Ultralight Backpacking Ethically (UBE)

Interesting to note, somewhat intuitively, that the carrying capacity of a place (2.1 is population replacement value in the U.S., but those of us who live here would be wise to not accomplish that) varies according not just to number of people but also how their resources are used. It's a quick way to focus on the connections between people and environment, both with the people who actually inhabit a place and those that do not [Americans] but still use those resources (whether oil, coffee, cocaine, whatever). The political, economic, and educational climates of a place are intimately connected with population, whether beyond carrying capacity or not. You start to quickly realize how intimately people are connected with their environments. I started trying to think in that way, i.e. that I am not just in my own ecosystem when I am out backpacking, climbing, or otherwise outdoors. Every second of every day, every little thing I do has an impact. On the one hand, I could easily get overwhelmed and depressed by that idea. On the other, it's an immensely powerful feeling of connection with everything. I think that one major problem, especially in technologically-obsessed societies, is that loss of connection. You can be a conservationist, even, and still be disconnected from your environment (of course the origins of conservation are anthropocentric, but anyway…). But as soon as you get that realization back, you start to see your own significance. It's basically the position of deep ecology, but not exactly. All of this is still connected with backpacking.
All hail Isaac Asimov.

I would choose windmills and solar panels over smokestacks and dams and mounaintop removal any day.

>I would choose windmills and solar panels over smokestacks and dams and mounaintop removal any day.

I would too, but I'm getting pretty sick of all the windmills being in my back yard. Seems like a lot of the green people want to ease their conscience by buying green, while at the same time being hypocritical, NIMBY………people (had to use people, since the profanity filter caught everything else I tried to use).

Joe, name some of the hypocritical things the green people do? I'm curious, because you are probably very right.

Is there a website to calculate one's carbon footprint on an individual basis?

Slashdot just posted about a similar issue involving the carbon footprint of our pets. You can view the Slashdot commentary here. and you can view the article directly here.

The title of the article is “Save the planet: eat a dog?” The calculated that a medium dog has the eco-footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year. A cat has the footprint slightly less than that of a Volkswagen Golf.

I still plan on getting a dog as I feel it will be worth it to me. However, I won’t be getting SUV. They might have a similar environment cost (assuming the math is correct), but they don’t provide the same benefit to me.

I am glad more and more people are recycling, and it is better than all the consuming we do without recycling. However, I think it gives some people a false sense of helping the environment. Drinking a case of bottled water a day and recycling all of the bottles is no where near as environmentally friendly as using a water filter and a reusable water bottle.

I am excited that it seems reducing and reusing is beginning to get a little more social acceptance as recycling did a number of years ago.

As far as I am aware animals are not specifically killed for the purpose of feeding pets. Same for the grain used in the pet food. The food consists of the parts of the animal unfit for human consumption, roadkill, other people's dead pets, poor quality grain. Pet food is basically a waste product. So something already being generated is going to good use instead of simply thrown away.

My brother is 'green' and harps on about sustainability. He wants us to have a sustainable caught fish for Thanksgiving rather than a turkey. He brought this up at a family get together, one in which he brought along his iPhone, new MacBook Pro, and bottle of expensive wine. He's sustainable when it's convenient with his ideals.

Of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is population control.

"Of course, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is population control."

Which populations? Those found in the slums of Calcutta or those found in middle class America?

As for control, who will do the controlling and how?

.

Definitely a possibility…

Who knows.

A bottle of expensive wine is hypocritical??? Not sure I understand that one.

As long as we humans think ourselves not animals and that we are somehow exempt from the same problems caused by other species (overpopulation of deer in a forest, algae explosions, lemmings in a boom year) we are going to have problems. Again, hubris. We think we are better and more deserving. Thing is the natural world makes absolutely no distinction. Couldn't care less whether we exist or go extinct. That's why the responsibility rest upon us: the thing the environmentalists are trying to say is not that the natural world is more precious than everything else, but that if we ourselves don't take responsibility for our mess it WE who are going to suffer, not the planet. The planet will go on and be fine without us.

Evan- take the opportunity (if you want) and call your brother out. Nicely. Again, this is just subjective, but I think that your brother may have a case of unintentional hypocrisy. There is no such thing as environmentally-friendly, sustainable fish available to Americans. No matter what the label says. One type of fish may come from [relatively] more stable populations, but "less bad" is not synonymous with "good." It's a case of lack of awareness, and if your brother is environmentally-minded, you can do some easy online research and up his anty in one conversation by letting him know the resources that go into his everyday actions/purchases as well. Everyone wins.

Just a thought.

I have called him out, like I said, he likes the sustainable idea when it jives with his vegetarian agenda.

.

Also…call it "pesca-vegetarianism" if you must, but fish is not a vegetarian option by any stretch of the imagination.
Keep trying- research your points. If nothing else, at least you have tried to inform. That's important. Each of us (most, at least) who cares about the environment at some point buckles to apathy. Why should you care, especially if the people who preach sustainability have their facts wrong? Just the fact that you appreciate that his position smacks of hypocrisy means that you do care, perhaps with a greater degree of awareness. Or maybe not. Just an idea.

Hi Miguel

> WE who are going to suffer, not the planet. The planet will go on and be fine without us.
Absolutely!

Cheers

An interesting fact here is that, as societies become wealthier, they tend to voluntarily control (more or less) their own populations. The birth rate in rich places like Japan, most of Europe, and the US is much lower than that in poor countries. It's as if once people get rich enough, they feel that they can no longer afford kids! One could use this fact to make the argument that, to "save the planet," we need to focus on improving worldwide economic development, which runs counter to the thinking of many.

Environmentalism is full of ironies, which is what makes it so interesting and complicated. Another irony is that richer societies, which consume (and pollute) more per person than poorer societies, may in the long run be "greener" because (1) their birth rates are lower and (2) their people have the luxury of working more on improving the environment instead of focusing on sheer survival – there's no Sierra Club or Clean Air Act in Afghanistan or Myanmar.

Is this thread thoroughly hijacked yet? :-)

A rich society can make roof shingles work as solar collectors so that we can write each other messages with electricity instead of cutting down trees to make paper. That way there will still be forests for us all to hike in.

Going backwards would be a larger environmental catastrophy than moving on to cleaner technologies.

mmm… Og want fire from black goo in ground or radiant heat in floor powered by solar energy?

I call it his agenda because he has his blinders on in regards to sustainability when it comes to anything outside of diet.

Not quite thoroughly hijacked. It's all connected anyway.
There is a correlation between wealth and fewer children, but for causation look to the improvements in education and healthcare (especially for women) that come with being a wealthy [relatively secular] nation. Richer societies do have more time and wealth to spend on being "greener," but lower birth rates and more time and money are not the causes but are just the effects of industrialization, which is also the cause of the pollution. I don't think its so much an irony as a vicious circle. The good part of that is that we have an opportunity to prevent other countries from making the same mistakes. Myanmar and Afghanistan don't need a Sierra Club or Clean Air Act. They are not industrial polluters [yet]. Economic development is good, as long as those doing the developing don't make the same mistakes in the their efforts to "improve" the societies. If Afghanistan and other countries would tell the wealthy western nations where to stick it (or if those nations would just stop taking the resources of other countries to power their SUVs and instigating tribal warfare on the other side of the planet…either one), learn from the mistakes of those wealthy nations, then the "third world" can start out by building solar collectors instead of oil pipelines. They have the right idea in realizing that the U.S. and other polluting countries are obsessed with money and economic growth. If they can just get rid of the theocracy….

With all this talk about solar panels and solar collectors I just thought I'd share this little tidbit.

Solar collectors (aka solar panels) currently take more energy to create than they will produce over there 25 year life cycle. This is assuming that the collectors have access to sun an minimum of 10 hours a day, 365 days a year. Solar panels only have a lifespan of 25 years max, after that they stop working. Approximately 25% of the non working solar panels can be recycled, the rest cannot.

While solar energy has the potential to become a renewable, non polluting energy source it will take around 75 to 100 years for that to happen. It is suspected that solar collectors will never be able to produce more energy than is required to manufacture them, at best they will break even.

I'm no expert in solar by any means, but I a quick google search found several sources that say it's a myth that producing solar panels consumes more energy than the panels will produce in their lifetime. They argue that that figure was based on the energy cost of producing solar panels for the space program.

The study linked below says the energy payback time is 2 to 3 years and over the lifetime of the panels you can expect to get 9 to 17 times the energy back that was put in up front.

http://www.solarbus.org/documents/pvpayback.pdf

For argument's sake, even if solar/wind or whatever non-petroleum source of energy took 75-100 years to become "truly renewable," those types of calculations would be done with at least one of three assumptions, either (1) the technology for that energy source is not improved at all over that time span, (2) the rate of change in that technology is arithmetic and cannot make up for the environmental damage already done, or (3) there is an increase in the use of non-renewable resources that "counter-acts" the use of those renewable energy. Probably several more assumptions there that I didn't think of. Fortunately, technology is not static, especially over 75-100 years; it tends to change at an exponential rate, especially as more research and innovation are undertaken with increased public/economic interest. It doesn't make sense either that an increase in the use of solar energy would correlate with an increase in the use of non-renewable resources. Even if the results of those calculations are mathematically correct, check who did them in the first place. I smell bias.

Solar panels are the most talked about form of solar energy collection, but other forms are much more efficient.

Solar water heaters: Homemade-Solar-Water-Heater
Solar efficiencies built into houses. Positioning, windows, ground heat retention.
Solar cookers: http://solarcooking.org/plans/

Also, when using solar energy from PV, much is wasted on converting the energy to AC. By using all DC appliances and LED lights you can go a long way.

SUV has become a four letter word that is not accurate since there are SUV hybrids and many get well over 20 mpg. The better term is LMV (low mileage vehicle), any motor vehicle getting less than 15 mpg.

For the most part an 8 cylinder engine seems to get up to 20 mpg, a 6 cylinder up to 25'ish, and 4 cylinders greater than 25 mpg.

Are we really so used to settling that we think anything over 20 mpg is good? This is a societal problem, the acceptability of burning through a gallon of gasoline every 25 (or even 50) miles of driving. I heard a commercial on the radio that was advertising an "efficient" 8-cyl SUV that got the "amazing gas mileage" of a 6-cyl vehicle. Kidding me? Are those of us who push ourselves to cut ounces upon ounces from our pack weight in the names of speed, comfort, and simplicity (or whatever your personal motivation) really going to allow ourselves to be impressed by this? Why would bigger/more powerful be positive? Who needs an 8-cyl SUV, hybrid or not? What percentage of people who own an SUV really use it for anything other than commuting to work/school on a regular basis? I see people driving their SUVs, alone, down a paved city street every single day. Not even carpooling. Those same vehicles are too big and awkward to even get up a narrow, rocky, muddy forest road. It's laughable until you realize how much of a hold the Bigger/Faster/More Powerful/Prettier materialistic commercialized culture has on us. We don't need hybrid SUVs. Even though hybrid vehicles are a small step, we need completely different, efficient, quiet, sustainable, non-polluting, people-connecting modes of transportation.