A question came upon me as I was whipping up my homemade mayonnaise a few months ago.
As I listened for the for the choonk-choonk-choonk sound of successful emulsion, I started to wonder: is my homemade mayo a better use of resources if I end up throwing half of it away because it goes bad (due to the unpasteurized raw egg)? Is it a better use of resources if I get salmonella poisoning and have to go to the doctor?
Is DIY always the greener way to go?
And the answer, as it is for so many things, seems to be that it depends.
Here’s one case that deals with the energy efficiency of canned vs. dry beans. Up until you get them home, the dry beans are a clear winner. They’re lighter, so they take less fuel to transport; they don’t involve nearly as much packaging (especially if you get them in bulk); you save the considerable energy that goes into the canning process. They’re certainly cheaper, which might make a difference in the type of job you have to support your lifestyle.
But once you start the long simmer that it takes to cook beans from dry—at least if you have an electric stovetop—things take an unexpected turn. From the Slate article: “cooking those beans on the stovetop would take up to 11 times as much energy as at a commercial facility.” Yow!
These types of calculations get really dicey because of all the different factors that come into play: where you get your energy (renewable/fossil fuel), whether you have an electric or gas stovetop, whether you use a pressure cooker, whether beans are replacing a significant portion of your meat consumption, how locally your beans are grown…
Regardless, sharing resources does tend to reduce our individual impact, whether we’re talking about public transportation or electricity.
David Owen of The Conundrum points out that New York City dwellers have a lower per capita impact than Portland residents due to dense urban living that makes individual yards, large living spaces, and personal cars difficult.
Living alone is significantly more resource intensive than living with a partner. (Sorry, fellow misanthropes.) I expect that a commercial bakery producing many loaves of bread each day has a lower per-loaf energy impact than my small scale bread baking.
So although DIY is often equated with being greener, is it?
That’s a hard question to answer. I like the mentality, and I like knowing how things are made and how to make them. I’d also argue that DIY has a number of real but difficult to measure benefits like:
>Greater sense of connection with planet/community/food. I don’t know about you, but I find bread baking downright therapeutic.
>Reducing the amount of time we spend on more ecologically destructive pursuits.
>Shift towards a less consumerist society.
Even if we could do the math, it’s probably an insignificant difference in impact, given the context of the rest of our lives as developed world citizens. Other decisions make a much bigger difference.
So why bother sweating the small stuff at all?
For me, this stuff is worth thinking about because it gets me to question something that I’ve come to think of as the environmental litany. This is a collection of simple, absolute, often-repeated, binary rules “to be green” that more or less excuse us from having to think critically about our decisions and consider them on a case-by-case level.
I really, really don’t like the environmental litany. For one thing, I hate being told what to think. I resent it when complex problems are made to appear simple or hard things are made to appear easy, even if it makes sense from a marketing perspective. (I’m terrible at marketing.) I have a huge problem with binary thinking and ideology. And I suspect that this kind of litany can actually cause us to make choices that are at cross purposes with what we want to be working for.
If some organic-OK’d pesticides are less effective (resulting in lower yields for the same amount of land and water) and have greater negative effects on natural enemy species, are they still more sustainable than conventional ones?
As a vegetarian and an animal person, it has been a long, hard slog through EPA reports and scientific studies full of animals that were “sacrificed at the end of the study” (or worse, one lab macaque that sticks out in my head was “euthanized” due to repetitive self-destructive behavior) to realize that calling for better chemical safety testing [still] usually means more animal testing. I still don’t know where I stand on that one.
Learn enough about any issue, and it will no longer seem simple or straightforward.
If something is worth knowing about, it’s probably worth knowing enough about to say, “It depends.” Worth it, but definitely not easy.
What kinds of environmental litany have you started to question? How green are your DIY hobbies?
Jennifer Mo is a concerned global citizen and a long time cat/book/tree person. You can follow her green journey at It’s Not Easy to be Green.
Editor: Cassandra Smith
Like elephant Green on Facebook.