Friday Green Things: Prices rise but a maroon says we are helpless

High grain prices will increase the cost of many of our daily food staples e.g. bread, pasta, beef, chicken etc., but there’s not much we can do as consumers about the price of grain, says Bruce Cran, the president of the Consumers Association of Canada. [link to the newspaper article in today's London Free Press]

As Carla (from the sitcom Cheers) would have said, “What a maroon.”

Jiminy Cricket, there are many things consumers can do or not do, and it strikes me funny that a consumer advocate isn’t out there happily telling us what those things are.

In all fairness, Mr. Cran does go on to say that people will be doing less barbecuing to save a dollar but that sounds like a very simple observation to me.

If he was interested in helping consumers avert even higher prices in the very near future he would suggest we cut our consumption of meat by 50 - 80 per cent because the millions of tonnes of grain going to feed livestock could easily feed us - and for a growing number of over-weight and obese North Americans it would be a very healthy thing to do.

And if there’s less meat production there’s a lot less greenhouse gas emissions from animals and vehicles driving them to slaughter and then to the supermarket after they have been neatly wrapped in plastic. [Consumer advocates don't know this stuff?]

I will give Mr. Cran one pat on the head for saying that as we face bigger challenges come winter “the only thing you can do to help yourself is go and collect your grandma’s recipes for canning.”

Sure, it’s not the only thing we can do (which is somehow obvious to 99.99% of consumers) after we reduce our consumption - but it’s something.

I think I have a pickle recipe around here somewhere.

And you? What can you make yourself?

[Visit Four Mugs and a Crock to see Cartoon in Progress by G. Harrison]

Friday Green Things: Two views about going small and green with living space

Which of the two lifestyles hinted at below seems to be on the right track?

re Plan A: In an article entitled Living small is the next big thing by Judy Gerstel (a reporter for The Toronto Star) the latest book is featured by Sarah Susanka (Not So Big Life), author of also The Not So Big House.

[A link to both - and so much more, at no extra charge]

The opening lines of the article prepare you well for what lies ahead: Supersizing is offensive; everything small, simple and supple is lauded and one and all are urged to tread minimally upon the land.

Ms Susanka explains to the reporter, while sitting on the balcony of a 540-square-foot condo in Toronto, that she is hopeful that society will soon start to live in a “not-so-big” way.

Is "small" on the way to go or on the right track? Consider now Plan B.

re Plan B: Two hours west on the 401 Deforest City developers are enticing home owners to consider geothermal heating by sharing helpful information about the cost and function of the units and saying (with geothermal) we “don’t have to scrimp on life’s little luxuries... as energy costs rise.”

We’re told we “won’t have to live without air conditioning, a heated pool or in a smaller home.” (The London Free Press Home magazine, Spring 2008)

Apparently, in Deforest City (London, Ont.) there are no limits to land, large building lots, water for pools or builders who can help you “harness some of the energy that’s locked in the ground and use it to have that luxurious lifestyle you desire.”

There are other plans as well, I'm sure, but which of the above approaches seems to be headed in the best direction?