One of the things that come with me whenever I am travelling, apart from the World's Best Thermos Mug, is a set of cutlery. We actually bought that for our camping travels, when obviously you need cutlery, and I tried to get the most lightweight version possible. While my husband went for a three-piece set made from titanium (because that's really nicely lightweight), I found a wooden set with four pieces (it includes a small spoon, and for some things, I just love using a small spoon). It was even lighter than the titanium one... but unfortunately, neither a wooden knife nor a wooden fork are really useful for many food items.

So after being annoyed with them for a while, tearing open breadrolls (or borrowing a real knife) and breaking apart instead of forking up things with the fork, I caved and bought a second set, this time in titanium as well, to replace the knife and fork. I kept the spoons, though. They are wonderful. When I'm travelling, the cutlery comes with me - in my travel bag or in my handbag, depending on whether the latter comes along or not. When I'm not travelling, though, it is stored with the rest of our camping gear. Consequently, sometimes it happens that I am somewhere and my handbag does not contain the cutlery... and I would need it.

I've now stumbled across a cutlery set from metal that is full-size, but will pack down as the individual pieces are screw-together, which sounds just like the thing to put into my handbag to live there, forever. It's called "Outlery", and it is currently running on Kickstarter for another two days. If that sounds interesting to you, too, here's the link!

Back in 2016, I decided to finally give in and get myself a smartphone. One of the reasons for this decision was that I wanted to offer customers on fairs the possibility to pay via card - and to do this with relatively small financial and logistical overhead, you need a smartphone.

So I did some looking, and some research, and I tried to find a phone with replaceable battery (as this can be one of the first things to give out, and being able to replace the battery means you can use the phone so much longer), relatively small so it would fit well in pockets, with decent battery life and not too highly priced. I finally ended up with a Samsung S5 mini - and I was quite happy with it.

Until... well. Until at some point, it did not get proper reception anymore. Even in places where it should have gotten very good reception - nothing. Some head-scratching and some internet research later, I had found that the phone has two antennae built inside, one for the "slow" stuff and one for the "fast" stuff (3G), and the fast antenna had died a quiet death. This was annoying, but no big deal - I changed the settings to never use the fast connection, and there it was, functioning nicely again. Yes, the internet was slower now - but I never stream things anyways, and all the bits that I needed to download occasionally are quite small. (The Most Patient Husband found me a prepaid phone tariff that was very, very small and thus very, very affordable, and just the right fit for what I would need. It has 150 MB of free data each month, which is plenty for checking mails, writing a few messages, and even sending a few pictures when away from home; for everything larger, I use wifi connections. So I'm very much used to not sending or downloading huge things over mobile data - and whether getting the mail takes 3 or 6 seconds, well, that's no big deal.) It, however, meant more use out of the phone, and not needing a new one. Good for the environment.

My newfound serenity with the slow mobile data did not last very long, though, because apparently something else was giving up, and the phone became unreliable. It would refuse to connect, refuse to get messages or send them, and since that was one of the main uses for the phone when I'm doing stuff such as organising the Forum, I was getting antsy. I had expected the phone to last much longer than just a bit more than two years, which was making me quite unhappy - even though the thing itself still seemed like the perfect fit for my needs. My desire to spend another 180 or so Euros for a new phone of this make, for maybe another 2 years was, however, ... very small. So I got myself a refurbished replacement phone... the same model, used and with slight traces of said use, with a new battery, for about a third of the new price. Also I had hoped to just very easily transfer my old phone's contents to the new one. Same thing, should be easy, right?

The new phone arrived, and I found out that it was a branded one, with T-Mobile special software (sorry, apps...) on it. Well, no big deal. I managed to transfer my stuff (not as easy as I had hoped), and everything worked well for a bit. Then an Android update arrived, and afterwards, the phone would crash, or lag for ages until it reacted. Which is annoying for a phone that you want to use, but really and seriously not good for a phone used for, say, payment by card on a busy fair... One of the worst lags was about 14 minutes until I managed to access the home screen. So I was not happy anymore - but also did not want to buy yet another phone.

I finally decided that I could try to root the phone, in hopes to make things better - and reading the help pages and descriptions in an android forum, I found that there's a way to overwrite the phone OS with a newer or different version (an un-branded one, for instance), which would not lose any data, not change the OS, and not void the warranty (not that I have one, but good to know). It's called "flashing", there's a tool that Samsung offers called Odin (hah!), you download the proper firmware, follow the instructions and hope that it works.

That's what I did... and it looks like that was successful. So in case you have similar troubles because your phone had some hiccup when the last firmware update arrived... you might want to trust in Odin making everything better, too.

 

While bicycles may be a modern thing, and thus a modern solution to the sustainable transport issues, overuse and sustainability are not a modern thing or concern. This shit has history. Lots of history.

Case in point? Overfishing. This was already done in medieval times, and there were counter-measures taken - this article in The Atlantic is a nice read about the topic.

While ruining our environment may have a long tradition, though, it doesn't mean that we should not strive to do better. (War, after all, is a very human thing too, and has a long tradition. Yet nobody in their right mind would say that war is a good thing. Or at least I hope so.) Unfortunately, making things better, and protecting the environment, often needs some kind of rule, or law, or regulation, or making it really pricey - because, let's face it, we're all only human, and if someone dangles a shiny tempting thing in front of our noses and offers a really good price, it is very hard to resist and not give in and snatch the shiny, whatever it might be. If meat is really cheap, a lot of it will be eaten. If cars are cheap and convenient to use, people will take the car instead of public transport or human-powered transport. If flights are really cheap, a lot of people will fly without a second thought.

And now we've arrived at the real reason for this post: Flights. Full disclosure: I'm not a strict non-flier. I've done plane trips in the past both for job reasons and for fun reasons. I will fly to Dublin for WorldCon this summer, not travel there by train, and when I am going to NESAT next year, chances are rather high that I will fly to Finland instead of taking the train. In both cases, a train trip there would take several days - either because I'd need to do an overnight stop, or because I'd have to factor in at least one additional day after arrival to recover from having little to no sleep on the trip. (This would look very, very different if there were still night trains with sleeper cars, by the way. I'd love to use those instead, they were a wonderful thing!) Spending an extra day or two travelling time will up the total cost of the travel, which - going by train - would already be significantly more expensive than going by plane. So that's a number of things prodding me to choose the plane.

And, obviously, I do. I book those flights with a bad conscience, because yes, I do believe that every flight is one too many. Being an inconsequent human being, I'll also look for the best deals in terms of flight length, start or arrival time, and price. (No use taking a plane instead of a train if I still end up with a sleepless night.) However... if all flights would cost double or triple the amount, making a long train trip with an overnight stay, maybe to enjoy a little city sightseeing on the stopover point would become much more attractive.

And there's actually a way to make flights more reasonably priced. Reasonably, in this case, being higher priced - and thus more in keeping with what flying actually costs us, as living beings on a planet, in terms of social costs and environmental damage. (Aviation emissions have risen 21% in the last three years.) One of the reasons flights are so cheap is the tax exemptions that are granted: There is no VAT charged on airplane tickets, and the kerosene used as a fuel is also exempt from taxes. That is unfair, especially seeing that public transport, including trains, is taxed both for fuels and for tickets.

There now is a European Citizens' Initiative asking to remedy this, with a registered petition at the European Commission. You can read more about the background for the petition here, or you can go straight to the petition, fill in your details, and sign.

It needs one million signatures, and it currently has close to 19.000 - so please go, sign, and spread the word!

I've been writing about bicycles in our Western space yesterday - where the bike is not necessarily the first choice of transport.

Usually, the more urban the area, the more prominent the bike, as it's harder to find a parking space, and more annoying and time-consuming to get through the traffic jam. People who live in rural areas often think of the car first when planning to go somewhere - and as the car is rarely really not a possibility, it's the mode of transport used no matter if the trip in question could also be done on foot or on a bike. Taking the bike instead, though, has a lot of positive effects, as this German article outlines: less nitrogen dioxide and dust emissions, less noise and space consumption, less carbon dioxide emissions (and therefore good for our climate). You've certainly heard about all of these before.

What really surprised me, though, is that there is also a sociopolitical and socio-economic factor in this. There's been a survey by Stefan Gössling from the Uni of Lund, who calculated the costs of a kilometre done by car as opposed to the costs to one by bike - including secondary costs due to climate change, subventions, noise, infrastructure, time of travel, traffic jams, the user's life expectancy and accidents. The result? One kilometre per car costs about 20 cent. One kilometre per bike generates 30 cent. It generates money, folks.

That is... stunning.

What I really wanted to get at when I started writing this post, however, is the immense amount of positive impact that a bicycle has in non-Western countries. For us, using the bike sometimes feels like a step down - it's slower over long distances (even if you drive your car like a gran on tranquilisers, like I do), it's less comfortable as you may have to exert yourself a bit, or as you might get wet when it rains, and it has less transport capabilities than a car (though with some of the modern fancy cars, there's not so much difference anymore). It's also less of a status symbol thing, which surely also plays a role in how we grade our vehicles internally, knowingly or not.

In countries where there is no abundance of cars, though, and mobility is at a premium; where walking is the standard mode of transport, because there's nothing else available? A bicycle will make a world of a difference. And this is where World Bicycle Relief comes in.

World Bicycle Relief is a charity that empowers people by developing a special bike, called the Buffalo Bike, and making it available to those in need of mobility. Such as doctors, nurses, or other healthcare practitioners who need to visit their clients. Girls and young women who can get to school safely and much faster with a bike. Farmers who need a way to transport their produce to a market. The bike is not only robust, sturdy, and easy to repair, it also has a large payload capacity - the carrier in the rear can take up to 100 kg, and it is large enough that it's possible to transport a second person if that is necessary.

Even better, the charity goes for local assembly, it makes sure that there are spare parts available in bike shops, and they also train bike mechanics to make sure the bicycles stay in good working order. So these things not only help the new cyclists, they also create local, sustainable jobs.

Along with MSF, this is definitely one of my favourite charities. If you are looking for a place to do some good with your money, consider donating to them - they are currently running a campaign called "Racing the Sun" to get 5000 bicycles to people in need.

I'm a day late to blog about this, but I only realised yesterday afternoon: June 3 is World Bicycle Day.

Bicycles are my personal favourite means of transport. I've been cycling to school as a teen (even though my parents could have take me in the car), and I continued to cycle when I moved to study in Bamberg. That's not only because of my green soul - cycling in Bamberg is much smarter than taking the car anyways, as there's no parking spaces and those that are there are usually either full or really expensive, so this was also a very practical solution to the mobility problem. (My car was parked either a quarter hour bus ride away or a quarter hour walk away, as these were the closest free parking opportunities where one could find a space without too big a hassle.)

When I hooked up with the most patient husband of them all, we found that he was a cyclist as well, so our transport preferences combined beautifully. Only our riding speeds did not - I was much, much slower. Which is not a big deal within a city, but does cause potential problems when you are going on cycling holidays. So we looked for a tandem with enough luggage capacity for cycling trips including camping gear, and we did stumble across the Pino, a half-recumbent tandem made in a small bike manufacture in Germany. (If you're interested in the bike, there's the Pinoforum, where you can find more information. It even includes a small English part.)

So when we have to go somewhere in our day-to-day life, the default means of transportation is the bike. If that's not possible, due to some reason - too far away, too much to transport - we check for public transport possibilities. In some cases, these will combine very well with taking the bike along; there's a special ticket in our area that allows two adults to take two bikes along (in our case, only one is necessary, though). If that won't work, it's the car. Which means we travel a lot by bike, and it's usually just as quick to take bike or public transport and bike as it would be to take the car, or even quicker. For instance, when we go bouldering, it's about 10.5 km one way. With the car, due to how we have to drive, it takes us about 25 minutes. With the bicycle, it takes us... 30 minutes, and we arrive with already warmed up legs - and don't have to look for a parking space for another 5 minutes.

Even in combination with public transport, the bike rules, in the speed department as well as in the cost department. As my car is the company car, I have to do the proper maths for all its costs... and my cost for driving one kilometer is about .34 €. Often, using public transport is cheaper or, at the most, coming to the same cost.

Plus there's the health benefits of using a bicycle... some (more or less) fresh air, and some joint-friendly movement. It's important to have a bike that fits so you can ride easily and comfortably, though, so it might be worth to look for a good bike shop, and take a bike-nerdy friend along to help. I'd also recommend keeping your tyres nicely filled, that makes for a much smoother ride, you have to pedal much harder on flat tyres.

Every kilometre not done with a car, but with a bike instead, counts. We only have one planet, and using a bike helps to make it last a little longer. So - take the bike if you can, not only on World Bicycle Day!

Trying to live a green-ish life can be a challenge - sometimes because it takes more effort to do the green thing, or more time; sometimes because it's more expensive, or means that you have to opt for an alternative that will work, but not be as satisfying as the original; and sometimes just because it is hard to know which choice is the greener one.

Take, for instance, electric cars. Yes, burning fossil fuels is not the solution - but with the current electric cars, batteries are a huge issue. Producing batteries takes a lot of energy and ressources, so it does take quite a while for an electric car to become greener overall, regarding its complete environmental impact, than a regular fossil-fuel car driven in an eco-friendly way. And that only if you fill up your batteries with electricity exclusively from renewable sources.

There's a similar thing when packing stuff. Plastic or paper bags? At first glance, you'd think that a paper bag would be the greener choice by far. Unfortunately that is not the case, as manufacturing paper bags and even recycling paper is consuming quite a lot of energy and water as well. So paper and plastic bags... both not a good choice, though if you are using it only once, a lightweight plastic bag might even be the lesser evil.

While we're at the topic of plastic and it maybe causing more good than harm, here's an interesting thing from the BBC about plastic packaging, especially of food items.

The thing that irks me a little in these reports and assessments: It would be perfectly possible to use energy from renewable sources to produce paper bags, and while the reports mention that the trees could stay un-felled and absorb CO2 instead of becoming paper bags, they don't mention that plastic is made from a finite ressource. So it does, overall, sound a little bit biased to me.

It would also not be so necessary to have plastic packaging for food if they are produced, sold and consumed locally. Which, obviously, is not possible for all kinds of fruit and vegetables - but buying locally from a farmer at the market will usually get you fresh produce at a fair price, and with little to no packaging. Especially if you re-use the bags you have, whether that is cotton, paper or plastic. As the plastic bags today are mostly very lightweight, it's easy to just stuff one or two into your handbag or bike pannier or whatever else you carry with yourself on an ordinary day, for impromptu shopping stuff. (It never hurts to have an extra bag in the bag. Just like a spoon. Both totally belong in any handbag, if you ask me.)

So... I'm trying to buy things with as little packaging as possible. Which means I am trying to avoid plastic even more than paper, though, as I think that the environmental impact of microplastics and the problem of the non-renewable basis for this are still factors that speak for paper instead of plastic where packaging must be used. The bags that do land in our home are reused - paper bags from the bakery store dried bread leftovers that will be turned into delicious dishes a bit later, or - most of them - become bin liners for the compost bin. Plastic bags are re-used several times for packing things, like fresh produce bought at the market, until something really dirties them up or until they develop holes so they are not useful anymore. Some get a last call to duty as the kitty litter bag... which actually is one of the few things that would be a hassle without plastic bags.

So... what's your stance on plastic or paper bags?

I'm a little late to the party talking about things that one might do during Lent, seeing that it's already more than a week since Ash Wednesday - but better late than never, right?

Fasting times such as Lent is one of the things that fascinate me in a way as they are obviously a religious thing, but can also have a very practical aspect. This time of year is one of scarcity - before we had canning plants and freezers and large climate-controlled storage facilities and an overall abundance of food available all year round, the time of year just before Spring proper was when food supplies were running out, but there was little or no fresh food available yet. So having a period of fasting with severe food restrictions in this time of year was actually less of a harsh restriction than it would have been at other times.

It does still serve, however, as an opportunity to look again at what one has, and what one may eat and drink. In turn, the release of the restriction still means some extra enjoyment and festive feeling when Easter comes around (with fresh foods as well) - so the period of restriction enhances the impact of the feast, helping everyone appreciate what is available again.

In our modern days, there's no scarcity due to the season anymore, so the restriction for Lent might feel harder today. On the other hand, having a restriction with more impact probably does a better job at reminding how comfortable life usually is - which is also why quite a few modern people do not follow the "traditional" Lent rules, where there is no meat allowed, but make up their own fasting rules. One of the quite popular choices is to drink no alcohol during this time, another to forego all sweets. The idea behind this is that something convenient, or dear, is given up for a while; something that feels hard to give up, as a form of penitence.

The BUND Naturschutz (which is one of the eco organisations in Germany) has taken this year's Lent as an opportunity to ask people to "fast plastics" instead of alcohol, or sweets, or meat (or, of course, in addition to that). Plastics, especially single-use plastics, are everywhere in our consumer society, and they pose a huge environmental problem. So the BUND asks us to look at what we buy, and use, with an open and critical eye for this Lent period: Is the stuff packaged in plastics? If yes, is there a way to avoid it? Maybe something packaged in plastic can be made at home, with little effort and for less money than when buying it; maybe avoiding plastic is as simple as bringing a canvas bag; maybe it's just choosing another brand. Some things, such as milk, are available both in a tetrapack and in glass bottles; yoghurt can be bought in glass jars instead of plastic tubs.
While there are some people who actually try to go "zero plastic", I find it really hard or impossible to non-plastic in some cases. So I still buy some plastic-wrapped stuff - but I am trying hard to reduce it, and even if I am still creating quite a bit of waste this way, every single bit of the stuff that is not used helps.

So... are you fasting? If so, what? Or trying to reduce plastic? Or both, even?