Sustain Myself

So its been a long time since I updated this blog. The main reason for that is that I was made redundant in December from my job at realestate.com.au and have been working on some personal projects with my friend Michael Little in our new joint prospect Fliquid Studios.

Anyway, enough plugging…

I am currently reading about my new solar prospects, I have just built a chicken coop (details in next post) and am planning my Vegie garden and rain water drip irrigation system. Details on all of these will be coming soon. Today’s post is about a big decision I made recently. To give up coffee.

The reasons behind me giving up coffee are vast and include health, environmental and social problems. As I am not one to put my health before a good cup of joe, I’ll stick to the environmental and social issues that made this decision easy for me.

While I was aware of the claim that there are 2 ounces of carbon in every cup of coffee (due to the transportation and general manufacturing of the coffee after it has been harvested), it was this article by treehugger that pushed me over the edge.

Also, the social issues surrounding farmers who supply coffee. Most coffee growers in South America actually receive less than the cost of growing the coffee (Global Exchange Link). This includes those farmers who supply Starbucks and their shameful ‘Fair Trade’ claim (New Internationalist Article).

Lastly, and by far the biggest contributing factor for me to stop supporting the coffee industry as a whole, is the waste. The amount of cups used, daily, and then disposed of. It makes me sick. The image above is from Celina’s coffee cup project on Flickr and is worth a look. Sustainability Is Sexy has a table on the use of coffee cups daily.

Sorry for such a disjointed post. I have had a helluva night running after my almost-two-year-old while we had a ‘nice’ and ‘peaceful’ dinner for my brother-in-law’s 30th in their oh so child unfriendly house. I simply can’t stand by while the world implodes from excess waste and transportation for a stinking drink. Time for a cuppa.

Further Reading:
New Internationalist

For a long time I have been undecided about my stance on Hybrid vehicles. Yes, they produce considerably less CO2 and other toxins through the exhaust than conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. But, one fact that people seem to forget (or choose to ignore) is that these vehicles are powered by batteries with a max life of 10 years!

Now, putting the Prius to the side for a moment, Doug Fine (who is a bit of a hero of mine) wrote in his book ‘Farewell, my Subaru’ about how he converted a ROAT (Ridiculously Oversized American Truck – or Ford F250) to use Vegetable oil instead of Diesel and is now almost entirely carbon neutral.

If it is possible to make big diesel cars and trucks like this run on a freely available waste product and produce so little emissions, why is it so hard to do? Surely there is a market for this fuel source? There is definitely enough supply. I know of one Bio-Diesel fuelling station in Sydney and it is over an hours drive from my house.

So, back to the Prius. How is it that everybody has quickly jumped on the Prius bandwagon without ever questioning the use and environmental impact of all this iron and nickel and anything else toxic in the batteries? Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti Hybrid vehicles, I just think that more research is required and that a better solution can be obtained (I am a big fan of Hydrogen).

A lot of reports exist about the damage that these batteries can do to the environment. One report, aptly titled ‘Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage’ writes this;

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

That is a hardcore statement and if true, damns Hybrids of all their eco responsibility.

Another report (although considerably older) named ‘Lead-Based Battery Used in Electric Car May Pose Hazards’ quotes the following;

Exposure to low levels of lead can harm the brains of young children, reducing intelligence and impairing neurobehavioral development, studies have found. Very severe exposure can cause coma, convulsions and death.

With this in mind, it appears the manufacturers are trying to brighten their image and offer a ‘buy back scheme’ for their batteries so they can be properly recycled. Some defenders of Hybrid technology suggest that the levels of toxicity in Hybrid vehicle batteries (Nickel Metal Hydride – Or NiMH) are lower than their lead and Nickel Cadmium equivalents. I’m not too sure that any level of toxicity, especially in a car sold as the green alternative, should be acceptable

Why do manufacturers continue to push technologies that are becoming more and more obsolete? Personally, I think its because with less fuel being required, they need to ensure that they can continue selling you something after you have purchased the car. By having the batteries ‘run out’ after 10 years, they guarantee your return patronage and a cool $5000 every decade as opposed to giving you the opportunity to fill-up for next-to-nothing at your local Chinese or Fish ‘n Chip shop.

What are you opinions of this? Perhaps I have over looked something? Are you for or against the Hybrid vehicle movement?