I was reading the papers on-line while eating my breakfast, and clicked on a story in The Independent Gardening turns out to be very eco un-friendly. I don't know why I did that, as I knew it was going to upset me before I read it. It turns out that a study done by the University of Reading, the University of Sheffield and the RHS has found that gardening activities, from mowing and watering the lawn to the use of peat and pesticides, have a harmful effect on the environment. Planting trees doesn't help, as they can take a decade to become carbon neutral. Garden paving has a carbon cost. The production and use of garden chemicals 'contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions'. The use of peat is controversial due to the association of peat extraction with habitat loss and carbon emissions. Oh, and gardeners introduce invasive species. The RHS concludes rather primly that they will 'continue to work closely with gardeners, horticultural trade and horticultural researchers to minimise negative impacts'.
I never water my lawn, and I don't know anybody who does, though the last time I went to RHS Hyde Hall they were running sprinklers on the borders. As for trees taking ten years to become carbon neutral, since when did we plant trees on a ten year view? The trouble is, everything we do has an environmental impact. I've spent a couple of days this week working in my garden. During that time I have rather knackered a pair of gardening gloves, which will end up in landfill, and I'll have to buy new ones, which will use up some of the planet's resources in their manufacture and distribution, but other than that I've consumed remarkably little. Infinitesimal wear and tear on my tools is about the sum of it. Think what else I could have been doing in my time off.
I could have gone shopping. I could have taken the train to Westfield at Stratford (driving to the station and contributing to air pollution in Colchester) or driven all the way to Bluewater. I could have walked around in a heated mall, and drunk coffee out of a disposable cup, and bought throwaway fashion. My dear, this fabulous pair of neon pink plastic shoes made by children in the third world was only twenty pounds! Imagine! For that price you can afford only to wear them a couple of times. Or I could have bought the latest electronic gadget. I know my antique Nokia still works, but it is so last decade, I'm ashamed to be seen with it. My friends will lose all respect for me and teenagers will laugh at me on the train. And I don't have any kind of a tablet, or a games console, or an espresso maker. We could have gone away for the weekend, and stayed in a lovely little hotel, that being a classy joint would have washed the sheets and towels after our stay, despite the fact that we'd slept in them for one night only and dried ourselves after only a single shower. We could even have flown abroad (whee!) for some winter sun. Lots of people do that.
Or I could take up golf, played on a big green grassy expanse that definitely gets mowed, and watered, and fed with chemicals and treated with herbicides. Or go swimming, in a big sploshy heated pool, treated with chemicals. Or go skiing (more flying, and an entire set of special clothes that I only wear for one week each year and change after four or five years even though they still function because they are so out of fashion). Or I could give my house a whole new look with new cushions and throws (the Saturday supplements never say what I am supposed to do with the old cushions and throws but there's always landfill, via the charity shop). I could paint the walls while I'm at it (with chemicals whose production and use presumably contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions).
I could have a big fat steak for dinner. I read once how producing one kilo of steak required a quite extraordinary input of water and energy, though I forget how much, so you'll have to Google it, if you're that interested (bet you're not). The frozen chips to go with the steak require another load of energy to transport and store them, and the cream in my coffee after the meal adds to atmospheric methane as all those cows farting is a major source of greenhouse gas. It would be much better for the planet if I were to dine off lentils chased down with peppermint tea.
You get the picture. Almost everything that people do in their leisure time and as they live their lives has a detrimental environmental impact. Some things have less of an impact than others. Going for a walk (starting walking from your own house, not driving your car to somewhere more scenic first) seems comparatively harmless. Once in a while you'll need some new shoes, and you might eat a bit more than you would otherwise, but your ecological footprint is going to be pretty small. Sitting looking out of the window would be even better for the planet, as you won't wear your clothes out and you'll eat less. Flying down to the Med to indulge in a weekend of powerboat racing is not going to be good.
What would be really helpful would not to be told that chemicals and paving and compost are all Bad things, and that we should feel really, really guilty about using them, but to be given sensible advice on how we can reduce the environmental impact of whatever it is we choose to do, and how different kinds of activity compare. My patio (Bad) is equivalent to your junk clothes habit (Bad) but only half his trip to Australia (v. v. Bad). Maybe people who want a patio, or fifty pairs of shoes, or a foreign holiday, could find ways of saving elsewhere on the demands they place on the planet, if they were given the information to help them do it. Of course the most effective thing we could do to reduce our future environmental impact would be to simply die now, but not even George Monbiot is suggesting that.
No comments:
Post a Comment