Virescent

Found a couple interesting articles on the environmental impacts of eating meat today. First, from Wired, an argument that eating meat is an ethical issue because of its impacts on the global food supply. Livestock require lots of food to eat and big areas to hang out in, so that prompts deforestation, decreases farmland, and drives up grain prices. There are plenty of other things driving up food prices (corn-based ethanol, argh), but the rising demand for meat is certainly one of them. After describing food riots in a dozen countries:

Even before this crisis, food experts said the world could not feed itself in coming decades if growing populations in developing countries insisted on a meat-rich western diet. That time may already have arrived — and largely without climate-change induced agricultural disruption. Add droughts and years of failing harvests, and things get seriously scary.

So maybe it’s time for taste to take a back seat to conscience. I know that sacrificing meat for veggies won’t solve the problem on its own, but it’s certainly just as meaningful as using compact fluorescent bulbs or cloth shopping bags, and I do that without hesitation.

I dig. Fauxsage for dinner it is.

Ok, so cut back on the meat, check. And when we do get meat, organic free range meat is neat! Right? No. The BBC makes a case that organically raised beef and poultry might produce more greenhouse gases, consume more food, and produce more waste that’s harder to clean up than livestock sequestered indoors.

Housing animals gives humans control. The diet can be precisely manipulated to maximise growth and minimise polluting gases.

Animals do not waste food energy on running about and keeping warm. Their manure can be collected and burned as a fuel, avoiding damaging evaporation and seepage into rivers.

In the future, it is hoped that sealed barns would have exhaust vents where the harmful gases could be captured before they entered the atmosphere.

This combination of precision husbandry and species advantage is what puts commercial indoor poultry sheds at the top of the climate chart.

Peter Bradnock of the British Poultry Council says: “Organic poultry meat has about 45% more global warming potential than indoor-reared poultry meat.

My first reaction: Well, *expletive*.

We have to keep the animals indoors and still for us to reduce emissions? But that makes them sick, and unhappy, and unhealthy, and and and. The way they raise non-organic pre-meats today, they inject them full of hormones and feed them weird stuff to fatten them up. Plus, do poultry farms really feed their birds to maximise growth AND minimize emissions already? Or are they just focused on maximizing growth? Most farms don’t have biomass heaters or other waste collection/conservation systems in place to actually get rid of the emissions: the article points out that they might, later. So for now, they’re just pumping the animals full of chemicals, and keeping them immobile in a barn so the greenhouse gases probably aren’t reduced, but they are all emitted from the same general area.

Do any of these environmentally friendly barns exist? And are the animals in them treated humanely?

With none of those questions really answered for now, I’ll have to pick my poison: emit more gases (maybe?), or eat healthier food. I’m sure the meat-makers, if they are interested in their carbon impact, will find a way to raise healthier meat in a less greenhouse-gas intensive way. Maybe that will be indoors. Maybe it will be humane. I’m not holding my fork.

Conclusion: I’ll keep buying hormone-free chicken, and free-range if I can find it. Same with beef. Until I find one animals from one of these wonderful indoor gas collection barns.

I’m back, and I’ve got a few changes coming here for you soon.  Photo Albums!  And such!  But today, it’s Earth Day, and there’s some love to be sharing.

My plans for Earth Day were mostly to trick people into drinking some organic wine and watching The Day After Tomorrow (still the best climate change movie ever produced, ever, sorry, Gore.)  Well, some aspects of that would have involved more necessary trickery than others.  I’m having a hard time finding anyone who finds that movie to be as much of a work of genius as I do.  But given school and work, film and wine will need to happen later on.  I’ll definitly pet my sprouts, though.  That should be plenty earthy.

For a small celebration, though, I want to share a few links to blogs I’ve been reading and enjoying.

A More Perfect Market had a recent post on the problems of landholders cashing in on their forests- the ‘greenies’ and government are making it harder for them, and who’s it helping?

Bean Sprouts has a recipe for Goat Cheese and Roasted Vegetable pasta.  It’s part of her eating-vegetarian challenge.  Since goat cheese is delicious, how challenging can this be?

At Climate Progress, the talk is usually wonky and political, but for Earth Day they’ve posted a discussion of why we shouldn’t focus on saving the planet, but instead on saving ourselves (massive weather changes being way more damaging to people than the huge spinning ball of molten rock we’re allegedly concerned with).

Crunchy Chicken is doing a lot of good work, all the time, but the one that catches my eye is her series on highly attractive men on the environmental movement. This time, it’s Guillermo from LocalHarvest, a website dedicated to local farming. Good pic(k).

Eco Samurai is brewing beer at home for all the environmental, and delicious, reasons.

Eco Warrior collected some interesting ideas for making planters from things that aren’t planters.

Garden Punks has a great series of instructions and photos from their most recent garden design. Rather inspiring, but I’ll have to be content with rearranging my planters in attractive groupings for now.

No Impact Man gave a wise commentary on the recent and possibly counterproductive debates between some climate policy types (including Nordhaus and Shellenberger, who wrote “BreakThrough”) on Climate Progress.

People and Nature has collected a list of things to do outside, especially with kids. Makes me want to find a child to make go outside. In the legal-est way possible.

There’s plenty of Earth Love in these parts- well over 24 hours worth.  Fortunately, when you’re a sustainability blogger, every day is Earth Day (cheesy grin).

It’s the greenish smudge in the middle. I’d read a lot about the difficulty of growing lavender from seed, and my soil isn’t draining well at all (lavender loves to drain!), so I had despaired. But something’s come up. Only one baby lavender, from about 20 seeds, but that’s ok, it’s a start.

Last night, I soaked peas, basil, and a few more climbing guys (which allegedly go nicely with morning glories), and I planted them tonight.

Hopefully their pots will drain better- I filled the bottoms with gravel to give the base some breathing room. Gravel was collected from a defunct water fountain and the side of the road, on my way home (Yes, I washed my hands after, mom). I did have to purchase dirt yesterday, though, which is the most ignominious part of urban gardening. Hypothetically, I could steal it from a public green space in the dead of night, but that’s not fair to my neighbors. Plus it’d be full of puppy doo and broken glass.

HD sells both organic and non-organic dirt!  Well, I got potting soil, but they had “regular dirt” of both kinds too.  I bought the non-organic kind, but I’m wondering the impact of growing vegetables and herbs in it, since it’s got the chemical fertilizers and such.  I’ve got enough for a while, and I won’t waste good dirt, but I should read up more on it and make a more informed decision next time I obtain some. Also, bags of dirt are surprisingly heavy, and I’d like to thank the nice man at Home Depot on 236 who helped me get mine into the car Tuesday afternoon.

(The morning glories and chives are still growing too!)

I started March’s goal with three listed projects. I only finished two things, and I started a bunch more.

Original:

1) Scarf, knit. Progressed ~6 inches, but have succeeded in carrying it around with me, so I’m getting more done these days.

2) Quilt, sewn. No real progress, though I looked up quilt making, and found a new stack of squares.

3) Weighted Companion Cube, wood and fabric. Bought all the fabric, which is now buried under other items in the Gentleman Friend’s apartment.

Added:

4) Flower, sewn. Finished!

5) Nuno-zoris, woven. I’ve marked a stack of teeshirts for dismantling. I’ve also begun debating whether to use a cord base, or try something less bulky, like another teeshirt strip for a base.

6) White Dress, alteration. I’m using the unnecessary waist ties to replace the uncomfortable shoulder straps. I’ve chopped off the straps and the ties, and now I just need to fit it and sew it back on.

7) Lampshades, watercolor. Got some lampshades for practicing from my gentleman friend’s lovely mother.

8 ) Plate, painted. I had a ratty old plate- glass with a shiny paint showing through- but the paint was chipping. I fixed it up with a dark green underlay. I hope it chips more, or maybe I should chip it more, because I wish the chipped pattern looked cooler. Plus, if it chipped more, I could add a third color. But for now, finished!

Ok, so I started more projects than I had, finished two projects I hadn’t started, and mostly just gathered supplies. But I have been finding more ways to work making things into my day, and it’s been very satisfying to plan out how to remake and refurbish my stuff so it works better. All in all, relaxing and refreshing, and woo.

So, April! I had this one planned out already, and it’s partially started. In April, I’m gardening. Since forever, my parents have gardened, and I tried deck vegetables last year. This year, though, I have a bright, sunny deck, with areas of partial shade, a composter, and a plan. Well, not really a plan, but I have a hydrangea, a kalanchoe, and a rosemary bush somewhere about. I killed a couple of houseplants this winter, and  I’ve got the remnants of the pots from last year’s latent peppers, so I have a few empty planter spaces. Plus, my mother informs me that my father, who shows his love through vegetables, has already got a few tomato plants started for me. She’s packing up some herbs, and there were strong hints at a geranium. I am told that geraniums are difficult to kill. We’ll see!

I want to plant some vegetables and flowers in my garden, with a view to both edible harvests and beauty. I need a bigger planter for the hydrangea, so that I can grow that to a viable bush. I’ll also need to get the composter going again. Biking Person was kind enough to give me two spaghetti jars of dirt, so I can get the cultures started, as soon as I find an outdoor plug for the unit. Because it should probably stay outdoors, to isolate it from the housemates, just in case of smells. I’ll also need to build it a tiny hut, since we have a tiny, curious dog (Ruby), and its lid doesn’t latch shut.

Plenty to do, and I’m psyched by the prospect of veggies and hydrangeas (my favorite flowers) and creating things from dirt, sun, and water all summer! And possibly fall. It is DC, after all, the summer lasts. I am slightly nervous, given my tendency to kill plants, about how this will work, so I’ll probably be calling my mother for advice pretty often. I wish there was some sort of gardening reference for total deck garden beginners. Actually, there probably is. Hm.

I’m at home sick today, and generally when I don’t feel well, I want Goldfish. The slightly salty, cheese cracker kind, specifically. I don’t have any, though. They taste best from the big cartons, like the 3-packs at Costco and the gigantic milk-type cartons will do (they start out good but get stale faster than the 3-packs), but I haven’t been to Costco recently, so. I did get a little box of pseudo-Goldfish yesterday, and I’ve had a few for comfort today instead, and I will review those for you.

I have a box of Annie’s Cheddar Bunnies. They’re like goldfish, in that they are tiny baked cheese crackers, only they look like bunnies, and they are organic. Whole Foods is dangerous and fun, because their snack foods emit the siren call of organicity, and the have the haunting allure of fair tradicousness. This has led me to purchase items like organic pop tarts on several occasions that I am not entirely proud of, although I have determined that their organic poptarts actually taste good, like spices and fruit and flour, as opposed to like sugary cardboard, as a normal poptart does. Still, that is no reason to buy them, since pop tarts probably aren’t real food.

I digress. I bought the Cheddar Bunnies Tuesday due to 1/3 not having goldfish, 1/3 really wanting goldfish, and 1/3 being curious. They taste…fine. Cheesier than Goldfish, but without the necessary salty tang that pleases me. Also, the bunny shape is flat and too intricate, and richer (do I detect more butter?) than the simple baked cheese taste of the Goldfish. It lacks the simple bulbous fish body shape, the crunching of which hollow space is probably 25% of the enjoyment of the fish.

In terms of packaging, there aren’t that many bunnies in the box, compared to the glut of fish available at Costco. Buying a big box of fish is more efficient, waste-wise. The three-pack at Costco has a recyclable outside box and three plastic inner bags, and this has a tiny recyclable box of recycled cardboard, and a small plastic inner bag. Per bunny, I produce more waste that I would per fish.

On the upside, since the bunnies aren’t as tempting, I don’t eat too many of them and ruin my dinner.

Really, this is all a matter of taste- but if you like the salty, crunchy fish, you might not like Annie’s Organic attempts. I should go back to Costco to fulfill my true cheese cracker desires, but first, I should take some aspirin and go back to bed.

From recently inside my head, two quick follow-ups, then a review of external bits:

First, still on the fence about buying into Valentine’s day? Reuter’s has a dampening article on the child labor and human trafficking that go into producing much of the world’s cocoa, harsh chemicals dumped on roses and inhaled by farm workers, and those crazy war diamonds. Get off the fence and try something else! If the dear heart’s heart is set on chocolate, check out fair trade chocolate options. (My head? It is now salivating.)

Second, Mike Bloomberg is chastising the US government for promoting corn ethanol as a viable fuel. Sure, it’s interesting because I talked about it yesterday (sensing a pattern in this post?), but Bloomberg has also been flirting with running for president this year. Fred Thompson has already shown us the pitfalls of merely flirting with the idea, though, and the rash (yes, rash) of interesting primary action will probably make late entries into the race less interesting by comparison. But the loud green mayor of NY seems to want to make his voice heard on the national stage, and if he’s got a message like this, let’s hear some more.

Finally, let us turn our heads to my shampoo (masculine types are dismissed, unless they’re looking for tips on how to smell not so, well, dude-like).

I’ve been trying out a few ecofriendly shampoos, and it’s been a rough process. Literally. Whole Foods brand grapefruit shampoo and conditioner left my hair feeling unwashed and unconditioned. Plus, they smell sickly-sweet. Avalon Organics has a Lavender shampoo and conditioner that smell good- like real lavender, not the fake lavender scent. Their shampoo takes a lot of work to lather (it’s not my water’s fault) and their conditioner, while promising to nourish, leaves my hair brittle even when I let it sit a while. If you like the smell, the lack of animal testing, and the “100% vegetarian ingredients”, give the shampoo a try and avoid the conditioner- though the latter might work better for you if your hair is short or oily.

Really, though, you can skip the other two brands altogether and check out Trader Joe’s store brand. Their conditioner actually conditions- and I’ve got long, curly, slightly dry hair, so that’s a tough proposition. It’s $2 a bottle, smells fantastic, wasn’t tested on animals, and it’s got mostly organic ingredients. It does contain a couple parabens, which haven’t been proven to cause breast cancer in anything. Natural health people add an ominous “yet” to that statement. Avalon Organics consciously avoids them, but hey: Avalon Organics hasn’t produced a working conditioner yet, so. I’ll keep testing. (If you can’t wait for me to come up with another suggestion, try the comments at Green as a Thistle’s similar post.)

I keep wanting to start off by calling it “interesting” since no other pale word sums it up better, but it’s actually not that interesting. It’s not entirely Lomborg’s fault: he’s a statistician, and he hasn’t written a book, he’s written a statistical review. He quotes numbers from concerned environmentalists (and Lomborg claims to have once been one of them) and then looks up the data to present it in graphs to show whether or not the envirotypes are credible and should be as worked up as they are. His answer is, almost uniformly, that we have no environmental problem, and actually everything is on average just fine.

So his book is long, and in general it’s just a bunch of numbers and charts. I won’t argue with them- others have better than I can- plus, that’d make me as boring as him. I will point out, though, that he very confidently estimates that the price of oil will stay between 20$/barrel and 27$/ until 2020, and certainly not go above the high estimate of 30$/ before then. Good for a morning chuckle! And good for a reminder that data projections are helpful if nothing about the world changes.

His extensive use of footnotes breeds trust, but it’s not difficult to notice (even sleepily on the bus in the morning) that he only provides the answers to very specific questions- he’s massaging his message as much as he claims the environmentalists do. He also does a nice job of painting every concerned environmentalist as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth, fact-ignoring nut job, which isn’t so much the case, but the normal helpful types don’t make for good debunking. I’m pretty sure he didn’t do it to be sneaky: I think he actually believes his work would help the environmental movement move forward- considering the debate that followed it, maybe he did.

Also, I skimmed the entire chapter on global warming- he was writing in 2001, so I’m pretty sure whatever he has to say about it today is different, given the 2007 IPCC report.

I found his analysis of pesticides and organic farming intriguing- he pointed out that, since pesticides and intensive farming methods increase crop yields, a return to organic farming would lead to mass starvation (or require huge conversions of land area to farming). Are the organic pop tarts I bought Tuesday then a bad idea? For global reasons, not the other more obvious ones- and yes, they were pretty good, thanks. First, organic farming is such a limited endeavor- small market, sometimes expensive product- so that starvation isn’t an issue from mass conversion of farms for now. Second, he only uses large scale farming as an example, whereas it would probably do people good to grow their own vegetables (and it’s cheapest to grow organic foods, since you don’t have to really do anything to them but pay attention)- through community gardens, balcony gardens- spaces that may be carved out in urban and suburban areas. Local, personal, and small-scale food production makes the supply of food more robust, and could add much to the diet of low-income types who may not have a decent vegetable selection at a store nearby, or even the money to purchase relatively expensive-per-calorie foods. So organic farming could be just what some groups need, as opposed to a looming threat to everybody’s welfare. And he doesn’t mention- since he didn’t know- that recent study results indicate that organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown types.

One thing that bothered me about the very foundation of the book is that, while at the beginning, Lomborg claimed to have been concerned about the environment himself, he makes judgments throughout the book based entirely on cost analysis, presumably because he’s trying to be very objective about things, and costs are the only way to be objective. Now, cost analysis is not such a bad thing, and it can be wonderful- but it leads him to conclusions divorced from sense.  For instance: the amount of waste produced by Americans isn’t a problem, since it’s cheap to throw things away and we have a place to store it (he demonstrates how all of our trash from the 20th century would fit in a portion of Woodward County, Oklahoma). I’m pretty sure those irrational, subjective residents of Woodward County would find that to be ridiculous. And I’m even more sure that citizens of Italy could tell Lomborg a thing or two about how trash disposal is easer to make sweeping generalizations about than do. More than that, though, it’s not just the cost, or lack thereof, of throwing stuff away that matters. Waste is evidence of a design flaw- it’s a mistake in the system. That we tolerate it is more an indication that society is unbalanced than that society is wisely minimizing cost. To top it off, Lomborg offers no hints on how things will work when China and India and other hugely populous developing nations get to be as prosperous and wasteful as Americans.

One of his main points is that there are bigger problems left than global warming and pollution, and spending money on areas like poverty and hunger will do more good for more people than spending money on global warming or pollution. For some proposed solutions, that’s certainly the case. And he does make a strong argument that chemicals in our environment cause more fear than harm.

He’s had years of critiques, and he’s posted responses to some. The wikipedia site has some great general review and links to arguments for and against his work- honestly, I’d recommend just reading that and skipping the book all together. It’s worth noting that this work was charged with scientific dishonesty by a Danish research ministry- he wasn’t found guilty of intentional dishonesty, since it was determined he had no training in environmental science or the issues he discussed- but it opened up a whole can of worms, including appeals and scientists signing petitions for and against the book and so on.

The arguments about the book are much more interesting than the book itself, so unless you love slightly outdated numbers, skip it. He’s written a newer one- Cool It- in 2007 so maybe that’s more relevant.

So now that I care about packaging, source of my food, taste, and nutritional content, I need to take a handler with me to the grocery store. Sometimes it’s not so bad. Fruits and vegetables- organic? If no, how about just not gross-looking? Check. Eggs, organic/cage-free, check. Milk (after a brief “organic in nonrecycleable or regular in recyclable carton?” dilemma), check. OJ, biggest jug with largest pulp content. Check. Bread. Anything non-tasteless and Organic? No (rain curses upon the large bakery distributors). Anything non-tasteless? Check. Chicken without added water or hormones? Maybe.

So, my diet is unvaried, but at least by sticking to those items, I can shop within my ethical choices and with some expediency. I usually spend about two minutes in the cookie aisle salivating, but reminding myself wistfully that they never taste as good as I imagine, I’ll eat them too fast if I buy them, I haven’t been to the gym in a while, and on and on. Drool, drool. The last argument I come to, and the one that suffices for me where no others will, is I feel guilty throwing the 2-3 layers of packaging away afterwards, and thus taint any joy in their consumption. Frankly, if it stops me buying sub-par cookies, I will continue to nurse my irrational packaging guilt.

Shopping for anything else has become frustrating, though. Last weekend, I attempted to make a quick run to the grocery to pick up a few drinks and snacks for a gathering. Chips and coke, in and out. Once there, though, I spent a half hour in the aisle, calculating. What’s more efficient- coke in 2L bottles, or coke in cans? Bottle caps aren’t recyclable, plastic isn’t efficiently recycled, whereas cardboard and aluminum cans are fully recyclable. Which one costs less? Which one is packed most efficiently to minimize shipping costs? I turned away from the coke and to the chips. I was in Shopper’s, and they don’t carry any organic chips. Some are “natural” or “all-natural” but that doesn’t mean anything. What tastes good and is not boring and not expensive and not completely unhealthy and has the least packaging and is maybe a little environmentally friendly? Argh, nothing, so pick up some bags of various pretzels and and one bag of corn chips that look a little less processed, and sulkily return to the coke. I picked up a couple of bottles, on the assumption that they contain less product, and I’d have less left over.

I lost a lot of time, and ended up with 6 products chosen on no basis other than exasperation. In a different grocery store, this scenario might have played out better- Giant has a selection of organic corn chips that taste pretty good, and Harris Teeter, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s generally have all those yuppie organic snack things too. But still.

What to do? Shop somewhere else for snack foods, first off. Change my definition of snacks, and serve more fruit/veggies and fewer chips at parties. And a 60-second rule on chip selection- “If no organic/recyclable packaging chips are seen within 60 seconds, just grab something. They’re just chips.“

As for the coke, I regretted my bottle decision. As my gentleman friend pointed out, we have a little less leftover coke, sure, but since it’s all in the same bottle, we now have flat leftover coke. Cans from here on out- decision made.

First, I have a request to make of you. There’s a massive food shortage at food banks around the country. The Capitol Area Food Banks can use all the donations they can get for this holiday season (and all the time, really). They’re having a non-perishable food drive December 14th (next Friday), so if you can stop by one of their truck locations in DC/MD/VA and give, or get something to one of their drop-off centers at that website some other day, it would mean a lot to a lot of hungry people. Best way to make your holiday sustainable is to help make sure other people have a good one, too.

Second, I have a Christmas tree. After a couple (or maybe 4…) wrong turns, we located Oak Shade Farm, which is somewhere out near Rixeyville, VA- a little over an hour’s drive from where 66 and the Beltway intersect. It’s actually not that hard to find, we just had a few difficulties involving signs and reading them and such. Anyway, I found my tree. There it is, in its live, organic glory. It’s a white pine- very fat and fluffy, and about seven feet tall. The finding and cutting and tying-on-my-car’s-roof didn’t take very long, which is good, because I had some important bunny-holding to accomplish. Yes, they fit in one hand, and they were so soft it was difficult to determine when one was petting them. As an additional benefit, adorable children were also attracted to holding the adorable bunnies, so there was this perfect storm of cuteness hovering over the tree farm. If you’re looking for a tree, head to Oak Shade: free hot cider, bunnies, mountain vistas, and big nice-smelling organic trees for $40 and under. Even with the cost of gas, that makes them less expensive than the scrawny, sad trees in lots around here.

My tree is now up and watered, and is waiting for its trimmings. I picked up a couple of strings of LED Christmas lights today. Target had a small selection of them, but it looked as though the lights had already been picked over. I have a few strands of regular Christmas lights already, but LED lights use about 1/10th of the energy of the regular lights, last years and years longer, and emit much less heat, so there’s very little danger of them igniting your tree if it gets a little crispy. Regular light strings tend to use much more energy precisely because they lose so much of it to heat. So LEDs are more expensive to begin with, but they’re safer and last longer. Well, actually, from my experience people give up on light strings because they balled them up the year before and can’t get them untangled the next year, and LEDs aren’t going to solve that particular issue. So wrapping them up neatly is just as big a deal as having a good set to begin with. Maybe the extra up-front cost will be an incentive to treat them more carefully? I’ll post pictures when I get around to sprucing her up (it’ll be hard, she’s such a pine…).

My jeans ripped a few days ago, precipitating an uncomfortable discovery: I only have one pair of useful pants, and it’s that one. An inexcusable situation, perhaps, but I submit that, as a female, finding one pair of pants was plenty hard enough. Males might not get why this is a problem, so I’ll explain.

Male pants have two measurements in known increments- inches around, and inches down. When you buy pants, you find your two numbers, and you’re done.

/rant/ For ladies’ pants, there is a number on your pants, but none of those numbers signify anything. Not only do sizes vary among brands- an 8 in one pair may be larger than a 10 in another brand- but also the allowance for different anatomical bits is different in each kind of jeans, both among brand and style of jean. One brand may be cut for thighless ladies, while another expects a little badonkadonk (take that, spell check). There is usually no identifier of length, beyond “regular” and “tall”, whatever that means. An armful of jeans covering the upper and lower limits of your hypothetical size- say, grab everything you see from size 8 to size 12- is only 30% likely to yield an acceptably fitting pair of pants. Beyond sizing, females also have to contend with the proliferation of “stretch” jeans, which are allegedly more “comfortable” but usually just tend to be “oh my that’s very tight”. Add the number of styles to chose from- flares, hiphuggers, low-rise, mid-rise, navel-chafing, “skinny”, straight leg, “boyfriend”, tapered, boot cut, etc. Finally, add a likelihood of ridiculous tearings, bleachings, coloring, sequins, or flaming butterfly patches. So even if you do find a pair of fitting jeans, they’ll look ridiculous anyway. /end rant/

To summarize: shopping for lady pants is nasty, brutish, and really, really, really long. Smart ladies find one style, brand, and size that works, and never have to do it again. I got my current excellent pants at a thrift store. I can’t buy them from the original label- not only are they probably made with sweatshop labor from unsustainably grown and dyed material, but they’re not even being made anymore. Honestly, given how much I like them and how hard that is to find, I’d probably buy them again anyway even given ethical considerations, but the second part is the clincher, and forces me to live my goals.

Point being: I need a pair of pants post haste, and seeing how I’m working on the sustainable thing, I should get a pair of earth-friendly ones.

There are a few brands making jeans from sustainable materials in an ethical way. The more mainstream Levi’s sells a line of organic cotton jeans, but no word on if they’re made in sweatshops or not. A quick search for organic cotton jeans turned up a bunch of specialty stores selling them, including REI and some “green” websites.

I’ve ordered a pair from rawganique, and I have high hopes for them. They’re made from organic cotton and for fair wages. Check out their website, these people are serious hippies. They operate on just solar and wind power! Now to tie in that unnecessary-seeming rant: order jeans online! I must be crazy! How many times will I have to return them before I find the right fit? I hope not more than 16! But get this: they post the measurements (towards the bottom of the page) their womens’ sizes are based on. Plus, in most sizes there is a choice of two leg lengths, in real inch-type units. Grab a tape measure and get peace of mind. I expect them any day now, which is good, since these patches won’t last much longer. I will report back on their quality, and wear them about- after all, they’ll be my only pair of useful pants.