we had a white christmas, and a green christmas!

It snowed on christmas day, for maybe the first time in my entire life! We already had snow on the ground, then it snowed just past midnight, we were still up and saw it, and so we had the snow in the garden, and about a quarter of an inch of fresh snow. Apparently bookies paid out on bets of white christmas in nottingham.

So one colour was fixed, what about the other? Green?

Of course the ultimate green christmas would have been sitting in the dark without a christmas tree eating food foraged or gained freganistically meditating or something.

Obviously I didn't take things that far, but I made some green choices where I could.

• we ate vegetarian (as I always do, but some of the other 7 wouldn't normally)


• I home cooked a vegan loaf to reduce a) animal products and b) packaging and processing costs


• I bought all veg british and where possible locally grown


• I have already talked about the ethical dilemma I had with the christmas tree and how i resolved this (I bought a real tree in a pot which I intend to keep for next year and beyond)


• all my decorations are made of natural materials, no plastic whatsoever (although to be fair, at least part of this is aesthetics!)


• I didn't buy a single card or piece of wrapping paper - I made cards (although I did use new card, but hopefully people will like them and treasure them), and I used pre-used paper

I bought people ethical gifts where possible -

• my husband got a recycled bicycle tyre belt and


• some recycled computer keyboard cufflinks!


• My mum got a fair trade afghan blown glass wine glass

People also know I like these things too, and I received a ring made from a teaspoon handle, and some table mats and coasters made from recycled fireman's hose.

I also received Leo Hickman's book - A Life Stripped Bare, Anthony Gidden's Politics of Climate Change and Time Out's Great Train Journey's of the World. I did a train holiday this year and believe this is without a doubt the ultimate way forward.

To improve my green christmas for next year i need to:

• reduce produced items such as real eat roast


• buy fairtrade crackers (if I had known about these before I bought mine I would have bought them, but I already had some. Of course some people say that crackers are a terrible bane for the environmentalist, this is somehting I shall have to think about. I did put all the recyclables in the recycling though)


• more green presents for others


• less electric lighting and more candles


• cards made from recycled materials


• reuse this year's tree

A petty problem

We are currently a no-pet family, although I am hoping we will be getting cats, rescue cats, 2 of them, after Christmas. That was until my husband read an article in the Guardian saying that some pets are worse for the environment than an SUV. My first instinct was to be outraged. I want a cat, how can a cat be worse for the environment than an SUV? (To be fair, cats aren't it's medium and large dogs which are, according to the article). Then having gotten over my outrage I decided to think rationally - if cats really are that bad for the environment then maybe I shouldn't get two, or even one. It's no good only listening to the green info I want to hear.

I arranged my thoughts into some sort of order and then read the Leo Hickman (who I do really like, I subscribe to his blog, but must have missed this post, I have his books on my amazon wish list too!) article. So, the article is quoting research from Time to Eat the Dog by Robert and Brenda Vale which finds that a cat requires 0.15 global hectares to keep it fed, the equivalent of driving a VW golf for 10000 miles a year, plus the energy required to make the car in the first place. So my two cats is almost at the energy cost of buying a 4.6 litre Toyota Landcruiser and driving it for 10000 miles a year (0.41 global hectares). Luckily I don't drive a Toyota Landcruiser as well then!

My next thoughts all concern the fact that I would be getting a rescue cat, so that cat is already having that footprint regardless of whether I own it or not. So actually so long as I promote responsible pet owning and only get a rescue cat I should probably get the cats so as to reduce the load on the shelters. Plus if it is going to be having the footprint anyway someone might as well get the joy from it, which I would.

My next thoughts all concern all the positives about having a pet. For instance, the joy and love that I myself would get. Then there is the positive personal and social impact that pets have on children (which I don't have yet, but would like to, although of course they have a far larger footprint than a cat, no joke). The article also explained some additional benefits - people with pets have greater immunity and visit the doctor less, 21% less when they are elderly, how many global hectares does that account for one wonders. Plus the mental health benefits that pets bring.

I would also think I might be less likely to go out if I had a pet thereby reducing my consumption and waste in shops, pubs, restaurants and cinemas. Of course I don't drive a car at all, very often. We have a small car between us which neither of us drive very often. I walk to work and get the bus and train further afield, despite the additional time, money and stress costs that this can often entail. I take all my compostable waste to work, I bring home any recyclable waste from work. That's right - I carry bags of waste to and from work despite the fact I walk, often in the rain - because it is the right thing to do. I don't eat any animals (that themselves have an eco footprint), I try to minimise my plastic consumption, I try not to fly. I pay extra to have 100% renewable electricity from Good Energy. We try not to have the heating on, and didn't turn it on at all until December this year (except one freakishly cold day in November).

I don't think that doing that means I can do anything I like, indeed I hate to hear people say, "I can do this ungreen thing because I recycle most of my stuff at home". But actually, surely I have reduced my footprint by that of a cat, so I am still on a positive even if I do have a cat? Plus the fact that my children will be more socially adaptable and I will use the NHS less later in life, and I will go out less. Maybe all these things add up to a cat having less of a footprint than it would seem?

I do think we should consider the ecological footprint of activities we partake in and lifestyle choices we make, but I don't think that means we have to not do anything which carries a number, which everything does. It's a case of weighing up pros and cons, and making thoughtful choices. How many global hectares does going to a pub every friday and saturday take? How many global hectares for out of date food which has been thrown away (I eat yoghurts 2 months out of date), how many global hectares to buy a newspaper every day? How many to have a cup of tea every day?

I appreciate the article for giving me the chance to consider the impact of having a pet (which I already had from a vegetarian standpoint, but i think this post has maybe been going on for long enough!) and I have added the book to my wish list, but I have weighed it all up and will still be getting my cat in the new year :)

(do you know I didn't even discuss the indoor cat/outdoor cat arguments, maybe I will do that when I have the cat)

Turkelicious... Or, On being vegetarian

The other day I heard a group of people bemoaning their Christmas poultry. Turkeys, they say, are dry. They would rather not eat them, but that is what they are given. They talk about how they leave them on the plate, or how they endure them with no satisfaction. Yet still they eat them.

As they are defiling the bird does the thought never cross their mind that before being on their plate causing such offence and displeasure it was actually a living, breathing creature? I shouldn't think the turkey much wants to be eaten, never mind being eaten by people who actually don't even like it.

I found the whole conversation offensive. I have actually been vegetarian for 13 years now (with a brief period of pescetarianism, which has long since passed, save for a very short fish eating holiday whilst in Japan, it didn't make me feel big or clever, and was only ever a foray). A few years ago I started to only eat organic dairy and eggs (except for some local eggs from a local farmer who only keeps a small colony and doesn't debeak - so essentially organic except for the feed, organic in terms of welfare) due to living conditions. The deal breaker with the eggs was when i found out that free range egg-laying chickens are frequently debeaked.

About 18 months ago though a realisation, that I think I had been suppressing, came to the forefront of my mind like a thunder clap, and it's hung around like a bad smell since, if it's OK to mix metaphors like minestrone soup. I realised that my whole moral position was invalid.

I became vegetarian after learning about the conditions in which meat animals are kept and killed. Not so much that they are actually killed, more the way in which they were. With time I felt less strongly about this, and more about the health benefits of limiting (to zero in this case) meat intake and increasing plant based foods. Now my position is a mixture of both of those and also more strongly the eco argument. I think it would be fair to say I was an environmental vegetarian.

I haven't actually read that article but in short I believe it is very inefficient in terms of food, water and fuel to eat a meat based diet. I also believe the meat industry to be more polluting, and in some cases toxic. I understand there is a book I need to read called The Vegetarian Myth which deals with whether this is actually the case. At this stage I will state that I have always said that if we were to go back to traditional farming methods and crop rotations and as such we needed animals for manure that I would not really know where I stood. Although I don't see why we would need to eat the animals until they died of natural causes anyway, and at that point there wouldn't be enough for everyone to eat... Anyway, I digress.

So, environmental vegetarian, yes? Yep. Except that then, as I was saying before, I realised my entire moral view fell down. What about the food, water, fuel and pollution associated with the egg and dairy industry? What about the young cockerels and the young calves condemned to death by those same industries? Wasn't I just supporting those? Oh dear. So I toyed with becoming vegan, and this is where I think the morality lies. It's just such a lifestyle change that I don't think I can be bothered. What a weak argument. It guilts me to think that thought let alone say it out loud or blog about it!

I decided to become a "social vegetarian", that is akin to a social smoker where one is a non-smoker except in social situations. I would be a non-vegetarian except in social situations (people's houses, restaurants etc). I would not want to use the word vegan and water down the tremendous will power and effort put in by people who do eliminate ALL animals products from their lives. I did very well for about 7 months - I did still eat eggs, but stopped drinking cows milk, only rarely ate cheese, bought soya alternatives etc. I don't eat a dairy marg anyway. I don't really know what happened with all that. I think I will start it up again. In fact I see a challenge coming on - vegan for a week, how do I do? Then I can try a month etc.

I was having a conversation with a fellow vegetarian last night, I was saying I should grow some backbone and give up eggs and dairy, and he was agreeing, saying he was from a hindu family and that he believed the hindu diet to be the most moral. Then some other people joined in, a couple, where one would like to be vegetarian and one wouldn't, and the one that would feels she can't because of the one that won't. Then someone else joined in saying, "There is no such thing as vegetarian anyway, only carnivores and vegans".

What a crock of shit. What am I then? A carnivore? Hrmmm. I mean, I know she is making my argument (with a thai chicken curry on her plate, mind), but I do believe that anything you do is better than doing nothing.

Of course even what seems to be such a simple line of reasoning such as this does throw open conundrums... Packing, storage and transportation of vegan products may be less energy efficient for starters.

Soya has its own anti-arguments, but there are other alternatives to soya. Not Tiger White though, my god, that substance sounds like the answer, but tastes like the devil! I am a firm believer that you can make yourself like anything if you just keep eating it. Anything except Tiger White.

Not Done Yet

Not Done Yet

The climate negotiations are all but over and we do not have the fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty that millions of people worldwide have demanded. But it is impossible to be without hope as our movement has come so far in this short space of time. World leaders still have a chance to get this right, but time is ticking.

They are not done yet, and neither are we.

http://tcktcktck.org/not-done-yet/

Poopenhagen

Crock(of shit)enhagen etc

I don't have much faith in the current world leaders to do what it takes, but doing nothing is not the answer either. So... sign here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/take_action/do-not-fail

not-cotton wool, or not-cotton not-wool

I have just started using what I like to call not-cotton not-wool. I started using a muslin square to remove my make-up and was still using cotton wool for my toner. I started looking into organic cotton wool due to the ethical conundrums surrounding cotton. Then on a somewhat unrelated note I started to phase out all disposable menstrual wear (having used a moon cup for eons, but still having some disposable back up pads).

At this point I wondered whether you could get reusable cotton wool as it were. Of course you can!

I bought a fleece set, a bamboo set and a hemp set. I am testing them all out. It's a tricky business though, no-one tells you how to use these things. I mean, you pick up how to use a disposable cotton wool pad. Basically you use it and chuck it in the bin.

Reusables are a tad more confusing - what sort of fibre? For what job? should i stain remove first? Or just wash?

So far I have tried the fleece ones. It felt soft on my skin and held the toner in a similar way to a cotton wool pad. I then washed it with warm soapy water before letting it dry then putting it in my net laundry bag for my small washable items like this. I only do my laundry with soap nuts you see, so i think if i didn't remove the stains at this stage it would probably come out of the wash looking similar to how it went in. All seems good with that one so far.

Then today I thought I would try a hemp one. That was so super absorbant that i had to use loads of toner. It just disappeared into the pad. I think this is the stuff nappies should be made from! So, not feeling the hemp ones yet.

Bamboo is still yet to be tried....

Reusable versus disposable?

Normally the reusable versus disposable debate also features the natural versus man-made debate. So resuable nappies are made of cotton, bamboo or hemp whereas disposable are made of plastic. Menstrual pads the same. This somehow makes the question easier to answer... natural = good, reusable = good, job's a good'n!

Except of course it is more complex than that. There is the debate about how natural is natural, especially in the cases of bamboo and hemp, and also about the energy costs for reusable.

That is for another post though as today's post is about a different sort of disposable versus reusable - Christmas trees.

As a child we always had a real tree, and I love the smell and look of real trees, I actually find fake trees a little depressing and pointless. Well that isn't fair, I don't really, but I would if I had one in my house. I think I would rather not bother. As an adult I have not had a Christmas tree, but this year we are having people round on Christmas day (green-eyed does Christmas!) and I would like a tree. I would like a real tree. But then there is the quandary over the real tree and so I was considering a fake tree.

So real trees are natural, and natural equals good, right? Well maybe not. They are a big crop, could that ground be used to grow food crops? Maybe in some cases, but would it? Maybe, maybe not. They can also be grown in ground which is not suitable for other crops. More importantly they are sprayed with Roundup. Roundup, the pesticide which causes the most poisoning and death. Hrmmm. I could buy an organic tree, if only I could find one!

So then, maybe I should buy a reusable tree, less waste, no removal quandaries. Once it has got to me that is it in terms of energy expenditure. No pesticides. Just petrochemicals. Probably quite a lot of tree miles as well. Plus I would have to use it for many years as they can't be recycled, and I do hate landfill.

Most green sites suggest you shouldn't get a real tree. They don't really say what you should do though. No tree I guess. That's not very festive though is it? I feel like I should be able to have a tree. But then do I come back to that perennial problem, I do as much green stuff as I can therefore it is OK to fly round the world and back again.

Harrumph. I feel like a tree should be a possibility, I will be sharing my Christmas with 7 others as well. It will be my first tree since being an adult.

I think I have left it too late to get a real tree anyway. But that aside, I think i have decided to try and get a small real tree in a pot, which I will then keep in a pot and reuse next year.

I use a lot of public transport and every so often I get a bit knarked with it all. The other day I wanted to come home from Derby to Nottingham, a distance of merely 18 miles, less than half an hour by car. I went to a gig, and would have happily got the train home, except for the fact that the last "train" left at 9 something or other, and the last "train and bus replacement service" also left not only before the gig ended (10.30 on a sunday), but would have taken an hour to get home. It also would have cost me a fiver on the train, plus either a 20 minute walk and then £1.50 on the bus on my own in the middle of the night, or £6 in a taxi, which aren't very environmentally friendly. I actually only live a mile and a half out of the city centre.

A while ago we car shared to get to Leeds, and the petrol worked out at about £5 each, unfortunately the car broke down just as we were leaving to come home, and the AA tow guy could only take 2 people in the truck, so 2 of us needed to get the train home. The walk up fee for a single home was £31 each. £62 therefore for both of us, 12 times the cost of the petrol, and a longer, colder journey, well not longer and colder than the journey in the broken down car, but you know! What motivation is there to take public transport?

Today I was on the bus with some canadian people who had clearly just moved here. "How do we know what stop we are at, Dad?" the kids kept asking. They mused on how they would know, would the driver announce it? Would it stop at each stop like a train? Where was the screen to tell them where they were? "Should I explain it to them?" I wondered. Eventually they concluded that they were OK cause they remembered where they were.

It throws open the question though of how do you know when to get off a bus if you don't actually know the route or the area that you are travelling in? If I get a bus to somewhere I don't know I like to have a map with me to assist me with knowing when to get off, and also where the hell I am should i get off in the wrong place! But it isn't always practical or possible to have a map with you. Do all buses in canada have screens telling you where you are? Trains have those screens, plus they pretty much stop at each of the possible stops and there are huge boards on the platform which tell you where you are. Trams have screens telling you where you are and what the next stop is. Of course you can ask the bus driver to tell you when you get there, but they don't always remember.

And then, today after thinking all this, I got on a bus to come home, and there it was, a screen, with all the info you would need about the route, the destination and the next stop. Maybe this is the future of buses?

I hope so, whatever we can do to make buses seem more appealing the better IMO!

None of this of course solves the problem of when you turn up early for a bus and the bus must have been even earlier or didn't exist and then the next one is late, which happened to me twice today. I can see how all but the most keen of public transporters would be put off.