt.

Bioplastics catch on with major companies

I've come across a few notable developments recently that show how much the push for plastic alternatives has penetrated the decision-making level of major companies.

First, there's the case of SunChips. This company had introduced a 100% completely compostable bag for its chips only to backpedal following consumer complaints that it was too loud. At first I was concerned that SunChips was using this as a convenient excuse to renege on its commitment to more sustainable packaging, but they've come back with a quieter version which they achieved by re-engineering its adhesive.

Perhaps the most exciting prospect for bioplastics is unfolding as a result of competition between two of the world's largest beverage companies, PepsiCo and Coca Cola. For two years Coke has had a bottle on the market that incorporates plant materials into 30% of its content. Just this week, however, Pepsi announced that by next year it will release a bottle composed entirely of plant-based and renewable materials, including switchgrass, pine bark and corn husk.

That companies as large as these are undertaking such measures stands to set a standard for the whole industry. Already, as TechCrunch's GreenTech reports, the plastic for Coke's PlantBottle is being shared with Heinz. The vice president of the World Wildlife Fund, Jason Clay, theorizes that by implementing sustainable business practices, the world's top 100 companies can save society and environment from the worst effects of overconsumption, a contention he explains in this TED talk.



Way to go, PepsiCo.

The Math Problem & The Chemistry Problem in Sustainability

So far my posts have mainly focused on reducing your ecological footprint by minimizing persistent waste, particularly plastic. This is an example of what I will call the chemistry or chemical problem in sustainability. Screening plastic from your consumer basket constitutes part of "closing the loop," that is, only participating in the proliferation of materials that can currently be broken down and reused indefinitely. Another component of our efforts will have to address what I'm referring to as the math or numbers problem.

Even if all nondegradable and nonrecyclable materials ceased to be produced and dispersed in our economy and ecology, this would be no guarantee of sustainability. It would allow for the wholesale redistribution of resources for different purposes, but it would not mean they would be enough for ours. Our longevity as a society could easily remain jeopardized by the sheer quantity of our demand for these remaining renewable resources and an inability to satisfy it.

I can take the most basic of these resources as an example: fresh water. It is likely the most essential ingredient to survival that we risk losing access to. Although fresh water is continually produced by natural cycles and treatment, the scale of this process might be outstripped by perceived needs. In order to secure fresh water and similar resources that society will require to go on existing as we know it, we will have to manage our use, perhaps by checking demand, to ensure our needs won't exceed rates of production.

The same holds true for all other renewable resources. Though they can be renewed, lest we destabilize our society, we must not entirely consume them before such turnover can be had. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that prices as they are determined under our current economic arrangements do not provide the proper incentive to behave this responsibly. Indeed, water, air and favorable weather are consumed publicly and as such easily fall victim to the tragedy of the commons, a phenomenon that has most notably played out in global climate change and our shortcomings in addressing it.

I am not suggesting that all resources should come into private ownership, even if such a thing were possible. I certainly don't think that anybody should have to pay for the right to breathe and I luckily have yet to meet someone whose morality is informed by economics in this way. At the same time, we do need to establish better feedback mechanisms that will inhibit those behaviors that stand to lead to our self-destruction. Attempts to establish markets through cap-and-trade programs were a good place to start and would be the economical thing to do.

Grey Areas

I have proposed defining environmental issues in these two ways, but they are by no means mutually exclusive and there is a region of blurriness between them. In fact, many of our current environmental challenges suffer from both of these conditions. Above I discussed how overconsumption can deplete resources, and that’s how what was originally a problem of numbers can lead to one of chemistry. Take deforestation for example. It has already compounded the chemical problem of greenhouse gases by reducing the planet's ability to absorb them. In addition, though I doubt this day will ever come, if left unchecked this process could lead to the extinction of trees along with all the services they offer. This would mean little for the composition of the atmosphere if other plants could pick up the slack, but what if they too were gone? Or what if trees - or even just particular species - provided services nothing else could?

To make my point clearer, imagine there exists an organism A that is the exclusive producer of product A. If product A is essential to the healthy functioning of our economy, the loss of organism A would translate into serious damages, not to mention the effects on other systems involved. Product A could be anything - a nutrient, a drug, carbon sequestration.

Similarly, if an organism B is the sole decomposer of waste B, with its destruction we lose the digestive pathway for that waste and continued production of it will inevitably clog our biosphere in much the same way that cholesterol clogs arteries. Now, humans are innovative and nature is adaptable. We might be able to invent an industrial process in time to make up for the extinction of this vital form of life. If we fail, however, nature might eventually fill the gap, but we won't last long enough to witness it.

Overconsumption taken to this extreme is a threat to all things that rely on self-replication. Fresh water can be extracted from salt water or produced as a result of the water cycle; its creation does not necessitate preexisting fresh water. On the other hand, a bacterium, despite all our advances in biotechnology, still only comes from other bacteria, unless you think you can recreate the random processes responsible for its evolution. Thus, self-replicating resources always require a starter amount, the decimation of which converts what was once an issue of scale into a potential chemical complication.

The other area where these two types of problems overlap is in addressing one with a solution that causes the other. The case of the math problem causing the chemistry problem is immediately more obvious to me than its opposite. This stems from the fact that so much of our progress has been based on getting more from less. As a consequence, although we haven't always been aware of it, we have been willing to expedite production and related duties using harmful methods. Instead of actually getting more for less, this strategy often results in getting something now and paying later - or more commonly having someone else pay later.

The shortcomings of this approach are manifest in the current condition of the world's oceans. Among other things, they suffer from toxification, a result of our aim to more efficiently deliver food stuffs. In order to get products into the hands of people cheaply and quickly we have resorted to the use of plastic packaging. However, because plastic is so cheap it is easy for people to nonchalantly throw away. This would not necessarily be a problem except that, due to its chemical nature, plastic now comprises the ocean's toxic garbage patches.

It is in this way that we again exchange a numbers problem for a chemical one. The latter in turn can exacerbate the situation and make it worse than it originally was, leaving us with both problems. To that effect, the application of plastic in overcoming barriers to better distributing food has compromised the productivity of ocean fisheries. For reasons such as these I find it hard to justify inducing chemical issues to address numerical problems.

Unified Solutions

Nevertheless, getting more from less is the only way to solve the numbers problem. With world population approaching 7 billion we must achieve gains in productivity to meet its basic needs, not to mention capitalize on the prospect of higher living standards. What doesn’t make sense is exchanging the quality of our public health for these gains, since that defeats the purpose of obtaining them. In spite of this, that phenomenon persists because it leads to islands of greater material wealth and better health amid regions that are forced to bear the costs. As a consequence the latter unnecessarily suffer deterioration in those same areas.

One need only look at attempted solutions to numbers problems to see how easily they can pan out in these ways. The histories of DDT, CFCs and PCBs all too clearly illustrate how inadequately we account for the effects new compounds will have on environment and society. When not stemming from individual self-interest, toxic pollution and its accompanying health effects have resulted from a lack of foresight. I doubt that the initial producers of plastic, for instance, could have known that the versatile substance they were making a living from would today be leaching toxins into our lives. For this reason, it is worth taking a more conservative approach to our choice of materials in problem solving. Many of them will have to come in time-tested forms to ensure that they are biologically innocuous.

In achieving sustainability we face the dual challenge of increasing productivity and preventing the worst effects of toxic pollution. During the industrial revolution, gains in efficiency could not be achieved without environmental degradation. That dynamic by its very nature could never be more than a temporary one and we now have the resources at our disposal to transform it. To start with, as many companies and individuals are already doing, more can be done to replace conventional plastics with bioplastics or otherwise supplant toxic chemicals with biotics, but we can also downsize the scale of our material consumption. Only by thus addressing both the math and chemical problem can we sustainably resolve productivity issues. Until this dual consideration is incorporated into practice on a grand scale, significant increases in quality of life will not be achieved. Instead we will witness to a greater degree than we do today localized increases in affluence attained by pushing costs onto others. Fortunately, the realm of human activity is not a zero-sum game. It’s thanks to this that the average quality of human lives has improved over time and we can go on believing in progress.

Clean Energy Prospects: Bloom Boxes and Artificial Photosynthesis

In keeping with the themes of my last post, I'm providing some more sources (or entertainment, if you like) on these topics.

In the first video 60 Minutes gives us a rundown on the Bloom Box, which might come to replace the conventional grid and alternative energy sources as our main source of power. Venture capitalists still have their doubts but one of them also asserts that the emerging clean energy market is likely the greatest economic opportunity of our century.

At the same time, fuel cells have historically been an expensive and high-maintenance technology. They require expensive inputs, such as titanium, and have durability issues. Bloom Energy has responded by reducing the costs of its units, to make them more competitive than alternatives. They have replaced titanium with a cheaper alloy and the plate of their cells is a sand-based ceramic. The aim of their creator, K. R. Sridhar, is to make household units available for less than $3000.

So far production of the Bloom Box has been cost-effective enough to convince big companies to purchase them. The list already includes Google, FedEx, Walmart, Staples and eBay. It helps that the technology is more effective than solar cells and that California provides incentives that make the effective cost even lower.

Bloom Boxes require half as much gas as conventional power plants do to produce the same amount of electricity. If that gas is biogas from landfill waste the process is carbon-neutral. The cells can also apparently use solar energy to create electricity, though the mechanics behind it are not made clear.

My assessment is that Bloom Boxes will start off primarily powered by natural gas and little incentive will exist to foster greater use of biogas. If this comes to be the case, though this technology stands to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it will not be sufficient.



In this second video, Professor Nate Lewis expounds on what he believes is necessary for a clean energy breakthrough. He suggests the revolution will come in being able to store energy in chemical bonds, much like plants do, instead of in batteries.

Finally it is worth noting that Lewis' technology could be used in combination with Sridhar's. In this arrangement artificial leaves could convert solar energy directly into hydrogen fuel to power Bloom Boxes, which would render them carbon-neutral.

Emerging Green Technologies: Alternative energy, biofuel and bioplastic

The "Cleaner" episode of PBS's Making Stuff investigates essentially all the same issues this blog does. I would feel redundant if that concern weren't outweighed by a much greater sense of direction and inspiration furnished by the initiatives showcased here.

Watch the full episode. See more NOVA.

The central theme of this episode is that using petroleum-derived electricity and materials to meet energy demands and structural needs too often results in persistent and undesirable side effects. The good news is that sustainable alternatives are quickly emerging to replace them. Here are the highlights:

Alternative Energy Technologies

1. Batteries & Electric Cars
Gasoline is one of the most conspicuous misuses of fossil fuels. We can phase it out of the market by designing better electric cars, but that inextricably necessitates the invention of more efficient batteries.

Conventional car batteries produce current in a lead-acid mix, but by using arrays of lithium-based batteries and an internal nanostructure that facilitates the flow of electrons, electrical output can be increased. This is an opportunity currently being explored by A123 Systems.

Unfortunately, battery-powered electric cars still require an external energy source to charge batteries. This wouldn't be a problem if our energy came from renewable sources like the sun or wind, but since we still predominately rely on fossil fuels to produce our electricity, making the switch to electric cars by itself would do little to address pollution and climate change.

2. Hydrogen fuel & fuel cells
General Motors is currently testing its model of hydrogen vehicle. The advantage of this technology is that the only byproduct resulting from its operation is water. As is the case with electric vehicles, hydrogen-powered ones require an external energy source. In this instance, it is required for the production of hydrogen gas.

An additional barrier to the widespread adoption of hydrogen vehicles is that hydrogen fuel must be stored under high pressure in order to fit within a car and even then cannot propel it as far as an equivalent volume of gasoline. The show zoomed in on this design challenge for an interesting segment on the natural materials readily available to overcome it.

The answer is feathers. University of Delaware professor Richard Wool has come up with the solution of heating them to form intricate carbon structures that expedite the concentration of hydrogen. He has in mind taking advantage of the copious amounts of chicken feathers tossed aside as a waste product in meat production. They come extremely cheap and are probably the cheapest possible solution to engineering obstacles in making hydrogen cars more competitive. Using feathers in this way serves the dual purpose of utilizing an otherwise expendable renewable resource and providing an alternative to functionally similar but cripplingly expensive man-made carbon nanotubes.

3. Biofuel
Instead of satisfying our fuel needs with substances derived from oil, we could use clean-burning alternatives made directly from plant matter. Ethanol is probably the most visible fuel in this arena and is commonly derived from corn and sugar. What's more, large scale production of biofuels could also be based on non-food crops, such as switchgrass, which may differ in nutritional requirements and restrict crowding out of food supplies.

Whatever the input, the production process of biofuels is benefiting from advances in biotechnology. Professor Jay Keasling of UC Berkley is behind the creation of genetically-modified bacteria that can produce clean-burning fuels that need no refining. This prospect stands to become a practical reality with more research in areas of genetic engineering and synthetic life. It would also translate into relatively few transition costs as fuel produced in this way would already be compatible with our combustion engine economy and associated infrastructure.



Alternative Material Technologies

Bioplastics
Ford is in the process of replacing 10% of the petroleum-derived plastics used in its automobiles with bioplastics. These include foam made from soy for seat cushioning and wheat-based details.

The host of the show, possibly in jest, says that it takes 400 steps to go from wheat to bioplastic, but I still wonder whether the technology to do so wasn't available before the advent of conventional plastics.

Mushroom mycelium is another key substance in the production of bioplastics. More information on it is available from this TED lecture by Eben Bayer, a designer who helped develop and commercialize the technology.

It's reported in the show that "only a third [of our plastics] can be replaced with bioplastics" and that the remaining two-thirds consists largely of cheap, disposable thermoplastics. The featured technologies for dealing with them involve incinerating them in closed systems by which the release of toxic and greenhouse gases is reduced to negligible levels and carbon nanotubes or electricity can be produced.

Although it offers a way of processing extant plastic pollution and added benefits, the problem with this type of waste treatment is that it requires that no plastic escape waste management channels. Moreover, it uses a lot of energy itself and while it doesn't produce emissions it does leave solid remains, the contents of which I can only imagine but guess likely contain heavy metals and other disruptors. I am hesitant to offer these approaches as solutions to our waste issues as they could easily be used to justify rampant waste, impulse buying and other detrimental behaviors symptomatic of a disposable lifestyle.

The remainder of the program discusses how giant batteries based on aluminum smelters can make the electrical grid more efficient and Bloom Energy, which offers localized electricity production at a fraction of the price and footprint, but I am most intrigued by artificial photosynthesis, which ties back into alternative energy.

Professor Nate Lewis of Caltech is spearheading practical applications of artificial photosynthesis. The technology is similar to that used in solar cells, but tweaked to allow for greater robustness and lower costs. When submerged in water Lewis' cells split it up into its constituent components of hydrogen and oxygen, allowing for the storage of energy in hydrogen fuel which could be used to power the electric cars mentioned earlier or anything else. Lewis is in the process of scaling his innovation for commercial use, but it can't happen quickly enough.

Seeing these exciting projects gives me hope and makes me wish that I could take a greater part in their development. Part of me wishes I had studied materials science. That might come later down the line.

My Consumer Diet

99 Cent/Andreas Gursky

At this point in reforming my shopping habits to make them more sustainable my main focus has been weeding out plastics. Here are a few strategies that have helped me along the way:

1. Produce is your friend and better than alternatives. Fresh produce requires no packaging. You may irritate the cashier or those waiting in line behind you as your loose oranges go rolling off the counter - I have - but that can easily be corrected for with a reusable bag. Furthermore, by committing to creating less waste your diet will likely grow more skewed toward fresh fruits and vegetables, which is hardly an undesirable side effect.

While you may be leaving the grocery store with less plastic and packaging, the question remains, however, whether those moves are good for the environment overall, especially if those oranges had to be shipped and preserved cross-country in order to reach your local vendor. To take it a step further and reduce energy demands and pollution stemming from food distribution you could start spending some more time at your local farmers market.

By purchasing from local farmers you can typically guard against the risk that your fresh produce polluted the environment more than the plastic-sealed variant would have. They are also one of the few places I know of that can offer dairy products that do not come in disposable plastic containers. This form of shopping moreover comes with the added benefits of supporting local businesses and developing a relationship with the entrepreneurs behind them, as elaborated upon in Colin Beavan's No Impact Man.

If you are interested in finding local resources for shopping sustainably, Sustainable Table's Shopping Guides are the best resource I have found so far. Although I have yet to decipher what rubric the site uses, if any, in deciding whether to include a business on it, each individual vendor provides specific information on the nature of their operations for you to decide for yourself whether they deserve your business. The site also provides links to online venues for identifying sustainable non-food products.

It is also worth noting that eating locally will only be an issue as long as our current energy economy does not fundamentally change. Once we make the transition to clean, renewable energy sources, the ecological impact of transportation and refrigeration will be a negligible issue and one of the few barriers to using it for the purposes of distributing food will hinge on whether those resources could be used more effectively elsewhere in improving the quality of our lives. In the meantime, choosing to consume locally will put pressure on transportation, refrigeration, and related services to utilize alternative energy sources and help make that possible future a reality.

2. If you can't get it fresh, get it canned. Or bottled. Just be sure the brand you settle on does not line its cans with plastic, as many unfortunately do. The beauty of cans and bottles is that they can be cans and bottles again. A plastic bottle almost never becomes a plastic bottle again.

3. Pasta boxes. Its ingredients may not be sourced locally, but pasta does come in paper boxers, which often contain recycled content and can then either be further recycled or thrown into a compost bin. Of course, substituting all our plastic with paper would not be much more commendable, so you also may resign yourself to purchasing grains from bulk bins with your own reusable bags.

4. Eggs. Somewhere I saw a graphic illustrating the general trend that the smaller the animal you consume, the smaller your carbon footprint (and those who consume no animals have got us all beat), which leads me to believe that eggs have even less impact. In my parts they come in recycled paper cartons, making the purchase that much more justifiable over the styrofoam and plastic-wrapped chicken further down the aisle. If you cannot give meat up or need the protein, you can usually get it paper-wrapped from a local butcher.

5. Baking soda. Is there anything this stuff can't clean? I am already using it in place of toothpaste and deodorant, with no adverse effects, mind you! Next is to test it as a shampoo, since it can apparently be used for that too.

It has been easy so far. I cannot say that I have felt particularly deprived at any point, but my feelings may change the longer I carry this on and the more I need to replenish diminishing stocks of other consumer goods, such as pens, my toothbrush and floss.

Luckily I am not pioneering this change in lifestyle. My Plastic-free Life is a blog documenting the author's own experience in this ordeal, one she has engaged herself in since 2007. I expect there is excellent guidance to be had there.

More on plastics in society and ecology

Here is some more information on the ecological nature of plastic from the perspective of artist and activist Dianna Cohen, who has also founded the Plastic Pollution Coalition, an organization committed to displacing disposable plastic products in our economy.

One of their initiatives is "Ban the Bag" or municipally banning plastic bags. So far Maui, San Francisco and San Jose among others have done so, with other cities, including New York, considering similar legislation.

Cohen's talk on this subject comes from TED, a resource I will be bound to pull more material from in the future.



I have been conducting my own investigation into the actual chemical dynamics of different plastics and their interaction with biology, but the information is not as readily available as I had expected it to be. So far I have come across biodegradable plastics and have read that even more conventional plastics degrade within a year at sea, but that does not seem to be a guarantee that they have no negative impact on the health of humans or other organisms.

Cohen states that "plastic . . . is always still plastic" in her talk and for all sense and purposes that may be considered the case. While plastic polymers can break back down into their constituent monomers, the speed and scale at which this occurs under typical conditions may be insignificant as polymers can wreak havoc on biological pathways in the meantime, which in turn might prolong such decomposition from taking place.

Even in the event that a plastic does revert to its monomers, that by no means renders it any safer, not least because associated chemicals that would leech into the environment as a result are known to be toxic, such as the now infamous Bisphenol A. The monomers the make up commercial plastics are organic molecules, but so is benzene, a structurally related compound and a well-known carcinogen.

Everything comes at a cost and we must be practical, but is this our best option? Is pumping poison into our surroundings a reasonable price to pay to conveniently carry our groceries home or eat out on a whim?

Approaching Zero Waste

A great deal of my current waste-reduction efforts has been inspired by No Impact Man, an experiment in reducing one's ecological footprint to zero or even positive effects conducted by Colin Beavan that has spawned a book and documentary. Producing no trash was the first of five steps on his path to having no net ecological impact. The other four were:

No carbon-producing transportation
Sustainable eating
Sustainable consumption
No carbon-producing energy

As for me I have already made a lot of progress in eliminating trash-producing decisions and have almost completely avoided the garbage can for about a month now. A few habits and resources have helped me along the way.

1. Make your trash can inaccessible. Early on I found that out of force of habit I was throwing peels and otherwise recyclable materials into the trash without even noticing it. I could not lock my trash can up entirely because my roommates still use it, but I did make it a point to put it out of reach each time I was cooking, which was the activity responsible for most of my waste.

2. Cut plastic out of your diet. Since I cannot be sure that the plastic I consume will be recycled, downcycled or discarded by materials recovery and recycling facilities, I generally refuse to buy it. This will become a problem when my pens run out - maybe I will just use pencils - but for the time being I am avoiding anything that comes in plastic packaging. That means no bagged vegetables or bread, no boxed cookies or crackers, no condiments or toiletries unless they come in glass, paper or metal containers.

3. Biodegradability. Let nature recycle for you. There is much less work on our end if we simply buy what can rot. Humanity has had this incredibly efficient waste disposal system available to it throughout our entire history, doing us a favor and saving us labor. It is a wonder why we started to break from it at all. By invoking biodegradable pathways you can ensure that nutrients and other resources get returned to the earth for use by other forms of life and future generations.

4. Worms. So maybe a heap of stinking vegetable bits in your backyard is less than desirable. That is certainly the case in my city where any set up of that sort would attract RATS. Luckily my roommate took the initiative and bought us worms for our own in-house worm bin. A little weird I know but it provides a convenient way for us to dispose of our organic trash and so far it has not led to any odors or bugs to complain about.

There is one major difference between my strategy and that of No Impact Man. I am not counting recyclables as waste. Beavan argues that the recycling industry uses energy and other resources that we need for other causes, but I am focusing more on preventing the contamination of the ecology with harmful waste products and consider employing resources in recycling preferable to many other industries. If it can be reintegrated into the production process and in one way or another come to constitute the same form it originally had I am willing to buy it. That is why I find the purchase and recycling of glass, paper and metal acceptable. Plastics, on the other hand, are more complicated and not truly recyclable in many cases, which is why I advocate forgoing them.

Making the decision to eliminate garbage from your lifestyle certainly demands more planning and selectivity than conventional consuming does, but it is not without its advantages. If the knowledge that you are making an effort to lead a more sustainable lifestyle is not enough, I would advise keeping in mind an important point that Beavan makes in his book. If we treat the moments of our daily lives as hassles and obstacles that need to make way for the next ones, then what are we living for?

The Persistence of Garbage

Giant Gingko/Flickr

This is what I find to be a beautiful short film that gives some perspective and pause for thought on a phenomenon we are already fully aware of: many of the materials we use to produce goods last long beyond the useful lives of those goods:



Whether made of plastic or another substance, if our trash cannot decompose or otherwise degrade it stands to adversely impact not only the natural ecology, but also the quality of our lives. In the absence of a natural pathway for breaking down our trash into a more innocuous form or state, the possibility remains that we could accomplish it through the use of artificial or industrial means: recycling or engineering closed input-output loops into the production process.

But as we are aware of from our daily lives, even if we do not always think about it, the lugubrious reality is that the means for fully processing our waste do not exist and much of it slips through the cracks of our waste management system. It then escapes into and contaminates the environment, both human and natural.

This process is already playing out in the now well-publicized Pacific Garbage Patch and elsewhere. The problem is that plastic and other persistent rubbish cannot be converted into matter that can be usefully employed by organisms, existing natural cycles or by industry.

What is worse, what remains of our waste impairs life. At the macroscopic level this has taken the form of chicks dying after their parents feed them garbage, mistaking it for food. As far as plastic goes, once broken down into its basic molecules it interferes with biological pathways. Since plastic is photodegradable - broken down by light - this process inevitably occurs wherever plastic is exposed to light.

Plastics and other industrial chemicals have entered the human food web and trace amounts of them are already present in our bodies. In light of these developments it becomes clear to me that one of the major tasks before us on the path to sustainability will involve eliminating persistent waste. This will have to be accomplished either by taking advantage of natural processes to capture and recycle our wastes or by establishing synthetic means to do so.

Since I am not an engineer and in any event hold little top-down sway over the planning of manufacturers' production systems, the most salient way I can have an impact on the push to create no impact is, paradoxically enough, as a consumer. I may not be able to dictate what ingredients go into producing one product or service or another, how the outputs of those processes are disposed of, or how much it costs, but I can lend my support to businesses that incorporate sustainable practices. The rationale behind this approach is that if a critical proportion of consumers begins exhibiting such behavior, companies will respond accordingly, having been pitted against one another by the market in a race to do greener business. Once this process is well under way the system will transform itself from the inside out and we might already be witnessing the beginnings of this.

It is easy to criticize this approach, and even easier to criticize it without offering an alternative solution. One objection I expect is to the idea that people would be willing to engage in sustainable purchasing. It is seemingly irrational for someone to pay the higher costs traditionally associated with pursuing a more sustainable lifestyle. However, people engage in seemingly irrational economic behavior on a regular basis. They are willing to pay a premium on a product no materially different from a competing one for such things as a sense of status, aesthetics or other criteria.

Informed consumerism could similarly be motivated by such considerations. What is more, the premium on more sustainable alternatives in part translates into not just these abstract benefits but also material ones, such as cleaner water. If this were not a sufficient incentive it would be mainly because deterioration in environmental quality results from a tragedy of the commons and might warrant greater measures.

The difficulty is that it is not easy to determine what the sustainable alternatives are. You can attribute this to political spin, marketing and greenwashing, cryptic standards or more generally limits on individual knowledge and time. In my effort to find out to what extent the production of plastic could be made more sustainable, I discovered that some plastics are already biodegradable. One would think that this information would be pertinent enough to warrant the implementation of a clear standard and labeling systems for such plastics, but finding out which were was riddled with as much complexity as anyone who has looked into the recycling process for plastics has encountered.

My solution for this and similar issues is to overshoot. Instead of letting the complexity of these issues justify inaction, I have opted for the simple solution of cutting out of my consumer basket products incorporating anything other than those substances I know can be metabolized by ecology or industry. What that really means is that I am now refraining from buying any disposable or nondurable products unless they are biodegradable or fully recyclable - i.e. capable of reconstituting what they originally were - as glass and metal are.

The philosophy behind this is that if something consisting of essentially immortal materials will not be used in one way or another indefinitely, people should not buy it. As such, I have not completely ruled out laptops or other durable goods made from plastic. First, they last, and second, services exist for channeling their components back into production after the useful lives of the products themselves have ended. The reason such services exist is because there is money to be had in them and that will grow increasingly the case as people choose to make more sustainable purchases over those that promote persistent waste.