I feel like I should apologize for missing out on Blog Action Day, especially considering the topic was the environment, but when I think of it, I wouldn’t know who I was apologizing to, since I have no idea if anyone even reads this stuff (I really must get that stats counter fixed). In an effort to relieve my own conscience, however, and in case I do have a reader or two, I’m posting belatedly on the subject. Obviously, we’re big champions of the cause.
One of the biggest challenges we face in our efforts to live a greener lifestyle has to do with recycling. Living in Ontario made recycling a piece of cake. One tub for cans and bottles, one for paper etc. Just put them out at the curb each week and you were done. Here, however, it’s a different story.
While there is a system in place for recycling in our region, the lack of population means there isn’t any huge program in effect here. There’s no curb side pickup, and recyclables are limited to beverage containers only. It’s no trouble to truck a couple of boxes of bottles to the depot (in our case a transport container near the highway) every six months or so, but it presents a bit of a problem of what to do with the cans, newspapers, plastic and all the other recyclable detritus of life.
We’ve solved as much of the problem as we can by simply not generating as much waste. We rarely eat out of cans—we eat fresh from the garden for the most part, and vegetables don’t come with packaging—and when we do, I save most of them to reuse in projects like melting wax to make candles. Eventually they have to go in the trash, but at least I feel as if we’ve met two of the big R’s.
Now that we have the Internet, we’ve no need for newspapers, but there’s still the unconscionable amount of junk mail to deal with. This we use to light our woodstove. I know, it’s not 100% environmentally friendly, but then neither is a woodstove, though the latter does beat heating with oil or coal, and there are ways of burning that reduce emissions.
I’m also happy to report that we have acquired a smaller, more efficient generator. While it doesn’t produce as much power as the 3500 watt beast—we can’t cook on the hotplate and run the computers at the same time—it does burn 40% less fuel, thus reducing our emissions and our reliance while saving dollars. Of course, we’re aiming for wind and solar power as soon as possible.
Our toilet tissue is recycled naturally in the composting toilet, and we save a huge number of garbage bags simply by keeping a compost bucket in the kitchen for food waste. It all goes right back into the garden from whence it came. And as for the plastic, we don’t purchase many items that come packaged in it and salvage what we can for other uses. It’s about all we can do.
That all being said, I occasionally do find myself questioning the viability of the huge recycling projects, anyway. Does it really make a noticeable difference in the environment?
Before you start sending indignant emails my way, consider this: In order to recycle all the jars, newspapers, bottles, cans and what have you, a facility is required whereby they can be processed. This processing sends enormous amounts of pollution in to the air, as anyone who has ever driven by one of these plants can attest. Trucks are also required to collect and deliver the recyclables, in addition to the usual garbage trucks, equalling yet more emissions and the burning of fossil fuels. Moreover, the end products also have to be transported. Additionally, all the containers have to be produced—and transported—for sorting and other steps of the process.
Though it may amount to less waste, in the end, I’m convinced that the better option is simply to cut back on the consumerism and not produce the waste in the first place. Of the three R’s, the most importance should be placed on reusing and reducing, before the need for recycling even becomes an issue.