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.