In Sweden they've just started a plant that makes ethanol out of wood scrap with bacteria, unless I'm mistaken.
They're also working on ways to makey biofuel out of organic refuse. Since tonnes of food get thrown away in the West, there's plenty of that available.

I think Easy has the idea. Personally, the push for biofuels has helped my family because the corn market prices have gone up so that we can actually pay our bills and are finally making a decent living. I, too, feel for the starving children but in many countries the problem isn't that they can't grow the crops themselves, but that their government won't allow it. It is a tough situation all around, we just need to all do the best we can. We aren't perfect. Whatever we can do helps.

This seems to be a major world dilemma for all of the crunchies I know, as well. We're a small bunch, living in a red county, and living a college lifestyle certainly isn't conducive to going green, sweatshop-free, composting, and all that granola jazz. Our campus green posse is actually quite anti-biofuel given that it's actually turned out to be quite wasteful and an economic drain. But the whole issue of what to buy is so complex - choosing what is green, sweatshop-free, doesn't hurt small farms or abuse farming subsidies, and affordable basically leaves cage-free scrambled eggs and avocados swiped from my friend's grove. So I do what I can, when I can, though I refuse to compost based on the fact that worms scare the bejesus out of me (some things I just can't get over).

If you end up finding a manual on How to Live a Completely Global-Friendly and Affordable Life, please post it for us all. In the meanwhile, kudos to you for making more of an effort than most, from a college hippie struggling to keep an organic basil plant alive.

Addressing the problems of starvation in the Third world is something perhaps more people should think about. Although I have nothing against cruchy granolaism per se, I DO have a problem with the First world crunchy granola brigade preventing the Third world from using GM foods to feed their population. Just saying oh all GM food is bad is bloody arrogant when there are staple grains ALREADY developed to be grown in drought conditions etc. that would save the lives of thousands of people. Oops I seem to have stepped up onto my soapbox, I'll get down now. lol.

I'm right there with you on the diapers. I have 4 month old twin girls and live on a island in the Pacific (husband is a scientist, here because of work). Due to shipping costs, diapers here are very expensive. I always planned on a greener option, but cloth would use up so much energy (energy is really, really expensive here) and, as you noted, the cost of biodegradables is redunkulous. Oh, and biodegradables are rubbish, by the way. A kind-hearted co-worker of my husband gave us a load of chlorine-free, super green biodegradable diapers that were left over from her baby graduating to a larger diaper size. They were pretty sad looking- all brown from lack of chlorine, etc. They looked like socialist diapers or something. Anyway, I would have overlooked that had they worked, but they didn't. At all. The pee went right through them. So now I feel a bit less guilty about not buying them, and so should you :)

You are doing right because you are concious about what to to. There is no perfect way, and living the "green way" is indeed very expensive. But every little thing helps. We buy our food in discounter supermarkets over here in Germany where you can find more and more bio labels and local vegetables and fruit, even eggs from "happy" hens. The consumers make their decisions and the discounters follow the trend.

The best way of doing it right is to live as most economically as possible, saving as much fuel as possible, going for a holiday only once a year and staying aroud the local area at weekends, I think. For years we have been answering where we would go to during vacations "to Kappeln an der Schlei or Fehmarn" places within 150 Km distance from our home by the Baltic sea, where you live in Danish wooden houses and all kids run free and are happy. And we didn't miss Mallorca at all, because the sun is shining there, too. (In your case, England or Scotland might be a problem, because it ist probably raining more over there than here).

And the more families become more concious about their lifestyle, the better for all of us.

Have a pleasant weekend!
Paula

"Cloth diapering HERE (in water-rich Seattle) is certainly better for the environment than disposables, but I definitely think location matters."

That's my argument for using disposables— in drought-stricken California. (P.S. It's ALWAYS drought-stricken— result of too many people in an arid zone.)

So many decisions on "greeness" are not as simple as first glance suggests. Examples are paper bags vs. plastic; disposable diapers vs. cloth. In neither case is the more green easily determined.

Same with recycle paper and other items. I believe in but does recycle really and truly help/work? In some cases like aluminum feel sure it does; others not sure.

We all need to be "green" for our survval. The view we have to take care of the Earth always sees so arrogant to me; the Earth will take care of herself; even if she has to rid herself of certin self-centered selfish carbon base life forms.

Dito to ~Easy's comments.

Raise your family first - that's how you help. When the children are grown, you'll have the time to worry about global issues.

Cloth diapering HERE (in water-rich Seattle) is certainly better for the environment than disposables, but I definitely think location matters. I have friends in London who cloth diaper their baby and their washing machine looks like it washes about 2 pairs of jeans at a time, and for some reason, dryers must be unpopular or completely expensive in one way or the other because they line dry. I can't even begin to imagine how fun their diaper washing is. Also, there are quite a few people who wash their diapers in baking soda and vinegar ONLY, so that takes away evil, evil (lol) detergent.

That's certainly a dilemma. We're taking little steps on our green path and haven't yet reached the forks you're deliberating -- perhaps you'll have it figured out by the time this mommy brain gets that far.

We too wish we were doing more. But with preemie twins, a 5-year-old, and one income ... keeping to our budget will likely win out over green this year. We have the guilt too, but have resolved that when our finances improve in the next year that we will do more. Still, it feels not enough.

Oh, and I too have heard that cane sugar would be a better option for producing biofuels. Richard Branson actually talked about it on Charlie Rose.

I don't have a problem with being green as long as it's practical. Meaning: it's financially feasible and we aren't seriously sacrificing our lifestyles to the point of causing our children pain. I'm all for clean air and water, but I really couldn't give a rats ass about how many carbons we're putting out. My solution to that is: quit cutting down all the damn trees to build more houses and strip malls that nobody needs! They can't even sell the ones they built because of the mortgage crisis and tanking economy. More trees and vegetation means more consumers of carbon dioxide, thus nullifying the problem.

And if a practical alternative to $4.00/gas can be found that won't hurt us elsewhere and still get me to work, I'll be all for it. Like has been stated before by others, you just need to find a comfortable balance. Sounds like you're doing that just fine. Oh, and fuck off anyone who tells me to turn off my A/C. I like cool and comfortable, not sticky and sweaty. Don't like it, come sniff my pits.

I think we each have to make the choices that are best for us. We can all do something, but no one can do everything. And the little somethings really do add up.

I have two small children so I feel your pain. I do what I can, but if it comes down to feeding and housing my family over some yard bird, well, chicken is might tasty, free range or not.

Interesting thing about biofuels-and I refer specifically to the boondoggle known as corn-based ethanol: it is not an energy positive resource. The amount of energy it takes to produce corn-based ethanol and then ship it to refineries either more than offsets the energy contained within the ethanol, or is at best a dead heat. So we've lost bushels of food to feed the starving and haven't got anything positive from a fuel consumption standpoint. Welcome to government based cures to the energy problem.

Interestingly, cane sugar produces a buttload of ethanol at a relatively low energy cost. If the US imported cane sugar from Brazil and used that to make ethanol, it might actually help fuel prices. Then again, I'm a scientist, not an economist, so I might have some minor details wrong.

Right now coal (as is or gassified for cars) and oil are our best energy sources outside of nuclear fuel. I keep hoping for the next technological breakthrough (did I mention that I'm feeding two children?), but until hope becomes reality, future breakthroughs can only be called vaporware. We'd like for them to exist, they don't currently and there's no timetable for their existence other than someday. Until that time, the energy fairy is keeping her wand in her back pocket. Damn her.

Little steps lead to leaps. Remember that.

You have to find a balance between saving the environment and going too overboard. I think you are doing very well.

Plus, a lot of those things that people used to think were energy friendly are turning out to be not so much. In the US, I've heard that only the New York and the San Francisco trains actually save energy because of efficiency of trains versus cars.

We share many of the same worries and concerns. We recycle, use energy saving light bulbs, and drive a Prius (hyrbid), but sometimes I wonder if it's enough or if we're doing more harm than good. I'm growing some of my own veggies and herbs this year, but I have to use more water to keep them alive. We save energy where we can, but we still use a ton of it for heating and cooling our home. Sometimes I think we just can't win.

I think Jill makes a good point. One person can dedicate their entire paycheck to being green, but 10 people could have the same impact by making small changes.

Bio fuels are a bad idea. Whether they're taking food from starving people or being grown on land that could be used for other crops, less food means more hungry people and higher food prices. Plus, you think gas prices are high now. Right now there's an artificial shortage of fuel, because the Middle East won't increase production; but there literally will be a shortage of fuel if there's ever a serious drought, and bio fuels are our primary fuel source.

We're slowly switching to the energy saving bulbs (those things are expensive and Solomon is a tightwad :). But what's the cost to recycle them? There's mercury in there. Does it take more energy to recycle one than the energy it saves over it's life? I'm being serious. If anyone knows, I'd love to hear.

I think this situation is one where the little things add up.

Think globally, act locally. It's trite but true. I try to be green where I can, but the real green that concerns me is the green in my wallet.

Your crunchy granola-ness is commendable and I feel you on the worrying like you're not doing enough part. Unfortunately money wins, even in this case, for far too many people...and I can't say I blame them or you or me; but then the guilt can be overwhelming at times. I think many more people need to consider these things half as much as you seem to and while that won't solve it all, it may be a good start...just maybe.

i try my best all the time with the guilty feeling at the bottom of my heart, at the back of my mind that it is far too little, too late and not enough. i'm with you on taking the train vs driving, it's too expensive to take the train so i take comfort that i'm not driving a gas guzzler. and it's madness to pit feeding people against fuelling transport... how did we get there :(