Quality v. Quantity: Mindful Living...or Frugality often gets a bad rap.

 Frugality often gets a bad rap.

Why is it that so often living “frugally” is often linked mentally with want, deprivation and hardship?  Mention the word and immediately people conjure up archaic images of teabags drying on radiators, cold showers and penny-pinching, when in reality frugality is essentially a means of achieving a quality lifestyle and fulfilling the needs of the individual in society, whilst leaving minimum negative impact on community, the planet and its resources. Admittedly, the word frugal itself is hardly the most onomatopoeically-endearing of the English language, but it does certainly does lend a solid air of reality which encompasses the essence of what frugal living is about.  For me, being frugal is a means of directing the materials and resources available to me towards a goal which I want to achieve, enabling me to complete such tasks in a less wasteful, more efficient and thoroughly-considered fashion.  In no sense do I consider there to be any level of deprivation; in fact I think cutting the clutter and distraction from ones life allows for greater clarity to shine through, enabling one to visualise plainly what are the real essentials in life and how best to go about maintaining these.  In the overwhelmingly materialistic, consumer-driven society in which we live, more and more excesses of all has lead to a devaluing of quality in favour of inferior quantity.  Here frugality can act as a life raft in the sea of superfluousness, a wake-up call forcing us to examine what matters.  Giving a brief run-down through this topic does not do it justice as by its very nature greater depth of thought is required, but frugal living can be broadly addressed in three main sections:  the why, the how and the outcome.

Frugal living is a sustainable way of life and can be viewed as a way of guaranteeing, to the best of one’s ability, that the life one leads is truly meaningful.  My own personal definition of sustainability would run something like: “Sustainability is the thought process behind mindfully living a considered life, endeavouring to maintain an equilibrium between personal development, integrity, and responsibility, such that the needs of future generations are not compromised through mismanagement of the earth’s resources by present generations.”  Lofty ideals you may think, but unless one strives toward an upward goal there would certainly be no motivation to continue on.  In the case of any goal that requires longevity, soundly-founded motivations need to be established before anything is ventured and frugal sustainability is no different.  We need to ask ourselves “Why should I do this?  What are the benefits to me personally and what are the benefits to the wider community?  Am I ready to accept that my personal decisions can and will have a large impact on those around me?”. If these questions can be answered honestly and solidly there will be sufficient motivational undercurrents to sustain one through the practical implementations of frugal living.  Starting small and incorporating small changes on a day-to-day basis, great success can be accomplished through the setting of many small, realistic and achievable goals. 

Avoiding procrastination is a definite requirement for living the frugal lifestyle, but once this reality is accepted as a hitherto-unrecognised benefit, the sky’s the limit for the creative ways in which frugality can be lived out, making your time, money and resources work hardest for you.  From practical applications such as reducing waste in the home, buying less consumer goods and increasing productivity by utilising goods to the very end of their product-life, to more fun and unique approaches such as going on self-imposed spending ‘diets’, enjoying frugal freezer-food meals and trying out ‘Meatless Mondays’.  Certainly we must realise that there is no one magic-bullet, simplistic route to achieve these goals, but we need to take every small avenue available to us, making numerous small changes.

The outcome of embarking on the frugal living path is that it allows for greater personal freedom.  Less “stuff” means a reduction in time and energy consumed whilst absorbed in (or perhaps burdened with) said “stuff”. We are afforded more time to reflect and think on our life-goals.  We are mindfully conscious of what we are doing and why we are doing it.  Savouring experiences and enjoying simple pleasures are incomparably more fulfilling than rushing through a series of tick-the-box life goals set up on a scale belonging to the Joneses.  Paring back the excess allows us to appreciate all the more how rich we really are – after all, our attention is no longer divided in multiple different ways but rather we are free to focus and enjoy the delights of a smaller number of better-curated occupations.  Each of us are the cultivator of our own person and our personal development, which in turn is amplified and combined with that of others to create the societies in which we live.  We have the right to enjoy this, but more importantly we have the responsibility to do so - not only for our own sakes’ but for the sake of our fellow man and frugal living is a powerful way to do so.

Aoife Beglin

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Consumerism: The enemy of the environment

The first decade of the 21^st century saw the emergence of the importance of protecting our environment. Being part of the school system at the time meant watching as curriculums changed and seeing notices over light switches to remind the teachers about the new measures in place. I remember when recycling became more than just a phenomenon, it became a way of life. I recall wondering which bin my bottle went in to, until finally it all became second nature. For my generation, climate change is something that has been a part of our lives as we grew up.

Everyone knows that climate change is not something to joke about. Why is it then, that in approaches to climate change, it is always the economic impact that is considered first? Our finite resources such as oil are under risk and will run out relatively soon, yet we continue to burn through our resources at an alarming rate. Our sea-levels are rising, our species are dying out and we have reduced freshwater availability. These are only the beginning of the long list of climate change effects. Yet we constantly need a reason to make change. When considering making changes to our lifestyle to benefit the environment, the incentives are always economical – how much money will we save?

News outlets and politicians use buzz words like “environmentally friendly” or “climate change aware” but they have been thrown around for so long that they have lost all impact or meaning. No one seems to comprehend the extremities we are facing if our current pace of life does not change.  As a geography student myself, I am aware that the impact our current way of life has on the environment around us is vast. However, I was unaware of the EXTENT to which our resources are running out.

Consumerism has engulfed the developed world and millions of jobs are focused on selling the consumer products and convincing them that they always need more. Marketing campaigns that depict happiness upon purchase of a certain product place pressure on consumers to consistently be purchasing their new product, or they will not achieve this generated form of contentment.

Technological advances, though beneficial in many respects, feed into this consumerist lifestyle; the consistent desire to have the latest gadget. Our daily lives are consumerist driven, even on a college basis. Walking around with coffee cup in hand is no longer a source of refreshment, but a fashion necessity. The pressure to have a smartphone is outstanding, while a new laptop every year is a must. Wearing the same outfit twice in one week is unprecedented and accessories are expected to change all the time.

 

A busy shopping mall, another example of our consumerist society.

Why is leading a sustainable lifestyle not fashionable? As a global community, we need to generalise the idea of living a life where your demands on the planet are at a reasonable rate. The phenomenon of doing more with less is not scientifically startling, but it is challenging. I am of the belief that by a combined volume of small efforts, climate change can be tackled head on. Everyone knows that you shouldn’t leave the tap on when you’re brushing your teeth and that lights should be switched off upon exiting a room, but these were the things introduced when this climate change phenomenon started more than a decade ago. Surely we have made more advancement since then?

The next decade will be challenging for economists and environmentalists alike. While economists attempt to predict the financial future of the developed world, environmentalists will be trying to predict how much longer we have on the planet before something has to give. The experts in both fields need to take each other’s concerns on board, and recognise the validity of the alternative area of expertise. By combining the knowledge of two fields of people, a more feasible way of dealing with our every changing climate can be devised. Hopefully this will come into place before it is too late.

Bredeen Rooney

Photo source: http://www.gpsmagazine.com/2008/01/ionkids_child_monitoring_syste.php?page=3#.UVGrmBwvnLc

@nickgraytcd

More than just a pretty face? Yes, a sustainable face!

Mother Nature always knows best. But for those of us who what to enhance what she has given us, there’s makeup. And thank God for that!  Yet, I wonder, what cost is the environment paying for our beautifully made up faces? The answer, it appears is a high one.

Most common makeup brands produce their products using a concoction of various different artificial chemicals such as parabens and petrochemicals. In particular, parabens have been shown to have very worrying effects to A) humans and B) fish that they come into contact with. It is a little known fact that up to 60% of the makeup that you put on your face is absorbed in to your body. So much for beauty being only skin deep!

It is therefore unsettling that chemicals, such as parabens have been shown to affect hormones and mimic estrogen in the human body, especially since excess estrogen has the potential to cause breast cancer [1]. Once off your face, these chemicals can then enter the main sources of lakes and rivers etc. This can be detrimental to the marine life of these waters and cause permanent damage to ecosystem. In fact, parabens have been shown to cause male fish to be transformed into ‘intersex fish’ – male fish with female characteristics. Mother Nature would not be impressed.

The next concern I have with makeup is its packaging. The packaging is often made of non-biodegradable plastics. So where does it all end up? The answer is a landfill site. Landfill sites are the horrible spots on the face of this planet. And concealer is not the answer! In fact, beauty products make up approximately a third of landfill waste [2]! Finally, the way makeup is manufactured can have a huge carbon footprint, not to mention the carbon cost of sending these products to the consumers world wide.

So what is the solution? The obvious answer is to go au natural and just forget about makeup all together. Realistically, however, this is never going to happen. And thankfully it is possible to look good and allow the environment to look good too. There are brands out there that sell natural cosmetics, such as Futurenatural. Its founder, Emma Pezzack, promises that the makeup she sells is made with 100% natural ingrediants and is sold in recycled packaging [3]. Once finished with your products you can then recycle them. Origins retail store accept empty cosmetics containers for recycling, regardless of the brand. The best part is that you get rewarded with a free sample of one of their high-performance skincare products in return.

To further reduce the carbon footprint of your pretty face, you should choose a brand the manufactures its products in an efficient way. Apparently, Eastman GEM technology is the way forward. GEM technology is better than conventional manufacturing processes in that it uses enzymes and closely controlled manufacturing conditions to produce its cosmetics. This in turn reduces unwanted by-products, consumes less energy and can lead to a 52% reduction in CO₂ emissions. ‘The beauty is in the process’ [4].  So behind the pretty picture, there is an ugly truth. Makeup can cover up your flaws but it can create flaws in the environment. So, if you want to continue looking fresh-faced and beautiful well into the future, there is a need to evaluate what’s in your makeup bag. And remember, sustainable is always beautiful!

Megan Pendred

---

References:

[1] http://toxicbeautyblog.com/dangers-of-parabens/the-problem-with-parabens/

[2] http://blog.myskin.com/insights/beauty-and-the-environment-–-the-cosmetic-impact/

[3] http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/fashion-beauty/green-cosmetics-460407

[4]  http://www.eastman.com/Company/GreenProcess/Pages/Overview.aspx

In-Vitro Grown Meat - a low carbon alternative?

Which scene do you think is more appealing? Lush green pastures, covering dozens of acres, filled with grazing cattle - or muscle cell culture, floating in a petri dish flooded with growth hormones, nutrients and stimulants. The end result of both: the beef burger you're going to chow down on for dinner. Easy decision, right?

Image source
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/uk-science-meat-idUKTRE7AA1Z020111111

Not so fast - there’s more to this “lab meat” than it initially seems. In-vitro meat – grown from animal tissue in an indoor setting - has the potential to be just as palatable and tasty as the "real deal".  The potential industry revolution has been garnering more and more attention in recent years: in 2011, PETA announced an award of $1 million to whoever managed to produce meat from cell culture which is as good as the meat from a whole animal (1). Though currently too expensive for the average person - a meat for a beef burger currently costs about £200,000 (2) - the costs will eventually drop, allowing those who find meat eating morally reprehensible finally have that steak they've been dreaming about for years.

But there is more than just an ethical benefit in replacing traditionally-grown red and white meat with the in-vitro variant.  The live meat industry is a massive contributor to global environmental change; it is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, takes up 2/3 of agricultural land, and costs 2500-5000 gallons of water per pound of beef produced (3,4). Clearly, reducing our meat and dairy consumption is a simple but significant change that each individual could take to reduce one's carbon footprint. But in-vitro meat is an interesting alternative; the production method results in less greenhouse gas emissions, requires less energy and could reduce emissions at other points in the supply chain. A recent study by Tuomisto and de Mattos (5 - include a diagram, possible?) estimated that lab-grown meat would require 99% less land use, 82-96% less water consumption, 78-96 less greenhouse gas emissions, and 7-45% less energy per volume of pork, beef and sheep (poultry would require more energy but much less land  and water). Though these figures are built on many assumptions, technological innovations could meet these targets. Meat appears to be back on the menu in our environmentally-turbulent world.

The possibilities of in-vitro meat do not end there. Meat could be produced in urban environments and delivered rapidly to food distributers and shops, reducing the eco-burden of shipping and transportation from the source of production. The monetary and energy costs of freezing the product would be reduced also, as excess fats and bone would not need to stored. More savings could be made by "vertical farming" - high rise buildings devoted to the indoor production of food stuffs in urban environments (6). These "food factories" aim to be as efficient as a normal ecosystem, recovering water by hydroponics and aeroponics. Though conceived of as being a means to locally source fruit and vegetables in cities or town, combining the concept with in-vitro meat culturing has the potential to curb the environmental impact of overall food consumption.

Reducing food wastage and the consumption of meat and dairy products is an effective way we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But unfortunately not everyone is willing to sign up for the vegetarian lifestyle for the sake of environment. In-vitro culturing gives us a chance of a future where environmental change is under control but the humble hamburger remains – even if it were grown in a test tube.

Kevin Daly

References:

1. http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/peta-offers-1m-for-invitro-meat-26720454.html

2.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16972761

3. http://woods.stanford.edu/environmental-venture-projects/consequences-increased-global-meat-consumption-global-environment

4. http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm

5. Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat ProductionEnviron. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (14), pp 6117–6123 Hanna L.Tuomisto and M. Joost Teixeira de Mattos

6. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-of-vertical-farms

Reduce your carbon Paw print: Tips for greening up your pet



I can be green too!



In 2009, a couple from New Zealand, Robert and Brenda Vale, wrote a book called ‘Time to Eat the Dog?’ in which they discussed the devastating effect that being careless with how you care for you pet can have on the environment.  According to the book, the carbon paw print of a pet dog is double that of your standard SUV, making man's best friend the environment's worst enemy. Other pets targeted were hamsters, which were compared to a plasma television, and goldfish, which actually burn energy equivalent to two cell phones. With a few small changes to how you care for your animals, you can help reduce your carbon footprint by reducing their carbon paw print.

1: Adopt Pets

There are plenty of lovely pets just waiting in animal shelters to find new homes. As well as doing good, by adopting you are also reducing the demand for pets from mills, which have large carbon footprints due to their use of low-grade food (the production of which has high carbon emissions).

2: Recycle and Reuse

Lend a helping hand. Instead of binning your old toys, beds and accessories when your pet grows out of them (or just tired of them), drop them up to your local pet shelter. Not only is this better for the environment but you will also be helping out very worthy charities. You could also swap old pet accessories among your neighbours or friends who are also pet owners.

3: Pick up Waste

Instead of using plastic bags to pick up your dog waste, opt for biodegradable bags that break down in about a month – a lot better than the 1500 years it takes plastic to degrade. If you have cats, think about switching to an organic, plant-based litter.

4: Walk to Walks

Why drive your dog around to bring them for a walk? Look for parks and open spaces nearer to your house to reduce emissions. If you need to drive, try to carpool with other dog owners.

5: Buy them Green Goods

These days, eco-friendly pet accessories are everywhere. When buying your pets toys, look for toys made from recycled materials or sustainable fibres such as hemp. You can also buy hemp collars and leads, which are much better than the more common plastic or leather. You can also get beds made from organic materials or recycled PET bottles. Failing this, use old towels or cushions to make your own eco-friendly pet bed.

6: Be Careful about Food

When buying pet food, opt for higher-quality foods, which have used sustainable methods and are conscious of their carbon footprint when producing it. Take the time to read the labels on all pet food packaging, and look for foods that do not contain synthetic ingredients or chemically altered natural ingredients. Buy chicken and rabbit flavours over beef, which will also lower your pet’s carbon paw print. As well as this, try your hand at using up scraps of old food and vegetables to make your own dog treats. You’ll save money and also reduce your waste by using up odds and ends and not having excess packaging from store-bought goods. When you are buying pet food, buy in bulk to reduce the packaging.

Ailbhe Smith

The 21st century, The age of expiration!

I-phones, I-pads, MRI scanners, solar panels, computer chips, superconductors and spacecrafts, if I asked you what do all of these objects have in common what would you say? That they are all examples of technology, the age of science, products that are improving our lives and future? This all may be true but the answer I was looking for was that all of these products may not be around in the next century.

It may seem bizarre that objects that we associate as symbols of the future may not be around in the future. The rare earth metals and gases used to manufacture these products are non-renewable and are only present on earth in finite amounts. Helium which is critical for superconductors, space exploration and medical technology will run out in 25 years. Global hafnium supplies, which are utilised in the manufacturing of the chip in this computer, is predicted to be exhausted by 2017 (yes,it is the year 2013 now!) The screen you may be reading this off may be an LCD screen and if so say goodbye as indium, the main component, will be exhausted by 2020. Zinc...2037, uranium...2090, copper...2100...

It is disheartening, especially to me as a scientist, that the major advances of the past few years in medicine, nano-and micro-technology will probably not be commercially viable to expand on due to the lack of rare metals, that the recent advances in renewable energy such as hybrid batteries, energy-efficient lighting and solar panels will ironically come to a halt as the non-renewable resources used exhaust. But as well as being disheartened, a worry has begun to creep in as I consider how we are beginning to depend on these new technologies. 28% of helium supplies are used to super-cool magnets for MRI scanners. What will happen when this runs out in less than 30 years? Does anyone have a back-up plan?

We claim to be a caring species who are trying to live sustainably so that the future generations, our children and grandchildren, can have the chance to experience the amazing world that we live in today. Unfortunately, they will have to deal with the past generations mistakes, from climate change to ozone layer depletion and its consequences such as higher global levels of cancers and other diseases. These generations will need much greater control over their environments than we do today and therefore, much better technology in order to survive.

We need to claim responsibility, even if industries and governments won’t. Can more efficient goods with longer lives be designed? Is the recreational use of these rare materials acceptable? Awareness needs to be raised now if we have any chance of halting the exploitation and expiration, as I for one could not live with the guilt of knowing that in the future a sick child may die due to a lack of MRI scanners all because we wasted the helium needed to cool these machines in our party balloons!

Ailis O’Carroll

What the Horsemeat Scandal has Taught Us

 I have no problem eating horsemeat, however, what the recent horsemeat scandal has taught us, is that we can no longer take for granted what we are actually eating or where exactly it is coming from. Not only has this investigation raised questions into both the regulation and traceability of the meat industry in Europe, but it has also highlighted what a globalised and mechanised system the modern food industry is.

Following the discovery by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that Horse DNA was contained within a third of all tested frozen beefburgers and ready meals, a large-scale enquiry was carried out into the origin of these meat products. The enquiry quickly spread to the UK where products such as frozen spaghetti Bolognese sold in supermarkets including Aldi, Tesco and Findus were found to include 100% horsemeat. It was subsequently discovered that the meat supply chain could be traced back through 8 different companies, located in different countries of Europe including Cyprus, Romania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France.

For me, two main aspects have arisen from this scandal. Firstly, in an article written in ‘the Guardian’, it was highlighted that economy beefburgers (cheap, industrialised burgers) are legally allowed to consist of only 47% beef, the remainder made up of protein additives, fat and water (A fact that surely makes the idea of a 100% horsemeat burger suddenly sound a lot more appealing). Secondly, the distance that food is now travelling before it even gets to our plates, a figure that is certainly not decreasing.

In terms of sustainable living, the farm to fork distance is perhaps the most significant aspect that needs to be tackled. In the UK alone, one in four heavy goods vehicles are in fact carrying food. Considering how many tonnes of CO₂ emissions could be saved each year if less food was transported such long distances, it is clear to see the potential this area has for drastically reducing our carbon footprints. In the USA this problem has actually worsened. In 1997, the average distance travelled by food stood at 6760 km. However, by 2004 this figure had increased to 8240 km.

By making a greater effort to source local goods as well as promoting seasonal diets, we can not only radically cut down the distance which our food is travelling, but also ensure that a higher level of traceability and quality is delivered for all food products. This will also help in both augmenting the local economy as well as decreasing our carbon footprint. The problem with this ideal however, is ultimately cost related. Although it is much cheaper for us to consume food products bought in supermarkets, the true environmental cost of this practise is often overlooked. The sad reality is, that when faced with a decision of spending a little extra on a locally sourced, 100% Irish beefburger, we will usually choose the cheaper, lower quality option sourced from far afield, attached with a substantial carbon footprint.

As it is simply not economically viable for many people to source the generally more expensive local or even national goods, the government needs to take a more active role in creating incentives for people to buy local. Unfortunately, the irony is that the government itself lacks the money to fund such programmes. Unless the general population recognises the importance of buying local, it looks likely that our future consuming habits will continue to seek out the cheapest option.

Patrick Moss

Reference: 

Lawrence, F. (2013) Horsemeat scandal: the essential guide. The Guardian. 15^th February. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-the-essential-guide [accessed 02/04/2013]

The Real Cost of a Google Search!



Can Google go Green? 

Google searching has become a basic tool in everyday life. If you don’t know the answer, just Google it! Since its launch in 1997, billions of people worldwide have been using it. It’s a free search engine which I’m pretty sure most people use on a daily basis. For us it’s free to use, but what is the real cost of a Google Search? There are many factors that need to be taken into account, such as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted not only from generating the search results, but the emissions from our electronic devices while we are searching.

A typical Google search takes on average about 0.2 seconds to return results. That Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO₂. ^[1] It seems to be a small enough figure. But in 2011, Google handled about 1,722,071,000,000 searches! ^[2] That amounts to roughly 350 thousand tonnes of CO₂ emissions that year! But who owns that carbon emission? Us or Google? We’re the ones using the search engine, but Google’s the one that’s returning the results. Google has gone green and offset their carbon emissions to deal with their environmental impact. We too should aim to reduce our carbon emissions.

That was just the carbon dioxide emission cost of the actual Google search, the cost of running the device that the search is done on has not been taken into account yet! According to a Harvard University physicist, a typical search on a desktop computer generates about 7 grams of CO₂. ^[3] This is taking into account the CO₂ emissions generated from both the Google search and the desktop computer. So really that amounts to about 12 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions for the year 2011 just for Google searches!

In doing this blog alone, I have already done three Google searches. One for finding out the actual cost of a Google search, another for how many searches Google handled in one year and finally another for getting an image for this blog. So I have already generated 21 grams of CO₂ just by searching for information for this blog. This does not include the time I spent using the computer to type this blog up and emailing it!

So how can we reduce our Google search carbon emissions? Instead of making unnecessary searches, we should think about what we really need to look up. In fact, we can reduce our overall carbon emissions by using sustainable renewable sources of energy, such as wind and sunlight. If our electronics are powered by renewable energy, we have already immensely reduced our CO_2­ emissions.

Ivana Yeow

[1] http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2009/01/powering-google-search.html
[2] http://www.statisticbrain.com/google-searches/
[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10140142-54.html
Image: http://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/#/

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Turn off that tap!

Although the concept of water conservation seems a daunting and impossible task, as the Tesco motto states- “every little helps”. With fresh water supply contributing to only 3% of total global water resources, the idea of domestic water conservation by individuals can make a significant difference. And with the introduction of water charges in Ireland next year, never has there been a better time to use our water more wisely- especially since these charges could result in an annual household charge of €370 (euro). On a survey carried out by world water day, 9 out of 10 Irish people were oblivious to how much water they consume - extraordinarily this number has been estimated at over 150 litres a day. So how can one person expend so much?
Ponder these points:

·         One bath can use up to 50 litres of water

·         A toilet that is flushed 5-6 times a day uses 40 litres of water

·         8 litres of water is wasted each minute a tap is left on

·         A dishwasher uses around 18 litres of water per wash

·         A washing machine uses over 20 litres of water per wash

From the above findings, provided by water use it wisely, it is apparent that everyday processes can cause this incredible accumulation of water wastage. As a result I decided to spend a day attempting to minimize my water usage to around 50 litres. Straight away I knew this task was going to be difficult and that I would have to utilise my water sensibly. To begin, I normally spend at least 6 minutes in the shower so I quickly realised if I was to stay within my limit I would have to face the day without my morning shower- a terrifying thought. Also I knew by flushing the toilet 5-6 times a day I would nearly reach my target so there would have to be great consideration into how to reduce this-much to my roommates despair. Here is my account of the day:

·         Breakfast- porridge made with a cup of water and tea = 0.2 litres

·         Drinking water- 3 litres

·         Brushing teeth with tap off = 2 litres

·         Washing hands throughout the day = 2 litres

·         Flushing toilet 3 times (it was a challenge) = 24 litres

·         Dinner- boiled rice with grilled chicken = 1.2 litres

·         Dishwasher put on at end of day= 18 litres

Total consumption = 50.5 litres

While water conservation cannot happen without consideration, it is not an impossible task. I was successfully able to decrease my water usage to around 50 litres. Although this may not be feasible everyday (a shower is essential now and again, clothes need to be washed ect.), it shows that huge cut backs are possible. I found a few simple solutions can reduce water consumption particularly in individuals. By minimizing shower time to two or three minute (which none of us want to do) you can save up to 60 litres per shower. By installing water-efficient dual flush toilet you can reduce water use by 2 litres per flush (on a full flush) and by 4 litres per flush (on a reduced flush). Another aspect that I had not considered before this was turning off the tap while brushing your teeth- such a simple task that can limit water wastage to 2 litres a day. Granting that reducing water usage to less than 50 litres a day is a very hard task, there is still a lot to be said for the amount we can save- so come on… turn off that tap!

Shauna Quinn

Adjusting to a 'Greener Lifestyle'

I never realized how different two countries and cultures could be until I moved from America to Ireland. The food is healthier, the stores are unfamiliar, the street signs are in different locations, and the lifestyle is much more environmentally friendly. In America, I can enjoy a hot, long shower whenever I please, I can keep the air heater on in my house as often as I like, and I can drive my car wherever I want without considering the impact on the environment. It only took about 30 minutes of life in Ireland for me to realize: I cannot live like an American anymore.

Upon my arrival at my apartment in Ireland, the landlord immediately explained the electricity system to me. I was handed six electricity cards- these cards are equipped with 20 Euros worth of electricity credits each. The cards are plugged one at a time into an electricity box located directly next to the front door. This box calculates how much electricity you use and it reduces the amount of Euros on the card simultaneously. In America, this pay as you go system is completely unheard of. In order to adjust to this new lifestyle, I only keep my room heater on for approximately 60 minutes a day, I only charge my electronics when they are incredibly low on battery, I always unplug all appliances when they are not in use, and I rely on sunlight to illuminate my room more often than the light switch. As a result, I find myself wearing warmer clothes, spending more time in public places, and cooking my food as quickly as possible.

The hardest adjustment I think any American has to overcome when moving to Ireland is the use of the immersion heater. Electric Ireland defines an immersion heater as, “a convenient way to heat water as they allow you to heat as much or as little water as you need”. The immersion heater simply has two switches: on/off and sink/bath. In order to take a hot shower, you must turn the heater to on and bath and then wait an entire hour before you can get into the shower. Once in the shower, you must wash your hair and body fairly quickly before the hot water turns cold. After your shower is complete, it is important to remember to turn the immersion heater off or else your electricity cards will be additionally charged. I certainly miss being able to wake up in the morning and instantly enjoy a long, hot shower, but I developed a huge appreciation for how conscious the Irish are of their electricity use.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States of America generates a total of 3.75 trillion kilowatt-hours annually and Ireland generates 26.1 billion kilowatt-hours annually (2). Dividing both of these numbers by the total population of each country concludes that the average American uses 11,948 kilowatt-hours annually and the average Irish citizen uses only 5,527 annually. This difference is extraordinary. Living in Ireland has certainly made me more conscious of my personal energy consumption and water use. Although it was difficult to adjust at first, I now realize that the Irish do it better. When I return to America in May, I plan to continue living the Irish “greener” lifestyle as much as possible.

Jenna Snyder

Eco Gyms - Generating Your Own Electricity?

A photo of The Green Microgym in Portland, Oregon.
(image from: http://www.thegreenmicrogym.com)

The other day I was working out at my gym and I looked around at the rows of people moving along to the rhythms of their various ellipticals, treadmills, cycles, and stair masters, their store-purchased water bottles perched atop the blinking electronic dashes of their machines; I took note of the row of large televisions that constantly blare at the front of the room; I thought about the lights turned up bright, despite the sunlight flooding in through the wall of windows; and I thought: “This seems wrong!” I was surrounded by consumption and wasted energy. All of the cardio machines, TV sets, fans, stereos and lights in this gym are plugged in and running all day long from open till close. Fitness centers, particularly in the United States (my home country) use an extraordinary amount of energy and water. Treadmills alone require about 1500 watts of energy to power and most machines and equipment in gyms are left on all day long (1).Stationary bikes lose about 90% of the energy they use in heat while only 10% is used to actually power the machine (2).  The gym would appear to be the ultimate antithesis of an environmentally friendly institution. It seems silly to be on machines that are reproducing motions that our bodies should be able to do on their own. Our lifestyles should, in theory, be supporting our health, right? We should be out in nature, running and walking and cycling and lifting every day items and we should all be in perfect shape. Gyms, in a perfect world, should be entirely unnecessary. But that is not how it works. We are endlessly confronted with the paradox of the developed world’s endless struggle with fitness. None of us are strangers to the epidemic of obesity that struck America and moved its way over to Ireland (and in a big way, might I add!)

Our world cannot become sustainable if the health our population is slowly deteriorating into a big lump of overweight consumers. Many gym enthusiasts will never give up their memberships in exchange for a jog outside, and many unfit or unhealthy individuals may have to rely on a gym as a way to find support and assistance in their efforts to become healthier.

So, are gyms just a necessary evil that will go on producing emissions at remarkably rapid rates, and we should just turn our heads the other way? It doesn’t seem so entirely hopeless! I started doing some research into the topic of sustainability in gyms and quickly found that I am not the only person who is troubled by the vast amount of water and energy wasted by gyms, particularly in the US. There is a wealth of information about the inefficiency of gyms and health centers, but there is also an incredibly interesting new trend of what are called eco gyms. Eco gyms operate on the idea that they can capture the energy that is expended while working out and use it to power their facilities, in theory rendering the building self-sustaining. Like gerbils spinning around a wheel, humans in a gym are in essence doing little else beyond producing energy in the form of burning calories. One of the many gyms that I read about was from Portland, Oregon (my hometown!) and uses incredibly low levels of energy by using specially designed machines that are and hooked up to DC generators that produce energy to power the facility (3). The gym also uses refurbished and sustainably manufactured equipment (even mountain bikes made of bamboo!) and the bathrooms use special water heaters and eco-friendly cleaning products. Eco gyms are becoming increasingly popular around the globe (4). They also include lower levels of lighting, relying more on natural light, more eco-friendly water usage, and sustainable cafes in their lobbies. There are, of course many problems, such as the high costs of “greening” an already existing facility, and the fact that many gyms are too small to actually produce enough energy to run their own machines, but these ideas seem incredibly helpful in moving the fitness industry in the right direction (5).  Of course, the only real way to eliminate emissions issues with gym facilities would be to move everyone’s workouts outside, but it would be great to see more facilities at least attempting to institute some of these practices or even for cities to start adding incentives for companies to do so so that our health and environment can become more sustainable. Some of these products, such as cardio equipment that captures and stores usable energy could even be useful in the home, producing power to fuel your ipods and cell phone chargers. You could offset your own footprint to some extent with your own human watts! I love the gym, but I am going to be more conscientious and start taking my workouts outside whenever the weather permits.

Katie Gourley

(1) http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/treadmills-suck-kilowatts.html

(2) http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Green-Building/Gyms-Get-Sustainable.html

(3) http://www.thegreenmicrogym.com/
(4) http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Green-Building/Gyms-Get-Sustainable.html

(5) http://www.everyjoe.com/2008/09/23/health/green-gyms-talk-about-powering-through-your-workout-663/

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Waste Storage Efficiency

I feel that improvement should be given on the recycling of household plastic and metal materials such as bottles, cans, etc. A problem with storing these materials for appropriate recycling is that they take up a lot of space in the home if not compressed properly, thus the containers they are kept in can overflow very easily, which not only discourages people from maintaining them for recycling, but also, for many, results in frequent visits to the recycling units.

^{Compression of recyclable material would allow more to be stored efficiently}

However, if households were to contain a small yet strong compressor for these materials in order to flatten them completely, more of them can be stored between recycles. The amount of carbon emissions which would go into making these handy compressors would thus be returned by the increase in waste material recycled appropriately and the reduction of recycling trips required. This means that excess material would no longer have to be inappropriately discarded until enough space has been freed-up to dispose of them properly.

Sarah Malone

The Reality of Water Resources

The lecture on living sustainably that I have taken this semester has really opened my eyes to how little recourses we have left and to how much we are using up the limited amount that we do have. Water is one very important resource that in the western world we are using in absolute excess. We (the human race) are using 50% of our fresh water supply. We are slowly but surely drying up rivers and lakes all over the world, such as the Aryl Sea, which was one of the four largest lakes in the world and now only holds a tenth of the water it once had.

With the majority of things we drink, eat and use, water is involved in its manufacture. This can vary from 300 liters used for 1 liter of beer to 10,850 liters used for 1 pair of jeans. We are using up the worlds water supply at an unbelievable rate. In the western world we take water for granted. We all know the figures of other human beings in different parts of the world dying of water related diseases and water deprivation so why are we not being more careful with the amount of water we use? Small change can make a difference, are only hope is that we all try harder to use less. You can be just as happy and turn the tap off when you brush your teeth, so do.

Jasmine Patel-Bolger

Water, water, everywhere...?

In parts of Ireland it only rains 150 days a year, much less than we may initially think. Our annual water consumption (per capita) in Ireland is roughly 55,000 litres. Numerous daily activities that we all take part in consume water. This is ever so true at home; from the moment we wake to moment we go to bed. We all wash our hands, cook, shower, drink tea and coffee, brush our teeth, bathe, water the garden, wash our clothes, flush the toilet, wash the car and clean the dog. But are the options we take even necessary?

Research by Ideal Standard reveals that the average Irish person uses roughly 150 litres of water per day. But 52% of us use over 108 litres per day simply showering. And 40% of us flush the toilet 5-6times per day, using around 40 litres.  Our day-to-date habits create a huge water footprint.

We must change our living habits so as to adapt to a changing world. Climate change has, in recent years, led to shortages of water in Ireland; snow fall tied up water in the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11, and summers over the last few years (except 2011) have recorded temperatures “above normal” according to Met Éireann. These trends highlight the significance of using our water wisely and conserving it whenever necessary.

As a people we must make changes, to our lifestyles and habits. Choosing an 8 minute shower over a bath can cut the water used by 50% to 40 litres. Installing modern, dual flush toilets to replace traditional styles can reduce consumption by 80%. On an extreme level; become a herbivore! According to the British Meat blog it can take up to 15 times more water to produce one 1g of animal protein over 1g of plant protein. But there are also small things that can be done too; stop the tap while brushing your teeth, only use full washes when using the washing machine or dishwasher (no half washes), ensure the tap is fully turned off when you’re finished with it, and if it really is necessary to water those petunias, then use a watering can so that you water only what you need to.

Our futures are in our hands, and it is up to us to make the right choices. See links below:

British Meat - http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm

Ideal Standard - http://www.idealstandard.ie/press/consumerpr/general/Article2686.aspx

Met Éireann - http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-summary.asp

Daniel Moody