This is a discussion I would like to get going, so thanks in advance: "Leave No Trace" reaches far beyond what we as backpackers/hikers/climbers do or do not do on the trail. From the moment the raw materials that will eventually become a piece of gear are produced to the moment that we discard that piece for another, we leave a footprint on the natural world. Backpacking ultralight inherently involves less impact and waste (hopefully), but I would like to know how other lightweight hikers see their own footprints. To start: Do you think about your environmental impact as you buy/make gear? Would you compromise weight for a piece of reclaimed or recycled gear? How do you view the use of down and other animal-derived products?

>Do you think about your environmental impact as you buy/make gear?

Nope. Sorry. I guess I was indoctrinated poorly. It's kind of like driving a hybrid, you feel good about it, but the manufacturing left a mess somewhere.

>Would you compromise weight for a piece of reclaimed or recycled gear?

If it was cheaper and did the job.

>How do you view the use of down and other animal-derived products?

Sure, why not?

Besides, who gets to decide what is ethical, and whether it is ethical for me or not? I didn't get a vote. If I try to attach right or wrong to something, I'm intolerant. Why doesn't that same logic apply when the intellectual elites decree something ethical? And I would like to predict this will be almost as long as the global warming thread. We should start a pot, every kick in $5 a square.

Edited by skinewmexico on 10/21/2009 11:35:12 MDT.

do those who have adopted a lifestyle choice to minimize their impact on animals or the environment use down? transversely, is the use of synthetic materials a better option?

consider, too, that our lightweight gear often has a lower lifespan and leads to a concern with disposal and an increase in consumerist tendencies (already an issue with gear-heads).

do we wash and reuse all the plastic baggies, all those quart bags from freezer-bag cooking? Would it be better, really, to use a bowl or plate or your pot?

I think this is a good topic, and even if it's already been discussed, it's always a reminder that UL is an opportunity to expand a mindfulness practice. In fact, I think mindfulness is an inherent quality of UL if you allow yourself to realize an UL philosophy and break away from the gear-headedness.

thanks for posting.

-Michael

EDIT: it's process of education, not a personal attack on your "values" or "freedoms", Joe.

A friend's mother once told us a story during a discussion about littering and of other societies relationships to certain ideals we now take for granted, anyway, she related a time when at the end of families picnics back in the 50/60's it was common to remove your plates and bowls and napkins, etc, and sweep the tablecloth off the public park table, leaving the trash and litter for.. someone else!?!. Well, we (most of us, or maybe just us lefties) don't do that anymore because over the decades we've been repeatedly taught otherwise. I'm certain the knee jerk reaction of the time was the same as responses like, "well, this global warming is just a fad of elitist/leftist/hippies"...

hmmm... "all this, leave-no-trace, pack-it-in-pack-it-out, is just a bunch of commies telling us how to live! What's next!?!?"

Edited by uberkatzen on 10/21/2009 12:05:42 MDT.

I view these issues as separate but important. I want to leave as little trace on the trail as possible because I want the trail to be there -- and as unchanged as possible -- for the next generation of hikers. In this regard, I can control my own actions and their effect on the trail.

The issue of the gear I buy and use is part and parcel of the large issue of the impact I leave on the environment as a whole. This one I have less control over. I must drive a car to work. I have to wear pants, and they may be made in China, where real human being s are exploited to make the pants. My sleeping bag shell is made from polyester manufactured from petrol byproducts. Heck, the drinking container I use is made from a petrol byproduct.

I try. The socks I'm wearing are made from recycled material. Of course, more than a bit of energy was used up in the recycling process. I wash and reuse everything I can. Did the hot water I used to wash wipe away the advantage of reuse?

I dunno. I try to recycle and buy "green" items, but thinking about such matters all the time can lead to madness.

I do know that by packing out everything I use and burying my personal, human waste, I can do my part to preserve the trail I love so well. That's good enough for me.

I'll try to do the other stuff the best I can, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. The issues are too complex, and I go out on the trail to escape, not to ponder, the issues that give me ulcers when I'm not on the trail.

Just my $.05. I could be wrong.

Stargazer

>A friend's mother once told us a story during a discussion about littering and of other societies relationships to certain ideals we now take for granted, anyway, she related a time when at the end of families picnics back in the 50/60's it was common to remove your plates and bowls and napkins, etc, and sweep the tablecloth off the public park table, leaving the trash and litter for.. someone else!?!.

Interesting. My sainted mother, a real conservative in the classic sense, would have kicked my a@@ down the block if I had left a speck of mess for someone else to clean up.

She was no environmentalist lefty. She just believed in a clean and beautiful world. Really, folks. There's nothing unique or weird about the "green" movement. My mother just loved the world and felt a responsibility to leave it as she found it. Leave it as you found it. Don't take more than you can eat. Clean up after yourself. Take only what you need. This is not environmentalism. This is just good, depression-era common sense.

Stargazer

My mother just loved the world and felt a responsibility to leave it as she found it. Leave it as you found it. Don't take more than you can eat. Clean up after yourself. Take only what you need. This is not environmentalism. This is just good, depression-era common sense.

Sadly, it ain't so common.

Funny you mention this Thomas.
I was also going to bring up my grandmother- she turns 87 today.
"Environmentalism" was not around in her youth. There were no "green" jobs, etc.
Yet her and my grandfather lived a life more "sustainable" than any of us can dream.
She canned, jarred, and pickled. She darned socks. My grandfather fixed EVERYTHING. They line dried laundry and washed by hand. There was no such thing as a disposable razor or plate. They used durable goods. They did not buy new jackets for fashion seasons and they resoled their shoes. They didn't walk to the corner market to make a statement, they walked because it was easier.

My grandmother still clings to these ways as best as she can. To me, she's the image of "green", of the sustainability movement.

I doubt she has any idea what hemp clothes or carbon offsets are.

Man, we're a bunch of lost little puppies...trying to figure out how to shop our way to a better future.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/21/2009 12:32:02 MDT.

Joe- Everyone is already making this an insightful discussion. Thank you for being the first responder. As someone who might be dismissed as one of those "intellectual elites," I feel the need to respond to your post. When it comes to environmental issues, I sense a degree of acquiescence to frustration-even hopelessness- in everyone, myself included. You are correct. Why drive a hybrid vehicle that is no less of an environmental nightmare to manufacture than an suv? Maybe we are all just newly indoctrinated by "green" ideas in the same way we have been by our materialistic, consummerist culture. I find that to be a poor excuse, however. Maybe trying to make less of an impact is just delaying the inevitable, but maybe enough people are sick of being told what to buy by their TVs that the inevitable could be stopped.
To answer your question about using animal products...I do not attach "right" or "wrong" to this answer. I, personally, strive to buy products that are free of animal derivatives and labeled cruelty-free; I am also aware that this is actually nearly impossible, when the entire life of a product is taken into account. But I have voted to be the cause of less harm to the environment and less cruelty to other organisms. I encourage others to do the same for both environmental and ethical reasons. But...you do get a vote. You get hundreds of votes simply in the form of the money you spend. Or don't spend.
You could make the argument that the same resources/energy are used to manufacture a down quilt as a synthetic bag. The synthetic bag is made with petroleum-based products. Is this better for the environment than the goose down? Probably not. But one reason I started this thread was to get others' ideas I hadn't thought of yet; who better to discuss the environment than the people who love to be out in it? So far, so good.

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/21/2009 14:47:23 MDT.

Conservation has been around a long time, before it was co-opted into the leftist political movement. I recycle, use energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, I care for conservation of natural habitat and wildlife. I am also a political conservative.

I was trying to say something like Michael said. As I'm having one of those weeks where I understand why tigers eat their young, I came off pretty harsh, and petty. Never post angry, right? So I apologize, and I'll probably Biden his first line as a sig somewhere.

"Everyone is already making this an insightful discussion"

instead of an inciteful discussion... ;-)

"co-opted into the leftist political movement"

Not sure how it's been co-opted if political conservatives believe in it strongly as well.

I don't know Joe, I don't think you came off as petty and harsh. Angry, maybe... ;-)

What always seems to happen in these discussions, unfortunately (and happens in discussions with a good friend of mine as well, and, as Joe predicted, happened in the lightweight rifle 'discussion') is that people seem (I said SEEM) to think that the way they live is the right way, when it's only the right way for them. We all make tradeoffs, every one of us, to live what we believe to be a 'good' or 'proper' life. But different tradeoffs suit different people. And some people, again, unfortunately, seem to think that if someone differs with their view of the world then that somehows translates to their views being denigrated or attacked. And that's when the flames begin. Why are we too often so angry? Differences are great. I live my life by my credo. I don't expect anyone else to live by my credo. In the end, I can only control me. I'm okay with that.

Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't share ideas and opinions. Of course we should! I've changed views (both mine and theirs) based on discussions with others. But I don't denigrate their opinions and views, and I don't feel their disagreement with my views denigrates mine. Keeps me happy and smiling. And ulcer free!

Obviously, political conservatives and liberals are equally capable of being concerned for the environment. I think that he was speaking of the association commonly perceived, whether correctly or not, between environmentalism and the political far left. I believe the polite term is "treehuggers" or "d*** hippies." Given that we all have to inhabit this planet, I think we can stick to a discussion of environmentally ethical backpacking without falling victim to the argument of who is at fault for global warming, etc., which is inevitably what political discussions tend to do when it comes to environmental issues (or pretty much any other issue). We can each be equally concerned with lessening environmental degradation, regardless of political leanings. Anyway, as backpackers, it is likely that we have all hugged several trees. So let us not allow an excellent discussion to turn into a scuffle over politics.
I have another question, brought to you by energy-efficient light bulbs. As a backpacker, how far are you (or me or anyone else) willing to go to make less of an impact? Does this limit correlate with the degree to which you make environmentally friendly changes, if any, in your non-backpacking life? What is your motivation for making these changes?

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/21/2009 14:46:41 MDT.

Doug et al:
I have to agree with your "HYOH" philosophy here, except for when person A's credo or style has an impact on person B's credo or style. When your freedom damages my freedom, is it really freedom at all???

Consider a large-scale traditional hiking "operation" (large groups using semi-permanent base camps, lighting fires, digging communal latrines, moving trees to make seats for campfire singing, maybe stereos playing in the wilderness etc). For those individuals involved in this style of camping, this could be a wonderful communal outdoors experience. These folks could be careful to remove garbage and clean up after themselves, BUT, inevitably, their presence in the backcountry would leave an impact on the backcountry.

So, now you or I walk solo with our lightweight zero-impact philosophy, and we are forced to witness (according to our credo) the damage humans do to the environment. Part of this philosophy is to "leave only footprints and take only memories", so we walk softly, avoid damaging things, gently brush the grass when we pack up in the morning, dig a little cat hole and go TP free. At the same time, to do this, we must use more expensive and perhaps less durable (debatable!!!) gear. We might have multiple versions of the same gear, so that we can plan each trip based on weather conditions, seasons etc.

I guess what I am saying is, in the end we are all rational, we just appear irrational to one another because of our context, because of the lenses we each apply, which are biased by our own philosophy of life. Some people believe that the free market is the best way to provide health care for the US. Those people are almost all people who can afford to buy health insurance, and therefore have never experienced the problem with the free market - that by definition some people can afford to buy products and some cannot, i.e. that the market succeeds if the system makes profits. This is not part of their context, or perhaps they see this intellectually, but never having actually experienced it, they put it aside as less relevant than that which they have experienced.

So, I think we should update the HYOH philosophy, to say, HYOHBDDM (hike your own hike but don't damage mine). ;-)

Cheers, James.

The question of down is an interesting one, and certainly not straight-forward.

In countries like Poland they run geese in two different areas. In one (meat) area the geese live for about 1.5 years and are then turned into dinner. Their down is 'free' in an environmental sense, but it is not the highest quality. In the other (down) area the geese live to ripe old ages of 20+ years. Their down is manually harvested at molt time each year, when it is due to fall out anyhow. How do you assess the environmental cost of down birds?

In China all the down used to be from duck and goose meat chain, which is why it wasn't as good as the European down, but in recent years I understand they are starting to run specific down birds too.

Then there is the life-time issue. A 'good' synthetic bag may last just a few years before the filling gets squashed too much and it ceases to provide the warmth. Then you have 'consumed' both the filling and the shell. But a good down bag can last 20+ years with a little care. Since there is considerable environmental cost in making the shell fabric anyhow, a longer life has environmental benefits.

Any blind adherence to 'animal-free' products (or any other cult thing) tends to be more of an ideology than a reasoned rational behaviour. Every other animal on this planet 'uses' the planet: I cannot see why humans should not be able to use the planet (within reason) as well.

Yeah, I know - it's the 'within reason' bit which is hard in this era of intense promotional & marketing budgets.

Cheers

"tends to be more of an ideology than a reasoned rational behaviour."

I'm sure that many vegans have reasonable, rational ideas behind their behavior. Perhaps, it's not enough to convince you, but if it works for them....

The "best" rational argument that I have found, that works for me, for vegetarianism is: Knowingly, needlessly and willingly causing suffering to another sentient being is evil. Thanks for not arguing the point. It's a theoretical aside and discussions of environmental topics all too often devolve into pointless theoretical debate.

"How do you assess the environmental cost of down birds?"
Great question. I find that Patagonia does the best job at assessing the environmental impact of their products. I wondered what their thoughts were on down. I found their interactive discussion about down to be insightful (http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/footprint/index.jsp/?slc=en_US&sct=US). I will continue to buy down products, even as a vegetarian.

PS: Patagonia's Footprint chronicles is a great place to look for a lot of info on outdoor gear sustainability.

Edited by Found on 10/21/2009 15:36:10 MDT.

I care deeply about the environment, wilderness and wildness. And I feel ethically compelled to make adjustments and sacrifices in my own life. So I do extend LNT broadly. If you are still one of those people who is anti-environment, I'm angered by you, and I choose to leave you out of my life.

So, what are my thoughts?

- SUL gear is out. I spend hundreds of days outdoors a year. And I refuse to buy gear that doesn't offer at least some decent durability. I have also urged various cottage gear manufacturers to build with more durability in mind. Specifically, I'd like to see sturdier silnylon that doesn't start leaking after two seasons. And I'd like to see Dirty Girl Gaiters made with more durable fabric (they last only 3-500 miles. So yes, absolutely, I sacrifice weight in favor of durability.

- Almost all of my gear is made from oil. I'm not ready to move beyond oil here. So I try to buy less. And I also lean towards buying recycled and recyclable clothes. Patagonia makes great gear and offers clothing that I can recycle. I really like wearing stuff that I can return to the shop when I'm done with it. The sacrifices are pretty minimal here as Pataguchi makes great products.

- I repair my gear.

- Just today, I got back from my second ever U.S. public transit assisted backpacking trip. Left the house by foot and came back by bus.

- Generally, I refuse "free" schwag. Outdoor companies give a lot of stuff away. Typically, I don't need it, so no thanks.

- I'm trying to consider multi-sport gear more. I'm getting more in to cycling and right now I'm looking at cycling clothes. I'm either not going to buy any, or buy stuff that I'll be ok with backpacking as well.

- Yes, I cook and eat out of my pot. Partly because plastic bags are wasteful. I also repackage my food less and have been satisfied carrying food in less than ideal containers like bread bags.

Global warming is a real and serious concern. As is pollution and habitat degradation and destruction. I feel ethically compelled to partake in the solution. Mainly, I try to buy less STUFF.

I'm not sure that ultralight backpacking really does involve less waste. Sure, each product is made of less, but I wonder how we really stack up to other backpackers.

I do not think that UL backpacking is itself inherently less wasteful of product as it is of utility, but I think maybe the mindset is not too far off. If you ask yourself "How can I save weight and space by using one [something] that does two or three tasks instead of carrying two or three things that accomplish the same?" as a backpacker, are you more open to asking yourself the same questions as an everyday consumer? UL backpacking does take an anti-stuff stance in that sense. It is easier to eliminate wasted stuff from your life if you already have taken it out of your pack. Both practices make you lighter mentally.

-For gear repair, have you found a good adhesive/seal that does not contain toluene? Or avoid inflatable things and stick with needle-and-thread repair jobs?

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/21/2009 16:20:51 MDT.

Do you think about your environmental impact as you buy/make gear?
Mostly no.

Would you compromise weight for a piece of reclaimed or recycled gear?
Maybe. I bought some END shoes, but they are lighter but probably less durable.

How do you view the use of down and other animal-derived products?
It is not unethical to use animal-derived products, either down or foodwise. I would not however wear a mink coat ; ).

Edited by jshann on 10/21/2009 18:26:41 MDT.

Jshann- Do you have any insights to share on why these are your answers/views?

Look at it this way; hunting, fishing, off-roading, and RV camping are much more popular than the ultralight backpacking movement. I try not to be wasteful or leave a mess, but other than that I don't worry about it much.

acarter_1, let's see about insights.

Environmental impact of gear: We all must consume things to get by in this world we live in. While I do not think of my impact in buying some things to go backpacking, I do think of my impact in daily living. I most likely use less KWH than anybody on this forum, currently. Take that as a challenge : ).

Compromising weight for recycled gear: I am more interested in lightweight backpacking than recycled backpacking, but would consider a recycled product at the expense of a few grams...maybe. It depends on what that product is.

Animal-derived products: I believe that animals are here for human use and consumption in an ethical manner. What one considers ethical will vary widely. Admittedly that view does come from my upbringing in a christian family.

Edited by jshann on 10/21/2009 19:03:23 MDT.

"UL backpacking does take an anti-stuff stance in that sense. It is easier to eliminate wasted stuff from your life if you already have taken it out of your pack...."

Hang around this site a little longer and you may want to edit this statement. Do a quick poll as to how many packs, sleeping bags, cook systems, and shelters the average member here has.
A 10 pound pack looks really simple on the trail...but you don't see the mountain of gear in the garage that allows it- a bag for every season, a shelter for every type of trip, a stove for every menu...

I'm willing to wager that the average REI shopping "traditional" backpacker, while carrying more at once, probably has less gear overall.

Make no mistake, ain't nothing simple or ultralight about the entirety of the gear collections most people on this site own.

Lurk the Gear Swap for a while...
How many times have all of us "UL", "simple", "anti-stuff" backpackers burned 100 gallons of diesel to have that stove shipped to us only to save 14 grams over the perfectly good one we already have...Only to decide you don't like it and ship it out again...

Not to derail the conversation, but can an adverb follow a gerund in an independent gerundial phrase? Ultralight Backpacking Ethically? Ethical Ultralight Backpacking?

I'm not trying to be critical, just curious.

Edited by ChrisMorgan on 10/21/2009 20:19:27 MDT.

Grammer Police? ... As someone once said (I'm not sure who) .... "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"



------------
Winston Churchill
(Sorry - Roger Caffin)

Edited by rcaffin on 10/21/2009 21:04:33 MDT.

I considered both orders of phrase for my initial post title, ultimately choosing the former, because I subjectively determined that the acronym UBE, when pronounced out loud as a word, flowed more smoothly from my lips than did EUB. I also felt that, although correct grammer is essential for assuring comprehension on the part of one's audience and/or conversation partners, an online hiking forum, perhaps, is not necessarily the ideal location in which to display one's admirable command of English grammer. Ultimately, I decided that UBE sounded cooler to me.

I find it interesting that turning something in to an acronym even played a part in it. FWIW (LOL). OMG!

"This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"

SHALL not put.

You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent....

For those looking for a more ethical down bag, there is now an alternative.

Thank you for returning us to topic. We are wasting kilowatt hours of electricity talking about acronyms. Does anyone else have anything to say about the piles and mountains of gear that UL afficionados have in their garages? I suppose I have been assuming that UL is synonomous with simplification. My bad.

I remember running accross a political poll many years ago (30+) that found 80% of Americans rated the environment in their top 10 concerns. Or something like that. The much younger and less tolerant version of myself was surprised by this. I had assumed that there were a lot more "wrong-thinking" people in the world that wanted to destroy the earth, its environment and the species that depend on it.

This thread serves to remind me that most people, given a reasonable choice, (This last being highly subjective) will generally make the environmental choice if it is clear and economically painless. Many will even endure a certain amount of pain, in time, money or effort to protect the environment when they can. The trouble is, and this is the point here, these decisions are rarely clear cut.

The good news is that we are trying. We are seeking information on this site in order to make better decsions. We all know there are trade-offs between synthetic and down, both in the weight we haul up that hill and to the environment. The information will eventually lead us to the "best" answer.

I believe that the more we consumers demand more environmentally sound products, the more they will be available to us. Business will always sell what people want to buy. Business will also try to sell us a pig in an open pit mine and tell us it is good in some convoluted way. We just need to be informed consumers and not let them pull the (merino) wool over our eyes. So keep asking questions. Keep seeking the lightest, most useful items. Keep looking for the companies that protect our environment. It will not be simple, but we are getting better at it.

>Obviously, political conservatives and liberals are equally capable of being concerned for the environment.

Exactly right. If you're a conservative, you're a conservationist. If you're a liberal, you're an environmentalist.

I'm one of those fuzzy-headed liberals who believe that if you look for common ground, you just might find it. If you look for conflict, you'll get it.

That's why I appreciate the generally non-accusatory nature of this thread. We may disagree on the methods, but the goals remain the same. Nobody wants to despoil the natural world.

Stargazer

>"Exactly right. If you're a conservative, you're a conservationist. If you're a liberal, you're an environmentalist."

an abslutely correct statement.

By the way, can someone explain to me what this trash is about "Ethical" backpacking? Give it a break -_-

Edit: And may I also add that the government needs to get it's paws off!

Edited by edude on 10/21/2009 22:35:12 MDT.

I think there is only one easy way to be sure you are having less impact on the environment due to your purchase and use of backpacking gear - purchase and use less of it. By using less, the uncertainties of the relative environmental impacts of synthetics vs. natural fibers, recycled vs. new, and so on, become less critical. It goes back to the basic idea of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle in that order of importance.
So one aspect of traveling light in the backcountry - not taking unnecessary gear - is inherently a good idea for the environment, as long as you also don't buy that unnecessary gear. In other words, the footprint of your gear is not what you carry but what you own - and to a lesser extent how long you own it. Wehn you use something until it is worn out, you get the most use of the resources that went into it. When you get something new just because it's a little better and the old item sits in the closet, that's more footprint for effectively the same use. I think that if you must have new gear, it's actually better to sell the old stuff so someone else can use use it and wear it out, thus getting all the use out of it.
But of course it is more complex when looked at over the long term. Someone mentioned the closet full of differnt sleeping bags for different conditions, adn so on. If you have several different bags (for instance) and you use them all enough so that over a period of many years you wear them all out, then you would have worn out several bags if you had owned only one at a time - and would not have enjoyed the benefits of having the right bag for each trip. Complexities do indeed abound.

In (overly)simple terms:
the babyboomers rebelled against their depression era parents/grandparents who believed in conserving, pinched pennies, saved and reused packaging, had a small wardrobe, and tried to never be wasteful.
So the babyboomers became the "Me" generation and loved excess and the excessive materialism postwar industry provided ( war battered Europe was just rebuilding itself.

Then as they grew up ....they realized their parents were right! But instead of admitting it they re-branded old fashioned values as "green" "LNT" "environmentalist" and the poison of US bipartisanship created a false image of the other side as being against them in spirit when they were only against them in detail. Then they turned against the huge industrial/Holywood material/fashion machine they created and ashamed and embarrassed at what they've done revised history to make it look like older generations and traditional Western values created that consumerist monster when it was in fact their own misguided youth culture.
Of course the science of environmentalism and the success of resource exploiting industry opened a whole new world of understanding the limits and impacts we can have like never possible in human history.
Let both sides of the isle come together to rebuild our infrastructure with out branding people because they find SUVs useful or can't afford to install solar power, buy patigucci cloths, eat like omnivores, or view GW with healthy skepticism. These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished.

"These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished."

Thank you.

The issues are hugely complex - if you cut down on what you buy, the economy goes down, jobs are lost and lives become harder. What is needed, as in most things is a sense of balance. However, when you have our version of 'democracy' and where the means of production and exchange have become a moral arbiter rather than just a production mechanism, where also ideologies such as 'freedom' and national identity are combined, you are fighting a loosing battle.

>>...you are fighting a loosing battle.<<

Darn loosing battles.

In one way ultralight people are friendly to the environment by carry less gear, unfortunately many of us have much more gear than most sitting at home. We could be friendlier to the environment and our wallets by calming down in our lust for the newest lightest gear. Or at least make sure to sell more of our extra stuff so that others do not need to purchase it new.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/22/2009 13:14:03 MDT.

"These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished."

Thank you.""


cheers

UL gear does not last as long and ends up in landfills sooner than more durable, heavier gear.


Discuss.

True. A Cuben or Silnylon pack wears out faster than a dyneema pack.

It would be interesting to find out the net environmental impacts of the maufacturing of UL gear (or its components if you make your own) and build a "cradle to grave" list...for companies and their products...I know that some manufacturers, even major ones, in the outdoorsy-people business are doing that...Patagonia, Chaco, REI, etc....also smaller ones like Tundra (the ethical down bag people)...

I know that, when it comes to my own gear, I will pay more (reasonably) for less impact. I see investing more money, such as I possess, in products or processes that have less net effect on the environment/do not use unfair labor practices/etc.

In the U.S. economy at least [unfortunately], we vote with our dollars if by no other means...so a shift in the buying habits of a group of consuming people [hikers] is noticed much more quickly than changes that are less concrete- social or political in nature. As long as this economy is driven by GNP and the "growth is good" concept...the more that UL backpackers, or regular ol' backpackers for that matter, shift to environmentally-friendlier gear, the more notice will be taken by the manufacturers...

Honestly...despite the recent Pew "Americans don't believe in global warming" poll, I get the impression that non-recycled, non-reusable products are going to be passé within a couple decades. I don't have much to back that statement up...but I feel like the rapidity with which recycled and repurposed products have hit the market and are replacing throw-away standards bodes well for a change in our economic habits.

It seems to me that recycling is about as clear cut as it gets in terms of reducing human impact on the environment. That is why so many of us are willing to put in that little extra effort. In that, I completely agree that we will see more recycling, re-use, gear swaps etc in the future.

But this is not "despite" people's beliefs about other environmental concerns. I for one do not think Global Warming is clear cut. I do not see how it is possible to establish a base line temperature against which to compare current global temperatures. That is: how do we know what the current global temperature would be today without human industrial activity?

Please understand that I personally believe in taking action to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels for a lot of reasons. The possibility of global warming being one of the least of them. My only point is that it is hard to get people to take action in lock step when it is unclear just what impact enduring the economic pain have on the environment. When the benefits are clear however, it is easy to get everyone on board.

I think more people would be on board with the concept if it was presented more reasonably. Telling people the world is ending tomorrow due to global warming automatically triggers the BS meter in a lot of people's minds. Then they become entirely unmoved by any environmental messages. Seeing politicians use it as a scare tactic also firms up this reaction.

Edited by michaeltn on 10/23/2009 14:34:47 MDT.

"Seeing politicians use it as a scare tactic also firms up this reaction."

Politicians use everything as a scare tactic. "Socialism!" and "They're just trying to take your guns away!" are two of my personal favorites. Unfortunately, many (most?) of our politicians are not our best and brightest (or, perhaps, even very bright at all), so they don't have much else to rely on to get elected. Plus, let's face it, much of the voting public is pretty, well ..... ignorant. Not quite capable of critical thought. FUD works, and it works well. In fact, it works much, much better than honesty.

Anyway, I think reasoned people, for quite some time, have been warning about global warming without the "world ending tomorrow" rhetoric. IF global warming is a real problem (I think it is, and the vast majority of scientists think it is, but I respect those with opposing opinions when based on science and critical thought) then there's a tipping point. Don't know when that tipping point is. I personally think we're at it or near it.

So ... if the bridge is out, and you keep heading down the tracks toward the bridge at a high rate of speed, early on you can calmly say that you really need to change direction. But at some point, if you just keep barreling down the tracks in the same direction, the message will necessarily get more dire and compelling, and perhaps, just before you go crashing down into the canyon, hysterical.

FWIW.

Doug

Edited by idester on 10/23/2009 14:57:33 MDT.

I'm very much aware that ultralight backpacking depends on cheap oil.

As I hiked the PCT this summer I thought about how none of my experience would have been possible without cheap oil. From the gear on my pack to the food I ate to my rides to and from the trail to the helicopters bringing in trail crews to build bridges and dynamite new trail. If there was no cheap oil there would probably be no PCT hikers.

Still, I reused all the ziplocs I could. (I do this at home, too. I try to never buy plastic bags.) I didn't use TP (but I admit I got so mad at the weather once I decided the earth deserved to be shat upon). I made as little impact to the wilderness as I could, but I gave up on cleaning up after others. If they don't care, why should I?

I don't know what to do sometimes. Down might be mean to birds. Synthetics are bad for the environment. Not much of a good choice there.

I'm a liberal tree hugger but I think hunting for food is ok.

I think that it starts with increasing awareness, first in ourselves then others who are open to it enough to not try to chew us up the minute you mention environmentalism. As soon as you have that epiphany, "Hey, all this stuff comes from oil, and it all had to be manufactured and shipped here, and at what cost?" then you start to become more and more aware of exactly what resources are required to get a single quart-size zip-loc bag from the oil field to your kitchen shelf to your pack. It's more than anyone [in the U.S.] realizes without a good deal of thought. Myself...I stopped buying new plastic bags, started re-using all the ones I had...when those are finally toast, I will recycle them and sew some new ones out of durable fabric (preferably recycled bottle fabric of some sort).
Why should you care? Because you know that it is a better choice to care- in every way. Otherwise, you would not ask that question in the first place.
About choices...maybe right now the choice between X piece of gear or Y piece of gear is not ideal. I think that is part of the point. That those of us who know enough to care put in the effort to try to get choices improved.

As an aside...on global warming...and the environmental sciences are actually my field, so I did not see this on An Inconvenient Truth (I have actually not watched it)...it isn't about warming or cooling, necessarily....that, like most things purported in mainstream U.S. media, is too simple...there is no baseline "normal" temperature with which to compare our current state....nor can any scientist "prove" that we are going to blow up the planet in the next 100 years...the Earth has gone through stages of warm/cool/really freakin cold over over its entire life (Global Weirding)...the problem is the rate of warming...exponentially faster than during pre-industrial human history...dangerously fast....will we wipe ourselves off the planet? maybe....but we are actually capable of preventing our own extinction, unlike any other species in the history of this planet (most of which are extinct)...what is so amazing about cars/factories/oil that we will sacrifice our own lives and the lives of coming generations to protect them? As I see it, if there were even a remote chance that my actions could be the direct cause of global catastrophe and the subsequent deaths of millions, I would make an effort to stop whatever that action was. I like this planet. That's why I hike. (Back to topic at hand with brilliant segue.)

If greater sustainability in backpacking gear production is the goal, it seems that shifting gear production back to organic materials is what's needed.

I think it's great- there's a big movement to go back towards waxed cotton packs, etc. within the bushcraft community.

How these materials fit in with UL is pretty questionable.
I'd love to see someone put together a a sub-20lb. fully functional kit without using any plastics/synthetics.
Is it even possible? Sub 15? Sub 10?

It would be great to see some new designs maximizing the materials of old...I don't necessarily believe it has to be a regressive shift.

Maybe I have my next MYOG mission...
Anyone got a good source for a decent organic WPB hemp distributor?


P.S...Sorry to be a buzzkill, but I really don't care for the acronym.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/23/2009 20:43:26 MDT.

The magic fabric your most likely looking for would be silk ... in lots of different weights.

SUL gear can and has been made from silk, just look up in the make gear forum. Bill up there has even made hammocks from the stuff I believe.

-"I'd love to see someone put together a a sub-20lb. fully functional kit without using any plastics/synthetics.
Is it even possible? Sub 15? Sub 10?"

I've been working on just such a MYOG project for a while now.
EDIT :Started a new thread in MYOG as I have a feeling this one is gonna get ugly.

Edited by MAYNARD76 on 10/24/2009 03:08:24 MDT.

Here is an argument about global warming that makes a very strong case for taking action, no matter what you might believe.

I can never understand why talking about taking care of the place that we all live in somehow becomes an argument about being conservative or liberal (personally I don't believe that there are any purely liberal or conservative people... either of those are unrealistic fantasies). Perhaps it is more useful to think of the planet as our house. You have a house on the street in your neighborhood and you don't know who's living there, do you think it makes a difference whether the inhabitants are conservative or liberal? But take a look at how the house is being cared for and the attitude, diligence, awareness, and knowledge of maintenance immediately jump out in the condition you see the house in. Don't take care of the house and it will fall apart. Do care for it and it will last many years and provide good shelter for its dwellers.

How is caring for the Earth any different? It's got utterly nothing to do with politics or beliefs. We physically live here. We depend on it for every single minute detail of our survival. We must breathe its air. We must drink its water. We must eat what life it provides. We cannot live anywhere else (and even if we did have another place to go, the same conditions would apply there, including whatever transport would take us there). Its health affects every single aspect of each of our lives, no matter what denomination we are. So why not stop quibbling about whether we should care for it, or whether we believe in global warming or species extinction or oceans getting polluted, and simply get to business, using our minds for better housekeeping (including new attitudes and values) rather than wasting time on rhetorical debates?

I would think that anyone who gets out into the wild and spends time there would inherently see this as the way the world works. Unless your eyes are not open and your gear is the only thing you are concerned about when you are out there.

Its hubris to think that the planet is going to think of you as somehow special and spare you if things do go wrong (in the same way that a dilapidated house won't think twice about falling on you and killing you). And its laziness and folly to not care that things might go wrong (just as you can get by for so long by not caring for the house before it finally comes crashing down).

Why do the arguments in the States always come down to left or right? It seems childish to me.

Bill up there has even made hammocks from the stuff I believe.

Mark, I had a chill when I read this. I hope it's nothing... is Bill all right? I know he's been battling cancer for a long time. I hope he's all right.

No buzz-killing happening here. I don't like acronyms, either...including my own. Thought I would give them one more chance; alas, some ideas are doomed to failure.
Anyway...I was giving some thought to lightweight fabrics...especially strong, water-resistant natural fibers...I know there are some out there...Silk can get pretty heavy...I read a few years ago that some researchers were trying to match the tensile trength of spider silk in a synthetic...strand per strand it's stronger than steel. Maybe a hybrid fabric? I don't think that synthetic fabrics need to go to the chopping block, necessarily. It's the oil-based components and manufacturing techniques. Think we could get the best of both worlds on that?

P.S.--I have hopes that this thread will not get ugly.

I too have hopes for keeping this thread from getting ugly. I have been hanging out on this site, both because I am trying to reduce the weight of my backpack, but because there seem to be a lot of good critical thinkers here.

My interest is in solutions. Even when there are trade-offs. My own personal environmental dilemmas stem from my tendancy to hold on to useful items becuase they still work, even when there are other downsides. This year year I got rid of two SUVs. One was the kind that you park in your garage, the other was a 20 year old external frame pack that was well over 6 Lbs.

What do you do with this stuff? The SUV I was able to donate to charity. It's fate was to be sold at auction, either as a functional vehicle or to the scrap yard where it will be recycled as best as possible. I am not sure what to do with the pack. It is displayed in my picture to the left. It is currently a part of my home's halloween display as a repository for "bloody bones". But next month, I will want to get it out of my garage. The same goes for my 5 Lb synthetic sleeping bag that is as old as the pack.

Going light in a green way will not be easy. I will probably send some of this old gear to the second hand store. (anybody want a 5 Lb synthetic sleeping bag? I will sell it cheap!) I will also agonize over each piece of "functional" gear I replace for both personal financial reasons as well as my impact to the environment.

On a nother note, my compliments to Brian on his project. Maybe some good solutions will come from that. I am interested in silk as a base layer. I am too warm a person for wool most of the time. Even synthetics seem to be too heavy for me. It is amazing how much the solutions are right there in nature. My concern about silk is that it will not dry as rapidly as other materials. I have just started to experiment with it.

Keep asking questions everyone. Keep suggesting solutions. Anyone got a better idea for my ancient gear?

Hi Miguel,

I am still alive. I continue to have a few medical delays when it comes to being able to go hiking however.

=================
The good news:

I am in my third week of a six week of physical therapy treatment program to correct a right shoulder - rotator cup - problem. That seems to be coming along OK.

Cancer in my Balder is still happening at a rate of two or so times a year. I am schedule for a once a week for six weeks type of chemotherapy treatment starting mid November that my Doctors hope will slow that down. I will continue to get a Bladder exam every three months so when cancer does comes back it is never more than three months old. Outpatient surgery (21 times now since 1997) when necessary and back home usually the same day is keeping that in check.

My one Kidney seems to up to the task and that is always a nice thought.

Even though I can not eat real food my 100% liquid diet has allowed me to maintain my weight at about 158 pounds for the last 4 + years. I do take a group of different Vitamins every day. Ensure even comes in a DRY form so when I can hike again I can used that for my trail food.

If you asked me how I am feeling, I would tell you better than I have for a long time. It is almost scary.

I never stopped walking at least 2 miles everyday even when I didn't want to. I have increased my distance up to 4 to 6 miles a day and 8 miles ever so often. Last Thursday I walked 5 miles in pouring rain wearing all my older GoreTex rain gear (TNF jacket and pants both with lots of venting options), OR gaiters, TNF - GoreTex lined - Hiking Shoes and I stayed dry. I really mean dry. The weight of the all the above was 5.7 pounds. Those that know me may be surprised that I would even have all that heavy gear. It is from the "old" days.

My old gear will become a base line for me to see what I can replace it all with that is a lot lighter. The only requirement for the new gear is that it HAS to be as good at keeping me DRY as the heavier things do. I am getting to old to try a long hike such as the AT and run into a lot of rain and end up wet out and forced off the trail. I don't mind walking in the rain if I am warm and more or less dry.

So what do I have in mind. If things work out I might get up to Georgia sometime just after the new year for some hiking on the AT. That is about all I want to say at this point.

I have stared to work on different ways to winterize my TNF Hiking shoes to keep my feet warm and dry for a winter hike.

Other items of gear necessary are in the early stages of design with a few pattern prototypes under construction.

I will try to be as light as the weather conditions will let me.

==============

The bad news:

Their is no bad news only "to heavy" gear.

This has been a long answer to a short question.

Up there only referred to the relative position of this thread in relation to the MYOG thread ..... sorry for the scare.

Bill ... it's always a pleasure to "hear" your words.

Mark

Sorry if I came across a little strong in my post. I wasn't trying to rile up anyone. And it's hard to put into a few words a lifetime of concern for the deterioration of the natural world. It's just that so much seems so stupid and so indifferent and so selfish that it's hard not to get heated about something that I dearly love. Too much is being lost.

Thank goodness, Bill. When Mark wrote "Bill up there" I thought the worst. Great to know you are doing better than before. Hope you can finally get on your long walk soon.

Sorry to hijack the thread.

"Anyone got a better idea for my ancient gear?"

Offer them to the next homeless person you see wandering without bag and/or pack. It could make a real difference to their marginal quality of life. That's what I did with an old heavy weight Gore Tex jacket I had hanging in the basement. It's by no means the optimal solution to the plight of the homeless, but it can make a small temporary difference. It might even help someone make it through a sub freezing night. Just a thought.

Edited by ouzel on 10/24/2009 18:46:45 MDT.

I was going to make the "give them to a homeless person" suggestion as well. Even if you can't find one right away, leave them in garbage bags under the nearest bridge; someone will get them. They will also use the garbage bags.

I was reminded of something else as well, thinking about fabrics, which is one of my other motivations for being on this site. Backpacking light is especially difficult for me during fall/winter, because I am a ridiculously cold person. I want to be as light as possible but still have to keep warm. As an example, I recently did the Northern Loop Trail on Mt. Rainier and wasn't totally prepared for the snow that came. I was cold in a -30 degree synthetic bag (with 4 layers of clothing, 4-season pad, and tent w/ fly) even though the temps never got much below 40 at night. So my goals are to be light, warm, and as environmentally friendly/ethical as I can. Thoughts?

Anyone here who knows the proportions of backpacking gear's environmental impact caused by materials (it is built of) vs. logistics (to get it to you)? Of course there are no exact figures, but maybe an educated guess on magnitude. At least in some well defined cases.

I'm no expert here at all, but somehow believe:
The raw material is about nothing compared to the whole chain of factories, transports and shops between oil field and your garage. What matters is how often do you buy gear and how long is it's logistic chain. Ethical gear is durable and repairable gear, be it made of synthetic or natural fibers, recycled or not. Synthetic fibers are often tougher and thus usually more environmentally friendly. (With the exception of down being way better than fiber insulation)

As said, I'm no expert, and will believe more educated people who tell this was wrong.

Then another subject is whether the biggest pollutant in the life of a backpack is the person who drives it to the trailhead, even once.

Disclaimer: the calculations below are grossly inaccurate. I'll be happy if they're within a factor of 2.

Conclusion: the energy costs of your BP gear is much much less than the energy costs of driving a car to the trail head.

UL gear will use lighter material (less mass), so less environmental impact than heavier versions of the same material. Shipping UL gear will use less energy than heavier gear.

As a very rough guesstimate:
Synthetic materials made from petroleum feedstock will use roughly 1 lb of feedstock for each pound of finished material. With inefficiencies and fuel used to produce it, say 2 or 3 times as much mass of petroleum as finished material. So a 1 lb piece of gear uses at most 3 lb of petroleum (probably closer to 1 lb than to 3 lb).

Transportation of the gear also uses energy, but much less than transportation of you (the hiker) and gear to the trail head. Consider that the shipped gear may weigh 2 lb and your car weighs 3000+ lb. If you travel 100 miles to hike (200 miles total) and get 33 mpg, that's 6 gallons of gas = about 36 lb. If you use the item for 50 hikes, that's 1800 lb of gasoline. So, taking 10 lb of UL gear might use 30 lb of petroleum in its manufacturing and shipping. Transporting you to the trail head might use 60 times the fossil fuel compared to manufacturing the gear you use.

The food you eat on all these trips also has an energy cost that is likely more than the energy cost of the gear.

Probably smaller than using an electric car to get to a trail head unless you cook on a wood fire then your carbon footprint goes way up. Its all relative.

Someone once said that the only sincere act of an extreme environmentalist is to commit suicide. This relates to my hereby proposed Butler's Law of Environmental Degradation, as follows:

People = Pollution

Even the most environmentally pristine of us generates a tremendous amount of pollution, just by being alive. The amount of pollution generated in order to feed, clothe, shelter, and transport each of us is enormous. In this context, agonizing over the impact (for example) between a synthetic and down sleeping bag might make one feel better, but it has virtually zero practical environmental impact on a planet with over 6 billion (and growing) polluting people. It's not even a drop in the bucket.

This will make some people uncomfortable or even angry, but I believe that the most important long-term environmental decision the average person can make is how many children to have. I'd argue that the decision to have an additional child will, for the average person, have a larger long-term impact on the environment than all the other environmental decisions that person makes put together.

There's an analogy with compound interest. The number of kids each person has on average is like an interest rate, and the average age at which people have children is like the frequency of compounding. If everyone has 4 kids starting at the age of 20, the population (and pollution) explodes. But if everyone has 2 kids starting at the age of 30, the population stabilizes, or even declines. Waiting significantly longer to have kids reduces the number of generations of a given family who are alive at any particular time, which reduces population and therefore pollution. That's just the inarguable way the math works.

A more subtle point is that, in contrast with many environmental decisions, a decision to have fewer children causes a permanent environmental improvement lasting after one's death, because you've created fewer polluting descendants for all time.

The thing is, I love kids! It makes me uncomfortable as well to say all this. But it's reality.

So by all means, make a good effort to reduce your environmental impact via the usual methods. But don't kid yourself that you're having a large effect in the overall scheme of things. To have a much bigger impact, have fewer kids, have them later in life, or both.

If you're inclined to get political about this, focus on trying to change government policies which encourage population growth. These policies exist all over the world in one form or another. The most obvious example in the US is the income tax exemption per child, but there are many other examples as well. At the very least, these policies should be reduced or eliminated to help reduce population and pollution growth.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. :-)

"I believe that the most important long-term environmental decision the average person can make is how many children to have."

I've been following the Quiverful movement, aka The Duggar Family. Does this mean I shouldn't convert to their religion?

"To have a much bigger impact, have fewer kids, have them later in life, or both."

Darin,

Good on ya! I've been thinking this since pretty much this thread started, but didn't want to rile people by saying so. But now that you've had the courage to bring it up, I'll tag along. While, like others, I try to tread lightly on this earth, I believe that my decision not to have children was the most environmentally friendly decision I've ever made. Not trying to castigate others for having kids, like you I love kids. But I agree that having/not having children is the biggest environmental impact anyone can make. FWIW.

"Someone once said that the only sincere act of an extreme environmentalist is to commit suicide."

These misanthropic arguments are pretty tiring. Perhaps it should read "the greatest and most sincere act of of the misanthrope is...."?

These arguments rule out some of the very best things of human nature: that we have the capacity, if we choose, to create enormous POSITIVE change all around us. Our children have this ability too. They also rule out the simple fact that we are here and it will not change.

So please let's not go down the "human extinction being the best thing for the Earth" road...it's probably the single most unproductive way to approach environmental conservation.

On population/children:
If you can't persuade people to stop driving giant cars, do you think they'll give up child rearing? If telling people how to shop is infringing upon "freedom", what about controlling reproduction? It's a non-starter. Better to spend time working on things we CAN change.

We're here, and there are billions of us and that likely won't change soon- so we need to work POSITIVELY within the constrains of that fact.

Tom: not sure who's tongue is more firmly in cheek, mine or yours.

Douglas: glad you liked it.

Craig: You misunderstand me. I'm no antipopulation zealot. Nobody thinks the "let's save the planet by rendering humans extinct" crowd is more ridiculous than I do. Nowhere did I recommend that people stop having children. In fact, if you knew what I do for a living, you'd laugh uproariously at my original post!

I'm merely pointing out that spending lots of time on a website worrying about one's backpacking equipment is an extremely ineffective way of improving the environment. There are bigger fish to fry. Unless, of course, you've already done everything else possible and have reached the point of diminishing returns. Which applies to very few people.

"We're here, and there are billions of us and that likely won't change soon- so we need to work POSITIVELY within the constrains of that fact."

Darin wasn't arguing for suicide at all, he simply used someone else's statement as a jumping off spot for the point he did want to make.

As far as the above statement, I simply disagree that working to make people understand ALL that it means to have children is unproductive or not positive. If we always confine ourselves to work only within the constraints of current reality, then we'll never change anything.

Many have written on the impacts of the human population from the population viewpoint itself. I am most familiar with the writings of Ehrlich, but of course he (and she) were not the first. Yes, of course, that spending time on a website worrying about one's gear impact is, perhaps, entirely useless, not to mention just one more use of electricity. Good thing, then, that worry was not the motivation for this thread. Positive action starts with awareness. Who better, really, to become more aware ourselves and then the spread that awareness than those of us who love the natural environment?
You also might want to look into the terms "carrying capacity" and "replacement rate" in relationship to the population question, especially the variations between cultures and countries as well as the impact of education of women on population problems.
For the record, whoever it was, no, you should not join that religion. :)

I love it when two seemingly unrelated things in my life connect. I am working on some family ancestry research right now. I have an ancester from the 1800s that had 9 children... by his first wife. When she died he remarried and had at least 3 more!

I have two children. If I pick an ancester halfway between, it is 5 children. We humans, at least in developed countries seem to already get it.

My biggest "bang for the buck" pick would have to be alternative energy sources. Solar and wind energy (and others!) should make a huge difference... if we just get serious and consistant about developing them.

>>> If everyone has 4 kids starting at the age of 20, the population (and pollution) explodes. But if everyone has 2 kids starting at the age of 30, the population stabilizes, or even declines. Waiting significantly longer to have kids reduces the number of generations of a given family who are alive at any particular time, which reduces population and therefore pollution. That's just the inarguable way the math works.<<<

I have one child, and started at age 38. I guess I can now carry on with my gear obsession guilt free...!

"My biggest "bang for the buck" pick would have to be alternative energy sources. Solar and wind energy (and others!) should make a huge difference... if we just get serious and consistant about developing them."

I'm glad I don't live somewhere where there are windmills surrounding my horizon.

Hopefully, technology will develop to the point that we can clean up the planet a little, for instance mining landfills for recycling and energy...I actually have a friend that engineers landfill gas handling systems, whether for burning it off or generating power. I would like to see more big grinders that just pulverize and shred everything, like old mobile homes. Watch Who knows where the future could take us, if governments would do something besides make wars.

>>> If everyone has 4 kids starting at the age of 20, the population (and pollution) explodes. But if everyone has 2 kids starting at the age of 30, the population stabilizes, or even declines.

Isaac Asimov wrote, "Almost all of the problems of the world can be summarized in three words: Too many people."

Stargazer

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.

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/26/2009 09:23:33 MDT.

>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?

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

Airborne, virulent, multiple-drug-resistant organisms?

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.

Edited by butuki on 10/26/2009 16:38:49 MDT.

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.

his vegetarian "agenda"? maybe it's just his diet. maybe he talks about it too much because he's interested in it. (i probably did the same thing 20 years ago when i became a vegetarian.) but it probably doesn't qualify as an "agenda." that's a loaded term best reserved for Fox News.

it is great fun to look for hypocrisy around you, but it is at least as great to understand that there is always someone doing what they do "better" than you. there is always someone kinder, more penitent, less wasteful, more charitable, more peaceful, more XUL, etc.

i think that it's good to take these individual moments as chances to learn and do better. i think it's okay to drink wine whilst also wondering if factory farmed turkey or Patagonian toothfish represents a "better" meal in North America.

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.

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/26/2009 18:41:22 MDT.

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....

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/27/2009 09:28:49 MDT.

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.

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/27/2009 11:43:32 MDT.

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.

Edited by justaddfuel on 10/27/2009 11:56:20 MDT.

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.

I think demonizing people due to what they drive is being pretty arrogant; nobody knows who these people are or what/why they might be driving a big car.

What about the Honda Civic driver that drives 100 miles a day, eats spotted owls, and burns crude oil to heat his home?

I think SUV's draw too much flak...
I happen to drive a semi-fuel efficient (by American standards- 25mpg) car- but I drive it 58 miles a day, 4-5 days a week.
What of the 8mpg HUMVEE driver only doing 5 miles per day?
Who's "worse"?

Assumptions, assumptions...us vs. them, in crowd vs. out, I drive a Prius so I MUST be more enlightened than you...

Anna,

Are you tall? Do you find it hard to fit in the majority of vehicles out there? I will guess most likely you have never had that issue.

We have 3 vehicles:
A 2009 V8 Titan king crew cab truck
2000 Xterra, outfitted for offroading
1993 Mercedes Benz 300D

Of those vehicles two are fully paid off. Being paid off versus buying a better mileage new vehicle is a huge issue. Why spend $20 to 35,000 for a 40 MPG vehicle when your paid off clunker runs fine.

As for our vehicles my husband drives the Benz as his daily driver for commuting. When he worked in the city he rode the transit for 3 hours a day round trip. Where he works now has NO transit so he must drive. Transit is a pipe dream in many areas and often is so awful and inconvenient when it is there. The benz we run on Bio and get high 30's to low 40's. And sure it is great "green" wise I suppose. But comfy? Heck no for tall people.

So why do we have an SUV and also a truck? Easy....we like to offroad, the Xterra is for that. She isn't driven much as she gets about 12 MPG due to her heavy weight (bumpers, full plates underneath, lifted, etc). I refuse to feel guilty that we enjoy periodically a fun family activity that others might not understand.

And then we come to our truck. We bought a V8 for its power. It actually gets BETTER gas mileage than the 2000 V6 Explorer we traded in. My 'couch on wheels', that truck is the comfiest ride I have owned. More so, it is the first vehicle outside of land yachts that fits my husband. We test drove many, many vehicles before getting it. When he gets in, you can still put an adult behind him. In our diesel sipping Benz no one, not even a child can fit behind him, the seat is back all the way and he has to lay the seat back back a bit. Our son has such long legs he cannot fit in the backseat of all high mileage sedans if the person in the passenger seat wants any room....

So we bought a monster that can haul 5 6'4" men without issue. And that can haul our gear for fun and for business. Big SUV's and trucks have a purpose for which they work well at. Not everyone wants to ride around in a tiny Prius carrying a couple tiny suitcases. I for one am just fine with driving a V8, knowing it can haul what I need. and I happen to like power, not wondering if I need to cut some holes in my floor and Flinstone a 4 cyl car up a hill.....

Then again, I have been a truck and SUV driver for so long I don't like small cars. Freak me out.

PS: That Titan? It has been up plenty of "narrow, rocky, muddy forest roads" since we bought her. Has more to do with the driver than the vehicle!

And as for the dream of transport that is magically green, only if you live in the city. No thanks on that. I'll take my country/hill billy lifestyle over that.

I love down. There is nothing like down out there. I'd rather wallow on natural insulation at home and on the trail than some freaky synthetic made of who-knows-what. I have down socks, booties, bags, jackets, sweaters...did I mention I love it? I love wool as well. I hate synthetic clothing.

Our cats also agree: down rocks. It is all their delicate butts like to sleep on.

Give me leather shoes. Synthetic materials only encourage blisters and stinky feet.

I wear wool socks almost all the time, even at home.

I enjoy meat even at times. I don't eat it daily so when I do I buy the best I can find - I prefer Bison.

I live life as fair and evenly as I can...but I don't worry about being green or eco-conscious by any means. All that is, is well a label to make one feel better!

Black & white vision and/or judgemental attitudes only serve to foster misunderstanding and greater divide within society.

I wrote a MYOG article a while back about a silk-shelled down vest. I've researched silks and natural materials for use in outdoor gear... realizing that they might not actually be the most sustainable method of producing gear. But there is some promise... I've also explored & written about the zen of backpacks... my undergrad degree is in environmental conservation...

I have two big dogs. I live as much of my life outside as possible. Gear tends to live in my vehicle. I take trips with other people, and gear. Many roads around my home (going to the places I'm interested in) are built around logging. It is quite common to see people with cars stuck in their driveways or in parking lots for maybe 4 months of the year. I used to drive a fuel-efficient vehicle. Then I realized that it didn't make any sense for where I lived or where I wanted the vehicle to take me. I drive an SUV. If I could get it with a turbo-diesel and get another 10MPG or so, that'd be great... but not an option I can just add in on my budget. Given the area I bought the vehicle for, the daily commute is generally 5 or 10 miles. Not so many miles a year.

Many aspects of my life revolve around sustainable life choices, philosophies, policies... but sometimes the benefits of a given choice outweigh the perceived costs.

Edit: Oh, and to echo Sarah... I regularly park my SUV in "Compact Only" spots that Civic drivers can't seem to fit in... it's definitely more about the driver. Amazing the places you can drive!

Edited by 4quietwoods on 10/27/2009 14:58:36 MDT.

The fastest (social) changes are incremental. It is no different than the process for reduing the weight in your pack. Very few people can go from a 50+ Lb pack to a 15 Lb pack all at once. It costs too much, it is too much change for just about anyone to wrap their brains around.

I am trying to reduce my 50 Lb pack weight to 30 this year. Maybe I can get to 20 the next year. I gave up my SUV for a sedan and 50% (or better) increase in MPG. My wife and I both telecommute as possible. (She is 100% telecommute)

All we can do is make changes and choices that move us in the right direction. Sometimes we can learn to do with out, (do I really need a multi-tool AND a camp knife?) and sometimes we can replace with something better. Sarah's V8 gets better mileage than the old V6. Sometimes being green is about making good choices about what you REALLY need and sometimes it is about using the latest and greatest technology.

I have a 20 year old sub 3Lb tent. I am trying to decide if I want to reduce its weight (Ti stakes could save me 6 oz) or just replace it with one of the cool lightweight tents that people talk about on this site. Its not a decision I am going to make this year.

I think solar power is going to be one of the top answers to our energy challanges. (no one answer is going to solve it all) As James points out, there is a lot more to it than just photovoltaics. But even the PV tech is intriguing. Chad, I think your information is out of date. Some of the latest technology is manufacturing solar cells with "Ink Jet Printers". Essentially the same machine you have at home for printing from your computer.

The frustrating thing is that the gov't keeps changing the rules about how much is spent to stimulate this technology. When there are incentives, there is innovation. If the incentives go away too quickly, the technology does not make it to market.

In the long run, I do not believe Sarah needs to give up her big ride. We just need a better way to power it. We are heading the right way and if we can just keep our eyes on the prize, we will get there.

Balance truly is the key. I'm frustrated by the lack of advance in automotive (and motorized) engineering, too. The mileage of many vehicles and ORVs is apalling, given the technologies we have at hand. Case in point: Cadillac's big cars, like the Eldorado and Deville, with V-8s and plenty of horsepower... can get 28 MPG (know this through family). The 505-HP V-8 Corvette can get 28 MPG or so... but the Smart car only gets about 30 MPG... How smart is that? (Edit: Mileage figures from memory; after David's post below I went to Smart's website... it gets 33MPG... but city, 41 HWY with a 1L engine. Still pretty abysmal when you consider the totally disparate vehicles and not-too disparate mileages. Also double-checked Corvette: they've had a bit of engineering regression if my memory is correct, it's actually 24 MPG for the 7L Z06, 26MPG for the 6.2L 430HP base model.)

Ah, yes... when my friend bought his Subaru the V-6 was more fuel efficient than the 4-cylinder. Is it bad that he bought the more fuel efficient car, since it's more powerful? Should he have gotten the less efficient car, just because it fit into a false eco-mindset of "better?"

Edited by 4quietwoods on 10/27/2009 16:43:29 MDT.

Just like buying a new tent. You have to get what works for you and you have to wade through the hype. Going to the trailhead, I'll take Sarah's V8 (or the V6 Subaru for that matter) over a Smart Car anyday. (that is a funny image, isn't it?)

On the other hand, the first website I found with numbers says that the EPA originally rated the Smart Car at 37 MPG, but has since revised it to 60 MPG. I am not claiming to have done any real research here, but I find the idea that a 'vette and a smart car have only 2 MPG difference to be less than credible. I would want to back that up with some real research before I started throwing that one around.

The problem is, to use a concept from this site, the Smart Car is not exactly what you would call "dual use". Unless you are referring to the fact that it only holds two people. If all you are going to do is drive it to work in the city (not unlike Sarah's benz) then fine, but not many folks are going to be willing to have this as their ONLY car.

(My wife REALLY wants a Cooper Mini, but we probably will never own one.)

The Smart car is hilarious. 28 mpg. Wow. My 1996 Civic gets 45 highway and 28 city. It also has a back seat.

Obviously, I did not make this clear...but I am not trying to attack anyone based on what he or she drives. Or eats. The point is awareness and progress. If you absolutely require a vehicle for your life, and you make your choice with the environment somewhere in mind, then good for you. My point is that we, especially in this country where we have so many resources, settle for the choice between bad and worse. A Prius may or may not be "better" than a Hummer, depending on the driver (how well he drives or how tall he is or whatever). We can argue all day about fuel efficiency, dependability, eco-friendliness. There are multiple valid points to be considered and no "right" answer. Ultimately, there is not even enough difference between a Prius and a Hummer to come to a consensus on the environmental point. To me, the fact that a vehicle that is marketed as eco-friendly, whatever the commercials tell us that means (apparently lots of dancing people in costumes), is not significantly different is a serious problem. My point is that, in this culture that has been built around owning a vehicle, we have learned to be satisfied with the choices we have been given...despite the fact that we also have the power to demand more and better choices. And, yes, it makes me angry that peoples' decisions are limited by the amount of money that can be made (by someone else) off of a product. There is absolutely no reason why there cannot be an affordable, emissions-free vehicle made from recycled materials that is tall enough for really tall people. Except "What if there isn't a big-enough market for it, and the company loses money?"
The thing that bothers me most is that short-term profit for a few is more important than the maintenance of our own life-support system. And we all go along with that to some degree. I can't figure that one out.

I have never driven a "smart car" but have wondered a few times if there weren't some auto design engineers laughing their a**es off back at the drawing board.

"My 1996 Civic gets 45 highway and 28 city. It also has a back seat."

Is it an "HX"?

Those Smart Cars are worse than a freaking Yugo or a Geo Metro! I could see owning one if you are single, no kids and live in a city with narrow streets. If and only if it got like 50 or more MPG. Our diesel Benz gets much better room and if I am driving it (rather than my tall husband) we can fit 4 adults comfy with packs in the trunk and still get way better mileage. Sadly though, those low slung German cars don't have much clearance. So low that on potholes often to avoid grinding, everyone has to get out. Makes it a super sucky vehicle for logging and FS roads!

I think more so the Smart Car scares me with how it looks like a toy car. It is so narrow and tiny.

Speaking of....a freaking Geo Metro got pretty spectacular mileage. Though they are scary little boxes to be in.

I will say that when we did buy the Titan, had it been available in diesel we'd have bought it without a second thought. Sadly though finding diesels in the US is not easy unless you want one of the very loud chattering Ford, Chevy, GMC, etc types. We don't. Outside of the US for example Nissan makes diesels. Most car companies do. The other issue is that the US made diesel trucks are on average $10K MORE than standard gas. Yech! It just isn't worth it for the trade off of higher mileage to pay that much more! So we accepted that when we bought a traditional gas powered truck.

I prefer diesel though, on the West Coast it is very easy to get Bio from B5 to B99.

To take this somewhat back to the OP, I see the vehicular correlation with backpacking gear in the title of this post... feature creep, cost containment, and engineering regression.

We have the technology to make things very lightweight (or very fuel efficient), but frequently those products which have the potential don't meet the potential. Part of it is pure and simple economics. The great mileage of the big ol' Cadillac is related to an expensive engine. Are you willing to pay an extra $5-10K for a really fuel efficient engine? Or, back to backpacking, are you willing to pay for a custom Cuben mid? How about life cycle? What kind of use are you going to get out of the product?

In terms of regression (and leading into feature creep), IIRC the older VW turbo-diesel Jettas got around 54 MPG, and the newer models get around 42. But then, perhaps IDon'tRC... (pretty sure I do though, I was going to buy one for a sales job)

I think that if our cars were stripped of extraneous features (power everything, computerized everything, sensors everywhere) they could be sold for roughly the same cost as a techy-engined "super" fuel efficient model. Likewise, if there weren't so many *&!! features built into backpacks they wouldn't weigh so much. Not to beat a dead horse (I might've mentioned this once or twice before), but my 30y/o Gerry 70L framed pack weighs 2 pounds, complete with metal zippers, leather patches, and packcloth. It seems like with today's technology packs of 1 pound or 2 would be nearly commonplace. But features keep getting added on... and there's the advantage of durability that some extra weight margin brings.

Just a few more cents in the pot...

Edited by 4quietwoods on 10/27/2009 17:01:17 MDT.

"If they can just get rid of the theocracy...."

And replace it with....??

I'm an automotive technician.

I think what most of you consider an SUV is really a jacked up minivan. Most of them get pretty reasonable gas mileage. Around 20 or so. I agree that 20mpg is not "good" but for a 5-7 passenger vehicle it's not bad. Especially when you consider all the BS safety requirements the government puts on these cars, side impact beams, 20 airbags, active stability control etc.

Smart Cars are a joke. They only get 40 mpg have no trunk no spare tire no cargo space and no back seat. A car that spartan should get at least 60 mpg if not 80. Maybe with a diesel....

Hybrids are also a joke they only get marginally better gas mileage than their ICE counterparts and cost 5-20k more. Hybrids will not last they just don't make sense. Now a plug in hybrid with a dedicated electric motor and a small gas or diesel powered generator would be perfect. You could theoretically get unlimited gas mileage in something like that.

If you want a car with good mileage look to the cars of the 80s and 90s. Someone mentioned a Civic HX what a great car 40 mpg+ and capable of 50 with the right modifications.

But you don't have to get a boring old civic HX, I had a 91 CR-X si that got 30-35 mpg.

My 1985 mr2 with the original engine got 30-35 mpg too. I swapped a more powerful more efficient engine from a japanese market corolla and it gets 40 mpg now and revs to 8500 rpm sounds like a race car and is much faster than the stock engine.

"Someone mentioned a Civic HX what a great car 40 mpg+ and capable of 50 with the right modifications."

I can get 45-47 on the freeway if I keep it below 65 and there's no headwind. But you're right, Jesse, it's boring for folks that care about that kind of thing. Me, all I care about is getting from point A to point B as cheaply and environmenally as I can without sacrificing my freedom of movement. Only downside for me is the HX doesn't cut it on rough roads-not enough clearance. Not so good on snow and ice, either.

You left out non-existent ; )

Anna said,
Even though hybrid vehicles are a small step, we need completely different, efficient, quiet, sustainable, non-polluting, people-connecting modes of transportation.

I had a 1980 Buick Skylark I boughtright out of college that got 32-33 MPG. It's kind of amazing that new cars now get the same mileage. Sometimes.

"If they can just get rid of the theocracy...."

And replace it with....??


Education.


"non-existent" . sigh. ...

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/27/2009 17:27:12 MDT.

Anna, there of course is nothing wrong with bringing up the conservation topic. It makes us think about what we are doing. At least you are being nice about it and not condemning that I can tell.

What does Anna drive?
Is Anna a traditional, lightweight, or ultralight hiker?

These are surely fair questions of those bringing up the UBE topic?

Strident self-righteousness draws lines in the sand, creates "us vs. them," leads to wars...

You dismiss other societies and cultures out of hand... they're "theocratic" and need "education," ie, they're ignorant.

I find it instructive that one of the two current theocracies (per a quick google to wiki search) is Catholic, Vatican City. Is that also an ignorant society?

Secular societies are not inherently ignorant. Striving to understand them--and in them, us--instead of dismiss them out of hand is part of the path to an ethical life.

"Strident self-righteousness draws lines in the sand, creates "us vs. them," leads to wars..."

Very, very much agree. Ignorance also leads to wars. Sheeple allow their 'rulers' to start wars. All countries - theocratic and secular.

"I find it instructive that one of the two current theocracies (per a quick google to wiki search) is Catholic, Vatican City. Is that also an ignorant society?"

Since you're asking, yes.

"Striving to understand them--and in them, us--instead of dismiss them out of hand is part of the path to an ethical life."

Female genitalia mutilation -- don't want to understand them. Stoning 'sinners' to death -- don't want to understand them. 'Honor' killings -- don't want to understand them. Beating kids for holding hands -- don't want to understand them. Protesting the funerals of dead soldiers -- don't want to understand them. Beating a 'happy' man and then hanging him on a fence to die -- don't want to understand them. Self righteous? I don't think so. Just tired of so, so much ignorance/hatred/fear the world over. Way past trying to understand any of it. That's why I backpack -- I'm simply running away. Works for me. YMM, of course, V. If that lack of, I don't know, tolerance makes me unethical, I'm quite okay with that.

Note: I think y'all get my meaning of 'happy' above, since the ridiculously and excessively prudish filter has decided that the G word is profanity!

Of course they are fair. I will answer anything (almost...) I don't own a car. I bike pretty much everywhere and have chosen to live in a place where that is fairly easy. To get into the mountains, my hiking buddy has a 4-cyl station wagon.
I am lightweight, though this is connected to my bringing up UBE in the first place; I would love to carry a sub-10 base weight. Being as environmentally conscious as I can, though, is more important to me than shaving ounces, which is why I brought up the topic in the first place.
I will certainly not condemn a person, but I will condemn apathy, greed, and materialism that are so prevalent in our society...and the "me" concept. Regardless of who we are or where we are, every action we take has an impact; I think it's our responsibility to know that impact and know it effects everyone. It is not just about individuals in their own little world bubbles.

Would I say that the Vatican is an ignorant society? A city with vast riches that has spent centuries destroying various tribal cultures and leaving its followers in poverty, while they live in opulence? I would say evil, not ignorant. They probably know full well what they do.
There is, of course, a requirement for striving to understand people and cultures that is inherent in ethical existence. Understanding and not hating does not mean that you have to take a tolerant perspective of "whatever they do is fine, and I will not interfere or judge because its their culture." That is just a weak position.

I probably shoulda stayed out of the secular aspect; I'm particularly sensitive to such issues right now. FWIW, I actually agree with many of the things Douglas and Anna have just said. I don't think anyone here would condone FGM, genocide, torture, or other such stuff...

My point about striving to understand is that if there's an anti-social (of course, does depend on the society) behaviour that you feel needs to change, you won't get far by telling someone "you're ignorant," or "you're wrong." You can't persuade them to change unless you understand why they're following a particular practice in the first place. Only by fully understanding why they're doing something can you help them make their way to your point of view.

And that's where I'll bring it back to the backpacking aspect! I've found people quite resistant to change from heavy, traditional backpacking styles if I just start off talking about ultralight. But if I start out asking them questions about how and why they travel the backcountry, etc, then I can see which points of UL philosophy might appeal to them the most. Instead of framing discussion in terms of ultralight, I just talk about it as backpacking... 'cause to me, that's really what it's become.

Cheers, and peace-

You city live, you ride a bike or walk. And you carpool to the mountains. It works for you. Good. I have no issue with that.

One time long ago I lived that way as well. I walked everywhere or biked. Lived in a centrally located area. Then I got older, had a kid and found that it wasn't so easy. I wanted my child to have a yard like I did, a school system that was great and fully funded. I wanted a low crime area. I didn't want to be in my home at night listening to car alarms, emergency vehicles and neither did I want to deal with traffic to get out of the city.

People change, that is a fact of life. What is once easy becomes hard to do. Often it is phases of life. You grow up in the suburbs or the country, so that you will have good schools, low crime and fresh air. You city live in your 20's - it can be cheap, fun filled and ways to enjoy everything a person wants is nearby. Kids in your 30-40's means back to living farther away - you need a home big enough, you go farther out to buy more house for less money. Often older adults, free of kids return back to city living as they want activities and less maintenance.

It is all about choices in how people live. It does not mean that those who prefer big homes, big cars and big families are any less than those who live meagerly in a studio. Often it is because they have achieved the ability to live that way through hard work. Neither does it mean that they don't value the Earth either. They are simply humans, living.

"you won't get far by telling someone "you're ignorant," or "you're wrong.""

We agree on much. Took me awhile to learn the above lesson. I'm older, mellower, not such an angry young man.

Yes, back to backpacking. My refuge from this crazy world!

Have fun. Live happy. Smile often.

or, as one of my favorite groups, Over The Rhine, put it: "Pursue justice. Seek wisdom. Be merciful. Embrace beauty. Roll over. Good dog."

I agree. Good dog. Although some statements/beliefs are right or wrong in light of all available (or unavailable) evidence, I have chosen not to engage in arguments with those who utilize fiats. Gets us nowhere as people.
Nice segue, Brad. Back to backpacking....I have chosen to keep environmental ethics above being super-duper rad ultralight. My other obstacle to being lighter, then, is not finding the environmental options so much as staying warm. I am not one of you fortunate guys who can sleep under a tarp in the snow (yes, i exaggerate...but you get the point). I sleep in a 0-degree bag in summer and just stay comfortable. Add a UL quilt over that for anything below 60 degrees at night. Plus the usual layers of clothes. I would like to find a single-wall shelter solution, though, that will also keep me warm. I have a lightweight tent that has seen better days, and it is about time to stop doing repairs.

"would like to find a single-wall shelter solution, though, that will also keep me warm."

You might want to check out bivy bags, maybe even something like an ID Unishelter. Also, if you don't already, consider eating a good heavy meal at the end of the day and let your thermogenic processes help keep you warm at night.

After reading all of the arguments until now two things I think need to be established first before any kind of discussion can progress, namely:

1) Do you believe there is a problem the planet is facing? If not, then any talk about the ethicality of ultralight or regular backpacking is moot. Are there any people here who flat out deny there is a problem?

2) If you do believe there is a problem, what would you consider excess? If no consensus on excess can be reached, then we're doomed. By the same token, what are the bare minimum and optimal conditions we must set in order to give the planet a fighting chance?

The argument for protecting the ecosystem depends on our cooperating and agreeing on standards to aim for. Individuals need to practice some form of conforming to these standards and to what the group thinks is best for the whole, and these individuals need to accept some level of letting go of doing whatever they please. Just because an individual "likes" something doesn't mean it is the best thing for the planet or that the planet can tolerate the activity. Lots of individuals love eating tuna, but at present levels tuna are disappearing and are on the verge of going extinct in the next ten years. It happened to the North Atlantic cod. No reason why it couldn't happen to the tuna. There are times when an individual's wants are outweighed by the needs of the whole community.

But the American argument so often is, "I have my rights!" How can any problems be even acknowledged to exist in such an atmosphere?

Edited by butuki on 10/28/2009 03:48:49 MDT.

Yea, my Civic is an HX. And it's not that boring, it has VTEC and with the tall gears you can go 60 in 2nd.

... evan, i thought you are 14. can you drive at that age in Oregon?

Edited by DaveT on 10/28/2009 10:02:48 MDT.

Miguel- you have some really good points, though I think we can skip over the "is there really a problem?" part. If a person thinks there is no problem and cannot be convinced otherwise with all available data, then at that point, those of us who know better are wasting our time and should just stop. I began the post because there IS a problem, and I want to make my actions count for as much as possible. You are correct about the American stance on individual rights; people are right to be concerned about their freedoms being taken away. [In a shameless employment of cultural reference] what they do not realize is that Spock was correct about the needs of the many. I think that, because of fierce individualism being seen as an absolute good, people in the U.S. have come to think of themselves as existing in little bubbles-each contains one person and his/her rights. I.e., One person eating tuna doesn't affect anyone else and if you don't want to eat tuna that's fine, but it's my right to do so, so leave me alone and don't try to repress my right to eat tuna. Something like that.
For me, this is where the ethical stance comes in, where an individual's rights should not infringe on the health or safety of another person (for some, other species as well). This includes every person, no matter where they live. Obviously, the arguments can get pretty complicated, but they don't really have to.
You are exactly right. Individuals, especially in the U.S., need to realize the impacts of their actions on a global scale. It isn't all about one person. If nothing else, I would love to see more people ask themselves the level of environmental damage that they are willing to pass on to their children.
To that end, I think people should be willing to sacrifice a great deal more of the extraneous things in their lives than they currently do.

No...you cannot drive in Oregon at 14....legally.

I'm 27. Not sure where you got the impression that I am 14. Must be thinking of someone else.

"You are correct about the American stance on individual rights; people are right to be concerned about their freedoms being taken away. ... because of fierce individualism being seen as an absolute good"

Hahahahahaha .... oops. Excuse me. Ummmmm, while there is a small subset of Americans who are truly concerned about their freedoms (per Bill of Rights), most are really only concerned about their freedom to be greedy, their freedom to buy the next biggest newest toy they can, their freedom to be as ignorant as they want to be. Americans have, for quite some time, been MORE than willing to give up their basic freedoms for some false sense of security from the boogie men endlessly peddled by our jingoistic politicians/other people of power. Fierce individualism? Hardly, not for most, not in this country any longer. It's a myth. We're soft. We're lazy. We're way too complacent. Been like that for many a moon now. But we do so love to think of ourselves in that Marlboro Man manner.

A gross generalization, yup. Certainly doesn't apply to everybody. But, in my always humble opinion, it applies to most in this country nowadays.

Exactly. Americans think of themselves as the rugged individualists of the romanticized American West (or some comparable nonsense). Yet we are chronically dependent on other people and/or technology to do the work for us. I think that the perceived individualism and actual rampant materialism are certainly mutually exclusive.
I think (or hope to think) that the generalization does not apply to most people. I think that ignorance of the true impacts of one's actions can be applied to most, though.
It's good to bring that up--that people are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms for a false sense of protection. And the ones who scream about their freedoms being taken away are the ones most willing to give them up, who actually already have handed them over to some degree. But we won't sacrifice a greedy, materialistic culture in order to help actually ensure our own survival as individuals and as a species.
Back to backpacking....

nm

Edited by sandalot on 12/10/2009 06:10:18 MST.

Ask your boss.

nm

Edited by sandalot on 12/10/2009 06:10:59 MST.

Then...a backpacking forum is probably not going to help you answer that question.

Has anybody done research on the environmental impacts of various types of gear you own? Anybody interested in doing so? A cradle to grave analysis for a single piece of gear?

Anna,

I've really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks. I always balk at the effort/resources required to determine the energy consumed and waste created by a potential piece of gear. There are so many factors to consider, including the lifespan of the gear, the materials used to construct it, the conditions of the workers who do the constructing, the conditions of the workers who harvest the raw materials, etc. etc. etc., that it seems like it would take an inordinate amount of time (and money spent in the form of phone calls, internet energy, etc.) collecting this information and processing it. This process would significantly add to the cost of any particular gear. Let's say that the time-and-money spent collecting and processing this information is roughly $100. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money in a pursuit that actively conserves energy elsewhere. Carbon offsets, reforestation projects, and the like?

If you're going to buy a piece of gear you need, there will be energy consumed and waste created no matter what. How much energy and waste can you save by careful shopping, when you factor in the time and money spent collecting the information to compare products? Probably not very much.

I think general guidelines are probably more in order. Such as, buy durable gear. Buy gear that can be recycled. Recycle your old gear. Buy used gear. Etc. The effort required to track and compare diffferent products may consume more energy than it saves in the long run.....

Just a thought!

Edited by Rezniem on 10/28/2009 15:58:08 MDT.

Man and Mule PCT thru-hike

http://www.manandmule.com/

Craig (the same here on BPL) and I often joke (seriously) about themed trips like this guy's.

What peeked my interest with this project is the notion that you can still pursue the small or large feats we're commonly enjoying, while finding alternatives, and challenges, in the doing. And that's most of us here at BPL, but through Bronze's exploration of era-specific gear , and the great comments in his gear-list, it's obvious to me that we can focus our ingenuity toward many methods and ideas, and realize deeper philosophies in the practice. My point: that we can conceive our place in nature with humility; really explore and know your limits, instead of fueling an ego with gadgetry and technologies.

One comment on Bronze's gear-list was a suggestion to use wool blankets, "just use two wool blankets. you’ll harden up in a few days and be able to sleep anywhere on anything."

Right f'ing on!

That excites me more than a cuber-fiber down mat. What's even more exciting is realizing the possibilities of modern UL methods and natural fibers, coupled with some of that down n' dirty Roughin'-It.

I'm digressing, but Douglas hit the mark, "we're soft". Yea, I'm a slight guy, myself, wool blankets is some heavy sheit. Maybe I ought to build some muscle and a few callouses. But, Doug said it again, "we're lazy". Well, is that a challenge, Doug? ::grin::

Anna, thanks again for the thread.

cheers,
-Michael

Edited by uberkatzen on 10/28/2009 16:45:35 MDT.

Thanks for posting this Michael.

We were just talking about this on the phone- holy crap, non-internet human contact!

UL/SUL gear doesn't excite me too much anymore either.
I practice it, I've dialed my gear in pretty good...I've seen the light.

Now what?

I guess it's time to start questioning things again.
I'm not too impressed by lighter materials, packs, and pads anymore either.

So what does excite me still?
Deeds and style, not gear.

Doing the JMT with 19th century gear would be SWEET.
Building a backpacking kit out of purely organic materials would be AWESOME. Who cares if it weighs 50 pounds.

So I too have been researching older gear, objects made from durable organic materials, recycled materials. I have some sample gear lists written out and I've been sketching plans for wool blanket sleep systems/ponchos, canvas tarps, etc. We'll see. I guess I'm only limited by time.

I recently saw WWI canvas poncho/tarp that looks just like a Golite Hex when pitched. That's COOL. It's 100 years old and still functional...although you might have to patch a bayonet hole or two. Talk about "sustainable".

Anybody miss the good ol' days of having only one trusty stove, shelter, pack, and bag? I do.
This UL thing sure complicates everything with its "simplicity".
Maybe the wilderness experience I'm looking for has nothing to do with plastic gear from China, but some sort of deeper connection- not just with the land, but also with the origins of my gear.

????

i hear you craig. i too have been dialing back from the SUL fringes. sold my two recent pack purchases (though they were pretty stout dyneema kinda packs), and back to using sturdier Granite Gears, bought used. i don't think i'll even talk about making a cuben fiber inflatable pad. i think i just want a pretty simple kit with some options for all conditions. the bleeding edge is a fun exercise, but not really for me; however, i don't think i'll be carrying a canvas tarptent anytime soon either!

i guess in general i try to get by with as little as possible, while enjoying some fun toys and durable, higher-quality stuff too. and no car... just a couple old japanese road bikes from the 70s, fixed up!

Edited by DaveT on 10/28/2009 17:19:04 MDT.

"Has anybody done research on the environmental impacts of various types of gear you own? Anybody interested in doing so? A cradle to grave analysis for a single piece of gear?"

Have you?

"Anybody miss the good ol' days of having only one trusty stove, shelter, pack, and bag? I do.
This UL thing sure complicates everything with its "simplicity".

AMEN...

I think Im at the same place as you. After I exhausted all the gear options for UL and know what works for me -whats next?
I know the smell of oil that hits me every time I go into a gear shop always bugged me a little.(being a little factitious). The more I got to know the environment by learning about the wildlife and plants the more you get to know about their uses, the more I learned about traditional skills and gear the more disconnected and over the top the modern gear seemed to be to me. I will always remember the time I went on a short outing with some buchcraft practitioners at a coarse and my foam sleeping pad seemed so out of place and one guy politely started a conversation about the pad that first introduced me to the difference between LNT and displaced impact. Don't get me wrong modern gear can do things only dreamed about before, but for "most" of my uses I think more natural sustainable materials will do just fine and in some cases better.
There is no zero impact gear and trying to find some will be like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin- at some point it just becomes absurd and divorced from reality.
Still, I like the idea that my pack comes from a hemp farm instead of an oil field/refinery and my cooking fuel comes from the forest litter and not an offshore drill. And in the end if it doesn't last or get recycled the worst that will happen is that all that gear will become compost.
For me thats the next step.

Now see what you have done, Anna. You have brought about the demise of this entire website. There are people that depend on this site. They need their cuben fix. (psst.. hey buddy can you spare an ounce?)

We're just going to have to rename it to BPE, (Backpacking Environmentatlly) and move on to different materials. Instead of smoking... errr packing... cubens, we'll have to smoke... errr pack... hemp. (I think those are both illegal in the US, right?)

Thanks, guys. I have enjoyed this thread too. A bit of digression, but that is pretty much not preventable. Though probably a good thing that there is a profanity filter on this site....
I agree with you; there are more important things and more exciting things than the latest super-light materials. New challenges to be had; that's why I have picked the environmentally-friendly route. I love that I do not carry a traditionally-laden pack, and I enjoy the enhanced ability to enjoy my surroundings that comes with it. But there is a point when that last 2 ounces (or last 2 lbs) just doesn't matter. I don't feel like doing a Johnny Waterman-style solo traverse or anything, but I feel like sacrificing weight for "green" backpacking (lame, trendy word, but whatever) is a better choice for what is important for the wilderness in the long run.
I currently have one bag w/ a quilt, one pack, one pad, one shelter, one stove, one little pot, one set of hiking clothing, etc. I can't say that it is all nicely organized at the present time, but I can say that it works for me. And it is darn lightweight by any traditional standards. So I can tell you that those good ol' days are pretty sweet. Cheers.

Tom - No.

David - The thought of single-handedly bringing about demise makes me feel excitedly evil...
As far as what to smoke....give up smoking anything. To be truly Super-Cool-Amazing-Rad Ultralight Man, you have to (1) Memorize the growing seasons and locations of all the happy wild mushrooms, (2) Pack a single recycled waxed paper bag (cut in half to save weight) for transporting said happy mushrooms to your bivy site, (3) Make tea, (3.5) Drink tea, (4) Run around your titanium alcohol stove naked, wearing only your tarp as a cape and one recycled synthetic mid-weight sock on your head, (5) Be one with nature.

"And it is darn lightweight by any traditional standards."

How much does your kit weigh, Anna, if I might ask, and how long do you typically stay out. I'm not pursuing any agenda here; It's just that base weight tends to assume increasing importance the longer the duration of a trip, IME, especially as one gets older.
Interesting thread, BTW. Good on you for starting it. :)

"(4) Run around your titanium alcohol stove naked, wearing only your tarp as a cape and one recycled synthetic mid-weight sock on your head, (5) Be one with nature."

Time the tea ceremony for late afternoon, skip the tarp and sock, climb the nearest tree at sunset, and truly be one with nature.
;-)

""If they can just get rid of the theocracy...."

And replace it with....??


Education.""

A laudable idea in theory, Anna, but then you get down to the nitty gritty of who does the educating and who determines the content and things start to go downhill. This is a very diverse world, culturally; we have spent enormous sums trying to do just that, usually after breaking a lot of other peoples' furniture and having them kill/maim a lot of our young people in the process. In the end it hasn't done much good. Let them work their own destiny out. They're just as smart as we are and eventually they'll evolve. They might even come up with a better idea than we have. Things aren't looking so good around here lately, in case you haven't noticed. Let's take care of business here at home first, eh?

My base weight fluctuates between 10 and 15 lbs depending on the weather. The heaviest thing in my pack is water, since I dehydrate my own meals at home. A short backpacking trip is 4 days. I try to stay out at least 10 in the summer. I love multi-week trips, but those have unfortunately been few and far between. :)

Um...going to another country/culture that we don't understand (but have still managed to mess up horribly with our greedy demand on their natural resources) with guns and telling them how to change does is not included in any even partially rational definition of "education." And I definitely did not imply in my one-word answer to your question what I meant by "education." I definitely meant none of that stuff you said.

"And I definitely did not imply in my one-word answer to your question what I meant by "education." I definitely meant none of that stuff you said."

Of course, but Tom's point is still quite valid. Just who is going to do the educating? And what will we 'teach' them? If it's us (U.S.), we'll end up trying to teach them to be good consumers - the same thing we teach our own. I agree with Tom that it's a laudable goal, but he's right, in practice it's fraught with difficulties and such. We don't even do a very good job of educating our own.

The single most sustainable backpacking kit is probably the one that you already have.
I suppose it's pretty easy: regardless of what type of gear you own, just don't go out and buy any more until it's all COMPLETELY beyond function and repair.

(UH OH, I think this reeks of the slow death of capitalism...at least our hyper-version of it.)

But ending your gear consumption certainly doesn't jive with being a gear-head. Or MYOG freak. Or someone (like myself) interested in the possibility of slowing replacing their gear with organic material.

That's why I'm probably more interested in creating an organic/non-synthetic kit simply to get my kicks rather than some sense of saving the planet with my gear.
If I want to save anything, it seems pretty simple: stop consuming everything I can.

I see no reason my Jam2 won't last at least another 10 years...but how long can I resist the lure of "progress" in the UL industry, shiny new materials, and the promise of a newer, "better" pack?

Edited by xnomanx on 10/28/2009 20:12:04 MDT.

it works with the minimalistic (bring less stuff) side of UL backpacking at least (i.e. i don't need camp clothes, camp shoes, UL latte maker, etc.) but agreed it doesn't work with the gear-head nature of much of UL backpacking (what's the next thing i can buy to replace the thing i just bought to save 1.1 oz?).

buy used stuff. buy durable stuff. use what you have. take care of it. repair it where possible. get by with less. etc. etc. and above all... get out in the field! don't just obsess about gear on the internet! :)

I hope I don't ever have to use this acronym, but if I do, how is it pronounced?

Is it oo-bee, you-bee-ee, you-bee, or just youb?

You said it Dave.

I'm pretty suspicious of the urge to buy our way to some sort of sustainability through better products...meanwhile the factories, freighters, tractors, and trains still roll at full steam. Capitalist/consumer culture has already done a pretty good job of co-opting environmentalism in this country.

Edited by xnomanx on 10/28/2009 20:59:56 MDT.

Making things out of stuff that never really goes away is pretty crazy when you think about it though....

Check out these photos...
http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11

I don't think sticking with what I have is enough,
in that Im thinking about the fact that there are always more backpackers born every day and more people get into backpacking all the time. These people go to the shops and there isn't one pack or tent ect made from anything but plastic and synthetics.
Someone has to show that it can be done and it doesn't mean lugging heavy old uncomfortable camouflage army/hunting gear around.
Thats what Im interested in -making a practical working kit with natural materials where ever it makes sense to so.
Then maybe someday there will be UL cottage companies selling the latest greatest in natural fabric gear. Thats how the UL movement started, people showed what was possible and good ideas spread. I don't have much hope that things will change in that direction though not until they have to.

....to paraphrase our favorite Ghandi. Corny shiet, I can see the eye's rolling. anyway...

I've long believed that change doesn't happen until it's a desperate condition; until the alternatives are unacceptable. That's how I first experienced it. But I also have seen that there does exist a process of education, generations of evolutionary thinking put into practice. It's where many of us are today already, e.g. littering. Cheers to PBS and PSA's.

I'm going to ring a bell as an example: I'm preparing, next fall, to be a mentor for an 8th Grade Waldorf student, and my offering is UL Sustainable Backpacking. MYOG. There's your next generation, Brian (yeah, it's a private school). I'm also mulling a pro-bono class for craft/art folks who subscribe to Make Magazine, makezine.com, on the same topic at machineproject.org here in LA.

How bout this: I have a friend with a hemp clothing company. And I know a company working with water-proofing technology. Lets see if those can't be married in a backpack, tarp tent, etc!

I personally remember when UL wasn't even a fantasy, and I was pained by traditional backpacking. Now I'm here at the edge of UL, looking past it to the next stage.

EDIT: Yo, craig, thanks for the crhis jordan photos. have you seen "manufacturing landscapes"? the videography of Edward Burtynsky, in the same vein of sad, evolved/unnatural beauty.

Edited by uberkatzen on 10/29/2009 10:05:06 MDT.

Well spoken Brian and Michael.
Count me in.

So when's our first trip with organic threads?

-I'll look into Burtynsky, thank Michael.

To all reading this, I'd highly recommend that anyone who's interested in "human impact" issues check out all of Chris Jordan's photography, not just the one's I linked to above.

E. Burtynsky does amazing work. I don't know if it's an actual genre/subject label, but "human impact photography" is near the top for artistic impact, at least for me. Has anyone seen the Pacific Gyre garbage float, by the way? I have seen something similar in the Atlantic but nothing with that kind of square mileage.

Maybe some of you guys who have already done extensive MYOG projects could start your own [green] company, making lightweight gear from organic and recycled materials. Bet that could take off like duct-tape wallets.

Tom and/or Douglas - The future will be determined by either repeating the mistakes of the past or by learning from them and doing better next time. And do you honestly get the impression that I would be in favor of Americans, as a group, "educating" anybody?

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/29/2009 09:22:32 MDT.

If you want to find the lightest 'natural' gear available, simply go back in time. Check out the kit-lists of the early Alpinists and Himalayan explorers. These folk were usually aristocrats, and could afford the best in everything.
I don't think any new natural fabrics or materials have evolved since then.

I met Chris when we both did Photoespaña in 2004, the guy is heavily committed and has made some pretty extensive personal sacrifices to do the work he does. He also uses a very non UL camera that weighs more than many would take for a 3 month hike!
I'm not convinced by his recent work, but he has integrity, and lives his convictions, he 'walks the walk.'

Good advice, Mike. But maybe a new species of Amazonian silnylon bush (Awsomis lightis) is just on the brink of evolutionary divergence. It could happen...

You could be right, Anna. Maybe there is an undiscovered 'sil-nylon' bush in the Amazonian rainforest.

Of course, when it is found, huge sreas of the forest will be destroyed to cultivate it more profitably. ;)

The one thing that many of the explorers of old had the luxury of was fire.

For us contemporary trekkers, this isn't possible anymore (in all locations).

A somewhat limiting factor.

Way to kill my dream of the silnylon bush...just for that, if I ever find one, I am not telling you. ;)

Does anyone else think it's kind of mind-blowing that building a fire is now considered a luxury?

Something I would love to do...develop an ethic based around a "New Taboo." Here's my idea...cultural taboos, whatever their origin or content, are present in every society to some extent, right? One aspect of them is that they are relatively self-policing, i.e., a taboo (as opposed to a law) does not have to be enforced by any one group that doles out the punishment, because it is something of which a culture disapproves, as opposed to a single individual [leader or despot], religious group, or what-have-you. So...in order to form the concept of New Taboo.... (Yes, this is somewhat a fantasy, but work with me.)... Brief Definition of: It is [culturally] abhorrent to undertake any practice that harms the environment.
Seriously...if that idea could just catch on with the public (Ha!), then people could catalyze some amazing change.

" Brief Definition of: It is [culturally] abhorrent to undertake any practice that harms the environment.
Seriously...if that idea could just catch on with the public (Ha!), then people could catalyze some amazing change."

It already exists.
Most folk apply it to THEIR environment though. Defining the environment is the challenge. Financial, natural, economic, etc, etc.? Your own personal circumstances dictate your outlook on the world.
NIMBYism is alive and well.

Sorry for being such a cynic today, Anna. :)

Let me share a few thoughts I sometimes entertain.

Why have humans evolved in the way we have? Is it natural or unnatural?

It seems to me nature has a way of balancing things out. It seems every system from the whole of the universe down to quantum mechanics, or the earth itself down to microbiology is a perfectly built and working chaotic system. Complete Yin and Yang holding a tight balance.

So it seems to me, if we are natural beings, we fit into the puzzle neatly, but maybe as a virus.

So where does this leave the natural destructive tendencies of humans?

I'd hate to see it get too out of hand. We already have too many that think animals should have more rights than humans.

http://sciencematter.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/grocery-bag-eating-bacteria/

"Would I say that the Vatican is an ignorant society? A city with vast riches that has spent centuries destroying various tribal cultures and leaving its followers in poverty, while they live in opulence? I would say evil, not ignorant. They probably know full well what they do.
There is, of course, a requirement for striving to understand people and cultures that is inherent in ethical existence. Understanding and not hating does not mean that you have to take a tolerant perspective of "whatever they do is fine, and I will not interfere or judge because its their culture." That is just a weak position."


The same "tribal cultures" who were at war constantly with each other butchering their opponents and even offering them as human sacrifices to their Gods.

These cultures becoming Catholic made them poor and the Catholic Church converted them deliberately to make them poor?

There is a hint of hate mongering and ignorance in your beliefs.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 11:23:04 MDT.

Dear cynic - I may have too much hope for humanity...however, stop damage to the natural world, and the rest follows. Seriously, if peoples' attitudes about the environment and resources change, then economics has to step in line. And it would (will?), because the catalyst is the cultural shift away from rampant materialism and toward a realization that humans are connected to their habitat. Despite our technology, we are no less biologically linked than other species. We just don't see it anymore. Or yet. Yes, that was a simplistic explanation...just a nutshell.

"Seriously, if peoples' attitudes about the environment and resources change, then economics has to step in line"

For most of the world, economics IS the deciding factor. Unless you have disposable income, then cheapest is best. Poor folk don't spend too much time worrying about the environment, or debating on the internet. Worrying about the environment is something folk who have full stomachs, and lots of free time do.

A simplification, obviously.

What could stop people from being materialistic? Introducing psychedelic mushrooms into our daily diet? :)

My thoughts: Biological evolution - natural of course. Technological evolution - result of evolution (whatever the catalyst) of human consciousness. Destructive tendencies - cultural as a result of technological evolution but natural. The degree of destruction is the unnatural part. And unbalanced. The difference is that humans are capable of consciously changing their behavior in order to affect their environment. We can choose to not be so destructive, to rebuild, to change our habits.
Yes, nature does have multiple ways of balancing things out. One of them is called "extinction." I, personally, would prefer not to be on the yin side of that particular yang. And, yes, you could bring up the laws of thermodynamics and say that we would not "really" be dead. But I don't like the idea of choosing to succumb to the inevitability of environmental destruction. I would rather change. I have made several changes in my life to that end, some that most people say are too hard for them, but it really isn't. I plan on making many more changes.

I try to live my own life with respect. I don't think i can do any more than that.

The rich nations of the world, most of which have had a big hand in destroying other peoples' livelihoods, have the responsibility to clean up their messes. All of them. That does not mean sending in troops with guns, either. It means, literally, cleaning up their messes. Stop handing out figurative blankets laced with small pox to every country and culture we try to "help." Clean up our messes, apologize for leaving them in the first place, treat everyone else as our human equals, and leave. If we talk about what is natural or unnatural, most humans do not choose to live with starvation, pollution, and violence. For the ones that do, the U.S. (or European colonialism) probably had something to do with it.
And people in the U.S. don't need so much money. Let's own what we need (even some of what we want) and give the rest away. Let's be humble to the people whose resources we consume and have consumed at an unnecessary rate.

How about you give your money away and I'll keep mine, is your cause really environmentalism or is it socialism? This kind of radicalism is what turns people off to the environmental cause.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 11:51:22 MDT.

What could stop people from being materialistic? Introducing psychedelic mushrooms into our daily diet? :)

See...that's the thing...tribal cultures have used tobacco, herbs, mushrooms in ceremonies for thousands of years. We come along and turn sacred plants into multi-billion dollar illegal cash crops linked to cross-border violence and money-laundering. We have absolutely no clue how to do anything in moderation.

For the record, I have never introduced any mushrooms except wild chantrelles into my diet. :)

"For the record, I have never introduced any mushrooms except wild chantrelles into my diet. :)"


I can't make that statement! :)

Maybe it is a radical idea, but there are so many easy ways to do more with little. People have been doing it for so long. Like...instead of buying presents at holidays...take the amount you would have spent and donate it in your family's and friend's names to an international (or domestic) relief organization...not a giant corporation-like entity, but a small micro-lending agency or an organization that builds schools in rural areas or take basic vaccines or healthcare to children who can't afford them otherwise. Or an environmental-protection organization.
Or...save up money to buy that new UL pack...but save up twice that amount and donate half of it. So you get something you want and give someone else something he/she needs.
I know that if some catastrophy were to strike where I live that I would certainly appreciate the generosity of other people. And I probably would not stop to think about my bank balance if I were running from a global warming-induced tsunami (or whatever hypothetical event). I would probably wish that I had used it for something good.
There are of course uses for money...but I don't personally feel that it should hold the important place in our culture that it does.

there is certainly nothing radical about giving to charity and your comments above about giving seem is a healthy attitude and more people should live like that. It is funny that you are so critical of Catholicism when one of its primary pillars is exactly what you described, moving away from materialism and helping the poor.

I just think that somehow blaming the Catholic Church or Western Civilization for the poverty in the world is simply wrong. Everywhere you see widespread poverty it is usually the result of totalitarianism and corrupt governments not free enterprise and democracy. Certainly unregulated capitalism can cause a lot of problems with corporate corruption but at least in a free society those things can be corrected through the legal system and through the democratic process.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 12:22:05 MDT.

... yes, it's time. please move to Chaff.

< How about you give your money away and I'll keep mine, is your cause really environmentalism or is it socialism? This kind of radicalism is what turns people off to the environmental cause.


Yes, it's a very radical, socialist (why do people think this is a bad word anyway?) idea to give a bit of money to help someone else out.

For shame!

As an aside, my favorite sign during all the teabagging health reform "protests" was a guy with a sign that said "Don't steal from my Medicare to pay for socalized medicine!" (probably with a misspelling or two)

My critique of Catholicism has nothing to do with generosity or lack thereof; I am very aware that they, and many other religiously-based organizations, give tremendous amounts of time and money. If that was all they gave (or had given throughout history), that would be fine. But two things are true: (1) The bulk of religious history throughout time is not about generosity but about conquering and converting and (2) generosity and love for humanity (not to mention the desire to not destroy the planet) in no way requires a religios motivation. I certainly don't blame the catholic church or western civilization for poverty. But their respective heydays are over. One of the pillars of catholicism (or any religion) may be moving away from materialism. ...I don't see the Vatican up for sale. So I really don't believe them. At all.
You are correct about corruption. The amount of influence, historically speaking, of "western civilization" on the rise to power of those corrupt systems and people is ridiculous and traceable, though.
There is nothing inherently evil about free enterprise or capitalism. They are concepts, nothing more. It's what people (with their however-evolved desires to obtain more and more resources) do with those concepts. So far, more conquering and converting.
And, really, how much trust do you have in either the legal system or the democratic process at this point in the history of this country? Mine own trust hath faltered severely.

>>>Yes, it's a very radical, socialist (why do people think this is a bad word anyway?) idea to give a bit of money to help someone else out.<<<\

The radical part was for someone else to decide how much of his own money he should give.

I don't think anyone cares if you or anyone else chooses to give all your money away, but I for one certainly reserve the right to make decisions about what I do with my own money myself.

My Mom used to send dried vegetables on my trips. She grew
em herself, then dried them over the fridge using the
excess heat it gave off.

The old timers new something about living simply and frugally.

I remember reading a book on what was to be called backpacking
from the 20's. The fellow made a sleeping bag that weighed
all of 3 lbs from cotton, down and wool batting. It included
a down filled top and a wool padded bottom and was covered
with tight cotton. Not too bad since it included the bottom
insulation.

And old Nessmuck made a canoe of wood that weight about
10 lbs.

Wouldn't it be great to gather up a bunch of used gear and use it to start hiking/backpacking programs in schools in low-income neighborhoods?

... deciding how much?

i said a little. someone else said keep what you need and some of what you want.

these are all just ideas and banter.

although maybe in the New World Order they'll come and take it all from you. :)

".. yes, it's time. please move to Chaff."

Funny how you say this only after you see a position you disagree with, then even funnier that you join in a post later.

it's got nothing to do with that, kid.

just once a thread goes so far afield from actual Backpacking (on Backpacking Light), it's time to go to the Chaff section. that doesn't mean the discussion stops, of course, it just means the thread is appropriately placed into the forum structure.

think about it.

Of course you reserve that right...but only reality if you never pay any taxes of any kind on anything and also never use any public services of any kind.

nm

Edited by sandalot on 12/10/2009 06:13:27 MST.

Dave, I agree fully. The thread has now moved to Chaff. The title is obvious. See you all there. If you want. Cheers.

Edited by acarter_1 on 10/29/2009 13:03:07 MDT.

< It is funny that you are so critical of Catholicism when one of its primary pillars is exactly what you described, moving away from materialism and helping the poor.


Ever been to Vatican City? I can't wait for them to try to haul all the jewels, gold, paintings, and assorted lavishness and ostentation through those pearly gates!

We better get some wider gates!

Anna, there's clearly many exciting topics here but please remember our focus. I think an apology to Michael would be in order to quash that conflict here. Maybe more an apology to the thread. Not for your views, but for using this as a soapbox. If you two want to continue that debate, create a new one in Chaff, I agree with Dave.

Moderator, do not move this thread, it's useful, if somewhat scattered. Maybe we should start a new one for UBE (or a better name)?

-mike (not that Michael)

EDIT: eh, whatever. Dave, Michael, Anna, post away, it's yours now, I guess.

Edited by uberkatzen on 10/29/2009 13:11:17 MDT.

> My critique of Catholicism has nothing to do with generosity or lack thereof; I am very aware that they, and many other religiously-based organizations, give tremendous amounts of time and money. If that was all they gave (or had given throughout history), that would be fine. But two things are true: (1) The bulk of religious history throughout time is not about generosity but about conquering and converting and (2) generosity and love for humanity (not to mention the desire to not destroy the planet) in no way requires a religios motivation. I certainly don't blame the catholic church or western civilization for poverty. But their respective heydays are over. One of the pillars of catholicism (or any religion) may be moving away from materialism. ...I don't see the Vatican up for sale. So I really don't believe them. At all.
You are correct about corruption. The amount of influence, historically speaking, of "western civilization" on the rise to power of those corrupt systems and people is ridiculous and traceable, though.
There is nothing inherently evil about free enterprise or capitalism. They are concepts, nothing more. It's what people (with their however-evolved desires to obtain more and more resources) do with those concepts. So far, more conquering and converting.
And, really, how much trust do you have in either the legal system or the democratic process at this point in the history of this country? Mine own trust hath faltered severely.

In addition to serving the poor, theVatican also is a strong advocate of environmentalism and has been one of the most aggressive nations in the world on this front.

Why must the Catholic Church sell the Vatican in order to be considered charitable? It has over a billion members (1/6 of the world's population) and has collected artifacts for thousands of years that are historically and spiritually significant to the faith. Considering the size population of the Church the Vatican is really not that big.

I don't see people critical of the Church selling their houses and giving everything to the poor, they just advocate everyone else do so.

Again, the church gives enormous attention and resources to the poor. It is one of the primary functions of the Church yet it is criticized for not giving everything it has.

yes, agreed.

however, sure dunno about "apologies to michael." he's the one at the very beginning of this thead (more than a week ago) tossed out as his intro...

"Conservation has been around a long time, before it was co-opted into the leftist political movement."

where are my oily rags and lighter?

Edited by DaveT on 10/29/2009 13:19:58 MDT.

Boy...I guess I have to wade into this, where to start? This is not directed at anyone in particular and I haven't read all the prior threads, I apologize in advance if I am too off topic, I just want to express my opinion.

Free enterprise and capitalism are not concepts or philosophies, or even "ism's" like the others (communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, etc). Free enterprise and "capitalism" are how people naturally interact with each other when allowed the opportunity to do so. The others are constructs that are forced on people.

Free and enterprise and capitalism are NOT synonymous with greed and exploitation etc. Greed and exploitation are human conditions. For instance, the most oppressive and exploitive regimes in the history of the world have been communist.

Which brings me to religion. While not religious myself, I've grown weary of the propensity these days to blame religion for everything. Religion didn't commit all these sins against man and nature, humans did. Whether religion or communism or capitalism is employed as the "cover", exploitive acts are always committed by humans. To "blame" one construct or another implies that these would not have taken place without the existence of that construct. I just don't think that's true.

In my opinion, free trade and "capitalism" with an emphasis on family and education are the keys to successfully mitigating the "bad apples" that use whatever construct works for them to exploit others.

I also believe that religious belief (in whatever form) and faith was instrumental in the advancement of the world. Otherwise, what poor dope would ever have gotten onto a little wooden boat (whether in Fiji or Portugal) and set off into the unknown?

While I'm at it, it's also fashionable these days to knock corporations. Well, I believe the notion of pooling resources and sharing risk while limiting liability (a corporation) is the greatest single innovation in the history of human development. From Marco Polo Caravans to Dutch trading ships, these efforts led to the development of the modern world. And make no mistake, we enjoy the highest standard of living the world has ever known.

My greater point is that ANY organization (religion, government, corporation) is susceptible to abuse. Our best chance to realize the benefits of these organizations and mitigate the problems is, again, freedom of choice, a skeptical eye toward our "leaders" and an emphasis on family and education.

So how do you like them apples? ; )

I agree David

People may not want to admit it but religion is also responsible for our education establishments and medical advancements which our entire society is built on.

Without The Catholic Church all of us actually would probably be living under the law of Sharia.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 13:28:25 MDT.

DaveT, that comment was a follow up to this post

"Interesting. My sainted mother, a real conservative in the classic sense, would have kicked my a@@ down the block if I had left a speck of mess for someone else to clean up."

Just reiterating that point

Whereas saying Catholics are evil is something on a different level

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 13:27:51 MDT.

< I don't see people critical of the Church selling their houses and giving everything to the poor, they just advocate everyone else do so.


Maybe the difference is that I don't believe in an afterlife.

If I thought I was being judged for my works on this Earth as a possiblity for entry into eternal salavation or damnation to hellfire, I doubt I'd be focused on fancy silk robes, pointy hats, gold and jewels, cars, brand new Swiss guard uniforms and halberds, $1.6 billion out-of-court settlements for systemic child molestation, or anything else.

I'd be tending some sores on some lepers in Delhi (though Molokai is nicer), and walking the Earth in burlap and sandals.

Shucks, now that I think about it, maybe I'll get on board with Pascal. He had it all figured out.

(sorry Swarzcek, couldn't help myself.)

Dave, although I pretty much agree with you regarding the Church, I have to say - imo you're as guilty or more guilty than anyone else in the thread for fueling the flames...

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm like a moth to the flames and always enjoy a good discussion. :-)

How's about this... If you want to discuss the finer (or grosser) points of religion or economics, the UBE thread under Chaff would be great. If you want to discuss backpacking and ethical issues--as related to backpacking--keep the discussion going here.

i hear you john.

i guess it's my nature to respond when nonsense is brought up. i know i don't have to, but really now. i was into the nice discussion (read back a ways) until the Catholic church and radical environmentalism and socialism all that crap came into it (not by me).

if someone wants to start the fire with a tinder pile of that nonsense, i suppose i might have to pour a little denatured alcohol on it, in a mild attempt to burn it up in a LNT manner (below 10,000 and on a durable surface). will the last one here please drown the ashes, bury them, and dissemble the small fire ring?

back to backpacking!

ok I am all for moving to chaff

Edited by michaeltn2 on 10/29/2009 13:43:57 MDT.

I don't know what chaff is, but it sounds uncomfortable.

Also, this thread really makes me realize that I need to get a job!

"For the record, I have never introduced any mushrooms except wild chantrelles into my diet. :)"

Ya coulda fooled me. ;}

To me, it doesn't make a difference what subforum the threads are in, I just look at the most recent threads. Is there a way to ignore the Chaff subforum, and would I really not be curious enough to look?

"And do you honestly get the impression that I would be in favor of Americans, as a group, "educating" anybody?"

To be perfectly frank, Ana, in the absence of a specific suggestion as to who exactly should be doing the educating, that thought did cross my mind.

Who did you have in mind then? Honest question. No agenda.
And how would you go about getting the benighted masses to listen? Tough sledding, even in our own country, IMO.

"Making things out of stuff that never really goes away is pretty crazy when you think about it though...."

Maybe not, if you design with recycling in mind. Think the total product responsibility cycle mandated in some European countries, e.g. Germany.

The Original Ultralight Hikers: Seeking Wilderness Simplicity from Modern Day Nomads

OK sorry if I offended the Civic HX club lol. But they are kind of boring compared to a CR-X. 60 in second gear is always a good thing, my MR2 does that but not because of tall gearing.

"OK sorry if I offended the Civic HX club lol. But they are kind of boring compared to a CR-X."

No offense at all, Jesse. I'll be the first to admit that a CRX is waaay more fun to drive. But then, if you're looking for kicks in a car, you've gotta up the ante a bit, IME. Way above a Civic of any kind. Stock, at least.

Not very UBE-ly correct though.

"And how would you go about getting the benighted masses to listen? Tough sledding, even in our own country, IMO."

Tom... So true. Remember the conversion to metric?

I wonder about folk sometimes.
You may not agree with others viewpoints, but talking about the size of your 'car' is, isn't very clever. I would rather read someones passionate debate, than some of the nonsense being spouted here.
Folk speaking from their heart is more interesting than folk speaking from their a**. :)

What the....?

I put up a post before work this morning on the "UBE" topic...




3 pages of religious craziness later...




Sometimes I really wonder why we're all sitting and typing into space...
I only know for certain that one of you -Michael S.- even exist...

"OK sorry if I offended the Civic HX club lol. But they are kind of boring compared to a CR-X."
I had a Civic HX and it was definitely boring compared to CRX and even older Civics. If you're tempted by one do NOT buy one with a CVT transmission (continously variable transmission). My CVT died and according to transmission shops they had problems.

...let's chop up a Civic, using hemp and cuben materials, into and eco friendly Pope Mobile. That would save a LOT of ounces over his current ride!

This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

Anna, I salute you for starting this. It was inspired. But so long, and thanks for all the fish!

Edited by coateds on 10/29/2009 16:52:29 MDT.

"This thread has gone beyond ridiculous."

'Tis the fate of all chaff.

"Tom... So true. Remember the conversion to metric?"

Ah yes. The only way you're going to take my pint away from
me is to pry it from my cold dead fingers!

Not really. Michael has a new thread. The rest has gone to chaff. Thanks everyone.

I'm not going to comment on the bulk of the last part of this thread, except to make a statement to Michael Neal. You seemed quite upset by comments made about the Catholic church, and yet you didn't see fit to keep your own opinions about Islam (your comment about Sharia) to yourself. There are a number of Muslims in these forums who might feel the same way about your comments as you did about the comments about the church. I would urge you to show some respect to these people in the same way that you expect people to show you and your beliefs respect. Otherwise don't expect people to show respect for you.

P.S. I am Catholic, though I no longer practice or believe in it.

Edited by butuki on 10/30/2009 12:20:12 MDT.

Best post in this thread:

"Boy...I guess I have to wade into this, where to start? This is not directed at anyone in particular and I haven't read all the prior threads, I apologize in advance if I am too off topic, I just want to express my opinion.

Free enterprise and capitalism are not concepts or philosophies, or even "ism's" like the others (communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, etc). Free enterprise and "capitalism" are how people naturally interact with each other when allowed the opportunity to do so. The others are constructs that are forced on people.

Free and enterprise and capitalism are NOT synonymous with greed and exploitation etc. Greed and exploitation are human conditions. For instance, the most oppressive and exploitive regimes in the history of the world have been communist.

Which brings me to religion. While not religious myself, I've grown weary of the propensity these days to blame religion for everything. Religion didn't commit all these sins against man and nature, humans did. Whether religion or communism or capitalism is employed as the "cover", exploitive acts are always committed by humans. To "blame" one construct or another implies that these would not have taken place without the existence of that construct. I just don't think that's true.

In my opinion, free trade and "capitalism" with an emphasis on family and education are the keys to successfully mitigating the "bad apples" that use whatever construct works for them to exploit others.

I also believe that religious belief (in whatever form) and faith was instrumental in the advancement of the world. Otherwise, what poor dope would ever have gotten onto a little wooden boat (whether in Fiji or Portugal) and set off into the unknown?

While I'm at it, it's also fashionable these days to knock corporations. Well, I believe the notion of pooling resources and sharing risk while limiting liability (a corporation) is the greatest single innovation in the history of human development. From Marco Polo Caravans to Dutch trading ships, these efforts led to the development of the modern world. And make no mistake, we enjoy the highest standard of living the world has ever known.

My greater point is that ANY organization (religion, government, corporation) is susceptible to abuse. Our best chance to realize the benefits of these organizations and mitigate the problems is, again, freedom of choice, a skeptical eye toward our "leaders" and an emphasis on family and education.

So how do you like them apples? ; )"

Take it to Chaff with the rest of the non-backpacking oriented commentary. Seriously.

>Take it to Chaff with the rest of the non-backpacking oriented commentary. Seriously.

Yes. Sigh. This thread started out so well . . .

Stargazer

Take it to Chaff with the rest of the non-backpacking oriented commentary. Seriously.

The thread should have moved there long ago. Just didn't want to leave such a comment hanging with the possibility that there are people who were hurt by the statements. Muslims are not likely to openly say much in these forums, mainly for fear of backlash, but also because, contrary to popular belief, they tend to be quite tolerant. It doesn't matter where in the forums one posts the discussions, be it chaff or whatever, invariably someone always seems to make such comments. Taking it to chaff will not solve the problem, nor does posting them in chaff make it right.

Yes. Sigh. This thread started out so well . . .

Yes, it did. Very much so. But I think it is incorrect to think of ethical backpacking purely in terms of gear. The gear is what you end up using, but before that there is a philosophy that influences your choices. That needs to be talked about, too. Then there are the social/ ecological/ economic aspects, too, which are a big can of worms. Such discussions are not clear cut or easy to reduce to a few pat statements, and certainly focusing only on talk of gear addresses nothing of the ethics involved. As I wrote earlier, there has to be a consensus that there IS an environmental problem. I am not convinced that everyone here believes there is. These diverging beliefs are going to have an enormous impact on what choices each person makes in terms of what kind of gear they will use, how they will use it, and what they believe the impact both the gear and their behavior will have on the places they travel to.

There is no reason this discussion can't get back on track. Just steer it that way and refuse to engage in the irrelevant talk.

Edited by butuki on 10/30/2009 20:43:06 MDT.

"Muslims are not likely to openly say much in these forums, mainly for fear of backlash, but also because, contrary to popular belief, they tend to be quite tolerant. It doesn't matter where in the forums one posts the discussions, be it chaff or whatever, invariably someone always seems to make such comments. Taking it to chaff will not solve the problem, nor does posting them in chaff make it right."

++1 to this specifically, but also to your entire post. I'll be watching to see if it had any effect.

Thanks, Miguel

Glad I missed out on that part of the thread. Not sure what UBE has to do with religion, and don't care.

Something that I've thought about a fair amount is batteries. I prefer to use Lithium-ion batteries as they last longer and are lighter, but, of course, there's a somewhat limited supply of Lithium.

Just ran across this discussing a new ZINC battery that is rechargeable and can store three times the amount of energy as lithium per volume at half the cost.

Since zinc is inexpensive and widely available, this has promise to revolutionize Ultralight Backpacking (Ethically).....phone, cameras, headlamps, Steripens, ipod, SPOTs, oh my!

Edited by Rezniem on 10/31/2009 02:56:15 MDT.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

On that note, I am not going to take this environmental stuff too seriously. I have always believed in conservation and will continue to act this way despite the fact that the global warming theory has shown to be a fraud of epic proportions.

Awwww, shucks.

James Delingpole hath wielded the hammer that drove the final nail and ended global warming debate once and for all.

I guess that only leaves me 999,999 other reasons to support the environmental justice movement.

You can attack the messenger but the message is still true, the emails are factual evidence.

Calling your cause "environmental justice" only goes further to illustrate our point about it being a fringe movement that has gotten completely out of hand.

You are doing a disservice to the environment because when you make false claims people will no longer listen and may become completely unmoved by any causes for conservation.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/24/2009 08:54:17 MST.

Ok, let me rephrase that.

Thanks to your post, I now believe global warming has been undeniably proven to be a fraud.

If that was your sole argument, breathe easy my friend, now you no longer have to worry.

But I'm still left with 999,999 reasons to support environmental justice movement.

Have a beautiful day :)

Good day :)

"Calling your cause "environmental justice" only goes further to illustrate our point about it being a fringe movement that has gotten completely out of hand."


Where to begin with this?

Begin with explaining where the "justice" is in spending a massive amount of precious human resources over many years (money, human resources, time) on this global warming myth.

Justice should begin with these scientists going to jail for this fraud due to the economic and emotional terrorism they have perpetuated on the entire world with this stuff.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/24/2009 13:09:25 MST.

"On that note, I am not going to take this environmental stuff too seriously."


As Craig said... I got 999,999 reasons to support environmental "justice" movement.

Shucks, here's a good one, just in time for your Black Friday trip to Best Buy:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html

The U.S. has 5% of the world's population and uses 25% of its energy and makes 40% of its trash. And to think we got it good (at least for now). Beats the crap outta the environmental problems in many/most other countries.

Carry on.

For the sake of civil discourse and debate, I've already conceded global warming to the fraud camp.

So, as I said, there are still (in my humble estimation) 999,999 solid reasons to pursue environmental justice- global warming aside.

Anything else you're mad at environmentalists about today?

Yea I don't take it too seriously as in the world is ending routine we have been hearing from the global warming alarmists. Glad I did not buy it. I do however practice conservationism: I recycle, conserve energy, promote protection of natural habitat, things a normal person should do to be a responsible citizen. The "justice" stuff is just an a radical approach in my view, as proven by the warming hysteria. It only hurts the cause by turning people away due to the approach.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/24/2009 18:24:48 MST.

Tons of time, money and resources have been spent on this global warming stuff. Of course I am mad, how could any sane person just shrug this off?

999,999, yea if you count every piece of litter as a separate environmental incident of global magnitiude.

There are definitely plenty of environmental issues that I also believe need to be remedied, maybe if we were't wasting the last decade focusing everything on a fraud we could have fixed a lot of things.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/24/2009 18:32:54 MST.

"You can attack the messenger but the message is still true, the emails are factual evidence."

Ummmmm, evidence of some sort, yes, but of what no one is quite sure yet. You're predisposed to immediately label global warming a fraud, and so you do. That's certainly your right. So is Mr. Delingpole, as his sensationalistic 'reporting' shows. His right too.

I haven't read the 61GB of information. I'm betting you haven't either. Mr. Delingpole might have started, but he hasn't gotten through it all either.

Emails might suggest that the earth isn't warming as quickly as we've been told. If that's the case, it still doesn't make global warming a fraud. Just perhaps not as dire as we've been led to believe.

Emails might suggest something entirely different when taken as a whole, who knows.

Since I'm not predisposed to dismiss global warming out of hand from a few snippets of information from a huge amount of released info, I'll instead wait to see what, if anything, the rest of it turns up. In other words, I'll wait for the WSJ version instead of the Fox News version.

And I'm not sure why 'justice,' even in the context you seem to take issue with, is a dirty word. I don't see environmental justice as some fringe idea, any more than I see social justice or economic justice fringe ideas. But that's just me. Obviously, doesn't make me right. Doesn't make you right. Hopefully, we just agree to disagree, smile, and get on with our day.

Here is the wall street journal version

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The emails show there was an organized conspiracy to put forth fake data, that is fraud.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/25/2009 07:07:14 MST.

@MODERATOR:
Totally understand if you want to move this to CHAFF... ;-)

@Michael:
What an interesting story. Thanks for publishing it.

Does it make those scientists at UEA look like idiots? I think so! Does it prove that global warming is a fraud? That seems a bit of a stretch.

It is interesting how we humans are willing to immediately accept information at face value when it confirms something they already believe.

On the other hand, published data which proves that (say)violent crime is highly correlated with abortion laws in the US (i.e. when laws are changed to allow choice, crime statistics begin to improve 15-18 years later in almost every case and stay that way; when laws are changed to make abortion illegal, crime statistics suddenly get much worse 15-18 years later, and stay that way), seems to be completely ignored by the anti-abortion lobby.

Same is true of teenage drinking - countries where teenagers can drink from age 12 in the safety of their own homes (i.e. most of Europe, except the UK), do not have significant youth drinking, drunk drinking, youth violence issues when these kids reach 18-21, whereas we know that youth drinking & violence are real issues on campuses and at football games in the UK and US.

The recent announcement about mammograms not being worth doing until women are 50 rather than 40, was completely evidence based and yet a certain segment of the population is interpreting it as government rationing of healthcare. In the UK health service, the decision to not treat cancer patients who refuse to give up smoking, completely evidence based, caused a national political outcry (with the inevitable campaign funded by the cigarette manufacturers!). How about the debate about hand guns? How many hand gun shootings are there in entire countries like the UK which ban handguns versus pretty much any major US city (i.e. more gun crime in Hartford, Connecticut than in the entire country of England with its population >65M people in 2008)?

I understand that your point is that these things should be assessed in an unbiassed way, but what you fail to appreciate is that your perspective is just as biassed as the next guy's. We are human beings and what we believe going into an argument has an enormous impact on whether we accept evidence or not. None of these issues are black & white, it is almost ALWAYS about the most compelling body of evidence, and the answers are usually highly nuanced.

So, to the debate at hand... all the emails I have seen (and I read as much as I could based on what you posted), could be interpreted as these two articles suggest OR equally as a community of concerned scientists trying to make sure that their data is not mis-used by those who's non-evidence-based beliefs might choose tiny pieces of the huge body of evidence and take them out of context to try to "debunk" established theory, without really understanding the context of what they are doing. In the honest opinion of these scientists, that would be doing a huge disservice to mankind!

Ultimately, for me, the arguments for changing human behavior going forwards are pretty compelling, regardless of whether global warming was completely caused by humans, partially caused by humans, or not caused by humans at all... we MUST start to consider end of life economics and waste disposal as part of the cost of different energy sources. For example, the cost of disposing of spent nuclear material 30 or 50 years in the future, should be being paid for NOW by consumers who think they are getting cheaper energy by buying nuclear. That is just good economics.

Bottom line - there are always as many ways to interpret information as there are people in the room. We might wish that the world was a simple place, but it isn't. Rather than ignoring or avoiding complexity, let's attempt to understand it. We might all want to think about Einstein's Knot - "try to make things as simple as possible AND NO SIMPLER" (paraphrased of course).

Happy thanksgiving, all...

Peace, James.

"Here is the wall street journal version
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
The emails show there was an organized conspiracy to put forth fake data, that is fraud."

That's the WSJ opinion piece, not reporting. Regardless, the larger point, to me, is that I agree that "an organized conspiracy to put forth fake data" is fraud. That does not, however, make global warming a fraud.

if the data that is used worldwide to make the case for global warming is fake, then yes it does mean the global warming is most likely a fraud. Especially since there are many scientists that have been skeptical and have been targets of smear campaigns against them.

Regardless if the article is opinion or not, it is still being written about facts. You can agree with the opinion or not, the facts are not in dispute.

You can choose to believe that these were just isolated incidents or not but to people like me who have been skeptics all along this comes as proof of the conspiracy by scientists using this stuff to wield political power.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/25/2009 11:07:38 MST.

James, you are really dragging this into completely different areas of discussion, abortion and such. I would be happy to discuss your ghastly viewpoints on this in another topic elsewhere.

"community of concerned scientists trying to make sure that their data is not mis-used by those who's non-evidence-based beliefs might choose tiny pieces of the huge body of evidence and take them out of context to try to "debunk" established theory, without really understanding the context of what they are doing. In the honest opinion of these scientists, that would be doing a huge disservice to mankind!"

That is some mighty spinning you are doing there. A good example of why people like you need to be opposed strongly, it is the end justifies the means mentality that is quite frankly dangerous. it the kind of thing that destroys nations and creates wars and such.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/25/2009 11:03:21 MST.

"A good example of why people like you need to be opposed strongly."


Shucks, I was just thinking the same about you. :)

However, I AM stoked to know I don't have anything else to worry about now, and can wait in front of my 46" television for the Rapture.

"Shucks, I was just thinking the same about you. :)"

yes I do realize that people who point out the truth are threatening to people such as yourself :)

"However, I AM stoked to know I don't have anything else to worry about now, and can wait in front of my 46" television for the Rapture."

Huh?

meh, unproductive.

Edited by redmonk on 11/25/2009 11:37:57 MST.

yep you are probably right, it is pointless anyway because people here are set in their views.

Happy Thanksgiving guys,

>>James, you are really dragging this into completely different areas of discussion, abortion and such. I would be happy to discuss your ghastly viewpoints on this in another topic elsewhere.>>

Michael: With all due respect, you don't have the foggiest idea of what my viewpoints are! Please don't bear false witness against me, your neighbor and a fellow backpacker. I was simply giving a few examples of issues where EVIDENCE based thinking and BELIEF based thinking would lead you to different conclusions depending on where you are starting from.

>> That is some mighty spinning you are doing there. A good example of why people like you need to be opposed strongly, it is the end justifies the means mentality that is quite frankly dangerous. it the kind of thing that destroys nations and creates wars and such. >>

I'm sorry, again, I am really disappointed with this response. Please do not bear false witness against me. I am trying to have a civil and intelligent discourse and you and all you seem to be able to offer is personal attacks.

Why not respond to the actual points I am making?

1. A person's starting perspective automatically biasses the lens they use when looking at a situation or set of data.

2. There are no absolutes in this kind of complex issues. You and I are not omniscient, and do not have the right to judge another person's motivation for doing something.

3. There are a variety of ways any information can be interpreted. Our starting perspective and the relative important of evidence and belief in our thinking processes are critical to how we interpret the data.

4. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the environmental crisis on earth is entirely man-made, partially man-made, or not man-made at all... what matters is what we do about it starting today.

Anyway, please let's keep this civil and not attack one another. Most importantly, please don't ever make another judgement about MY motivations. It is rude and goes against God's commandments (Deut 5:20) as well as the rules of civil society.

"On the other hand, published data which proves that (say)violent crime is highly correlated with abortion laws in the US (i.e. when laws are changed to allow choice, crime statistics begin to improve 15-18 years later in almost every case and stay that way; when laws are changed to make abortion illegal, crime statistics suddenly get much worse 15-18 years later, and stay that way), seems to be completely ignored by the anti-abortion lobby."

That statement certain gives me enough information to derive your viewpoint. I also question those findings, what is it based on? abortion has been legal for quite a while.


"Why not respond to the actual points I am making?"

I did, I said you were making quite a spin out of the facts. You implied they might be falsifying data because the other side was perceived to be unfair in criticizing them so in order to win the issue it was justified. Because they are right of course. That is the end justifying the means and I rightfully point out that this type of thinking is what ends up causing the vast majority of conflict in the world.


"1. A person's starting perspective automatically biasses the lens they use when looking at a situation or set of data."

Sure, I agree.


"2. There are no absolutes in this kind of complex issues. You and I are not omniscient, and do not have the right to judge another person's motivation for doing something."

I can make any judgment I want, we still live in a somewhat free country, at least for now. People's motivations are really important points to consider in an argument.

You yourself point out multiple times that we approach the issue from our own particular lenses, it is pertinent.


"3. There are a variety of ways any information can be interpreted. Our starting perspective and the relative important of evidence and belief in our thinking processes are critical to how we interpret the data."

OK I agree somewhat

"4. In the end, it doesn't really matter if the environmental crisis on earth is entirely man-made, partially man-made, or not man-made at all... what matters is what we do about it starting today."

It makes all the difference in the world since the remedies being proposed will have substantial economic impact on society. If it is not man made then taking drastic action is not a very good idea, and it would be futile. In fact the evidence apparently shows global cooling might be occurring.

"Anyway, please let's keep this civil and not attack one another. Most importantly, please don't ever make another judgement about MY motivations. It is rude and goes against God's commandments (Deut 5:20) as well as the rules of civil society."

Pointing out your possible motivations is not an attack, it is key to the discussion, the consideration of peoples motives is very important. And pointing out that I am disturbed by certain comments in not an attack either, I am opposed to the ideas and comments not to the people making them. I have nothing personal against you and would be happy to sit down, chat and have a beer with you. If you perceive any personal hostility I assure you there is none from me.

My comment to DaveT was a wisecrack in response to a wisecrack, hopefully taken in good fun.

Edited by michaeltn2 on 11/25/2009 12:40:25 MST.

@Michael:
I am thankful that you meant no personal offense in your comments about me being "dangerous" and "the type of person who should be strongly opposed", etc... I actually did take offense. This is strong language indeed.

Anyway, not to worry, I truly hope that you and your family have a wonderful Holiday, enjoy the turkey and remember how privaleged we all are to live in society which embraces differences of opinion and allows us to have these kinds of debates without redress.

Happy thanksgiving my friend.

Peace, James.

Edited by james@patsalides.com on 11/25/2009 13:44:29 MST.

Let me ask this: let's say that all of us are completely unbiased and have no opinions here nor there about whether global warming or any other environmental problem exists. Let's say we are travelers from another solar system, coming upon Earth and we are evaluating what the conditions are here. How would we go about looking at conditions here and coming up with criteria for what we see? What would you do? Would you sit back and learn about it all vicariously through newspaper articles about emails, or use some other approach? How would you make whatever you have found however you have found it, believable to the others you are investigating the issue with? How can you KNOW and PROVE that what you find is true?

Let's make a really simple example to illustrate how hard this is: prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the computer you are reading this post with actually exists. Remember, your word is just some text on my computer and I have no idea whether I can believe what you say simply because you say so.

Now take this test and apply it to a global scale, something so big it engulfs each and everyone of us completely, to the point where we cannot even perceive the whole, and if we were to find a place where we can see the entire planet we would be so far away that individuals are no longer visible. What would you do to look at the conditions of that huge place?

I think there is only one answer to how it is done.

Peace James, as I said I think some of your logic is potentially dangerous but not you as a person. I can look back and recall plenty of dangerous ideas I have had that should be strongly opposed too. :)

Do you think about your environmental impact as you buy/make gear?

Sometimes.

Would you compromise weight for a piece of reclaimed or recycled gear?

Not adverse to the idea, depends on what it is.

How do you view the use of down and other animal-derived products?

I was thinking about this a little while ago. I am effectively a vegetarian, and opposed to blah blah blah. I figure that X (down) is a byproduct of the blah blah blah, and would rather have it put to use instead of wasted. However, I also hate putting money in certain people's pocketses for taking advantage of blah blah blah. Ambivalence, but it's a non-issue for me, as I go synthetic. So i don't really think about it too much.

EDIT-Oh dear lord, didn't know i was bumping a month old thread.