Trip to the Grocery Store -- Remember the Longbox?

Remember the CD long box?  Back in the '80s and early '90s, at the dawn of the compact disc,  record stores were figuring out how to transition from selling vinyl records and cassettes to CDs.  Part of the problem was storage -- they had to fit these small CDs into storage bins meant for the much larger vinyl record.  The solution was the longbox, which was extra cardboard packaging surrounding the traditional CD jewel case.  

Frankly, it was a waste of packaging of elephantine proportions.  Even people in the '80s thought the longbox was excessive!  Through a combination of pressure from artists and music buyers (as well as the natural evolution away from records altogether), stores eventually adapted and the long box became nothing more than an embarrassing relic.

I bring all this up because of a trip I took to the grocery store today.  I've had a chest cough for as long as I can remember at this point, and because I'm tired of sounding like a 3-pack-a-day smoker, I bought some Mucinex.  I got home, and opened the package, and I realized that half the package is empty.  It's an exterior cardboard box, with a bottle (think an Advil bottle), tucked in one half.  What's more, there's a grand total of 20 pills in a bottle that could hold 10X that amount.  All in all, it was just an embarrassing waste.  All I could think of was the old CD longbox and how we apparently haven't come all that far!

On the bright side, I also grabbed some organic oatmeal raisin cookie mix from the Immaculate Baking company.  Not only are the ingredients certified organic, they support the Folk Artist's Fund and other art outreach for kids programs.  I'm not sure if that outweighs the waste produced by the Mucinex box, but it made me feel better about the trip.  And what's more, the cookies are scrumptious -- perfect with a Sunday afternoon coffee.   Nice.

Get Out Your Pencils -- Pop Quiz Time

Ready for a pop quiz?

Myfootprint.org offers a free quiz that will calculate your Ecological Footprint.  Perhaps you've heard of a carbon footprint.  This quiz looks not only at your carbon footprint, but it also takes into account food, housing, and goods & services footprints.  According to the website, we are currently overshooting the Earth's biological capacity by 50%!  No es bueno.

I took the quiz, and was mildly disappointed with my own results.  Keep in mind, I almost always take public transportation, I eat a largely vegetarian diet, I get my food from a co-op farm for half the year, and I try to be very aware of household products and recycling practices. My footprint in all four categories was significantly below the national average.  

However, I still scored over two Earths on the quiz!  (If it's not clear what I mean by that, take the quiz and you'll see what I'm saying.)  So where did I go wrong?  Air travel.  The carbon footprint of an airplane flight is massive, and if you take a couple of flights per year, you're starting way behind.

Obviously, the first thing you have to do is avoid flying when it's possible.  Of course, if business takes you to Europe, it's not going to be practical to do anything but fly. 

I'm sorta hoping they come up with a Star Trek-style beaming machine that will make transportation easier and less environmentally impactful.  Is there a machine like that yet?

Google and swirls of misinformation

I was recently forwarded serveral articles about the on-going debate around the carbon cost of Google searches. A Harvard University fellow conducted a study that claimed every single Google search has a significant environmental impact. Alex Wissner-Gross claimed, as reported by this article, that the carbon cost of a Google search is seven grams of carbon:

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

You better believe that Google had a response, which they posted to their website, claiming the really cost was 0.2 grams. That's quite a discrepancy. They also went out of their way to point out the major environmental efforts Google claims to have undertaken. Of course, Google is not generally very forthcoming about the environmental impacts of their business, so it's not entirely comforting if they only respond to attacks. A company of Google's considerable clout might consider being more proactive in the future -- scrutiny around green business practices will only intensify in the coming years.

That's not to say that Mr. Wissner-Gross should be without suspicion. In the article, he's described being a co-founder of "a business which sells IT companies carbon credits to help them go carbon neutral." Think he might have an agenda? I don't know the guy from Adam, and he may well have the integrity of George Washington. But the sad fact is we really don't have any way of knowing -- it's a he-said, she-said game.

So what's a lonely, eco-conscious person supposed to do? Unfortunately there isn't an easy solution. Consumers are often thought of as passive, but the power of our choices is immense. 'Green' is a rapidly growing business trend, and there are powerful incenvites for companies on all sides. As more and more green products hit the market, and more companies make claims about their eco-friendly buiness practices, the picture will only become murkier.

Navigating through the information and misinformation will be tough, but it's essential to truthfully making more eco-friendly choices. My best advice: try to stay informed as best you can.