Today, Sat Nov 24 2007, was Buy Nothing Day (BND) for the world outside of America. America had it yesterday to coincide with Black Friday, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, shopping day there. Symbolically, it is a good idea but I don’t think BND stood a chance against all the sales and marketing hype. It would have had more impact like in the rest of the world if another day was picked where people did not have as much to lose in not purchasing. Nice idea but a little arrogant on behalf of the campaigners.

I inconvenienced my life a little today to buy nothing. No snacks or drinks when I wanted it. No lunch purchase when I was lazy to cook so I went and cooked. No shopping to buy some things I did need in limited Sunday shopping Nova Scotia. However, while at it, I anteed up more because I know I could do better. I started my Christmas early by going through the apartment and picked out some things I could live without, or do live without because I no longer used them, and made three non-plastic shopping bags’ worth of clothing and other household good donations to the Salvation Army.

Maybe someone should start a Giveaway Something Day.

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

On my Commentary 038 regarding Buy Nothing Day in the United States that is today (day of posting on Nov 23 2007), American reader CindyW asked a great question:

I wonder why it is so difficult for most people to reduce shopping, or drinking and eating for that matter. Is it because the urge to avoid scarcity has been built in our genes?

This article sourced below that just came out Nov 22 2007 might be great insight. It basically says relative wealth makes one happier. That is, no matter how much or little money you have (translate to possessions cause you spend it), you’re happier if more of your friends are poorer, even happier if they’re much poorer, than you.

And we all want to be happy, don’t we? That’s selfish, perhaps, but what then does that say about those of us who want everyone else to be happy? Remember, if you’re that far, you’re probably also smart enough to want people to be happy on their own terms, not on your terms like George B*sh (I use the asterisk in the same manner to prevent writing out swear words). Unfortunately, if you’re wanting the world to be happy on its own terms, you’re probably getting your wish in just about everyone overconsuming. It’s just too bad it’s not good for the environment.

The original article ended at the last paragraph but a day after came a story on how men were motivated by “superior wage”, which is not higher wage, but better wage compared to their peers and friends. Seems this relative self-esteem thing isn’t a fluke. It doesn’t surprise me, to be honest with you, but I’ve never had any proof for it, just an intuitive sense for human nature.

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

- Relative wealth ‘makes you happier’, by Science Editor Roger Highfield via The Telegraph, Nov 22 2007

- Men motivated by ’superior wage’, by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Nov 23 2007

What do you do when your hard drive gets full or when you want to back-up some of the stuff on your computer?

I, personally, prefer the DVDs for back-up media these days. They are durable, cheap and have a lot of storage space. DVDs are cheaper than CDs now, by the way, per disc and per gigabyte so let’s put CDs out of the picture, shall we? DVDs also make for great coasters if you erroneously back-up stuff, like grouping things not quite the way it should have been, as do the CDs you no longer have, although I would recommend for that, if they were music CDs, put them back into society and the economy by either selling them or just giving them to a used “record” store as your RAK (random act of kindness) for the day.

Anyway, to my main point, what about all that stuff on your computer that is “irreplaceable”? I mean truly irreplaceable, not just “priceless” funny stuff you saw on YouTube or whatever that’s still there and you just have to find it again. Whether it is photos or original writings and music or something else, what about all that? Well, DVDs would definitely hold them. However, let me suggest on-line storage.

On-line storage has become so cheap now that unless they’re digital home videos in size, for far less than your home insurance, or a drinking night out for students, you could store all your digital stuff on-line. If you only have small documents, as in under 10 MB each, you could even do it for free, even though it might be tedious. What you do is upload to these places, whether Box.net storage services, or Flickr.com for photos, etc. (because I’m no Net expert to scope out a review of all these places but I’m sure reviews are available) which for a small annual fee, allows you tremendous storage space. If you have the time to separate your files into 10 MB or small size groups, you can email them to yourself in some on-line email accounts only for storage. Just don’t tell anyone what they are, or even better, don’t tell them you have those accounts at all. Preferably, don’t access those accounts anywhere but where you feel safest, either.

But what is the real value of on-line back-up storage?

The easy answer would be reduction of solid waste, but I doubt that’d be enough to motivate all but the greenest people to do this. The real value is that it’s not in your home so if your home gets looted or burned to the ground, all that truly irreplaceable stuff isn’t gone. You just go to another computer and it’ll all be there.

Isn’t that a nice and comforting thought? Let’s see your insurance broker guarantee you replacement for your irreplaceable computer property!

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

Most green lifestyle sites I see, if they mention using something for rags rather than buying it, it’s usually old clothes. However, have you seen the footprint of fashion lately? Have a look at Stat 0403 or 0326 or Search for “fashion” in the bar near upper right on this blog for some examples. Fashion Sustainability 2007, by Forum for the Future (0.4 MB) also has a metric tonne of information on the matter. The thing is, give it away if you can over reusing it as rags.

However, I do have respect for the less financially fortunate than I in that I won’t give them holey socks or old underwear and such too personal stuff. It is items like these that I justify as fair game to be rags, and I turn them out marginally enough to make my rags renewable every once in a rare while. It might seem wasteful to replace rags on some regular basis, once every few months, but let’s face it, rags get dirty and you’d be hard-pressed to get them clean. You might put it in with your laundry, but I won’t, cause I use them to clean tubs and toilets and sinks (not in that order or even sharing the same rags). So after a while, you’re basically starting out with a slightly dirty rag, which not only defeats the purpose of cleaning a bit, but also presents additional health risks, some directly and some indirectly from poor indoor air quality.

So think about using your old socks and other under clothing for rags if you don’t already do so. Just a few notes for practicality: use “green” cleaners, like from E-choice (mostly in Canada) or Green Seal (mostly in the US), do clean the sink because it is actually the place with the most germs in your home, and last but most importantly, do not use your roommates or partner’s underclothing for rags without their consent!

Minh Tan
Envirostats author

Here’s a green tip of something I’m doing which I have not seen anywhere else, which doesn’t mean it isn’t, but that I had not seen it.

Rechargeable batteries lose their potency with each recharge, and faster so if you drain most of the battery’s power with each use. It almost seems counterintuitive, not to use everything the battery’s got before recharging, but it’s true. It’s probably good to use only half the battery’s original life, at most, on each use until that usage drains most or all of your rechargeable. If you use your rechargeable a lot, like for an MP3 player you use a lot, this point may come sooner than you think, but this is where you apply this tip.

There are a lot of electronics that do not use a lot of battery power so one charge lasts quite a long time. An example would be the remotes you have in your home, or answering machine, alarm clock or other electronics’ backup power supply in case the power goes out. Their long battery life may not have prompted you to buy rechargeables in the first place, given rechargeables are often more costly than regular batteries. Or like in my case for some cases, I still have the regular batteries in them from before my switch to rechargeables.

Now, when my rechargeable become lower in power per charge, meaning I can only get out with them for a couple of runs in my MP3 player (radio mode) before recharging instead of going almost a week, I save them until those other electronics’ regular batteries run out and then put these old rechargeables in their place. Hey, I won’t mind if I’ll have to recharge them once every 6-12 months instead of 12-24 months.

I then properly recycle my old batteries, of course.

One final caution, though, please do NOT use old rechargeables in your smoke detectors, cause there’s no recharging your life should they fail. And with the time change this weekend, you should also change the batteries in your smoke detectors. Thank you.

Minh Tan
Envirostats author