It took longer for the shaming to start than I expected.

Thanks to all who shared your tips — I think every little thing matters in the long run. I fail to see anything negative about any experiences and/or advice shared here.

Gosh, OllieJane, what’s overblown here? If what you wrote is true, that many more people would be willing to do their part if activists were more sensible about a good cause, then not doing something about that good cause smacks of spite and ignorance. That is shameful.

jinx, for one, nothing negative when stated you (not you, but you did agree with this statement) aren't having children because of the slow climate change is overblown?? I have nothing against people AT ALL if they choose not to have children, but to not have children for the sole reason to "try" to reduce climate change? Yes, it feeds into the exaggeration of some climate change scientists who then feed it to people as fear-as usual. Seen this game before. Hook, line and sinker.

Okay, let us all try to not have children! Where would that get us? Ridiculous!

Maybe Prickly, et al, does have other reasons. It seems rude to pick that one comment out and be snide about it, blaming it for your feelings, rather than starting a polite dialogue (or not saying anything). Maybe ask for clarification? That you’re interested in finding out more?

I don’t understand why that comment caused such a strong reaction. She stated what her choices are, nowhere did she say others shouldn’t have children.

The question was: ”What do you do?” … she answered what she does.

That was just one ridiculous reason, jinx. And, I have read it's not just prickly-radical couples now are buying into not having children-and it only spreads to more radical people. Which, on the other hand, is good for my party, more of us. LOL

I do see more on here, but unless you live next door to me and don't water your grass, therefore causing an eyesore for the neighborhood, I really don't care if you go to the trouble. My main reason is, people are buying into the fear-AGAIN. The main thing I hate is plastic in the oceans-for our sea life, which can be detrimental. I recycle our trash and try to avoid plastic-but not if there isn't an alternative available. I'm ALL about trees-the more the better!

Wow, I didn't realize that commenting about my own choices would be so controversial and upsetting. I certainly did not say that my choices were exclusively for environmental reasons and most of them are absolutely not exclusively for environmental reasons. Thank you @Jilly. I was simply responding to the question about what I do and certainly never told anyone else what to do.

^^^??? I guess we are suppose to be mindreaders. Because the question was "What do you do for the environment?" Answer: Not having children

Yup. Part of the reason I have chosen not to have chidren is for the environment. It's not the only reason, but it is one reason. Similarly part of the reason I work from home is to reduce my driving and the corresponding impact on the environment, but it's not the only reason. I don't see why name calling and outrage are necessary.

I do many little things, many that have been mentioned above. With the planet getting so crowded I would like to see these things in my state...

Post offices, gas stations, pharmacies, drycleaner's and grocery always in a same plaza. More trolleys. Some in said plaza and many on main boulevards. Crosswalks above major intersections. Not sure how this could be done but it sounds good. There are many places I would walk to if not for risking my life. Granted one couldn't do big shops but a large backpack would help. We would all get more active which is better for your health.

Name calling and outrage are certainly not necessary, pricklypear. I salute you for your choices and kind reply.

JT, love your ideas.

My town is not set up for walking or biking at all. Very few sidewalks, bike lanes, anything. It’s way too dangerous to try to walk or bike anywhere. We have a cool town square, but it’s not set up well for pedestrians. Such a waste of a great opportunity to implement the ideas you mentioned.

And Texas is woefully behind on mass transit.

Thanks for all the positive ideas shared here. It's nice to be reminded of something that could be done that you've missed and/or learn something you hadn't thought of. I'm impressed by the large number of people here that think in terms of climate protection and adapting to the changes we're experiencing. We should all feel good about the changes we're making and staying educated about the science behind it. Thanks again, for sharing!

I feel like if everybody could make small changes, it helps.

We need to remember to vote right too -- don't vote for the climate change deniers.

I didn't take any of the comments as shaming and not particularly negative. I honestly thought PP's comment about children might be said jokingly, but I see that I was wrong. That is her choice and makes sense.

We live in a rural, country area. Walking/biking is not particularly attainable here but we didn't want to be in the city. We are not an incorporated area and we do not have public transit. The Mr. and I do try to ride together when we can and group errands, etc. together so as to take fewer trips. However, we do a good many road trips, so we may be cancelling out the good we do locally. : (

Seattle, it's not so much climate deniers, they just don't believe as some scientists who exaggerate their beliefs onto you. There are also scientists who believe climate is going to change anyway, whether you do these things or not. It's been changing back and forth forever. So, the people you are not wanting to vote for are not climate deniers. We believe that climate does change.

FFS you know what I'm talking about. Don't vote for the politicians who deny, contradict, or cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans.

We all know what "climate change deniers" means as a general buzzword.

My litter bags came today, and thanks to one of the kitties, I got to try one out immediately. :D

I like them, as much as you can like a bag that holds cat ….

I did try to find them locally, no one had them.

Anyway, no more plastic bags in this house.

I vote for politicians that want to work to protect our environment.

DLM said

if the goal is saving our earth.

Nope, the goal isn't saving the Earth. The goal is to preserve an environment that's conducive to human life. The Earth has been through many permutations and has survived just fine, and it will be here when we are long gone. Just ask the dinosaurs.

I really think that we need to take the emphasis off the Earth and appeal to people's more selfish nature - do you want a pleasant place to live without increasing droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc? We need to focus on that.

terriks, I'd make it even more basic...do you want fresh water and food to eat?

I try to recycle as much as possible but getting annoyed with it lately as so many things we used to recycle are being taken off the list. Where we live, they really only take very basic things such as water bottles, milk jugs, glass jars and paper. Cannot recycle any large containers. I see many people putting out those big cat litter buckets, those cannot be recycled in our community. I sure wish that our area would create a place for people to reuse things. I am sure there are many people that would like to have some of the things we cannot recycle such as those big useful buckets and things like egg cartons. We can not recycle any plastic that stuff like sour cream or yogurt comes in. We can only recycle corrugated cardboard at the drop of bins, so as a result, most of it ends up in the landfill. Another thing, our recycling drop offs are not big enough for our town, on the weekends they will end up with huge piles of "trash" that is put outside of the bins that ends up just being disposed of and not even recycled! Mostly big boxes because in a town our size, 8 bins fill up quickly! Sadly, many people that used to recycle have just stopped because they don't really even believe that it's being recycled and unfortunately, I think that for the most part they are correct. Any recycle that is "contaminated" with improper items is trashed!

@jinx - I'm interested in those bags. Do they disintegrate like compostable household organics bags? Are those single use - like sift once and done with the bag? Where do you put them when you're done with them?

And arkansas girl reminded me that I buy the bulk Petco cat litter and use my refillable buckets.

I really appreciate this thread. Makes me realize how much more our household can do to help keep this planet the best environment possible for my children, grandchildren and descendants. "When you know better, do better" is something I try to live by.

3katz, they’re described as being biodegradable. From the company:

”Biodegradable means the decomposition of material with biological activity with help of microorganisms. Compostable means decomposition of the material in controlled environment to break down the material. Yes, our bags are biodegradable in either anaerobic (without oxygen) or aerobic (with oxygen) condition and rate of degradation depends on type of environment.”

We have two indoor cats and I can use one bag twice a day. First use, I lightly tie it and leave it near the box. Second use, I throw it in the trash after. They feel like thin plastic bags, but softer, and have a very subtle (pleasant) scent.

So far I’m very happy with them! (And the box is recyclable, of course.) There are lots of comments and reviews on Big A.

I was looking for bags to put produce in at the grocery store and ran across this company. https://junes.co/collections/shop-all/products/the-hombre Has anyone used them? What do you use for produce?

Mine are more like these https://www.amazon.com/dp/B085XK1ZPL/ref=syn_sd_onsite_desktop_207?ie=UTF8&psc=1&pd_rd_plhdr=t

Crate and Barrel has these on sale, super cheap. https://www.crateandbarrel.com/produce-bags/s307136?localedetail=US&a=1552&campaignid=10461646755&adgroupid=103999389299&targetid=pla-1459833400774&pla_sku=307136&pcat=HSW&ag=adult&scid=scplp307136&sc_intid=307136&gclid=CjwKCAjwsMGYBhAEEiwAGUXJabTRZSJ2q0dzNOogUQJk2k10zvgvQCkcfcMWYdWxo7rVrRtey6IkhhoCA0IQAvD_BwE

Plastics are less of an issue for us as we have a garbage to energy plant that burns our garbage to produce power. Plastics, being petroleum products, generate a lot of heat. The ash that's left over is then put in a landfill at 1/10th the volume of the original.

@Annie Deighnaugh you do?! that's awesome! where is this?

for those who don't know what Annie is referring to -- these plants are amazing, we should be doing it everywhere. When done properly (like in Scandanavia), the carbon output is actually considered less impactful to the environment than the methane a landfill puts out. You get energy, solve the trash problem, with less greenhouse gas impact. win-win-win!

It is great and I would love to learn more about these plants and this process. However, we all need to reduce the waste we produce.

We need to push for manufacturers to provide products in more sustainable packaging. We speak with our dollars. Let manufacturers know you only buy sustainably packaged goods.

Florida has 11 waste to energy plants. Four in the Tampa area. Its a start.

@localeater Absolutely!

@maddielee that's awesome! I'm worried there are too many NIMBYS who don't understand how good these plants actually are. Hopefully the positive word will spread and start to pop up all over the country.

Edit: just looked it up and learned Seattle is doing a feasibility study for something similar -- turning solid waste into aviation fuel. I wish it was electricity instead, but people need to fly so I'll take it!

Annie, that is so interesting! I'm off to educate myself about these plants as I had no idea.

Localeater, thanks for your links. I'll check those out as well.

Edit: I just read statistics from OECD for 2021 that the total solid waste that is burned with energy recovery is 12% in U.S. with Japan at the highest with 74%. In part Japan, Scandinavia and Switzerland (top three) use it because they have little space for landfills.

I support nuclear energy.

I had a bud who worked at the plant and he said the environmental standards were so tough that they literally couldn't take in the city water and then let it out without making it even cleaner first.

Zalco, interestingly, on my list for what I do for the environment is oppose nuclear energy. I’d be interested in your thoughts. I oppose it because of the extaordinary long life of toxic waste and our inability to accurately predict the effectiveness of our containment methods and materials. I worry that things will break down long before the waste is no longer safe. Once it’s in our groundwater, we are done for.. It‘s alrady a huge problem in my state. https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we-are/Our-Programs/Nuclear-Waste I’d iove to be convinced it’s safe.

Unfortunately there is a dark side to just about anything we do in the name of the environment - recycling, energy production etc. We'd like to get an EV but aside from the range limitations the batteries pose huge problems in production, disposal and cost of replacement. I have no answers.

Congo Mining

Congo's Cobalt Rush

Yes, and look at California just recently getting electricity restrictions.

Nuclear power scares me though. We have so many power plants along the eastern north to south USA that it's worrisome if we (or when we) have a war here. The enemy could do widespread damage just hitting a strategic three.

There are very few on the other side.

Oly,

My short answer is nuclear sounds awful. Like most people, I grew up associating it with war and civilian disasters. Then I married a nuclear engineer. When I was reintroduced to him, we were childhood family friends, my thoughts were, Wow, this loser couldn't get a real job in industry, works for the Navy and makes bombs to drop on Iraqi children. So my thinking has evolved :-)

First I will give you my quick answers, then underneath, I have my husband explaining things better than I can.

Three Mile Island was actually no big deal.

We have not had any nuclear disasters, and we will likely not. We have a lot of experience here. We do not build power plants like Chernobyl, or Fukushima. Look at our civilian and military safety records.

We know and have known since the 60s what carbon emissions would cost us. And honestly one Chernobyl every single year would be a picnic compared to what the have now. And remember, we don't make power plants like Chernobyl.

Storing nuclear waste is a complete no-brainer.

We were sold anti nuclear rhetoric by oil companies. They used our natural fears of a technology spectacularly associated with destruction to give themselves permission to keep poisoning the planet and our bodies, because dirty emissions have very real health consequences as well.

We are fortunate to have all sorts of new, clean technologies, but we need a full mix power sources to meet our demands. Realistically, everything we all choose to do as individuals is only a balm for our consciences. The reality is, we must have our governments set standards and force down emissions. Consumers are not the source of the problem (you can make an argument they are, I have, but in the end, consumers have no say in what is produced at scale.)

Here is my husband:

First, nuclear power plants are not bombs waiting to explode. They are designed completely differently. For a nuclear bomb to explode it has to reach what we call prompt critical, where each neutron generation takes like a millisecond allowing for an explosive build up of energy. Nuclear power plants just slightly enriched fissile (Uranium for example) and rely on "delayed neutrons" to achieve criticality. Delayed neutrons are extra neutrons that pop out of fission byproducts like 10 seconds afterwards, so now a lifetime takes 10 seconds (10000x slower). There simply isn't enough time to build up an explosive amount of energy before that energy causes the reactor to stop working.

Secondly, a nuclear power plant (boiling water (BWR) or pressurized water (PWR)) uses water as a moderator. A moderator is a material that slows neutrons down keeping them in the reactor and improving the chance that they cause another fission. Slowed neutrons are called "thermal" neutrons, as opposed to "fast neutrons" which come out of a fission with a few MeV (a lot of energy for one neutron). One of the reasons why BWR/PWR are safer is that you have to have that water, in liquid form, to keep the reactor going. If the reactor power levels go too high, the water heats, boiling some of it into steam. Steam doesn't slow the neutrons so those neutrons escape causing the reactor to slowdown. This is a built-in control function as it causes the reactor to automatically match load (if you stop taking heat out it stops making any power).

Lets cover some of the disasters...

Three Mile Island was a nothing. The sum total of the reactivity released was that of a few bananas, yes less reactivity then you probably have on your counter. Yes, you are not allowed to bring bananas to a nuclear plant for lunch cause they are considered "waste".

Chernobyl used carbon for its moderator, not water. Carbon is still a moderator (not as efficient as water (because it has a higher molecular weight), cheap, and it practically refuses to absorb neutrons), but it doen't provide the natural load following safety function of water. In fact, it does the opposite it makes the reactor unstable. US reactors doesn't build carbon-moderator reactors.

Fukushima was misdesigned. No one recognized that it was in a tsunami zone and needed to be able to protect itself. Its generators were destroyed and it was unable to keep itself cool.

Environmentallly.... nuclear plants are zero carbon and currently store all of their waste on site. The US Navy is operates the most nuclear plants in the whole world, has the most operational hours, and has awesome safety record. The US Navy also has a centralized nuclear waste facilty (like the US was to provide for the commercial plants accross the country) and has been operating it for 50+ years without a problem. This is to say that nuclear waste really isn't a problem. On the other hand, fossil fuel plants emit carbon dioxide, which is contributing to global warming, and also produces harmful particulates and smog. These last two factors kill thousands just in California every year. Particulates contributes to lung disease and smog to acid rain. Nuclear plants do none of that. Side note: Solar PV cells require lots of "electronics" materials, such as Cadmium. As a result, Solar PV cells generate so much carbon/waste footprint during their creation that they never overcome that deficit generating electricity during their life.

If you want to be real about nuclear power... in order to keep nulcear plants safe, they need to be regulated to a high standard. Realize that these nuclear power plants are being run commercially, for a profit. These companies will cut a corner, exposing you to a risk, if they are allowed to do so. I'm not a huge fan of government oversight, but in the case of nuclear power it is critical to make sure that best design practices are incorporated and corners are not cut. The US Navy does so well becuase they pay for it. Power companies can afford to pay for it too. It is not like they are not going to turn a profit. Just don't let them sacrifice your safety for their "extra" profit.

Lastly, there is this push for small modular reactors (SMR) or Thorium reactors. They claim that they "solve" nuclear waste, but they simply don't. They are just redefiining the term nuclear waste to make it seem like they are. SMRs claim to be cheap because of the are based on repeat components. To make a reactor work, we need to provide a critial mass of fissile and a little bit more that is "burned" over its life creating all of the power (like a few tens of grams is enough to power a ship to cross the atlantic). The majority of the material is the critical mass. At the end of the reactors life that cricital mass is thrown away as waste. So small reactors (like 10x critical masses) consume a lot more nuclear fissile than large reactors (vs. only one critical mass). Basically, SMR are not efficient and are just a play on "economies of scale" which can not possibly work. Thorium reactors do work. We built them back in the 50s and 60s and figured out that we like Uranium better. You have to realize that a lot of nuclear engineering is materials science, knowing how the materials react to neutrons and each other in reactor conditions. Since the 50s and 60s, we have spent billions on basic research so we know exactly what will happen. Thorium reactors still pump out all of the same nuclear waste and operate basically the same way. The only difference is that no one has spent the billions to know how all of the reactor components will exposure to Thorium, and they conviently leave that cost out of their pro forma, leaving it for the government to provide it for them. Basically, Thorium reactors will be an empty promise (won't do what they say it will (zero nuclear waste) and will require a major government research expenditure to make as safe as an Uranium plant. I see it as scam.

PS If my husband's short book leaves you with any questions, he is happy to answer them.

Also, this discussion reminds me of the insights from Daniel Kahneman, of Thinking Fast and Slow. We are easily scared by nuclear because we have seen it's destructive capacity as a weapong. The destrustive capacity of carbon emissions and particulates is invisible, so we are much less likely to be moved.

Thank you Zalco!

This was my favorite...We are fortunate to have all sorts of new, clean technologies, but we need a full mix power sources to meet our demands.

Although there are many ideas to be environmentally responsible , there hasn't been a lot of considering all angles or consequences.

As a side note, our Florida governor has had some great "big picture" accomplishments, particularly in the waste to energy plants arena.

Thank you Zalco and Mr Zalco! This was very informative.

Yes, thank you for sharing your and your husband’s thoughts and information, Zalco! A very fascinating read.

A good friend once worked at Comanche Peak here in Texas and I was always interested in hearing his thoughts and experiences. I admit much of the technical aspects go over my head, but I enjoy learning and trying to keep informed.

Zalco, thank your DH! My DH worked at a nuke plants in the 60s. He always said he'd live next to a nuke plant any day vs. next to a steam plant. He said back then they were incredibly safe and that was with all manual controls. Now with computerization, the ability to build in safety and better controls is much greater than ever.

His thinking on it is they never get built because they are all too "custom". Instead they need to come up with a simple and safe design and then just tweak to fit the specific location. Some of us recall Shoreham which was an unmitigated disaster. While solar and wind may be desirable, they are not dependable. We will still need power generation from reliable sources to meet demand. Nuclear can do that for us.

Re Chernobyl, what I find most interesting is that, despite all the radiation risks, since man has left, the wildlife has returned and thrived in the area.

Zalco, thank you and Mr. Z for the really informative post. I guess it makes me feel a bit better about the plants themselves, but my real concern is the nuclear waste. We are doing things with to contain it using materials that have only been in use, at the most for a couple hundred years. We don't know how long they stay intact/stable/etc to keep toxic, radioactive waste contained.

From the EPA website about nuclear waste: "Like all radioactive material, radioactive wastes will naturally decay over time. Once the radioactive material has decayed sufficiently, the waste is no longer hazardous. However, the time it will take for the radioactive material to decay will range from a few hours to hundreds of thousands of years. Some radioactive elements, such as plutonium, are highly radioactive and remain so for thousands of years.”

I think humans are arrogant to believe we can plan for hundreds of thousands of years. The more plants we build the more waste we create. I don't feel at all good about that. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste

We do a lot of small things but they add up:

* cloth napkins, dish rags, dish towels, tablecloths, and handkerchiefs instead of paper or nonrecyclable versions

* bidet--really cuts down on the toilet tissue usage

* biodegradable trash bags

* LED light bulbs

* ceiling fans

* compost

* buy almost everything secondhand--almost no packaging waste

* hybrid car

* meal plan--we don't have a lot of leftovers

* make our own bone broth. This one is honestly a gamechanger. Homemade broth has improved the taste of our cooking and the bone meal from the softened bones is making the garden very happy.

* giving consumable gifts

* joining a Buy Nothing group

* making finding ways to recycle or repurpose our trash a focus

I also found the nuclear energy post to be very informative. Although I totally understand the safety of the equipment argument, this was the part that caught my attention and sums up my fear of reliance on nuclear power:

If you want to be real about nuclear power... in order to keep nulcear plants safe, they need to be regulated to a high standard. Realize that these nuclear power plants are being run commercially, for a profit. These companies will cut a corner, exposing you to a risk, if they are allowed to do so.

Oly, Just now saw your last post. Getting it to DH now.

Olychick,

Radioactive waste does decay and disappear over time becoming insignificant compared to background radiation (about 350 mrem/yr for someline living at sealevel). Remember that we live in a universe full of radiation.

As the EPA website describes, radioactive waste does cover a range of half-lives, the rate at which it decays.

Short half-life (like less than a month or so) materials decay very fast giving off lots of radiation. Typically, by the time a nuclear powre plant is shutdown, cooled, and readied for removal of the remaining fuel, these materials have decayed below background. These are not a problem since we can wait them out.

Medium half-life materials (like 1 to 100 years) decay fast enough to pump out a significant amount of radiation but last for long enough that we can't simple wait them out while they are in place. An example of one of these nasty materials is Cobalt 60. This is the sort of materials that we really worry about.

Long half-life materials (some range into the millions of years) decays very slowly, and hence are only slightly radioactive. Lots of materials fall into this case, like the Pottasium in your bananas or natural uranium. Yes, these materials will remain radioactive for a very long time, but on the other hand give off radiation so slowly that they are very rarely a problem.

Yes, no one can plan for hundreds of thousands of years, but we don't have to. Right now, commercial highly radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear power plants that made that material. It is stored, typically, at the bottom of a pool (provides crackprroof shielding and cooling) and continuously monitors to keep it safe. Low level waste is stored in facilities where it waits until it falls below background.

I understand your statement that "The more plants we make the more waste we create." but lets consider the alternatives. We can get our power from nuclear, fossil fuels, or renewables. Yes, nuclear creates nuclear waste, a very concentrated waste. Fossil Fuel creates carbon dioxide and particulate waste. Particulates kill many thousands per year already (lung disease). Carbon dioxide and other emissions are already causing global warming, smog, acid rain. Renewable energy is not free. Solar cells use lots "circuit board" materials. Some argue that the "carbon footprint" caused in the construction phase of PV cells is so horrific, it is never overcome by the zero-carbon energy produced over its life. Wind power also requires big turbines that kill birds and suffer from massive losses because they are typically far away from where people are. The best renewable we have is hydro, but no one likes dams. The only negative carbon power source we have is waste-to-energy, where we draw energy from our own garbage before that garbage decays on its own producing even worse emissions then caused by combustion or gasification. There is no single answer, but let me explain why I think nuclear is my best choice.

Nuclear waste (that subset that we have to deal with, mid to long half-life) is very compact, litterally all of it can be stored at a single site that can be guarded. That waste can be stored in a formation that is realtively stable and apart from water tables. It can be stored in glass bottles that keep everything inside. The staff there can maintain those bottles over time. It doesn't have to last forever, only the time frame till the next renewal (the next time the waste is transferred to the next bottle, like 50 years).

So, you were concerned about humankind's concern for what would happen in 100,000 years. I would say that anything but nuclear would condemn the world to flooding and massively environmental shifts. Nuclear only requires one "mountain" in the whole world to be dedicated to storing this waste. I think nuclear is the best option. BTW, the USA banned nuclear waste reprocessing back in Carter's time, meaining that we can't recover unused fuel from the waste. The result is that we only have 200 years of nuclear fuel if we wanted to power the whole planet, 2000 years if we remove that limitation.

Thank you and Mr. Z again! You make a good argument and I'll definitely do some rethinking of my position and concerns. :-)

Plants decompose. They are the basic building materials of life, they are not "waste" like plastic that can't be reconfigured into new life. Basic biology 101, it is called "biogeochemical cycling" and includes the major building blocks of life such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous. However, if you overload the natural recycling system, too much carbon, nitrogen or phosphorous can become toxic pollution, so I try to avoid doing that, which means avoiding excessive burning of fossilized carbon to release it into the atmosphere, and reducing my reliance on food grown with heavy nitrogen fertilization which also used fossil fuels to produce it. Same with phosphorous, which is part of runoff that can overwhelm bodies of water and cause algae blooms. Same with the highly nitrogen concentrated waste from animal feedlots. I've been mostly vegetarian all my life, and never even liked meat all that much so I don't feel deprived. I eat it sometimes but probably drastically less than the average person. I love dairy but don't eat that due to the high level of saturated fat which is bad for my health. That I miss but it's for the best. Again, I eat it a little bit so my lifestyle isn't all that ascetic.

What I do for the environment is try and get into harmony with those cycles. Limit my use of fossil fuels as much as I can, reduce my consumption of non-renewable resources, and then compost or recycle the ones I do use. I compost almost all organic material I come into contact with. It's pretty easy actually. The reducing and reusing is a whole lot more difficult than the recycling.

My attempt at getting into harmony with the carbon cycle, which is part of the CO2 physical and chemical dynamics that runs the planet, is to limit my use of gas powered implements (which convert fossilized carbon into carbon gas) to take care of my yard, and maximize the utility I get from the photosynthesis taking place here. That means converting a lot of the lawn space to islands of trees, shrubs and herbaceous perennials. Also edible landscaping. That's how I utilize all the compost I create from the organic material on my lawn and from my kitchen. Like I said, relatively easy on that one.

I also eat little meat or dairy, which is good for my figure, gut and overall health.

I plant trees and encourage plant growth for a living. It takes carbon out of the air and through photosynthesis turns it into life and all its components through food chains, and the composting and recycling puts it back into the soil. That's how natural systems work so that the CO2 in the air is balanced with the CO2 tied up in organic life. It's been keeping the planet humming for millions of years so I think best not to mess it up. Call me crazy.

So I basically try to keep my poop in a group, literally, not have my waste products wandering all over the planet, but try to keep it recycling as close to home as possible.

My opinion on nuclear power is that we are going to use it, but my opinion on how well humans can be stewards of something as dangerous as nuclear power is dismal due to how well we've managed other big global stewardship issues. As brilliant, brave, dedicated and talented as some folks on the planet are, there's an awful lot of folks with other less noble characteristics. They don't have a good track record . . . .