• It was cheaper:  My wife and I have significantly increased our meat consumption over the past few months, as I discussed in a previous post around paleo/primal eating.  Eating this way was having a very positive impact on our health, but was significantly more expensive than eating beans and rice a few days a week.  The $4 per pound its cost is less than the majority of cuts of meat we were able to find at the store, even when it was on sale.

• I know where my food comes from: I visited the farm where my meat came from and seen the herd that my animal was coming from.  When we went and picked up our frozen meat, we were given a tour of the farm.  We walked the pasture that the animals were grazing in, discussed with the farmer his philosophy on the business he was in and saw the condition that my food grew in.  Couple this experience to what I had been eating – that meat had probably grown up in something like this, which requires significant antibiotics.  Likely because of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions and also because the grains that the cattle are being fed make the animals sick.  Instead my beef had never been given drugs – it grew up on a pasture with plenty of room.

• My beef is “green”: Part of the problem with conventional farming is that it requires significant resources to produce a pound of meat.  It takes a lot of energy to create the grains that are fed to livestock.  The growing of the grains have a significant impact on the environment from tilling of the land, as well as the inputs such as seed, fertilizer, and pesticides.  At some point in the future this is going to become a significant problem, which is discussed in two books I’ve read “The Vegetarian Myth” and  “Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization”.  Instead I bought grass-fed and grass finished-meat.  The grass just keeps growing with little inputs.  When talking to the farmer while walking through his field, he noted that the land we were walking on was essentially bare 2 years ago when he started farming.  Currently, it is an incredibly lush pasture that supports his herd of cattle – this farmer is actually helping the land rather than removing needed topsoil.

• It is Healthier : Grass-fed beef has been found to have a higher quantity of conjugated lineolic acid, which is thought to have anti-cancer properties.

These were the main reasons why I bought the beef from where I did.  As a side-note, if you were to purchase the same amount of meat from a farmer who raised their animals in a grain-fed feedlot, you could save approximately 50% over what I spent.  So, although the beef I bought was significantly cheaper than what can be found at the grocery store, it is possible to find cheaper meat straight from the farm.  I chose to pay a premium for grass-fed beef because of the reasons noted above.

Do you buy your meat in bulk?  Do you take an interest in where your food comes from?  Do you pay a premium for organic or other specialized food?

I had asked my brother what kind of diaper he was going to use with his new baby on the way.  He didn’t even think and answered disposables.

I questioned why he made this decision, to which I received the answer “because it’s easier”.

I asked him if he had looked into the cost of cloth diapers vs. disposables or any sort of analysis beyond the simplicity factor, to which I received a negative response.

At this point, because we were at a golf course on father’s day I left the point alone – until the car ride home when I went over the conversation with my wife and noted (even though we don’t plan on having children) I couldn’t see any reason beyond the pain of cleaning the diapers to buy plastic that had to be thrown out after 1 use vs. cloth that would last for a significant period of time.  I was told that most parents don’t think like that, they don’t want to deal with the messiness and inconvenience of cleaning diapers when there is a simple alternative available.  These are arguments that I really dislike – I’m as lazy as the next person but like to look at the big picture on subjects like this.  My arguments for diapers can be applied over many consumer products in use today, such as ziploc bags vs. reusable containers; paper towels vs. rags etc.

Tim had previously discussed his switch from cloth to disposable diapers here – rather than look at it from a quality of life stance, I’m going to look at the impact of using something disposable (in this case a diaper) to something re-usable (cloths).  Most of the information I got came from here, which admittedly is a pro-cloth diaper site, however I don’t think the pro-disposable diaper conglomerate has much in the way of an argument given the following:

• Over 92% of all single-use diapers end up in the landfill.
• It’s estimated that a disposable diaper would take 250-500 years to decompose.
• Disposable diapers are the third largest consumer item in landfills, and represent approximately 4% of solid waste.
• Disposable diapers contain traces of dioxin as a by-product of the paper bleaching process, along with several other nasty toxic pollutants, which besides probably not being good for a baby’s skin is definitely not good for the land and soil during the 250-500 years this product takes to decompose.

So, rather than having to deal with some baby messes most people buy something that will have to be dealt with for maybe the next FIVE CENTURIES?  Does this make sense?  I’m not really sure why there’s even a product like this out there – I would have to say that in this circumstance the environmental impact isn’t being looked at, rather most people are looking at the easier choice right now, rather than the total impact that the purchase will have in the future (hundreds of years down the road).

From what I have read cost of cloth to disposable varies, but let’s say they are approximately the same on average.  At the end of 2 years, approximately 6,000 diapers have been put into a landfill if you’ve been using disposable diapers.  While if you had chosen cloth, you’d have some tattered rags that could be used around the house, or alternatively (because it’s made of a decomposable material) will disappear (in optimal conditions in about 2 weeks).

As a culture we have created products whose main purpose is to be thrown out in order to make things more simple for us.  From a personal finance perspective longer-lasting reusable purchases tend to have a lot of up-front costs that make them undesirable to many people.  What is created by the easy choice is a lot of garbage.  I’m sure more trash has been created in the last 100 years than there ever has been in the past due to the invention of plastic.  From an environmental perspective these products are a nightmare, but most people are not looking at the big picture.

For myself, I attempt to purchase as little as possible and when I do I tend to buy longer-lasting durable products rather than disposable goods.  I will freely admit that I do own disposable products (ziploc bags, paper towels etc.) but try to limit my use of them.

I’m wondering:

1. Do you think about the purchasing decisions you make beyond the initial outlay?
2. If you have your child in disposable diapers did you ever think about cloth?  If you chose disposable diapers, how did you come to this conclusion?

I kind of flipped out a couple weeks ago in frustration because:

1. I couldn’t find something I needed in the clutter.
2. It was getting difficult to do anything in some areas of the house due to “stuff” being everywhere.

I’d really  like to get one of those massive dumpster bins and throw everything I own into it and start over.  I can only imagine that kind of feeling, of starting over with a clean slate – to attempt to do it all over again.

Besides not being a financially reasonable option, it would be environmentally irresponsible to just throw everything I own into the garbage.  As an alternative my wife and I are going to attempt to either sell (if at all possible) or Freecycle/Donate a good chunk of our stuff over the next few weeks.

I know a lot of people who feel restricted in homes that are significantly larger than ours due to that amount of material possessions they’re storing.  I don’t want to be one of “those” people who feel they need to upgrade their house because they have outgrown their small home.  I want our small home to feel huge by the end of this purging process and to never have to deal with the clutter and messes that have invaded some areas.

I was given a lot of things as wedding presents, and as a result have a lot of clutter in the kitchen.  For example, I went from having one plastic mixing bowl to 3 full matching sets (all much nicer than what I owned).  I have 5 frying pans.  My wife and I are the only two people in our house, and rarely entertain and we have 8 place settings.  Things like this lead to massive amounts of clutter and not a lot of extra space.

So, this is our current project (rather, I should say this is my wife’s current project as I am studying for a large exam that will take place on June 9th) – ridding ourselves of clutter.  If successful, we are hoping to have a much less stressful home life, as in the summer we have very little time to clean – we are rarely home on weekends, we are visiting family or friends all over the province.  This kind of schedule means that our whole life revolves around either cleaning out the car from the previous weekend or packing it up for the next weekend, and leaves little time for cleaning.  With less stuff, we’re hoping for less mess.

Ideally, I’d like to be back to a carload of possessions, but with the inclusion of things like couches, tables and a real bed – this really isn’t possible.

Have you gotten upset over the amount of material possessions you have somehow accumulated?  Did you make any money doing it?  Did the “closet-piles” regrow soon after, or have you been able to maintain the cleanliness achieved?

Perhaps its my environmental bent, but I feel technology should actually be useful to me in some way to justify its existence in my life.  Technology to me should either make my life significantly easier in some way and not cost me a lot of ongoing money to keep it.  I hate picking up monthly costs that actually don’t do much for me.

So yes the tech geek in me did read a few reviews of the ipad, but ultimately I determined I don’t need/want an ipad.  I do a LOT of typing on my laptops and that apparently isn’t a strength of the new ipad.  Also I’m not very interested in watching movies or Utube.  I’m not much of a media consumer either so overall I thought the ipad was nice looking, but not for me.

I’m against useless technology that actually doesn’t do much for anyone.  So to me an ipad is similar to a slap chop, it doesn’t do anything new that I can’t already do with something I already own.   This is also why I won’t put in underground sprinklers in my backyard, since I can already water the entire thing by moving the sprinkler I have just twice (small backyard).  Yet I do have underground sprinklers in the front (big front yard).

So how do you tell if a technology is useless to you?  Well here are a few hints:

• When advertised they use the words “cutting edge” or they discuss all about the “features” on the item that you will likely never use.
• When the item doesn’t do anything new compared to what you have.
• When the item will actually cost you more money and/or time than you are already spending to do something similar.
• When you want the item and you really can’t come up with a great answer to the question of “why do I want this?” that your spouse would actually believe.
• That the item in question will only save you less than 2 minutes a day.

Of course there are many other hints, but you will have to figure out what works for you.  Technology is good, but not all technology is useful to all people.  Make sure you can tell the difference.  Your wallet and the environment will thank you by avoiding buying items that you stop using all that much six months after you get it.  Embrace your inner luddite and don’t buy technology you don’t need.

How about you?  What technology have you avoided or embraced?

Fuel cells have been around since the 1830s – generally they require super expensive materials like platinum and are prone to breakdowns.  According to the 60-minutes report, this fuel cell is different – it uses beach sand and cheap alloys as part of the box and the fuel cell uses various fuels, such as biogas, piped-in natural gas, and solar power, along with oxygen to create power.  The creator of the box thinks that within 10 years, these boxes (assuming efficiencies gained through production) should cost approximately $3,000.

Here’s what I see as a few of the implications of this technology:

Energy costs could be fixed: Right now, consumers don’t know how much energy will cost in 5 to 10 years.  If these boxes were able to do what is claimed, a “Bloom Box” coupled with electric vehicle technology could significantly reduce or at least fix individual and business energy costs, which is not the case right now.  If oil were to spike to $200 a barrel, consumers could have the opportunity to insulate themselves from this cost.

Poorer areas in the world could have electricity: Much like many areas in the world never set up phone lines and skipped directly to the use of cell phones, this technology could have the ability to reach countries and communities that could not afford the initial infrastructure of power plants, lines, transfer stations and the maintenance of a conventional electric grid could perhaps afford these power blocks.  The addition of cheap electricity to these poor areas could lead to a higher standard of living and the possibility of a better life.

Carbon Emissions could Decrease: The use of alternative fuels in what could be called “micro-generation” of electricity could decrease carbon emissions for by 40 – 100% vs. conventional power generation depending on what kind of fuel input is used.

To me, this technology is very exciting.  Whether or not it works is a question that will take a few years to see, but the potential is enormous.  Already private investors have poured $400 million into the company (where anything over $100 million is deemed extreme in Silicon Valley).  I am generally a pessimist when it comes to technology like this, but I would like to think that we as a planet could come up with something better to power our houses then the current mix, which is pretty dirty.  While wind, solar and other  “clean” electrical generation methods work, they are not incredibly efficient – you need a ton of windmills or solar panels to power a small city – wouldn’t it be nice to have a “silver bullet” in the coming years, as peak oil creates significant increases in the cost of power?

Maybe I’m the only one, but does anyone else get excited about seeing projects like this?  Would you invest in this company given the chance? Are there any “green” companies you are currently invested in that have interesting technology that are showing potential?

This is not the only thing that gets reused between the boys.  Most of our youngest kid’s clothes, toys, books and furniture all are being reused from our oldest.  Mainly during the youngest kid’s birthday and Christmas does he get some new things that are just his, but other than that we managed to save a small fortune just by putting something in a box for a few years.

Of course it will just keep on going for a while yet.  For example, I still have the desk I used as a elementary school student.  It’s had a new coat of stain and a new chair for it, but otherwise it should be in good shape to move into my oldest son’s room in a few years time.  My oldest son also had my old chest of drawers from when I was a teenager and his captain’s bed is also used.

So with all this reusing of things do my kids actually care?  So far I would have to say they don’t notice it all.  They are much more interested in getting the occasional new toy or getting some cool Hot Wheels bedding than worrying about having a 25 year old desk.  As teenagers this might change, but I’ll worry about that when we get there.

With that in mind, what’s the longest thing that you have reused in your house?  Beyond the kid stuff, I would have to guess in my house that my dining room table is the oldest thing.  It was at the cabin my parent’s bought over a decade ago and it was old then.  The finish has broken down in spots so I would guess it already had a good 25 years on it before I ever got it.

Overall the book focuses on one major driver in our lives: the cost of oil.  Which when you start to think about it really touches just about everything in your life via one important fact: transportation of goods.  So from your apple at lunch to your cheap clothes from China everything today gets touched by the price of oil.

Really cheap stuff from China is only possible by cheap oil  since no one in their right mind would transport stuff half way around the world to process it and then ship it back unless there was money to be made doing it.  Rubin does his best in this book to point out that is going to end sooner than later by oil prices going through the roof, like in the range of $225/barrel in the next decade or two (current price is around $70 to 80/barrel).

The problem is really two fold with those classic drivers of supply and demand.  On the supply side he points out the obvious we are running out of the really easy and cheap oil.  Otherwise no one would spend the money to extract oil from the oil sands.  And it’s not just happening here but just about everywhere there is oil.  Also the new finds are not nearly big enough to offset declining production.  Then to top it off demand is going through the roof just about everywhere but especially China and India.  But it’s not just there for example a lot of production in the middle east is actually being used internally at highly subsidized rates.

So the interesting implication to all of this will globalization will halt in its tracks and things will revert back to a more local production base.  So yes there will be some down sides like no more cheap dollar store toys, but there will also be some positive parts especially with greenhouse gases. To illustrate his point I will quote:

In OECD countries, where consumers pay the full price for a barrel of oil, triple-digit prices will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than a hundred Kyotol Protocals.

Rubin predicts we won’t solve emissions with accords but rather good old fashion trade.  To illustrate the point I’ll provide another quote:

The most direct strategy for halting the seemingly endlesss growth in global carbon emissions, is not another round of Kyoto talks calling for voluntary cuts.  What we need to do is to impose a carbon cost on emitters at home, then impose the same standards on imports.

So we will likely solve the problem with the US and Europe having either a carbon tax or cap and trade and then putting that same standard on imports.  Sudden shipping distance will matter again and local will be cheaper driving a new round of local manufacturing for all countries.

Overall I rather likely the book.  It’s very readable, brief and to the point.  Also he doesn’t point out the world will end, rather it will just change again.  Which when you think about it happens all the time.

For example, I recently got a new backpack to use a to/from work bag as a Christmas gift.  It’s to replace the bag I got for free when I started my first job post-university so the old bag is about nine years old and a buckle recently broke on it.  I could technically repair the buckle and someone else could use it, but really it’s an old work bag.  So does it really matter?

In the end I decided to just toss the bag.  Why? Well because I realized something important.  There are reasonable limits to doing the right thing and if you go to far to the dark green side you may end up unhappy about your life.  The old bag was just taking up space an not being any use to me.  Everyone I know has a work bag already so really the effort involved in repairing the bag and selling it was likely going to be pointless.  Keeping the bad would not make me any happier or improve my life in any way.  So it hit the garbage bin.

So this bring up an interesting concept.  If you want to get organized would you be better off not spending the money on new shelves, storage units or any other organization aid and just toss the stuff  you don’t need instead?  That way you are not consuming any new resources and you have less stuff in your life.  Obviously sell what you can first or give it to charity, but keep it reasonable. Not one really wants your old fry pan with a worn out non-stick coating.

Perhaps the obsession with not throwing stuff is wrong, when the real battle should be about reducing the new stuff you bring into your life. What do you think?  Do you toss things out easily and just avoid new things or do you try to reuse as much as possible?

Why all the media coverage?  Everyone keeps hoping someone will cave in and they will get a new deal despite two years of negotiations between these governments.  If you can’t sort out the major points like targets and funding in two years what makes you think you can get it done in days?  The reality is everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room: Kyoto failed.  With out China, India or the US it never stood a chance of making real difference to world for CO2 levels.

Which leaves us to an interesting conclusion.  We can’t prevent climate change, that ship has sailed and we have missed the boat.   So if you accept for a moment that we can’t prevent some of the effects, you can get over this obsession from people on needing an international deal.  The reality is we can do this the old fashion way: via trade.  What we need is for the US, Canada, Europe to pass their own CO2 reduction regulation and jack up tariffs on any high CO2 imports.  Then if they also tie their technology and development adaptation aid to the country receiving the aid having a regulations in place you will seem most places fall into line.  A deal without all the current drama.

The draw back between this method instead of an international deal will be trying to link up any cap and trade systems.  Yet the reality is finance people will sort that out.  Perhaps each country will have it’s own CO2 currency complete with exchange rates to other systems.  If China has a poor verification system perhaps 1 tonne of CO2 reduction there is only worth 0.25 tonnes in a US system.  In the end things will work out, but just too late to do any real prevention.

So that’s my thoughts on this whole mess as it goes into its last day.  What did you think would happen at Copenhagen?  Were you hoping for a deal?

Yes, I’m actually happy about this entire thing because it proves one very important fact.  The scientists need to be objective and to date not all of them have been.  I’ve mentioned before to various people that even if people have some good questions about climate change, it’s been near to impossible to have a rationally conversation on the topic with anyone.

We’ve changed climate change from a topic to a near religion so people are no longer thinking but rather just feeling.  It is as if someone walked into a catholic church and asked “Um, so why are you all kneeing before a some guy getting tortured?  Isn’t that a bit gross?”  The question might be completely innocent, but a lot of people would fly off the handle rather than discuss the question with the person and try to understand their point of view.

So perhaps now we can ask some questions like:

• How can you really model the entire planet atmosphere well?  I mean if you could do it really good why can’t we predict the weather?  If not, then how much of an error is there to your predictions?
• Why can’t we use geo-engineered solutions like putting sulphur compounds in the upper atmosphere or building cloud making ships, if they buy us some time to reduce carbon emissions over a longer term? We’ve already altered the atmosphere with CO2, why not try clouds?  If we are wrong we can shut it off.

How about you?  What questions would you ask know if we can hopefully all talk about this a bit more?