I’m pretty sure I’ve spotted another trend: the increasing popularity of nana technology. Not nanotechnology, which according to Wikipedia is “the study of manipulating matter on an atomic or molecular scale” (which I assure you, I know nothing about). I mean nana technology, that is, reverting to doing things the way our grandmothers did.

I can’t claim to have invented the term “nana technology,”much as I would like to. I first heard it last year and it stuck with me as a great way to describe a return to a somewhat simpler way of life. Nana technologies are things like mending clothes, growing your own food, making your own cleaning and beauty products, and preserving seasonal food.

Remember the War?

Of course there are people who have always practiced nana technologies, whether by choice or financial necessity. But a large proportion of baby boomers and their children haven’t known economic hardship like their parents and grandparents did. Wartime rationing and food, fuel and clothing scarcity is something they are familiar with only from movies and seniors’ stories.

At the same time, the decades since World War II have been all about convenience and mass production.  The innovations in pre-packaged foods that enabled us to feed our wartime soldiers quickly trickled down to the mainstream population and became enormously popular as convenience food. Improvements in transport and refrigeration meant food could safely travel great distances. And technology advances and mass production made clothes and time-saving appliances far more affordable than ever before.

But I think the pendulum is swinging back as people strive to weave simplicity and a level of purity back into the established conveniences in their lives. I’m certainly not suggesting we should replicate times of scarcity and hunger, or put aside things like dishwashers or washing machines, which genuinely make life easier. But more and more, people are realising the benefits of paring down and cutting back.

Nana Knows Best

Some are reverting to nana technologies for health reasons. Increasingly, we are becoming aware of some of the risks associated with the overconsumption of processed foods, particularly as Australia has overtaken the US in the obesity stakes. Books like Additive Alert have exposed the hidden preservatives in many packaged and processed foods. And the explosion in the natural health, organic beauty, and “green” cleaning markets show consumers are looking for natural products as issues arise like possible endocrine inhibitors in common chemicals (like triclosan).

For others, sustainability issues are at the core of the nana technology evolution. Terms like “slow food,” “locavore,” and “food miles” have entered the mainstream lexicon. Chefs like Perth favourite Matt Stone of Greenhouse are lauded on popular shows like Masterchef for minimising food waste and growing their own veges. And the sustainability mantra “reduce, reuse, recycle” was just a way of life for most nanas.

The current economic climate has also thrown this growing trend into sharp relief. The global financial crisis has meant lots of families have had to cut back – repairing instead of buying new, using public transport, and eating out less frequently. Rapidly rising energy prices have played their part too, as luxuries like 24/7 air conditioning and heating are becoming less affordable. The fact is, living like nana is often very cost-effective.

Everything Old is New Again

I know my mother-in-law is amused as she listens to me expound on the virtues of vinegar and baking soda and on the wisdom of cutting up old t-shirts to use as cleaning rags. I’m certain she is wondering, “Why would you ever do anything else?” And memories of my own grandmother’s pantry, lined with rows and rows of gleaming jars of home-canned fruit and vegetables, spurred me to attempt some preserving. (As it turns out, not my cooking strength, but Sally Wise’s A Year in a Bottle has me hoping I’ll improve.)

I did an informal survey of friends and colleagues to find out what nana technologies they were using. Almost everyone said they were working hard to waste less food (by using carcasses for stock, veg for soup, fruit for smoothies, bread for breadcrumbs and croutons, and so on). And in at number two for popularity was bundling up in winter instead of turning on the heat. More than one person said their UGG boots were their most important winter possession!

In no particular order, here are some of the nana technologies in use:

• Buying gifts at local handmade markets and fairs such as the Perth Upmarket – or making their own
• Learning to knit and/or sew
• Mending clothes and darning stockings
• Wearing clothes longer and buying fewer new things
• Growing as many veges and herbs at home as possible
• Having chooks and composting
• Buying seasonal, local food only
• Giving the kids hot water bottles instead of heaters
• Drying clothes on the line … always
• Using the library and sharing books with friends
• Swapping clothes with friends
• Using cloth napkins (a few times before washing) instead of paper serviettes
• Making natural cleaning products out of vinegar, bicarb, lemons and borax
• Using olive oil as a skin moisturiser
• Making spreadable butter by combining olive oil with butter

And my absolute favourite … making homemade yogurt by putting it under the duvet to keep it warm to encourage the bacteria to multiply! (Quite the bedtime surprise I thought.)

If you have other nana technologies you’d like to share, please email me (kirsten@onegreenstep.com.au) or post on my Facebook wall @One Green Step, or tweet me @onegreenstep … I’ll share them in a future post!

Eco-Shopping in Mosman Park

I had the most delightful eco-shopping experience the other day in Mosman Park in four very different shops. All four shops are environmentally friendly, all are run by passionate people, and all are within about 50 metres of each other in strip of Stirling Highway that is showing promising signs of renewed vibrancy.

Foxes of Fancy

My first stop was Foxes of Fancy at 616 Stirling Highway, a beautiful new studio and shop whose apt motto is “eco made fabulous.” Foxes of Fancy stocks handmade homewares, clothing, stationery, skincare, and more, much of which is designed and made onsite. It’s the fruit of a collaboration between two gifted designers, Marianne of Tex & Joe and Stacey of Inuk.

My organisational saviour!

I would have happily bought just about everything in the shop, but limited myself to a gorgeous vertical wall organiser for my office (pictured) and stunning handmade cards from Paper Nest. The organiser is made from hemp, recycled plastic drink bottles and recycled polyester, and I have high hopes that it will make my messy office “eco fabulous!” (Mr One Green Step admires the organiser but is not so sure it will help.) A shout out to Inuk too, as their hemp t-shirt from the Mosman Park EcoFair is my new favourite piece of clothing.

Pop in to see Stacey and Maz (and cheeky mascot Ferdinand Fox) if you can, but if you can’t make it to the studio, check out their newly launched website and do some online shopping instead.

Cartridge World

Eco-goodies in hand, my next stop was to see Simon at Cartridge World at 596 Stirling Highway, where I picked up a remanufactured toner cartridge for my colour laser printer. Printer cartridges are one my eco-bugbears, as millions of them needlessly end up in landfill each year, where they take up to 1000 years to decompose.

As the cost of printers has come down dramatically, more households own one (or more), which equates to many more ink and toner cartridges (1.9 billion in 2008!). And most people still go out and buy new cartridges when theirs run low – and chuck the old ones in the bin.

But if you take your empty cartridges to somewhere like Cartridge World, they can “recharge” them, regardless of what type it is – ink, laser, fax, or photocopier. When they recharge the cartridge, Cartridge World checks for wear and tear and issue a 100% money back guarantee. The recharged cartridges cost less (often A LOT less) than new ones and are far kinder to the environment, as it’s re-used until it can’t be repaired any more – at which point it’s recycled.

If you bring in a cartridge that can’t be recharged, you can give them your old one to be recycled. Or, if you can’t make it to Cartridge World, find your nearest Cartridges 4 PlanetArk drop off point – including most Australia Post outlets, Harvey Norman, Dick Smith, JB Hi-Fi, The Good Guys and Officeworks. PlanetArk’s program, which works in partnership with major manufacturers, has recycled over 15 million cartridges to date.

Hunters + Collectors Interiors

From there I popped into Hunters + Collectors Interiors at 614 Stirling Highway, which specialises in authentic and original mid-century modern furniture, much of which has been lovingly found and brought back to life by their artisan restorer. Alicia and her colleagues hand-pick furniture from Europe, the US and Australia, and their stock includes iconic designers like Ray and Charles Eames, Hans Wegner, Arne Jacobesen and Australian designers Grant Featherston and Douglas Snelling. Hunters + Collectors shows how stunning upcycling can be – I feel as if I’ve been transported to the set of “MadMen” as I browse. Many many things went on the wish list!

Save The Children Op Shop

And last, to round out my eco-shopping experience, I popped into the Save The Children op shop at 600 Stirling Highway, because since my “six months with no new clothes” experience, I simply cannot go past an op shop without going in for a trawl.

The ladies in the shop were lovely and welcoming and I lurked for a while listening to a man negotiate the price of a working manual typewriter, circa 1960. (Raising the question, can you even buy replacement ribbons anymore?). And then I found it … the perfect addition to my collection of old and/or interesting cake plates, 100% sourced from Perth op shops. Spode! Pretty! Five dollars!

So, next time you’re down Mosman Park way, set aside some time to do some eco-shopping and see how local businesses in our area are working in different ways to take one green step at a time.

The Not-So-Humble Australian Home

I am often asked, “How can I make the house I’m building more environmentally friendly?” My first answer, which admittedly is not very popular, is, “Trim your house plan by at least 50 square metres.”

Australians live in the biggest houses in the world. Yes, even bigger than Americans. To provide some perspective, the average new Australian home is 248 square metres. In Britain in 2009, the average new home was 76 square metres. Denmark has the largest new homes in Europe, and at 137sqm, they’re still just over half the size of ours.

It makes me wonder why the merchandisers at IKEA even bother with the “Live in 20sqm!” displays. Many Australians consider 20sqm an acceptable size for, say, the laundry.

Our big houses are part of the reason Australians have among the least environmentally sustainable lifestyles in the world, according to the Australian Conservation Foundation‘s Sustainable Cities Index. It’s not just that our houses are big, fewer people live in them and they’re on smaller blocks. More house, less yard, fewer occupants. Take for example:

• In 1986, the average home was 167sqm. That means houses have gotten almost 50% bigger in 25 years.
• In 1911, the average house was home to 4.5 people. In 1986, that figure was down to 3 people. Now the average house is home to about 2.5 people.
• In WA, the typical 1940s home was set on a quarter acre (1040sqm). This financial year, 60% of the blocks approved in Perth and Mandurah were less than 500sqm.

Bigger Isn’t Always Better

In some ways having nearly 100sqm to oneself sounds, well…spacious. But there are some real issues from an environmental perspective.

In WA, housing contributes over 20% of our carbon emissions because we continue to build huge, energy-hungry houses. If we reduced our homes to 1986 sizes, we would generate an average saving of one tonne of carbon dioxide per dwelling per year.

Today’s homebuilders are demanding more rooms – in particular, more living areas, bathrooms and home theatres – and those rooms have to be furnished, heated, cooled, and often kitted out with electronics. Even though those rooms are (statistically) usually empty. The cost of electricity is set to more than double by 2020, and the reality is that many of our big new houses are incredibly energy hungry.

The big house-on-a-small-block trend also means less garden. Of course a small garden may correlate with lower water consumption, which is a good thing. But plants and trees are critical to the environment’s ability to clean itself, to say nothing of the value to our personal health and well-being.

The Incredible Shrinking House?

There are some faint signs that we may have reached the apex of the house-size curve in Australia. Our population is growing and with it, urban sprawl. This in turn is driving an increased demand for more compact homes close to amenities such as public transport. According to The West Australian, “Trends among first-time buyers have also changed with new entrants opting for location over size.” And surely if our resources boom slows, along with it will come shrinking house size.

Simply building smaller houses would be a big step in living a more sustainable life. It would be even better if those smaller houses were built using passive solar principles, thus requiring minimal (or no) heating or cooling. Getting rid of black roofs and reinstituting the missing eaves would be good too. My list goes on.

We have a small house – actually, a very small house by Australian standards. One of McBean’s little friends famously asked, “Um, where is your second toilet?”  My answer, to his slight consternation: “The lemon tree.”

I won’t deny that as our two children grow, it’s going to get tight. Someday we would like to build a modest sustainable house. But in the meantime, our family is no worse for the wear because we don’t have a home theatre, or a second lounge room, or an “outdoor room.” In fact, it’s kind of nice to all cuddle up together on the (one) couch.

I was lucky enough to spend part of last week at the Energising South East Asia Conference, Australia’s largest sustainable energy expo, organised by the Sustainable Energy Association here in Perth. It was great event, with stellar keynote addresses by Professor Peter Newman of Curtin University and Dr Tony Wilkins, the Manager of Environment and Climate Change for News Limited (plus lots of other great talks and debates).

But to be honest, it was the exhibitors that I found most compelling – hundreds of companies working to commercialise new and existing sustainable energy technologies. My inner geek spent two days soaking up information about alternatives to coal – solar, wind, wave, biomass and geothermal. The passion the exhibitors exuded about their businesses, and the potential of their technology, was inspiring.

And it’s a good thing they’re so passionate. And dedicated. And intelligent. Because being in the renewable energy (or broader cleantech) sector in Australia is not easy, despite the fact that we desperately need them to succeed.

We need them to succeed in part because we have a fairly ambitious renewable energy target – Australia has committed that by 2020, 20% of our electricity supply will come from renewable sources. That means in less than ten years’ time, the amount of energy coming from sustainable sources will be roughly equal to our current household electricity use.

But unfortunately in the Australian cleantech sector, the investment money doesn’t seem to follow the need. As Giles Parkinson aptly summarises in the Climate Spectator, “…investors in Australia…cannot see a clear path to a sustainable industry – at least not with current policy settings.”

Cleantech is Hot, Except Here

The good news is that globally, the cleantech sector is hot. In Europe, growth has been driven largely by regulatory measures. In China, regulatory measures have been paired with massive green stimulus packages to drive investment. And in the US, venture capital has been a big player in the cleantech market. Take these facts for example:

• In 2010, worldwide finance and investment in the clean energy sector grew 30% to a record $US243 billion, according to the US-based Pew Charitable Trust. Moreover, according to the same study, the sector has witnessed 630% growth in finance and investments since 2004.
• Data also released in 2010 by Deloitte and the US-based Cleantech Group showed a record $US1.9 billion in technology venture investments in North America, Europe, China and India in the March quarter alone – up 83% from the previous year.
• 2008 was the first year money invested in new renewable energy generation projects was greater than that invested in new fossil fuel energy generation.

Pushing Water Uphill: A Hard Way to Make Energy

Sadly, though, Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world. Which makes it harder for the companies I met at the conference to cross the great divide between R&D and commercialisation, and for Australia to meet its renewable energy commitment.

Australia ranked 12^th overall in the Pew Charitable Trust’s 2010 global ranking of cleantech investment — well  behind China, Germany, the US and Italy, who occupy the top four positions. The Australian Venture Capital Association estimates that just over $25 million was invested in Australia in cleantech venture companies in 2009. Phyllis Cuttino, the director of the Pew Clean Energy Program, says of Australia, “Certainly the coalition government has given investors a signal that things are uncertain and that’s the way investors have reacted.”

Echoing that sentiment In the Australian Cleantech Review 2010, Managing Director John O’Brien says, “Australia is lacking the drivers that are seen elsewhere in the world. The government stimulus is fragmented and small, the regulatory measures are providing only some assistance and the venture capital industry is under-funded.”

Look at all that Sun….

We must get our act together in Australia. We are a country that arguably has the greatest potential to tap renewable energy sources, and we’re not doing enough to support the businesses trying to do exactly that. Focusing incentives on grants to a few selected “winners” in the sector is not working – we need much broader investment and support.

A carbon tax may help, but it’s not enough. We have the advantage of being able to look around the world at best practices and develop a model that drives real investment, through a combination of regulatory measures and market-driven mechanisms. We must consider things that have worked elsewhere, such as loan guarantees, tax concessions, and feed in tariffs.

As the Pew report succinctly states, “The extraordinary worldwide growth in clean energy investment over the past six years has been defined by a simple fact: where supportive clean energy policies are adopted, investment follows.”

In the meantime, I sincerely hope those passionate people who were patiently explaining their businesses and technologies to me last week hang in there. You are an inspiration and we’re counting on you.

I’ve had almost three weeks to digest Julia Gillard’s announcement that we will put a price on carbon in July 2012. After all that time, all I know for sure is that Greg Combet (Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) must be sick of talking about it. The poor man is everywhere, spruiking for the tax and valiantly defending Ms Gillard against Tony Abbott and the Coalition’s attacks and sound bites. For example, today’s Daily Telegraph features an op-ed piece by Mr Combet on the tax.

I’ve put off writing about the tax in part because I was hoping its pros and cons would become clearer as the days went by. Alas, the opposite is happening, and every day brings a new round of political manoeuvring that I fear is only going to be bad news for the planet.

But so many people have been asking me about it that I can procrastinate no more. I know most of my readers are not climate change economists (nor am I!) so I’ll start at the beginning.

A VERY broad architecture

On the 24^th of February, Labor, the Greens, and key independents announced the “broad architecture” for an Australian carbon price, which is also called a carbon tax. From July 2012, carbon will be priced per tonne released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The plan is for the fixed price to rise annually for three to five years before transitioning to an emissions trading scheme. The government has said that the money raised will go back to homes and businesses in the form of rebates, credits and grants. The framework can be found here.

And that’s pretty much all they’ve said about it.

Theoretically, the more you pollute, the more you pay. The exact price hasn’t been announced. Combet has said it will be “well south” of $45 per tonne. Some analysts have suggested a starting price around $20 to $25 per tonne. If it works the way the government envisions, businesses will have to take into account the cost of carbon in their investment decisions, which should drive more sustainable business practices and a more robust renewable energy industry.

Easy, right?

Ummm no, not so easy. If the government is able to negotiate the specifics and pass the legislation this year, there are still some major issues. A big one is Tony Abbott’s promise to repeal any carbon tax if elected – and with Gillard’s approval ratings at an all-time low, a Liberal government is looking more and more possible.

Abbott’s threat has the effect of simply making the carbon tax – and emissions trading scheme – a yes/no, binary debate, which is tragic. As Giles Parkinson said in his recent Climate Spectator article, “Not all businesses want to see a permanent escalator, but few deny that a carbon price is inevitable, and most simply want to know what the rules are so that they can get on with the business of running business.”

Another major issue is that the government hasn’t articulated a vision for a post-carbon-tax/ETS world, or even what exactly we’re trying to achieve with the tax. For example, is the purpose to migrate our electricity supply to renewable sources? Or is it to reduce our demand for energy (and as a result, reduce our emissions)?

This is where the economic theory comes in, because without a clear vision, setting the right price is incredibly hard. Most analysts agree that even a very high carbon price isn’t enough to encourage large-scale technological innovation. In a separate piece in the Climate Spectator, Andrew Dyer says, “A price of $100/tonne or higher would be required to stimulate investment in deploying new capacity using renewable technologies to produce power.” At the other end of the spectrum, Dyer says a tax in the $20/tonne region will “simply increase the cost of power to all users” as the wholesale price is passed through the supply chain.

Nor has the Gillard government been able to explain what the carbon tax will mean to the average Australian – who, by the way, supports action on climate change. The government has issued many assurances about the proceeds of the tax going back to homes and businesses, but they’ve been unable to effectively combat Abbott’s assertion that it will add $300 to household electricity bills (which is dodgy maths by the way, but that’s a subject for another time).

So, good tax or bad tax?

Good tax. Despite all my moaning above, and the inevitable concerns that arise when so little detail is available, we need a price on carbon. Australia is the largest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gas in the world, and we need to do something.

A fixed carbon price is a start, and it’s a lot better than nothing. It will give businesses some medium-term certainty and something tangible to put on the debit line. It’s a positive step in defining a long-term framework and hopefully shows the rest of the world we’re serious about addressing climate change. The proceeds of the tax, if used sensibly, can help fund further change. The cost of doing nothing, as Abbott’s Direct Action policy effectively proposes, is higher than almost any carbon tax I can imagine.

I just want more. A nominal carbon tax is a positive step but it’s not going to solve (or even meaningfully influence) climate change and our emissions issues. It’s not going to have a breakthrough effect on the renewable energy industry. And I’m frustrated that politics are diluting the proposal before it’s even been released.

But we’ll see. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Sadly, on the 24^th of February, One Green Step will conduct its last home sustainability assessment under the Green Loans program. In December, the federal government announced that it was canceling both the existing Green Loans program and the planned $130 million Green Start program, leaving Australian households to fight climate change and rising utility bills on their own.

The scheme had its problems. A damning audit in 2010 found widespread abuses by assessors and substantial government mismanagement. But a huge amount of good has come of it too, as hundreds of thousands of assessments have been conducted across Australia.

Thanks to All My Clients

People came to One Green Step for assessments for all kinds of reasons. In the early days, many were friends coerced into helping me refine my technique (thanks!). After that, many were referrals and people who simply wanted to learn how they could live with less impact on the environment.

Some had specific problems they wanted help solving, such as uncomfortably warm or cold rooms, or a sudden spike in utility bills, or questions about solar power. More than one client wanted his or her teenagers to hear it from someone else. And significantly, there were many who frankly weren’t interested in the environment or climate change but simply couldn’t afford their electricity bills.

Whatever the household motivation, each assessment was slightly different with different issues and opportunities. People were overwhelmingly kind and patient, and at least pretended to care when I prattled on about halogen lighting, pool pumps, and vampire power. Or when I held a bucket under their shower head and plugged my power meter into theatre chairs and heated toilet seats.

Perth: Bottom of the Ladder

The assessments were also a force for good in a place that needs it desperately. Perth is the least sustainable city in Australia. We have more private cars than any other state, with 641 for every 1000 residents. We have the highest residential water use in the country and the biggest, most energy-hungry houses. (I cannot tell you how many times I heard “Oh, we just don’t use this room/s,” during assessments.)

And according to the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Sustainable Cities Index, we also have the biggest ecological footprint. To me, this is the most worrying measure. An ecological footprint is the total amount of land (hectares per person per year) required to support the average lifestyle. The world has approximately 1.8ha for every person alive. Perth’s average footprint is 7.66ha. That means that if everyone in the world lived like we do in Perth, we would need 4.3 Earths.

This is where the word “sustainability” really comes into its own. We simply can’t keep that up. Not when you consider that WA’s population is set to double by 2050 and electricity prices will more than double by 2020.

So What Next?

The free home sustainability assessment is nearly a thing of the past, but the popularity of the program with homeowners shows there is a huge appetite for this information and a desire to change. Overwhelmingly I found people wanted to feel that they were doing something tangible to be kind to our environment.

There is much talk in the industry about developing a private practice model for residential assessments – the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors (ABSA) is working on one. For many reasons, I hope it gets off the ground, although even I am skeptical as to how much people will pay for a private assessment, despite the fact that I can guarantee my clients will pay themselves back (usually within 12 months).

Residential “mandatory disclosure” is coming too, hopefully in 2011. Mandatory disclosure will require homeowners who sell or rent houses to provide information to prospective purchasers or renters about the energy, water and greenhouse performance of the property. Already a requirement in the ACT, mandatory disclosure will well and truly put residential sustainability in the mainstream.

I know from my experience that households need this kind of advice. Arguably most of the information is available in books and websites, but people value customised and personalised service. Each house and the people who live in it are different, and the solutions for one family won’t work for their next-door neighbour. And critically, I believe people need to be encouraged to feel they are personally capable of making a difference.

From the feedback and testimonials I’ve received about how my clients have changed the way they live, I know that I’ve made a difference – however small – to help reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change.

So, it may be farewell Green Loans, but One Green Step will carry on helping West Australians take one green step … at a time.

Yes, it’s that time of year. Despite the fact I still believe 40-degree Christmases are deeply flawed, it is imminent. Twenty-four shopping days left, thanks to the retailers’ decision to open on Sundays between now and Christmas. And I can’t help myself … I have to talk a bit about green Christmas shopping.

Every day we make purchasing decisions, and each of those decisions has an impact on the environment because it takes energy, water, materials, waste and fuel to create and supply all products. Around the holidays, we make many more purchasing decisions as we buy gifts for our friends and loved ones.

And it’s lovely to give and receive gifts. But how can we make it all a little kinder to the planet?

Think Before You Buy

It is wonderful to receive a really thoughtful gift. Before you buy, take a moment to be honest with yourself about whether the gift you’re about to purchase is really needed – or wanted. We all have a lot of stuff, so before you add to someone else’s stuff (with the best intentions of course), think about whether the gift will get used. Will it make a difference to the person’s life, or is it just because you feel obligated to buy something?

Don’t Buy Rubbish

Sorry to be crass, but if it’s crap, DON’T BUY IT. This applies particularly to toys and gadgets. Don’t buy toys that will fall apart, probably on Christmas Day. And no one will use an aromatherapy diffuser, foot massager, or milk frother more than a couple of times. These things all end up in landfill. If you don’t believe me, see the article “What Not To Buy For Christmas” on the Choice Magazine website.

My Pet Peeve: Electronics

I know the prices are seductive. This holiday season, I have heard at least three people say they’re going to buy themselves a new TV for Christmas. Not because they need one, but because they’re cheap. Australians generate 140,000 tonnes of e-waste each year. Please buy electronics sensibly, any time of year, and dispose of your old electronics responsibly. Call your local council or check Recycling Near You for e-waste disposal tips.

Greening it Up

Now I’ve had a little green-grinch whinge about what not to do, here are some ideas for ways to make your holiday a little greener.

• Gift cards and vouchers. Gift cards allow people to buy what they want, which is a good thing! Choice Magazine looked at gift cards from major retailers and recommend Bunnings, Coles Group & Myer, and Wish (Woolworths group). Or consider a voucher for a massage or gift ‘experience’ like those from Red Balloon.
• Donations. Worldvision’s Smiles program and Oxfam Unwrapped both allow you to purchase everything from a garden, school pencils, or even a goat for communities in need. The recipient receives a card describing the donation made on their behalf.

• Charity gifts. Many charities have online gift catalogues, such as Unicef and the RSPCA. The purchases help the charity with its important work. Check out www.charitygifts.com.au — a very cool website that allows you to browse gifts from lots of charities.
• Homemade gifts. Homemade gifts – especially edible ones – are quite hip at the moment, and for good reason. Who wouldn’t like to receive homemade biscuits, or chutney, or similar? Anything homemade shows that the giver put thought and time into the present.
• Sustainable presents. If you’re going to buy a gift, make it a useful green one. Websites like The Eco Providore, Todae, and  Biome have gorgeous gifts that are planet-friendly.
• Consider the cards. If you send holiday cards, source them direct from charity organisations, which ensures they get the maximum benefit. It’s a way to make a small contribution and it helps raise awareness for the organisation. Or, dispense with the cards altogether and go electronic — there are loads of websites where you can design your own.
• Wrap with care. Look for wrapping paper with a high recycled paper content. Or even better, use reuseable bags, newspaper or fabric to wrap your gifts.

And most of all, I think it’s important to take a step back and remember that the holidays aren’t about gifts at all (well not once you get past gold, frankincense and myrrh). If you do give gifts, make sure you can afford them, and that they’ll be appreciated and used — and not end up in landfill a few months later.

And most of all, have a wonderful, peaceful, healthy, holiday season.

For some reason I’ve been thinking a lot about smell lately.

It started because we read Perfume for book club this month. If you haven’t read it, it’s about a man in 18^th century France who has a superhuman sense of smell. I won’t spoil the book, but suffice it to say he doesn’t exactly use his powers for good.

One of the things I found most intriguing about the book was the description of just how smelly Paris would have been at that time. The author writes, “…there reigned in the cities a stench barely conceivable to us modern men and women….People stank of sweat and unwashed clothes; from their mouths came the stench of rotting teeth, from their bellies that of onions, and from their bodies, if they were no longer young, came the stench of rancid cheese and sour milk and tumourous disease.”

Not an appealing picture, but certainly a vivid one. And it made me start thinking about how little we smell these days. And when we do smell, it’s usually of something artificial that’s been created using chemicals.

Bin the Bath?

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not advocating that we all stop showering and start smelling. Although I think there is a bit of a trend toward washing slightly less than we used to. According to a recent New York Times article “The Great Unwashed,” growing numbers of people are forgoing daily bathing and things like frequent shampooing and deodorant use.

“We don’t need to wash the way we used to when we were farmers,” said Katherine Ashenburg, the author of “The Dirt on Clean: An Unsantised History.” Since the advent of cars and labour-saving machines, she continued, “we have never needed to wash less.”

But Australians still use an average of 21 bars of soap a year says Gary Egger, the author of “Skin Fitness.” And then after the soap and shampoo, many of us layer on scented deodorants, creams, lotions, cosmetics, and last but not least, perfume or cologne.

From Lab to Bathroom

Most of the fragrances used in personal hygiene products, perfumes, aftershaves, and indoor air fresheners are chemicals derived from oil – 95% of them according to the Canadian Lung Association. The same source states that one perfume may contain up to 500 chemicals.

We don’t usually think about it like that – that by using all these scented products, we’re simply layering chemicals on our body’s largest organ – our skin. And although many of them are certainly safe, they’re also relatively new (most have been in use only since the mid-20^th century) and we simply don’t know what the long-term risks of exposure are.

If we take marketing claims out of the frame for a minute, I think the appeal of the various products relates back to smell. We think they will either prevent us from smelling (like what? ourselves?) or will enhance our smell, presumably making us more attractive or more likeable.

The Dirt on Clean

So what are the alternatives? You can be like Mr One Green Step, who uses soap to wash his hands and a bit of natural shampoo, and that’s it (what’s more, he’s always done that, long before I was in the picture). A shower (or two) a day and he smells absolutely fine and not like anything artificial.

I think the key is just to think before you apply, and maybe consider some natural alternatives for some (or all) of your products. I’m a fan of Aesop products at the more expensive end (although some aren’t 100% natural), Miessence products in the middle, and Sukin and Natural Alternative products at the slightly more budget end.

There are some effective natural anti-perspirants and deodorants on the market too, but I think it’s best to try a few and see what works best with your body chemistry. For me, I like the Thursday Plantation’s Tea Tree Deodorant best.

I found that once I started switching over to natural products I simply couldn’t bear the artificial smells of the regular soaps and shampoos. But let it be noted that I am still very fond of the occasional daub of Coco by Chanel, chemicals or no chemicals.

I certainly don’t want to return to the days of 18^th-century Paris and its associated olfactory assault. But I would be happy if everyone smelled just a little more like themselves.

As much as I complain about laundry (and I definitely complain, just ask Mr One Green Step), it’s not that hard to actually do.

In Victorian times, washing was difficult, physical labour. Underwear and protective garments like smocks and aprons were washed fairly frequently, but other clothes weren’t. Australians do a lot of laundry now, in part because our modern machines have made it a much less laborious process.

But laundry has a big impact on both the environment and your utility bills. A big sustainability issue is the energy required to wash the clothes during their lifetime. One study claims that 65% of the energy associated with a cotton t-shirt is in the use phase (as opposed to its production, transport or disposal). Additionally, the laundry accounts for 13% of the water use in a typical home.

The Great Aussie Debate: Top or Front?

I’m amazed at how strongly committed many Australians are to their top loading washing machines. A client recently told me “The Fisher & Paykel top loader is as Australian as Vegemite.” I bit my tongue about Australians also being the biggest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases and gently explained why it’s hard to beat a front loader for energy consumption, water use, and lifetime running costs. (Although in fairness to Fisher & Paykel, some of their top-loading machines perform really well.)

It helps to explain how the machines work. A top loader is basically a big bucket you put clothes and detergent in. Most top loaders are ‘agitators,’ which means they twist and turn clothes to move soapy water around and clean the clothes. This removes dirt quickly but can be hard on your garments.

A front loader uses a tumbling motion to clean. It adds enough water to soak the clothes, and then turns the clothes to the top of the drum and allows them to fall to the bottom – using gravity to push the soapy water through, which is a much gentler action.

The way the machines function explains why they take differing amounts of energy and water to run. Top loaders require a lot more water – up to three times as much as a front loader. This means they also require more detergent. The upside of using more water is that top loaders often rinse clothes more effectively.

Front loaders also tend to use less energy than top loaders, especially on warm and hot washes. If you always wash on cold water, the energy consumption is often similar between both types of machine. If you do wash in warm or hot water, consider switching as many loads as possible to cold. You’ll use 80% to 90% less energy, which adds up quickly on your utility bill.

But I Can’t Have a Front Loader Because …

I hear lots of objections to front loaders.

They have longer wash cycles.

True. This is in part because of the gentler motion they use and in part because they usually heat their own water (top loaders pull from your hot water system and therefore have nearly instant hot water). But many top loaders have ‘fast wash’ options for lightly soiled clothes, and the cold wash cycle is usually shorter too.

They cost more.

True. Top loaders are generally less expensive. But the key consideration here is the lifetime running cost of the machine. Over the lifetime of the machine, you will usually pay a lot more for the top loader in water, energy and detergent.

I have to spend more time ironing.

Possibly true. Front loaders usually have higher spin speeds, which can mean more creases in your clothes, which may mean more ironing. But they often have ‘anti-crease’ cycles or the ability to decrease the spin speed. If you’re drying your clothes on the line, this is the way to go to reduce wrinkles. If you’re tumble drying, the high spin speed means your dryer will use less energy. Or you can be like me and just wear wrinkled clothes!

You can’t add to the load after you’ve started it.

True. Is this a big problem? Is it worth buying a machine that uses up to three times the water and a lot more energy? If so, I’m surprised you’re still reading this!

Do the Research … and the Maths

Australia has a world-renowned star rating system for appliances, and it’s particularly useful when evaluating washing machines. Sources like Choice Magazine are also incredibly helpful.

In general, the more stars a machine has, the more energy- and water-efficient it is (there are separate star systems for energy and water). A one-star improvement can save an average of 10% on running costs. A great website is www.energyrating.gov.au, which provides detailed information on energy ratings for washers.

A word of warning, though: be sure you’re comparing washers of similar capacity when you compare star ratings. A larger machine may have more stars but could use more overall power in a year. And as Choice says, “Be aware too that a five-star energy rating isn’t a guarantee of five-star performance in other areas.” So be sure to do your research.

Also, bear in mind that slightly different considerations may come into play if you have a solar hot water system. If you’d like some advice about hooking your washing machine up to solar hot water systems, just email me at kirsten@onegreenstep.com.au.

Next up in the laundry saga? Either tumble dryers or green laundry tips. Let me know if you have a preference!

A good friend of ours came round the other day for dinner, and after a conversation about One Green Step and what we’re up to, she thought for a minute and then pronounced me a “lipstick hippy.”

Once I stopped laughing, I realised that it wasn’t a bad description. By calling me a lipstick hippy, she meant that although I’m passionate about all things green and sustainable, I’m not an extremist. I try to live my life with as little environmental impact as possible, but I’m far from perfect. And I make choices that some people believe disqualify me for true “green” status – such as eating meat, wearing leather, running my air conditioner and tumble dryer occasionally, and so on. And lest I forget to mention it, I’m plenty into makeup (hence the “lipstick” part).

But as I thought about it, the reason I like the moniker is because I’m not very happy with the alternatives. What am I? A “greenie?” A “sustainability nut?” An “environmentalist?” A “mung bean?”

As Kermit Says, It Ain’t Easy Being Green

My car (a fuel-efficient Ford Econetic) has the One Green Step logo, phone number and web address all over it. A marketing-savvy dad at school has told me he thinks it looks great but believes it falls short because it doesn’t say what I do on the car.

He’s right of course. The only reason it doesn’t say what I do is because I haven’t settled on a description I like well enough to plaster all over my vehicle.

I’m definitely an environmentalist, and probably have been since I first saw Iron Eyes Cody’s tear roll down his face in the Keep America Beautiful ads in the 1970s. But my concern goes beyond environmental issues to include social and economic ones as well.

Am I green? Yes, and I’m proud when people refer to me as a “greenie.” But the term “green” has become loaded too. It’s applied to seemingly everything these days – washing powders, electricity, nappies, buildings, marketing, political parties … the list goes on. And as a result, it is losing some of the power it once had. Terms like “greenwash” and “green fatigue” are now just as commonplace.

What about the word “sustainability?” I usually describe myself as a sustainability consultant, but I do agree it’s awkward and a bit of a buzzword. And, as many have pointed out, no one is quite sure how to define it. Conventional wisdom suggests the original definition was put forth in the Brundtland Commission’s 1987 report to the United Nations, Our Common Future. The report says:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That definition certainly rings true, but I don’t think calling someone a “sustainabilist” works.

Golden Ruler?

Joel Makower, the American writer who has been called the “guru of green business practices,” has a definition I like. He describes sustainability as “an intergenerational golden rule.”

(The “golden rule” in this instance is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This specific quote is commonly is attributed to Matthew 7:12, but it’s a safe bet that the concept has been around since before Christianity.)

The idea that what I’m working toward is building a world that will be cleaner, better, and safer for my children and their children really resonates with me. It’s also a big enough concept to encompass all my areas of concern. But if I start describing myself (or my business) as a “golden ruler,” I’m going to spend too much time explaining it.

So What Am I?

For now I’m happy enough with any of the above labels, but I think there’s an opportunity for someone more creative than I to craft the perfect term. Most of my clients start nodding vigorously when I explain why I named my business One Green Step – the goal is to help people with the journey at their own pace, focusing on what’s most important to them, within their budget, one green step at a time. Possibly there’s something in that.

Email me at kirsten@onegreenstep.com.au and tell me what you are, and whether you have the perfect term. Maybe I’ll put it on my car!

In the meantime, I’ll cheerfully be known as the lipstick hippy. By the way, I get my lipstick at bKind, the most amazing organic beauty bar in Subiaco.