Pet Peeves (1)

Rant alert. About the Drive-Thru phenomenon. Any Drive-Thru. For coffee, fast food, banking or postal services. There are even drive-thrus for getting married and getting buried, seriously (US residents only, thank goodness).

I don't get them, drive-thrus. Why do people prefer to wait in their idling car, wasting time and fossil fuel instead of just parking the car and walk over to get that same coffee much quicker? Saves time, and in the process you get a little bit of exercise (some walking) and an interactive experience (with that cute server and maybe some other customers).

Point in case: I drive past a Tim Horton's almost every day, and each morning there's a line-up of at least 12 cars there. Often there are so many cars the line-up stretches well into the main road.
One day I stopped to time them how long it took to get their coffee: three and a half minutes. It would have taken me less than 3 minutes to park my car, walk into the restaurant, order my coffee and walk back to my car. Faster, with no engines idling.

An idling car consumes about 2 litres of fuel an hour (even more for trucks and SUVs). Twelve idling cars burn about 24 litres an hour, 12 hours each. Cars that are going nowhere, doing zero miles per gallon. Drive-Thrus are directly responsible for a lot of unnecessary carbon monoxide and other toxic gasses, just because we don't like to get out of our bubble. Heaven forbid we might get wet. Or cold. Or hot. Or (gasp) have a conversation with someone.

Let's face it, folks: drive-thrus don't belong in a green live style or any other saner life style. So next time you feel the urge, just park that car, get out, walk to the counter and order that coffee. You can do it, you'll save some time & fuel, and hey, you might even enjoy it!

Rant done, thank you. And tell that cute server I said hi.

Carbon Emissions Be Gone!

We recently spent a week in Toronto for a big-city-fix, our first vacation in 6 years! Isn't it interesting to notice how your sense of vacation changes depending on where you live?  "You can take the boy out of the city, but you can't take the city out of the boy", to coin a phrase.

Because we only had 1 week, driving down there wasn't an option; it would have meant 5 days on the road, leaving 1 measly day to enjoy our destination. So I booked a free flight (thank you Aeroplan!) but felt bad about the ecological footprint involved. Canadians spend too much time on planes, and no matter how you cut it: planes ain't good for our environment and are part of the growing greenhouse problem.

Granted, Canada is just too darn big to travel by other means and still get there within a reasonable amount of time. So what to do? The answer: purchase a carbon credit!

When processing our online bookings I was pleasantly surprised when a window popped up asking if I wanted to offset the carbon emissions for these flights by purchasing a corresponding carbon credit. Turns out that in our case of two return tickets Thunder Bay - Toronto, the carbon credit cost us less than $25.00 - a no-brainer, of course.

Carbon credits are getting increasingly popular with consumers and industries alike. The basic idea is that by supporting alternative energy programs, like investing in solar and wind generation, planting trees etc., we can offset the carbon emissions created through the burning of fossil fuels in transportation and industries.

Now mind you, even though I felt not as bad about the flights, it isn't the solution. It's tempting to think we can maintain a basically destructive lifestyle simply by buying more carbon credits. Sorry, it's not the fix we need, it's only a band-aid. Ultimately, we have to drastically change our lifestyle, a tall order to fulfill.

So until then, purchase those carbon credits whenever you can. It does help, and hey, you'll feel a lot better, too!

Let’s Settle This Once And For All

A quick primer for those who have been blissfully ignorant of “The Freshcut Christmas Tree vs. the Artificial Christmas Tree” debate: proponents of the freshcut Christmas tree point at the fact that it’s a natural product, often grown locally or regionally.

Proponents of the artificial Christmas tree point out the fact that the cut tree is a disposable item that gets thrown away after only a few weeks of use, whereas the artificial equivalent will last for many years.

So who’s right? Well, if you like the smell of freshcut pine and don’t mind the needle mess, then go for that real tree.
If it’s about low-cost convenience, then the tree of the collapsable plastic variety may be your thing.

Charlie brown got the right idea way back in the '60s

(from "A Charlie Brown Christmas", 1965)

Things get a bit more complicated, though, if we ask ourselves which option is less damaging to the environment. It all boils down to Carbon Footprints: how much energy was involved in creating a product from scratch and getting it into your hands? This number considers all energy that's involved: extracting resources, manufacturing, transportation, packaging, advertising, final disposal - and everything inbetween.

Turns out that the artificial tree (85% of them are made in China) has a pretty big carbon footprint. With 3505 Watts it’s over 20 times more energy-intensive than a real tree.
Artificial trees are also a petroleum-based product; manufacturing them involves a long list of toxic by-products.
Also, artificial trees will not last forever and break down after 6 to 10 years. Any petroleum-based will breakdown into toxic components, many of them cancer-inducing.
And lastly, when that old artificial tree becomes landfill, it will be there for hundreds of years, slowly oozing contaminants into our soil and water table.

Freshcut old Christmas trees will decompose (or get mulched) nicely; they helped remove carbon from the environment and provided a home and food for wildlife while they were growing. That stops the moment they get cut, of course. And if you live in an area where they don’t grow naturally (say California, the Arctic, most of Europe), then that tree has to be trucked in from very far away.

So there you have it folks, you heard it here first: the freshcut tree is definitely the lesser evil.
The even better solution: get a live tree, and replant it after the holidays. And if you’re fortunate enough and have firs growing near your house (like we do): decorate a tree on the spot, passers-by will love you for it.
Merry Christmas (trees)!

Winter Driving's Ecological Footprint (wheel print?)

It took a bit longer than usual, but winter’s definitely here now: we’ve had our first snow storm and the next one’s in the forecast. Temperatures dip to around –24 at night and haven’t been above freezing since Nov. 30. But the surest sign winter’s here is: the winter tires are back on again.

After a few close calls in the past we opted for studded tires this time. Wow, what a difference; unbelievable traction.
Noisier, too. Which made me wonder if all that extra traction translates to extra fuel consumption…

Mmm, studs...

Well, the good news is: no, so far studded tires seem to get the same mileage as their standard non-studded winter tires. The bad news: no matter how you cut it, winter driving uses a lot more fuel than summer driving.

It’s not just the tires, of course. It’s mostly the frigid temperatures that make your engine run a lot less efficient. It takes the motor much longer to warm up, and even then it often doesn’t reach ideal combustion temperatures. Add the energy required to run your lights, defrosters, cabin heater (and seat heaters for the whimps out there), and you get the picture.

As a certified ego geek I try and drive as environmentally conscious as possible, resulting in great mileage for our ancient ’97 Ford Escort. During the warmer months (April – October): around 6 litres/100 km (that’s 39 Mpg for you non-metrics). But once November comes around the numbers quickly get less glorious: around 7.8 litres/100 km (30.1 Mpg).

Maybe not too bad compared to most cars (and trucks for sure), but still: a whopping 25% drop in fuel efficiency…
Guess there’s only one way around it: drive (25%) less!

Bad Movies You Got To Love

I love my movies. All 400 or 500 of ‘em (well, almost of ‘em). There’s nothing like finding an unknown film in the Two For $5.99 bin, pop it in the DVD player – and enjoy an unexpected little gem: “Kitchen Stories”, “10 Items Or Less”, ”King Of The Corner”, “Off The Map”… Just because they stayed out of the Hollywood marketing machine doesn’t make them any less enjoyable.

Sometimes I slip, though, and pick a movie that friends told me I should watch. Like “Evan Almighty”. Of course it turned out to be a paint-by-numbers theology-lite comedy that didn’t live up to the exclamation-marked hyperboles on the cover. Okay, it gave me one or two brief chuckles, but its most redeeming quality was that it was short.

Still, there is one thing about this movie I really enjoy: it was produced with a Zero Carbon Footprint. After the shoot wrapped, the entire set was recycled. Carbon-offsets were calculated and purchased. Even the DVD was environmentally friendly manufactured, with packaging made out of recycled and bio-degradable materials.

Now this is not the first movie that was produced and distributed this way. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was probably the first one, and if you check the end credits for the Cohn Brother’s “No Country For Old Men” you’ll see it says “This movie was produced with a Zero Carbon Footprint”.

“Evan Almighty” moved this practice beyond the “eco geek” label that came with Al Gore, or the “art house” label you’d associate with a Cohn Brothers film. To my knowledge “Evan” is the first big-budget crowd-pleasing blockbuster to adopt this production model.

That’s something to be happy about; it gives hope more movies will follow suit.

I’m now almost grateful for this dud.