My frustration in this space is that, based in part on training as an engineer, is that I question the entire economy of a "thing". So, for example, being told to rinse food or beverage containers before recycling. How much extra water does that use? Does that make sense in a dry region that may be dealing with water scarcity? In a municipal water system, what about the chemicals added to the water supply (e.g. chlorine/chloramine, fluoride) and their sources / economies. That says nothing about whether or not the items are effectively recycled (there have certainly been articles about recyclers rejecting shipments over contamination and where these things are sent for recycling and the energy required for shipping).
Another point of angst is that, in many situations, simply asking questions or attempting to have a rational or reasoned debate can get you shouted down and called names.
I do strive to live in a news-free zone, so I don't hear a lot of these arguments.
I advocate for native plants from the perspective of the fact that they grow well in the area of note. On our properties, I will preferentially plant native plants in an attempt to provide a small island of environmental benefit and provide habitat for native animals and birds. I don't use 'cides on our properties...I'll have to read that dark side thread.
My first real encounter with veganism from a health perspective was a little over five years ago. Some of what I heard made sense to me and some did not. It did prompt us to shift our diet to being a bit more plant heavy and pay attention to serving size. Doing so led to some significant weight loss...slacking more recently meant some of that came back, but I'm still about 20 lbs lighter than when I got married over 30 years ago. Since that first encounter and diving a bit deeper, it amused / amazed me that most dietary concepts from all plants to no plants have medical professionals backing them saying it's the best human diet. That certainly comes across as contradictory, which simply confuses as to which path to follow. It may be that all the diets that work lean into whole or real food rather than highly processed food-like substances. It could also imply that both ends of the spectrum may be missing the concept of bioindividuality in that a carnivore diet may work for one person while a vegan diet may be best for another. So, I've focused on eating cleaner (more wholesome, less chemicals, more local).
Defending Beef is an interesting book that goes through some of the arguments surrounding beef as being "bad". Being a lawyer, the author is trained in making arguments, so I found it rather convincing. Some estimates claim there were far more bison in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans than there are cattle now. Of course, at that time, nobody was putting bison into feedlots and finishing them on grain. For a number of years, we've made a large beef purchase (1/2 when there were teenage boys here, 1/4 the last number of years) from a neighbouring farmer which is custom cut and wrapped at a local small butcher. It's local supporting local business and farmer and has a lot less transport miles. The extra beauty of it is that it is nicer meat than we can typically find in a supermarket and, while it isn't inexpensive, after increases in the price of beef in Canada, it isn't a significantly different cost for us.
I certainly agree that growing as much as we can in our own garden is extremely valuable. One positive is that over the years of walking the dog in our local urban environment is that I'm seeing more food being grown in front yards than I did decades ago. It may be a small shift, but a positive one. Where it makes sense, I think growing food makes a lot of sense. If you want to plant a hedge for privacy, is there a berry shrub / tree that can do the trick? Alternatively, nitrogen-fixing shrubs could support the rest of your garden in growing better and reduce or eliminate fertilizer use.
Buying airline tickets these days often comes with the option to pay more to offset the carbon associated with your seat. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The cynic in me wonders where that money winds up and how it is used. If it is planting trees, are they being planted in a biodiverse forest and being supported and monitored? Planting a tree is different than bringing a tree to maturity. I'd love to know where you find those $400 airline tickets though
I can say that $400 worth of fuel in our primary vehicles goes far enough that it also involves a night away from home...I'm not sure how one would want to factor that into the scheme of things. If staying in a hotel, there is potential for heating / cooling / lighting a lot of dead space.
A friend purchased an EV early this year. He recently told me that his electric bill is being discounted for the charging. By signing up for a program, he was provided with a charger and the electricity he uses charging his EV (also has a PHEV) results in a discount. Over time, the rebate he gets rises on a cents/kW-hr use to a point that is actually higher than current charges in our jurisdiction. This is possible because of corporations purchasing carbon credits. I'm not sure how I feel about that, other than it is interesting that the price of EVs for the most part implies they are used primarily by demographics with higher incomes. Going back to the idea of the entire life cycle of the things we use, one should consider how the electricity to charge EVs is generated, how the materials for EVs (particularly elements used in batteries) are mined and processed, and how these materials will be disposed of.
We had a dryer fail relatively recently. We purchased a clothes horse and have used it extensively since. We replaced the dryer with a heat pump ventless dryer. This allowed me to close off and insulate the vent hole. This should reduce energy use for the home in heating and cooling. The dryer is rated to use about 1/3 the amount of electricity of a conventional vented dryer of a similar capacity. Of course, the purchase price was considerably higher and our electricity costs are quite low, so I don't expect a financial payback for this change. It does give a warning about cool ambient temperatures in our basement in winter, so may be less efficient than touted.
Another example may be urban municipalities shifting roads to more cycling paths / lanes and in some cases reducing or restricting lanes for automobiles. It can certainly be a positive more if it results in people making a switch from an automobile to using a bicycle from a fuel use perspective. One consideration is where the money comes from for municipalities to make these changes. Fuel and road taxes and related charges were ostensibly put in place to pay for roads. How do municipalities pay for the roads if those revenues are decreased? There is a sustainability to that question. However, if few to no automobilists make the shift, have we made changes that will actually increase their fuel use and perhaps created resentment toward cyclists, which could have a negative impact on safety.
I would love to be able to have actual discussions rather than arguments over what is "right" or "wrong". For many things, there is a spectrum and it would be nice to debate and learn from each other rather than being entrenched in a position and being unwilling to consider anything that differs from that position.
Most choices are about making a tradeoff. It becomes a tougher thing to do when we make these choices with our own comfort / convenience / cost in mind and are trying to balance that with what we are told is a global issue that we may not be able to understand or conceive. Add in the challenge of determining what is actually true or factual or understood well enough (e.g. blaming beef rather than the way beef cattle are grown and finished) to be able to make a reasoned decision.
Time to get off the verbose soapbox....
