What are ten of the most powerful things an individual living in a city can do to make their home more green.

I love art's question above, but I'd also like to know the ten SIMPLEST, in addition to the ten most powerful. Let's face it, lots of us are busy people, and as much as I'd like to greenify my home, I really have to start small and work my way up. Simple changes can make a world of difference, and I think that if more people did the little things, they would be encouraged to work toward the bigger ones.

This would probably be covered by art's question, but I was wondering about this - a friend told me yesterday that the leading cause of carbon emissions in the whole world is methane from the vast numbers of cows necessary to provide for unsustainable amounts of meat-eating. Compared to these emissions, those made by cars are minor. So my question is, is this true? If it is, would we do better to become vegetarians rather than fretting over car use? (I don't like meat or cars, but it would give me a new answer to the inevitable "don't you miss steak?" type questions!).

My favorite - all the paper products in my house are recycled and it hasn't harmed my quality of life at all. Maybe I pay a tiny bit more but it is worth it to not waste more virgin forests for blowing my nose when the recycled stuff works perfectly well. Same with paper towels, TP, printer paper, whatever.

Tin_Angel -- I am not sure I understand the connection. If we all become vegetarians and don't eat the cows (and other methane producing animals such as sheep, buffalo, pigs), will we just kill them off to cease their methane production? Presumably, if they are not eaten, their numbers will increase, not decrease.

It would be a better question as to how to develop ways to harness that methane production. Some of it already is -- efficient farms use manure to produce electricity. However, a large source of methane comes from these animals' flatulence. Cows are very efficient turning grass into methane -- if only you could capture those burps.

Do you enjoy science fiction MrGreen?

Well, like I said, I don't know if its true but I think it's meant to work like this - there are basically too many cows bred in destructive ways to support the massive demand for beef and dairy produce. If people consumed no beef/cow's milk, (or just produce from small, well-kept herds) fewer cows would be bred, thereby reducing methane. I wasn't trying to say that everyone should stop eating meat right now or anything, just wonderin'!

I'm thinking "Caps Lock."

How about the 10 cheapest?

My questions

Food: Local or organic? What if you can't have both ? Which do you choose and why? Personally, I go local since it is usually cheaper.

Cleaning supplies-what ingredients are safe? how do you find out? I make my own, but I'm not sure that Hydrogen Peroxide / Borax / Castille Soap are all that great, are they dangerous?

Re-use-how can I re-use things myself without recycling...This is extreme, but...can I make my own recycled plastic bottles? can I melt down my old aluminum foil and make it myself.

On the Green topic, I have so many questions, I think this new blog will be great, even if it isn't Green enough for some folks. Just having information is great, then we can decide for ourselves and our lifestyles what is worth starting /stopping, etc. Thanks for the new blog!

Ok, people... the "cows will take over the earth" argument is probably the WORST argument against vegetarianism. Let's think about this rationally: we breed livestock for a purpose - to eat them. If vegetarianism rose in popularity, it would be over a significant period of time, not in one day. Demand for animal meat and by-products would decline until no more animals would need to be bred for the purpose of human consumption. It's a basic equation of supply and demand. The fact is that raising livestock DOES produce far more greenhouse gases than all the cars/trucks in the world. So in terms of powerful changes, going vegetarian or vegan pretty much takes the prize. It takes 16 lbs of grain feed and over 2000 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef, and 78 calories of fossil fuel to get ONE calorie of beef protein (Diet for a Small Planet). Meat and animal by-product production is a HUGE threat for our environment. PETA says it well - "You can't be a meat-eating environmentalist". In reference to the deer comment, the reason many places have overpopulation is because we keep developing more and more land, leaving less and less space for native animal populations. And fish overpopualtion is a near impossibility at this point - species population counts are down 90%, and it's expected that at the current rate of consumption, all seafood would be gone by 2050. Sorry to rant, but it's important that people know the facts.

MrGreen....are you on crack? Is my love a junkie?

My question: I was given a tea kettle. Perfectly usable. Crappy design (what does a mother know?). If I toss it and replace it with a well designed tea kettle, am I being green? Or must I suffer w/ugly to be green?

Mason -- silly question. You suffer.

No, actually, you make someone else suffer and give the teakettle as a gift. Or to the Salvation Army. Then buy yourself a new one. A green one.

What, exactly, *is* a "green teakettle"?

I've always wondered about PETA's vegitarian stance... A great number of animals eat *other animals*, my point being that I do not believe that meat consumption in and of itself equates to the unethical treatment of animals. There are food chains on this planet and it is my opinion that people occupy a position in the food chain that can responsibly include meat consumption. I do, however, think that, as usual, we humans have messed the whole balance up. The way that a lot of commercial meat is raised is disgusting and cruel. But we want what we want when we want it, consequences be dammed. We want more, bigger, faster and, therefore, inject hormones, crowd as many animals (and farm-raised fish) as possible into too small spaces, and then pump them full of antibiotics because they are practically living in their neighbors' poop. Ack. Humans are awfully bad at moderation in many realms of life.

So I guess my question is, can you be a meat-eating environmentalist or am I just kidding myself?

J,

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but yes, you are kidding yourself. If you eat animals that are farmed for that purpose, you are contributing to the most environmentally damaging human action currently in practice. You are correct that we have thrown the balance, and I hope that people will recognize that eating meat is not nearly as important as having a planet to live on. At this point, we can no longer afford to act as if changing some of our more comforting habits is "too hard".

lightenup: "Presumably, if they are not eaten, their numbers will increase, not decrease." - No, no, no!! Cows are bred for us to eat. Everything Joy R. said above is true.

Just wanted to add that some have actually argued for eating a little beef just to keep cows around - they wouldn't have much of a chance of existing at all if they weren't bred for us to eat them. [Except, of course, they're plentiful in India, so there goes that argument..... Now there's no argument at all left for eating meat.]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion of whether cows will take over the earth, but what I've been wondering is whether there is such a thing as a green mattress that doesn't cost $50,000. Don't say futon -- my husband will not sleep on a futon. Is there anything comparable to a regular synthetic mattress but made with natural materials and not sprayed with chemicals?

Also, I don't eat cows, but I can't imagine life without cheese.

Cow gas and preachy vegetarians. Yay!
Can't wait for AT:Green Home!!!

I know it, P (too). I'm with you on this (notwithstanding my own comments on the matter above!). This is why I was skeptical of an AT Green. If you want to be green, you shouldn't be consuming any non-essential products. And you have to work against the coal and corn and cattle, etc., industries. For me at least, AT has been giving a breathing space for something else.... (And yes, of course, one doesn't have to be extreme to make a difference, yadda yadda. But you're just asking for a whole bunch of Mr. you-know-whos to come creeping up and tell everyone how to live.)

Umm.... I realize my post doesn't make much sense. We already do have a problem with Mr. you-know-whos, and that has nothing to do with going green. It's too bad.

Why is it that vegetarians are considered "preachy" when they point out the facts of the situation? No one here seems to be bitching about the "preaching" that Mr. Gore and other green proponents are doing nowadays. You're starting a site about going green, and the truth of the matter is that vegetarianism is one of the best, if not THE best ways to make a difference. Is it true that even the little changes one makes to go green help? Absolutely. But I find it unfortunate that so many people seem content to ignore (or make fun of) a lifestyle that seems extreme to them.

Um, yeah, can't imagine where I made the leap to "preachy."

To be clear, I'm NOT making fun of the lifestyle. Just pointing out that it often seems to *me* (imho) to be coming from a position of "You're an idiot to still be eating meat."

And to be equally clear, I *was* bitching about preaching on the topic entirely... when it comes from a position of exclusion and mockery instead of education.

But I'm that way about ANY topic, so don't feel tooo special.

PS: (and not sure why this is coming so late)
Helll-lllo, Mister Jonathan.

Now HE could convert me.

On the original topic, two questions:

1. "greem" vs. "hygiene": how to balance limiting one's environmental impact while adhering to modern standards of hygiene. For example: using paper towels to clean the kitchen countertop is seems more hygenic than re-using a rag or dishtowel which harbors bacterial growth; flushing the toilet after every use seems more hygenic than conserving water.

2. "green" vs. "spleen": this thread is already an example of the tensions that arise when some are not "green" enough (or "GREEN" enough) for others. How to balance the desires to share knowledge of green practices and encourage others to adopt them against being "preachy" or "telling others how to live" -- both on the blog, and in our daily interactions with others?

cmad let's see if I understand your answer to my "silly question" correctly: I give the ugly tea kettle to some less fortunate through charity. I win, I get rid of ugly (and if the amount was large enough, a tax break), the less fortunate suffers with ugly but wins with usable. I win again because I get a well designed tea kettle. Probably manufactured by some one in the 'less fortunate' group working at low wages-that's why they are in the 'less fortuate' group. Hmmm, so good design is good only at certain levels of society. If design filters down too low it becomes so-so design and is passed down to the less fortunate. I am beginning to understand how "green" applies to the world at large.

It's strange to me that posters feel free to be rude and sarcastic to people who share an opinion different than their own... I've always really enjoyed the content of AT (been a reader for a while), but am already tired of the snarkiness in the comments after a mere day of joining in. My intent was certainly NOT to be preachy, but to share information on a topic previously mentioned. On that note:

I agree with you, JDog - where is the line between preaching and teaching? How can "greening" be spread without offending the layman OR compromising the ethics of the movement?

Other topics: Is "green" just a trend for most people right now?

Goodness! Who ever imagined that launching the new AT Green blog would be so polarizing? I, for one, am very excited!

You weren't expecting warfare of epic dimensions?

"Green" is in the stage of being a moral choice, where many proponents feel that others "don't know the facts." Discussions of moral choices tend to be particularly bloody and demeaning.

tin_angel's friend's statement that "the leading cause of carbon emissions in the whole world is methane from the vast numbers of cows" is not correct. Methane from cows is an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (as is carbon dioxide from cars), but electricity and heat generation is the single largest source of emissions by sector, accounting for 31% of global GHG emissions. Agriculture accounts for 16.9% and transportation for 14.6%. (Note that not all of the agricultural emissions are methane from cows - there is also N2O from fertilizer, etc.) Source.

If y'all think *this* is bloodshed, just wait til a pink room pops up in the "I've Got Color Contest"! :)

But JoyR., honestly, does the tone of your post ("...THE best...") not seem a little harsh on those not yet on board? If that was totally not intended, then my apologies. But you sounded to me (as did others before you) like anyone still eating meat is an unenlightened Neanderthal.

There are *many* ways to live responsibly. If you expect everyone to take giant leaps instead of baby steps, you will lose your audience pretty quickly and the "movement" will indeed just fizzle as "fad."

To the editors:

I'd like to see a sort of "site manifesto" about the components of living green.

I'd also like to see info on what appliances use what amounts of energy.

But mostly, I wish you luck with MrGreen, self-appointed czar of all things UPPERCASE.

Mason, you are assuming the person who takes your teapot also agrees it is ugly and is "settling" because it is your hand-me-down. Not always the case.

patrick (too) good point. I guess what I really need is help in improving the design elements in my enviroment w/o destroying the planet in the process. I am looking forward to good advice. I have used so many of the suggestions made on AT. Actually, most of the furnishings in my apartmanet are from the AT Scavenger.

Patrick (the other one),

I made it clear that there are many ways to make one's life greener, and I stated that the little things definitely add up. My point with the "THE best" was that it would appear that statistically, no longer consuming animal products makes the most impact per person. We can all try to recycle, reduce our consumption, buy local, and save a bit of electricity/water here and there, but vegetarianism remains the single most available and cost-effective way to make a significant dent in one's "carbon footprint". We were talking about "powerful" and "simplest" ways to go green - I think vegetarianism is both. That was my point. There was no intent to cause such intense debate or "bloodshed", as others have called it, and I certainly never insulted anyone here who still eats meat. Not all vegetarians are arrogant assholes. Some of us are even nice. :)

It might be more "green" to just boil the water in a pot than to use a new, M1-economy, separate and specific manufactured device with its own (possibly) "not-so-green" retail manufacturing and supply chain.

Unless you have a local metalsmith or are one yourself.

Every time someone passes off myths and propaganda as facts, I kill and devour an endangered panda. Please, think of the pandas.

I live in the woods and only eat what crawls or lands in my mouth and dies. I'm in the process of evolving my lungs to breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen (using yoga and will power). You don't even want to hear the details about how I posted this message (involves a mirror and satellite). Beat that.

Was the mirror manufactured using only non-toxic substances at an ISO 14000-certified factory that recycles and reclaims all its emissions? It wasn't? Not GREEN.

Do the responsible thing -- learn to post by telepathy.

(The company that hosts this blog does use wind power, solar, and bicycling interns to power its servers, right?)

Jon_B--

Is it wrong I'm slightly turned on?

Joy R.--

I'm sure you are lovely.

But I reread your posts, and you do not (to ME) come across as soft-sell on the topic, nor do I see too many friendly alternatives mentioned. I know it's hard to interpret (or rather, easy to misinterpret) words on a blog thread for tone and intent, and I really didn't mean to single you out, honestly.

I'm just saying, Bible thumpers and fire-and-brimstone sermons never got my ass in a church pew.

And Somesteff--

Could you FOR ONCE share your knowledge instead of just mocking those that don't pass muster with your intellect?

I don't see how JoyR's careful and patient explication of the facts can be criticized. Listen guys, I'm not a vegetarian, but I have NO problem admitting that being a vegetarian is the best thing to do for the planet. Period. An adult, it would seem to me, has to live with such facts all the time, make her choices, and live with those - without attacking people who speak the truth.

Too many people feel criticized when they are told that they are not taking the best path possible to helping the environment, when that's just the truth. I can live with being imperfect.

Wow, SomeSteff... you're funny. This is what I mean about snarkiness. Why would you feel that added to the conversation? I apologize for taking "green" seriously - I thought that's what everyone was here for.

This is devolving quickly into personal jabs instead of on-point conversation.

Anyone have other topics the editors should consider blogging?

How about ways to reduce in-home air pollution?

I know it's been mentioned on the site before, but I'd really like to see a focus on affordable ways to go green - not everyone can afford organic bedding or expensive recycled glass tiles.

I guess it's not wrong p(too), but it's got me puzzled.

And wende, it was a found mirror, but I'm working on using a highly-polished local-sourced stone.

I don't see how JoyR's careful and patient explication of the facts can be criticized.

The problem is that labeling as "the facts" a number of disputed claims that scientists with a greater body of relevant knowledge can't agree on among themselves, as well as with ignoring a lot of second-order and third-order environmental and economic effects that stem from their recommendations. JoyR has a position that she supports with certain data. The data are not uncontroversial, and the position is not unflawed. So yes, it can be criticized, especially when it's presented as "the facts."

Patrick, when you pay me a crappy salary and throw spitballs at me, then I'll teach you junior-high level science. ;)

Sea,

Thanks for the backup. :)

Somesteff, I'm serious, you pull stuff like that ALL THE TIME, where you take the time and energy to say "Lots of misinformation here" and then.... nothing.WHy bother even posting? What are you adding to the conversation? Seriously?

Sea--
You interpreted her comments as thoughtful and patient. I did not (but acknowledged that there is always room for interpretation online).

Wende,

There will be very few topics that all scientists agree on - it is the nature of the field. There are still scientists who reject the fact that global warming is occuring, for example, or that biblical creationism is just as possible as evolution. However, I do not feel that I cherry-picked the evidence that would back up my opinion. Vice versa, actually. It was after I reserched such things that I became a vegetarian. Currently, the majority of the scientific community agrees with the detremental effects of livestock production. I do not throw stats around lightly or in a biased manner.

oops - should read "or believe that biblical creationism is as possible as evolution"

JoyR -- Thanks so much for your patient explanation of the facts about the nature of science. I never knew! Count yourself as gaining a convert.

1) I'm not your research assistant.

2) If you saw someone make a blatant, glaring error about a subject you knew very well, surely you would be compelled to say something too.

3) To properly explain why so many of these posts are so very very wrong would mean I'd have to go back to first principles, which you should have learned sometime in middle school. After explaining basic concepts of physics, chemistry and the scientific method, then you might be ready to understand why so many of these posts are so very very wrong. I don't know about you, but I have a full-time job and it is not teaching science to people on the internet.

(surprised) Has anyone here seriously disputed any of JoyR's facts?? I missed that.
Taryn's point about what is the leading cause of carbon emissions is not a real challenge. I think people here would be just as uncomfortable with admitting that vegetarianism is up there with closing down coal plants, in terms of benefit to the environment.

A side note that I'd love to see addressed on AT Green: Everyone says that 'every little bit makes a difference', but unless you're talking mystical/spiritual changes, that's almost never true. My CFLs (which are all over my house) have made NO difference to the environment - it's just not that sensitive to those kinds of changes. The real changes can only occur politically - laws governing corporations have to be changed, the coal industry needs to go away, and none of this is going to happen in our lifetimes. So it would be nice to face up to whether ATGreen is seriously trying to change the course of global warming, etc., or whether they just want to give 'greener' alternatives for designing your home. They're not really compatible. And being clear on this might help the activists to stay out of it, if they see that people are not really interested in major change, but only in having a home with nice things in it (which I want, yes! But again, I refuse to insist on self-deception - as in: waaaa! you're making me feel guilty for my beautiful leather chairs! - in order to remain comfortable with my choices).

Myself, I'd be compelled to correct it. Or in the very least, point someone to a scholarly source of fact if I were too busy to do it.

Taking the time to carefully explain why you don't have the time to explain it is effin' ridiculous.

By saying, "Y'all are idiots, and I know better", you just come off as a complete snob.

Yeah so anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Someone already said "10 cheapest." I echo this sentiment. Why are "green" products so F'in expensive? (Rhetorical question: I know the answer, trend marketing.) But really, when such a teensy portion of the population can even dream of affording that wonderfully "green" rug or whatever, how much impact can it possibly have? Most of the green products blogged on this site fall into that category, and I click right past them. I'd really like to see some green products for the masses.

Also (a little late, since I just finished drywalling my garage), I'm just curious, is there a green alternative to standard drywall? I don't actually know that drywall is not-green, I'm just assuming it is.

It's so funny that SomeSteff has so much time to tell us why she has no time to tell us about things she's an expert on.

Oh I'm definitely a snob about science, much the way designers are design snobs. You'll notice I don't offer design advice since I have no knowledge whatsoever about design.

You're on the internet, reading and posting on a blog. Surely you can perform a google search for 'second law of thermodynamics'.

Yes yes it's hilarious that I took two minutes to explain something as opposed to the hours it would take to craft a lesson plan to teach you science.

You are no doubt an expert on thermodynamics given all the hot air you are blowing.

Aren't there any science blogs were you can pontificate among your own kind, and leave us poor uneducated saps to wallow in our dark mire of ignorance?

And for the record, I hate design snobs JUST as much.

Okay, so SomeSteff doesn't give design advice because she's not a design expert. And she doesn't give science info because that would take too long. So, what does she have to contribute? (Oh, and what I want to hear is not what the second law of thermodynamics is, but how you think knowing that settles any questions on this blog - pick any of the questions you've pronounced as dumb in the last few weeks. If you leave out the actual science part, maybe you won't feel so resentful of giving your services away for free.... Do tell!)

Sea, she first made the thermodynamics crack on the ceiling fan thread.

Easy, chief. When the commentary veers into the realm of science on this design blog, I don't see why I shouldn't post on the topic. Nobody here is uneducated, we just have different areas of expertise. When I'm unfamiliar with a topic, I pick up a book or take a class. That's why I read blogs like AT, to fill in gaps in my own knowledge and experience. If you'd like some recommendations for science books geared towards the lay person, send me an email and I'll see if I can dig something up for you. Later. After work.

Very funny, indeed... :)

But, um, you're NOT posting on the topic... you're just gloating in your own "knowledge".. none of which you've seemed to display any actual ownership of.

And anyone in ANY industry who refers to every one ELSE as "lay people" IS a pompous ass.

I am REALLY resisting the urge to post more profanity right now.

This thread is so disappointing.

I guess everyone prefers to fight with one another, rather than talk about how we can contribute to making a positive difference on our planet.

Wende - your sarcasm is overwhelming. Grow up.

SomeSteff - Please, do take the time to expalin my scientific missteps. I'm all ears.

Please tell me the majority of ATers aren't playgound bullies.

Another possible green blog topic: Best green alternatives to use when renovating (i.e. insulation, drywall, cabinets, flooring...)

Take a deep breath there, boss. I'll try to keep your personal preferences in mind for future posts. I didn't realize the word 'lay' was offensive. I hear it used all the time in casual and professional conversation.

In the fan thread, people were claiming that fans remove heat from the room, that being a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which you would've discovered had you googled the phrase instead of relying on me to do it for you. I'm not sure why bringing up entropy was irrelevant to the topic.

I'm with you, Lori 2... I attempted that and got pounded on. What would you like to see discussed on the green blogs?

I couldn't have said it better Mason.

To me, I will be looking at the green site within the context of a design site. Sometimes it's hard not to inject politics and personal convictions into the mix but it's easy to read them, then move on to those comments that relate more to the issue in a practical sense.

Somesteff, you are making VERY many incorrect assumptions, and confusing my comments with others here.

First of all, how do you know what I do or don't know, Google or don't Google?

But your saying, "Like, oh, that's soooo all about the second law of thermodynamics, duh." on that thread is akin to my saying "Check your color wheel, much?" when people have a color question, which I would never dream of doing.

And, my name is Patrick. Not chief, not boss. Got that, babe?

And Joy R., you soooo did not get "pounded."

Lori 2--

My original point, which got lost, was how when this topic comes up (about which I am NO expert, nor remotley profess to be) there is a tendency which I've observed for the "advice" to come off holier-than-thou, and the reactions to that (to me) have only further solidified my opinion.

I seriously doubt that will be the case with the new site's content or editors. I do not hold such faith about the posters.

I would still like information regarding whether changing the way that the commercial meat market is run would make an appreciable difference. There are plenty of things we do that hurt the planet (tapping into fresh water sources, for instance) that we simply cannot stop doing. We can, however, make small changes (don't run the water while brushing your teeth, etc.) to improve the situation. Even if becoming a vegetarian is the best thing for the planet given the current state of affairs, I am still not convinced that it is the only way to go. Can integral changes to the system itself produce comparable results?

Also, I think it's worth noting that sustainable living involves more than just reducing green house emissions. In many areas of the world, animals, trees, plants, and other organisms are losing their habitat because it is being cleared to make way for agriculture. For example, while logging is still one of the main motivations for clearing Amazonian rain forest, some is cleared so that profitable soy crops can be planted. These changes too have a negative impact (loss of oxygen-producing trees, inbalances in the natural ecosystem, loss of biodiversity). Again, not attacking vegetarians here, or saying that agriculturally motivated encroachment impacts the earth in the same measure that meat production does (I have no idea). I'm just saying that defining sustainable living can be complicated.

Finally, if you want to be inspired about conservation, I recommend watching the BBC series Plant Earth, as did the bf and I over the last few days. Afterwards, he, who for some inexplicable reason refused to stop buying crates of bottled water and just use the PUR filter, looked at me, and in his cute little accent said, "I will try to use the filter now, believe me." That alone will not save the planet, but it's progress!

Joy,

At first I was looking forward to AT:Green, although I personally felt it might be more appropriate to include the green posts within the normal AT site. But now I am starting to get concerned. I feel that often when AT posts about green issues, the comments turn into a battle that is not on topic , and dismissive of anything positive some people are trying to do.

I didn't find your posts particularly preachy. I thought you were trying to share important information with people, and I did not interpret that you were saying "that any other way was wrong".

As for what I would like to see on AT:Green? I guess first and foremost, peace. People listening to each other and sharing information that is helpful.

I must admit, sometimes I do enjoy the fights and drama on AT, but when it comes to important topics like the environment, or human rights issues, I am less amused by the online battles.

SomeSteff, your comment about the pandas was amusing, but could it take much more time to add:

"Check out: [link], and see for yourselves." ?

Lori 2,

I'm glad you didn't find my posts offensive. I agree that more open-mindedness would be helpful on the site. The whole point of "green" is that we all need to move in a new direction, after all. It would seem that most of the people here, though, are interested in how green living can fit into their current design asthetic, not in making broad lifestyle changes. I didn't realize that when I first posted, but I understand now that since this is a design site, that's where the interest in "going green" will lie.

Joy R, I agree that your desire for information of how to be green when renovating would be very helpful. I pass townhouses daily on my commute to work that are being gutted and all of this (seemingly) good hardwood is being put into dumpsters. Why doesn't the city require that renovations be done in a greener way?

Do you not see how a comment like "most of the people here, though, are interested in how green living can fit into their current design asthetic" can potentially come off?

And, openmindedness works both ways.

An interesting article would be: How do you justify the high cost of hybrids when you can just get a cheaper, smaller car that has similar gas mileage? Top ten compact cars with good gas mileage that aren't hybrids.

Top ten uses for old plastic bags. I have a collection in my cabinet and I use them to pick up dog poo. Any other suggestions?

What can you do if your city doesn't recycle?

Green dog foods, treats, and clothing.

What's not green about some green products?

It seems like fights happen when both sides seem like there is no way out. Maybe there is no way out of our degrading environmental condition and that's why people are fighting? If there is no way out of the big picture then there is no way out of this thread for some people without being wounded.

That said, here's an applicable question for the site:

When choosing furniture, cabinetry, etc. which woods are considered endangered and which ones are more green?

Also, I was recently on the 95th floor of the Hancock building in the very NW corner of the bar and noticed a green roof on one of the buildings below. I wonder if it would be worth trying to find out how and why this building has one and if they expect to see any positive results from having one? It was the only one I could see on a very clear day.

J,

I have no illusions that the world will be vegetarian any time soon, so you bring up an important point. How can we make factory farming cleaner and more efficient? It would be a step in the right direction, for sure. I recently read about a program whose goal is to siphon methane from farms and convert it into usable energy. Also, on a personal level, reducing meat consumption even by a meal or two a week would add up in the broad scale of things, not to mention improve Americans' health. I'm all for baby steps, as long as they're in the right direction.

I look forward to the editors' mediating effects on such polarizing topics.

But for the record, I am not arguing for the right to eat meat. I am appealing, however, that those who make the green case (be it about hamburger OR energy consumption) do it without preaching, judging, or pontificating.

Art,

Currently Chicago has a program to turn its rooftops green - so far they've converted more than 2.5 million square feet of rooftop, which is pretty amazing. According to them, it filters rainwater, lowers temperature, and conserves the buildings' energy usage.

Re: "Also, on a personal level, reducing meat consumption even by a meal or two a week would add up in the broad scale of things, not to mention improve Americans' health. I'm all for baby steps, as long as they're in the right direction."

NOW we are getting somewhere.

Here's a topic for the editors...

How do issues of overpopulation impact the situation?

If Americans had fewer kids...?

Patrick, didn't Art say something similar earlier? That wasn't a jab, but me noting that this site does have a theme - design-based green living- and that that is where the blogging focus will be.

art, the City of Chicago gives tax breaks and height breaks to buildings designed with green roofs. Chicago also has a solar powered facility in Millennium Park for bike commuters. They can store their gear and shower for work for a nominal charge. The place is open 24/7. Can you see that happening in NYC?

Design milk,

Great topic. My husband and I are currently looking into the Honda Fit, among other high mpg compact non-hybrids. Sooooo much more affordable!

Joy R.--

Yes, Art said something similar. I guess I am being hypersensitive. But in the context of your comments, the way you phrased it seemed dismissive, and seemed to indicate that if design was of any import, there was an inherent shallowness to that approach.

Like I said, apologies for reading too much into anything here today.

I think several weeks of "GREEN"/"NOT GREEN" has taken its toll.

And Joy, I honestly was not singling you out originally.

re: Hybrids

Not only about fuel consumption, but about reduced emissions, no? I look forward to more on that topic on the new site.

How are the batteries on hybrids disposed of when they are not longer functional? Are they going to be an ecological/landfill nightmare down the road?

Thanks, Patrick.

Great point on batteries! This is a tough one. Batteries just don't last. They must already be an ecological nightmare. My wife works at a technical institute and I know that huge resources are being poured into battery research.

I've always wondered about battery disposal, as well... how long does a hybrid battery last, anyway?

The Plant Earth documentary had an interesting and thoughtful discussion on the population issue, and about how poverty in developing nations plays into the conservation dilema. Tough stuff.

Joy,
I agree that baby steps are a good starting point. I have to believe that there is something to be learned from the current focus on eating local and sustainably farmed produce. Ultimately, consumers have to put pressure on producers to reform destructive practices, and they do that by chosing when and where to spend their money. If it becomes more profitable to sell cows from a farm that only raises as many as the land can naturally support, then maybe we'll see more of that. That's an oversimplification, yes, but my understanding of these dynamics is still at a simplistic level. Anyways, only time will tell if such movements (1) are more than fads that will die out, and (2) actually produce wide-spread, positive changes. But hopefully if everyone takes a few steps in the right direction, the collective impact will count for something.

From what I've heard/read, vehicle emissions are generally directly proportional to fuel economy.

Um, non-hybrids have "car batteries" too, no?

Good point, Patrick. I'd be interested to have the bloggers do an environmental comparison between high mpg gasoline cars and hybrids. I'm already losing faith in biofuel, but that would be an interesting topic as well.

I'm a new convert to the bicycle commute. I'd love to see any posts relating to products and issues relating to bike commuting in cities.

I've only had this for a week: http://www.downtube.com and have been answering a lot of questions on the street!

It's comfortable, fast, takes up very little space and is not that expensive.

Looks like a cool bike. I used to cycle to work until I was hit by a city bus. No serious injury but scared the s**t out of me. That happened in Dec. gave the bike away in the spring. Recyling a bicycle is green!

Perhaps AT:Green could include some kind of labeling with each post to indicate the level of intensity/resources required to implement the posted solution/resource/product?

I'm just thinking it might be helpful to make clear from the outset whether a suggestion is something that can be easily adopted by everyone, or whether it's more suited for only the intensely dedicated...

That's my worst fear Mason. Hopefully more bike lanes will make things a little bit safer. In addition, Chicago is going to start putting cameras on buses to watch the drivers. Maybe this will encourage drivers to act like they are supposed to be responsible.

art, I am beginning to think I should leave NYC for Chicago!

Wow what drama! I didn't realize they were aiming for a green lifestyle blog, I thought it would be about things like sustainable, low-impact remodel options for when I redo my kitchen someday and I thought it would be really useful. The regular AT sites keep the preaching pretty minimal, they talk about cleaning green and eating local etc. but more green design info is what I'd really like (as I requested on some open thread and got no info on recently). I don't know where to look for green design info for my future projects and I am hoping this will be a resource and not just a bunch of bickering.

Anne has put her finger on the issue: "I didn't realize they were aiming for a green lifestyle blog, I thought it would be about things like sustainable, low-impact remodel options for when I redo my kitchen someday and I thought it would be really useful."

This is exactly what the ATGreen editors need to make really, really clear. I mentioned this above, as well. If you want to talk about green design, then great. But if you really want to change the world, you're going to be taking on a whole other set of issues, and one of the questions that will forever come up is: why aren't you doing more, if your goal is a better earth, then why are you eating meat, voting for people who are in the pocket of corporations, etc. etc.? And, as I've said above, those criticisms will be valid (since we aren't, collectively, doing enough). BUT, if you're not taking on the whole world and trying to make the biggest impact on improving it that's possible, then the blog can just focus on nice design and tips for living more simply.

And by no means am I denigrating that latter option - far from it. In fact, I hope AT doesn't aim at a whole-hog green lifestyle blog. That would require recognizing the value of not consuming things. And there's already too much plastic and vinyl on this site for that. Let's stay focused on living well in small spaces, doing that with some sustainably harvested items if we want, using green cleaners, changing lightbulbs, and so on. I for one could be happy with a blog that answered Anne (in Reno)'s interests above. Serving people like her (of whom there are many!) might be enough to help avoid everyone feeling preached to by those who point out the bleeding obvious about our cattle industry.

Sea, thank you. I am in total agreement. Thank you.

Oh dear! Green is clearly a very thorny(!) issue. Firstly,I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, I really was just wondering. Thanx for the figures Taryn. I try to do all the typical green things but I hate greenier-than-thou pontificating and I try not to be a preachy vegetarian. Like Patrick says, fire and brimstone never got my ass on a church pew. But I totally see where Joy R. is coming from - if you point out to people your reasons for doing what seems obviously right to you then you're preaching. If you don't say anything then you're a snooty eco-fascist. It would be disingenuous for me to say I didn't wish other people would make more environmentally sound choices. But a herd of eco-fashionistas toting this season's £200-worth of recycled Anya Hindmarsh shopping bags won't get us anywhere either. I think Sea has correctly pointed out Anne in Reno's comment as the most best estimation of what environment related posts can do here. There must be a middle way between unsustainable consumption and silly pseudo-green "crash diets"!

car emissions would be a great topic.

also, i just noticed that my local Rite Aid has a box in their entry for recycling your plastic bags.

JOY R: i looked at the honda fit - it's a great car.

if god didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Design milk, many grocery stores also have those big recycling things outside their doors for plastic bags - I have seen them at Safeway and Raleys and I always collect my paper bags and dump them there.