I may be one of the few people in Chico to own (and use!) a human-powered lawnmower, more commonly called a “push lawnmower” or a “reel lawnmower.” Let me just state that I am not a big fan of lawns in the first place (I will explain why in a later post). I have two (a front and a back), and am looking to downsize to one in the upcoming months. But I say, if you are going to mow, do it old school. Just like the classic-looking Schwinn bikes, I think reel lawnmowers need to make a comeback.

I scored mine for free from a neighbor. Here’s what I like about it: It is small and stores easily, it does the job (it takes me about 20 minutes to trim 2000 square feet of lawn), it's easy to fix and maintain, I don't need earplugs or a face mask when I use it, and best of all it runs on good old-fashioned calories, which I burn a-plenty during my once-a-week, gym-free, mowing workout. I leave the trimmings on the lawn, known as "grass-cycling," which allows the clippings to quickly decompose and returns the nutrients to the soil naturally.

Yes, I am sure a gas-powered mower could do the job a bit faster, but for me they are a notch below leaf-blowers in the “things I hate” category. In addition to air pollution, noise pollution, and all of the issues associated with using fossil fuel, I find that gas-powered lawnmowers stink, leak, break, can be hard to start, expensive to buy, difficult to fix, and a pain to maintain. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the typical gas-powered lawnmower running for one hour emits the same amount of pollutants as 8 new cars driving at 55 mph for the same amount of time. The EPA estimates that traditional gas-powered lawnmowers are responsible for 5% of the nation's air pollution. The reason? Unlike a car, lawnmowers lack the benefits of a catalytic converter and other emission-reducing devices.

If you can’t borrow one from a neighbor, I have seen them new at Colliers for less than $200, though I would wager you could find one at one of Chico’s fine second-hand stores for less than half that.

My kitchen glows at night. There is a green glow from the stove clock, a red glow from the microwave clock, and a blue glow from the stereo clock. This means that these appliances are using energy even when not "on," what energy experts call "phantom loads." The same can be said of television sets, DVD players, and computer printers that are plugged in and in standby mode or that have lights or "instant on" features. Phantom loads account for 2%-8% of household electricity use. According to a study by Home Power magazine, the total phantom load in the United States could provide enough power to handle the combined electricity needs of Vietnam, Peru, and Greece.

In order to fully eliminate the phantom load, one must cut all power entirely to these appliances when they are not in use. I have read that this would translate into an actual cost savings of $2-$4 per year per appliance.

So what we have is the dilemma of balancing what will save energy versus what is worth the effort. Let's just take the microwave, for example. There are three ways to shut it down entirely: 1) convert the outlet into a light switch or a motion sensor (which requires time, money, and for me, the possibility of electrocuting myself), 2) plug the microwave into a power strip (which requires money to purchase the strip as well as the use of precious counter space), or 3) unplug the unit each time you are not using it, and replug it when you need it (which takes time and is just plain annoying).

Say there are 7 appliances like this in your house that suck energy all the time, even when they are "off." The question is, is the time and effort that would be required to figure out how to entirely shut down power to each one be worth $25/year (plus the environmental benefits of saving energy)? I am still debating this one myself, and I will get back to you when I come up with an answer.

A Chico Sustainability Blog. I am sure that NorCal Blog readers knew it was simply a matter of time. So whether you are rejoicing, wincing, or simply curious, let me at least start by telling you what you can expect.

First of all, “sustainability” is a big word (14 letters, 6 syllables), and an even a bigger concept, with plenty of room for debate, argument, soapboxes, end-of-the-world laments, and how-to tips. Sustainability is often said in the same breath as “sustainable development,” which are two big words together that to some appear to border on oxymoron status. The term came into its current meaning when it was defined in a 1987 UN report as follows:

“Sustainable development meets the needs of the present
without compromising the needs of the future”

From here we get a whole host of related terms, all equally as broad: Sustainable Living, Living Lightly on the Earth, Living a Low-Impact Lifestyle, and Reducing One’s Footprint (my personal favorite, it always make me think of foot reduction surgery). The question to be explored in this blog is how these terms can, and some might say should, apply to life in Chico in a logical, thoughtful manner.