"GINKS" This is example of stretching perhaps a bit too much the meaning of "Green"

More People Choose Not to Have Kids for Green Reasons, Some Calling Themselves "GINKS." Would You?

A movement for "Green Inclinations, No Kids" gains momentum after studies show having one child in America increases your carbon footprint by a factor of six.

While the world talks Hummers versus hamburgers in the debate over which is worse for the planet, some greenies are taking it a step further and asking: "Who cares?" The real problem facing Mother Earth starts with an "h" -- but it's not something you use or something you eat, it's something you have.

It's humans.

Having children, particularly in wealthy, Westernized countries where people devour far more calories and resources than other more populous nations, is disastrous for the environment. If you want to make a big impact -- and not the carbon kind -- recent environmental studies conclude the best thing you can do for the planet is to make the choice not to have children. In fact, according to one recent analysis, "the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives -- things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs."

GINK is the new DINK, they say. GINK stands for "Green Inclinations, No Kids" and is a green play on the "Double Income, No Kids" acronym, DINK, that came about during the American yuppie boom in the 1980s.

GINK is controversial, but it's catching on among a certain set of urban millenials worried about the future of the planet. Not satisfied with more commonly known green habits -- think bicycles and taking the bus, meatless Mondays and organic vegetables, turning off the water and turning off the lights -- they're reconsidering reproduction.

In America, having just one child increases your carbon footprint by a factor of six. A family of four in Phoenix is a family of 12 somewhere else. It's not only conceivable, it's correct to assert that a single male who eats red meat and drives a truck to work every day will contribute less in his lifetime to global warming than a vegetarian mother who recycles, reduces, and reuses but raises offspring. It's similarly complex to the debate over true environmental impacts in agriculture -- think tearing down a forest to mono-crop soybeans for highly-processed vegetarian mock meats in the freezer aisle, and the food miles and lost carbon capture that goes with such an enterprise.

GINK is radical, powerful, extreme. Going child-free is a profoundly personal choice, one that's not typically encouraged in our society (cue your mom asking when you're going to give her a grandkid). When a woman reaches her ripe old 30s without having given birth, the questioning becomes all but incessant for many. Married and cohabitating couples who never have kids are often assumed to be strange or infertile. In our culture, we take pity on people who don't have kids and are confused by people who seem happily kid-free. Like the buddy who chooses a life of blissful bachelorhood, we wonder: "What's wrong with them?"

One thing's certain: the birth rate is dropping. Many people are GINKs whether they realize it or not!

For individuals making that choice, the benefits are many:

1. It's cheaper. No daycare, no college tuition.

2. It's easier. Starving artist? Busy executive? Urban studio apartment dweller? Add a kid to the equation and life gets a lot more difficult. GINK couples are free to spend their time how they please, taking vacations and pursuing their interests. Is this selfish, or just authentic?

3. It's liberating. Many people have children who don't really want them and do it out of social custom and guilt, and high child neglect and abuse rates are evidence of this. Some people just really aren't meant to be parents, and aren't happy as parents.

4. It's green. Really, really green. Suddenly, meatless Mondays don't seem so meaningful.

5. It's not for everyone. But it's also perfectly okay.

This is an article by Sara Ost, the editor-in-chief of EcoSalon.com, the conscious culture and fashion website for women of substance and style.

The "Pyramid Of Conservation" Is A Terrific Tool For Figuring Out Where To Start

by Lloyd Alter, Toronto

For years at Planet Green we have been hammering away at what one should do first to green their house, how you should go after the low hanging fruit before you invest in solar panels and replacement windows. It is a difficult sell when the shiny new baubles are so much sexier. We based our posts on the Rocky Mountain Institute's guide, now eight years old and in need of a renovation itself.


But now Christopher Briley at Green Building Advisor points us to the dramatically titled Pyramid of Conservation from the a utility, Minnesota Power.

Minnesota Power writes:

The choice to be more energy efficient may be clear, but the starting point can be more difficult to determine. The Pyramid of Conservation is designed to help you prioritize steps and develop an action plan that's right for you. By establishing a foundation in energy efficiency and gaining a better understanding about how you use energy, you can more effectively work your way up the pyramid.

If you go to the Minnesota site, you can click on each of the layers of the pyramid and get a lot more information.

Martin Holladay wrote about it earlier and noted:

Like the food pyramid, it's read from the bottom up. Homeowners who are uncertain of the best way to lower their energy bills should start at the lowest level of the pyramid and work their way up. In general, one shouldn't proceed to a higher level until the actions below that level have been completed.

Actions near the bottom of the pyramid are much more cost-effective than actions near the top of the pyramid. At current energy prices, in fact, the actions listed on the top two layers are never cost-effective.

In fact, billions of dollars are being, if not wasted, at least not effectively used as the salesmen come around trying to sell windows and solar panels. Everyone wants the sexy stuff and governments are subsidizing it with tax credits, but as we said earlier, the people handing out tax credits should insist that you don't get money for fancy photovoltaics unless you do the cheap low hanging fruit first. Perhaps that is how a subsidy program should work: Start at the bottom of the pyramid.

Source: treehugger.com