Saving Money vs Saving the Environment

[MoustacheDArgent]

This is topic I'd like to hear peoples opinion on.   Sometimes, the better choice for the environment is a more expensive one.    I live in Texas and we have the option of using Green Mountain energy which is a 100% wind powered electric company.   I know I could save money by switching to other companies, but I feel good about not polluting our planet with my electrical usage.  I even bought a battery powered mower for the same reason.   Some my electric bills are really high.   I can't afford - or just can't bring myself to buy an electric car. They are so expensive, yet there is a part of me that feels like that is what we should all be doing.

[Syonyk]

Lease a Leaf.  You'll pay $200/mo and get rid of it at the end of the term (which is probably wise, given how rapidly EVs are evolving).  Power it with your wind energy option and be happy.  Try not to ask too many questions about how much energy goes into producing wind turbines vs how much you get out of them over their expected life.

What's the impact of the battery pack in your mower vs the impact of a gas engine over the life of the mower?  Most battery packs require somewhat exotic chemicals, as opposed to a gas engine which pretty much requires a few different steel alloys.  Maybe some aluminum and iron as well.  Your mower puts out ~20 lbs CO2 (5.5 lbs carbon) per gallon of gas - how many gallons are you replacing with your battery pack, and what's the embodied energy (and carbon used to create it) in said pack?

If you live in an area where conspicuous conservation is a thing, you'll gain social status from certain expenditures as well.  North facing solar panels would be one such item (oddly common, if the south roof slope isn't facing the road).

If you actually cared deeply about environmental impact, you'd probably be a lot better off weatherproofing your house, adding insulation beyond the reasonable amount (reduces energy consumption long term, but may not be economically reasonable given the lifespan of the house), doing low tech solar heating, and biking.

[Retired To Win]

I always have to chuckle inside when people refer to electrical devices as if they made no impact on the environment.  Generally, when you plug an electric gizmo -- including a vehicle -- into a wall socket, you are burning and consuming either oil, coal or natural gas.  Some folks may be splitting atoms instead, but then they are also pouring lots and lots of superheated water into natural bodies of water.

However, if you've installed a major set of solar panels on your roof and are generating all your electricity that way, then more power to you.  (No pun intended.)

[southernhippie]

sometimes the greener choice has a more expensive upfront cost.  The best combo I have learned to do his get used things and see if you can modify them or use them more efficiently, or even use an alternative.  Try to remember that new items still have a huge envirornmental impact but used items are much less and cheaper

[southernhippie]

I always have to chuckle inside when people refer to electrical devices as if they made no impact on the environment.  Generally, when you plug an electric gizmo -- including a vehicle -- into a wall socket, you are burning and consuming either oil, coal or natural gas.  Some folks may be splitting atoms instead, but then they are also pouring lots and lots of superheated water into natural bodies of water.

However, if you've installed a major set of solar panels on your roof and are generating all your electricity that way, then more power to you.  (No pun intended.)

Yes the electricity is generally generated from a fossil fuel.  But power plants are way more efficient than internal combustion engines

[Syonyk]

However, if you've installed a major set of solar panels on your roof and are generating all your electricity that way, then more power to you.  (No pun intended.)

You probably shouldn't look too closely at the EROI on the crystaline solar panels... it's not "good" on most of the older stuff.  Thin film is a bit better, but is less efficient per unit area, and with the costs of panels coming down and mounting costs becoming dominant, the lower efficiency stuff isn't very popular.  Most new solar panels are made in China, using coal power (and China has some truly filthy coal plants).  It's a bit of a sticky problem, really.  What would be ideal is a solar "breeder" factory that produced solar panels with solar power, but the cost per panel would likely be significantly higher.

Yes the electricity is generally generated from a fossil fuel.  But power plants are way more efficient than internal combustion engines

It depends on the engine and the power plant. :)  They're more efficient, but they also then proceed to transmit that power through lossy lines and transformers, and in the case of a battery powered mower, through a lossy charging/discharging cycle.  It's probably a net win (especially in non-carbon emissions, which small engines are horrible about), but it's not the huge win most people seem to think it is.

[MMMaybe]

Frugality is often environmentally friendly. Lets see: Consuming less, re-using/re-purposing items, zero waste, minimalism, biking to work etc etc. You can do plenty for the environment by being
frugal without causing yourself financial difficulties.

But I agree with RTW, please don't call an electric car environmentally friendly :)

[Zikoris]

Well, where I live most of the electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. I've visited a couple of them - they're really cool!

[Syonyk]

But I agree with RTW, please don't call an electric car environmentally friendly :)

They're usually less-bad if you assume the battery packs can be recycled and you're in an area with clean power... :/

Though a bike or ebike is substantially better.  I make fun of EV owners at work for being "electron guzzlers." :)

[bacchi]

That stupid "Hummers are more eco than a Prius!" blog post....

There are plenty of cradle-to-grave studies out there. We don't have to guess or blindly assume the old way is better or that greenwashing is happening. A lot of the studies are even done by reputable universities, like MIT, or national labs (yes, the CNW "study" is bunk.)


Eta: Since the OP is using wind energy, an electric car would be better environmentally.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/52/18490

We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by low-emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more.

[Geldsnor]

Frugality is often environmentally friendly. Lets see: Consuming less, re-using/re-purposing items, zero waste, minimalism, biking to work etc etc. You can do plenty for the environment by being
frugal without causing yourself financial difficulties.

But I agree with RTW, please don't call an electric car environmentally friendly :)

Really have to agree with you here, the topic title should be: Saving Money AND Saving the Environment

It actually amazes myself, for example how little trash I have nowadays. Just because I buy bulk, non-prepared food, no juices and soda drinks etc, my litter is just a fraction of what it used to be. 

[Syonyk]

^^

Not using stuff to begin with is the best option. Or maybe, for mowing, a reel mower.

I don't really like to encourage high priced stuff just for the sake of being "green." The Leaf and such have taken off mostly because they make economic sense for a lot of people.

[gaja]

Yes the electricity is generally generated from a fossil fuel.  But power plants are way more efficient than internal combustion engines

It depends on the engine and the power plant. :)  They're more efficient, but they also then proceed to transmit that power through lossy lines and transformers, and in the case of a battery powered mower, through a lossy charging/discharging cycle.  It's probably a net win (especially in non-carbon emissions, which small engines are horrible about), but it's not the huge win most people seem to think it is.
[/quote]
The big win in switching to EVs is that this is a long term shift. We are already seeing higher proportions of renewables in the power grid in large parts of the world. The EVs are getting greener by the minute, since they take advantage of the greener power in the lines. The fossiled fuelled car doesn't get any better before you buy a newer version. And since I prefer to drive my vehicles a couple of hundred thousand kms, it makes sense for me to drive an EV.

The losses in the engine, power lines, etc, are miniscule compared to the energy loss from producing and transporting fossil fuels. I've seen a couple of sources claiming that you can drive an EV several kilometers on the power it takes to refine one liter of petrol.

Here, over 90 % of the electricity is from hydropower. The rest is a mix of wind, a little bit from fossile gas (one plant, I think, if that hasn't been shut down yet), and some misc.

[NICE!]

Back to the OP's original question, I believe in paying for the wind energy. I believe in voting with your pocket when possible, as well as reducing your impact. It is worth delaying FI because there are more important things in the world than when we achieve FI.

[Le Poisson]

An eye opener on this stuff came to me from a farmer selling Non-GMO, Organic apples.

In a moment of candid speech he smile and told me that it was basically nothing but marketing and a way to double his price. Non GMO means selling the same breeds of apples we've always had, and organic means using the same fertilizers/pesticides but sourced from a different supplier. He sold off all his b-grade fruit as organic because the organic crowd perceives ugly as natural, and all his A grade was sold mainstream. Now he was getting better money for his B-grade crop than his good stuff.

Looking around I see a lot of 'energy saver', eco-friendly, low impact stuff the same way. The end-user is willing to lug around battery packs, deal with plastic components wearing out, and fight new/poor tech since they feel they are saving the environment. The same benefit could be had by watering the lawn less and only cutting once a week instead of twice. Or by riding a bike or train instead of driving, etc. As an example - we use the waste boxes at the grocery store rather than buying reusable bags or plastic. The boxes are free, already in the production chain, and work fine. But the reusable plastic-canvas bags are sold at $1.00 a piece and marketed as the green choice... which is really better for the environment?

[NICE!]

An eye opener on this stuff came to me from a farmer selling Non-GMO, Organic apples.

In a moment of candid speech he smile and told me that it was basically nothing but marketing and a way to double his price. Non GMO means selling the same breeds of apples we've always had, and organic means using the same fertilizers/pesticides but sourced from a different supplier. He sold off all his b-grade fruit as organic because the organic crowd perceives ugly as natural, and all his A grade was sold mainstream. Now he was getting better money for his B-grade crop than his good stuff.

Looking around I see a lot of 'energy saver', eco-friendly, low impact stuff the same way. The end-user is willing to lug around battery packs, deal with plastic components wearing out, and fight new/poor tech since they feel they are saving the environment. The same benefit could be had by watering the lawn less and only cutting once a week instead of twice. Or by riding a bike or train instead of driving, etc. As an example - we use the waste boxes at the grocery store rather than buying reusable bags or plastic. The boxes are free, already in the production chain, and work fine. But the reusable plastic-canvas bags are sold at $1.00 a piece and marketed as the green choice... which is really better for the environment?

Not to mention the fact that scientists have repeatedly called out the anti-GMO perspectives (specifically on food safety) as having zero basis in reality.

[GuitarStv]

Frugality is often environmentally friendly. Lets see: Consuming less, re-using/re-purposing items, zero waste, minimalism, biking to work etc etc. You can do plenty for the environment by being
frugal without causing yourself financial difficulties.

But I agree with RTW, please don't call an electric car environmentally friendly :)

The best thing you can do for the environment is reduce consumption.  Reduce consumption of electricity, fuel, don't buy shit you don't need, etc.  It's a matter of efficiency.  This works very well with mustachianism.  I wouldn't worry about the last 5% (expensive things that are better for the environment) until you have the first 95% well under control.

[Thegoblinchief]

I don't think you can have a hard and fast rule about when saving money versus environment conflict. In general, my bugaboo are "cheap" things only cheap because the costs have been externalized to a poor country. One of the biggest offenders are bananas, which lots of frugal folks promote, but it's fuckign awful for the farmers in the poor countries. (Lots of produce is terrible for the environment, if nothing other than the massive transportation chain.)

Another example: I definitely pay extra for sustainably raised animal products, trying to vet specific farms whenever possible. Lots of benefits: no cruelty, better for human health, and better for environment.

But given the choice between organic imported from a distance and conventional but local, I will choose local (and fresh!).

But a different example: I thought about signing up for my utility's "green" energy program. Here it's part wind (okay, not good, not bad) and biomass (terrible). The biomass is almost exclusively methane from manure digesters, which requires poorly treated animals in concentrated dairy or meat feedlots. Manure should be returned to soil to cycle nutrients, not burned for energy. So I skipped that, more because I questioned the "benefit" to the environment than the actual cost (which was surprisingly little, maybe $10/month extra).

[Le Poisson]

But a different example: I thought about signing up for my utility's "green" energy program. Here it's part wind (okay, not good, not bad) and biomass (terrible). The biomass is almost exclusively methane from manure digesters, which requires poorly treated animals in concentrated dairy or meat feedlots. Manure should be returned to soil to cycle nutrients, not burned for energy. So I skipped that, more because I questioned the "benefit" to the environment than the actual cost (which was surprisingly little, maybe $10/month extra).

After seeing "A River of Waste" I'd rather see the manure used to power the grid. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-WAGf-4gC8 - of course getting rod of feedlots altogether is the real solution, but that is unlikely to see in our lifetimes.

[mak1277]

Well, where I live most of the electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. I've visited a couple of them - they're really cool!

Aren't dams pretty horrible for the surrounding ecosystem?

[Homey The Clown]

We pay far more for our chickens sustainably raised by a local farmer ($3.50/lb) than we would if we bough them at Costco (even organic), but the trade off is worth it to us. We have our own hens for eggs (cage free does not mean free range). We are members of a CSA for veggies. We could get much of our food more cheaply, but the trade off isn't worth it to us. Commercial agriculture is one of the most environmentally damaging industries on the planet. We certainly aren't perfect, but we do try.

We also drive an electric car (Chevy Volt). We have natural gas for electricity, so a bit better pollution wise than gas. The nice thing is that, even with cheap gas, we pay 1/2 as much for electric driving as we would for gasoline. We paid for it new (yes, non-mustachian), but paid less than the cheapest Prius after the tax credit ($21000 net to us). If you drive a car that does nothing when slowing down except heat the brake rotors, that's a huge waste. If your car is burning fuel at a stop light, that's a huge waste as well.

We also ride bikes, consume less, etc., but we are willing to spend some money on environmentally friendly things as well.

[Zikoris]

Well, where I live most of the electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. I've visited a couple of them - they're really cool!

Aren't dams pretty horrible for the surrounding ecosystem?

Well, there's some damage when they first get it started due to needing to flood an area, but after that I think it's fine. They put in fish ladders so fish can migrate around normally. Of the ways you can generate electricity, you could do a lot worse.

[backyardfeast]

Agreeing with those that the main focus for an environmentally-friendly life is a life of Less: less consumption, less waste, less transportation, a smaller physical footprint life.  It's the 80/20 principle all over again.  Most of the silly greenwashing to avoid is the stuff that wants to use technology to try and keep the system going as-is, but with "less impact".  But the system itself has the huge impact; subbing out solar for oil to run a 5000 sq ft house is incrementally better, but you'd be a lot better just to downsize! :)

That said, I run into expenses with food (as others have talked about) and with quality.  It does cost more up-front to buy fewer, high-quality (more durable, less disposable) things.  But with both food and quality, what I have noticed is that I'm physically in stores way less often when I buy in bulk or buy good quality (tools, clothes, whatever).  IME the savings really come from not going into stores and therefore not buying impulsively, and from just being as out of the consumer mindset as possible.

And THAT feels like the biggest principle of Mustachianism to me...

(PS to Zikoris: Hydro is indeed great, because in BC these are legacy projects whose impact has already been mitigated by previous generations.  Expanding hydro, as you probably know, is hugely controversial...Site C much? All power options are deeply imperfect and have massive impacts.  The best solution is to try not to need more, which your very low-energy life does admirably.)

[Guses]

Lease a Leaf.  You'll pay $200/mo and get rid of it at the end of the term (which is probably wise, given

I think your post was satirical and pretty funny, especially the above part.

Clearly this is the best thing to do for the environment! ;)

[Syonyk]

I was actually serious. The cost works out in your benefit, and if you're driving within it's range on renewables energy, the impact is decently low, if you assume the batteries will get recycled properly.

Buying an EV at this point outright with the rapid pace of change is not a good idea. The old ones lose value very quickly.

In general, I'm not a fan of car leases, but the Leaf is in a weird enough early stage of rapid development that leaving the risk to someone else makes some sense.

For a few people I know, the lease costs are literally less than they spent on gas monthly previously.

[BlueMR2]

I can't afford - or just can't bring myself to buy an electric car. They are so expensive, yet there is a part of me that feels like that is what we should all be doing.

Then don't.  Go for the best of both worlds!  Fix your life so you don't need to personally own a car at all.

[RexualChocolate]

I can't afford - or just can't bring myself to buy an electric car. They are so expensive, yet there is a part of me that feels like that is what we should all be doing.

Then don't.  Go for the best of both worlds!  Fix your life so you don't need to personally own a car at all.

This is the heart of the false dichotomy presented here.

If you're living in a single family home and driving a car, you aren't very environmental, no matter what tertiary choices you have.

Not judging, I don't place a high stake in conservation at the consumer level. Just saying its so marginal a difference compared to other choices you can make its pointless to even discuss.

[Guses]

I was actually serious. The cost works out in your benefit, and if you're driving within it's range on renewables energy, the impact is decently low, if you assume the batteries will get recycled properly.

Buying an EV at this point outright with the rapid pace of change is not a good idea. The old ones lose value very quickly.

In general, I'm not a fan of car leases, but the Leaf is in a weird enough early stage of rapid development that leaving the risk to someone else makes some sense.

For a few people I know, the lease costs are literally less than they spent on gas monthly previously.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. I think it might be a raw deal for the environment though.

Anytime you consider buying something new "for the environment", you have to put some serious thought into what type of damage the production of the new device did to the environment. Especially if you are throwing it away after 2-4 years.

[Syonyk]

It's not ideal. But they don't get scrapped coming off lease, and so far, people have had very good luck extending the lease longer.

[thd7t]

Well, where I live most of the electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. I've visited a couple of them - they're really cool!

Aren't dams pretty horrible for the surrounding ecosystem?

Well, there's some damage when they first get it started due to needing to flood an area, but after that I think it's fine. They put in fish ladders so fish can migrate around normally. Of the ways you can generate electricity, you could do a lot worse.

Agreed that you can do worse, but the dam leads to deeper and colder water which can be difficult for local fish species, as well, leading to out-competition by others.  The dams also can lead to reduced output down river.  Again, I think it beats fossil fuels, but it's more damaging than it looks.

[mak1277]

Well, where I live most of the electricity comes from hydroelectric dams. I've visited a couple of them - they're really cool!

Aren't dams pretty horrible for the surrounding ecosystem?

Well, there's some damage when they first get it started due to needing to flood an area, but after that I think it's fine. They put in fish ladders so fish can migrate around normally. Of the ways you can generate electricity, you could do a lot worse.

Agreed that you can do worse, but the dam leads to deeper and colder water which can be difficult for local fish species, as well, leading to out-competition by others.  The dams also can lead to reduced output down river.  Again, I think it beats fossil fuels, but it's more damaging than it looks.

Yeah I don't think the fish ladders do an acceptable job of mitigating the impact on fish migration...but I'm not particularly well-educated on the subject.  I did find the documentary Damnation to be interesting and eye-opening (it is, or at least was, on Netflix streaming).

[gaja]

But a different example: I thought about signing up for my utility's "green" energy program. Here it's part wind (okay, not good, not bad) and biomass (terrible). The biomass is almost exclusively methane from manure digesters, which requires poorly treated animals in concentrated dairy or meat feedlots. Manure should be returned to soil to cycle nutrients, not burned for energy. So I skipped that, more because I questioned the "benefit" to the environment than the actual cost (which was surprisingly little, maybe $10/month extra).

I have worked a bit with the regional policy regarding biogas production. I don't understand what you are writing. Normally, when you spread manure on the farms, the methane is released to the athmosphere. In an energy production plant, the methane is gathered and burned, or used for fuel. The liquid and solid parts of the manure are returned to the farm. There have been, and still are underway, numerous studies on the topic of nutrients after biogas production. Most studies show that the nutrient levels are about the same. Some show that the biogas production process breaks down the "ingredients", so the plants get better access to them; the process leads to a higher quality natural fertilizer, and less need for chemical fertilizers. I don't think I've seen studies showing that nutrients are lost during the process. But we are trying to get funding to do long term fertilization studies to see how the microbiota react to the fertilizer from biogas plants, especially when you have added other types of biomass than just manure.

Because that is the big pro of biogas plants. You can add human waste, garbage, fish and animals that have died from diseases, and a lot of other stuff. Through the production processes (and by adding a few more heating cycluses and other weird processes) you can get all these nutrients back into the system, rather than dumping them in a landfill to rot. If you produce more than the local farmers need, you can make pellets and sell the fertilizer as a replacement product for chemical fertilizers (those are extremely energy consuming to produce).

If you had said that burning methane is wasteful, since you can use the gas as a fuel, I would have understood where you were coming from (but still not agreed, since electric engines are so much more efficient). But not when you say the alternative is returning methane to the fields.

Also: methane is 21 times as powerfull a greenhouse gas as CO2. Even if you just collected and burned methane, without using the energy, you would reduce the total climate gas emissions. I will save you from the NO2 and NOX discussions in this round. :)

[jmusic]

I have often said (with tongue firmly in cheek) that the best thing someone can do for the environment is to kill him/herself. 

Anyway, wind power has its own sets of issues as well.  There really is no free lunch.  Many hawks, eagles, and other birds have been struck and killed by wind turbine blades.  They can catch fire (when the brakes overheat during high wind), or the brakes fail outright.  And then there's the noise pollution issue, which disproportionately affects the people living near them.  We also don't know what effect wind farms have on the climate.

Anyway, the biggest benefit to "greening" that I can see, would be that the convergence of technology could render privately owning cars obsolete.  Imagine combining an Uber-like service with Google's self driving cars.  Combine that with machine learning algorithms for optimal vehicle allocation and routing, and perhaps even a way for vehicles to hook together on the highway for greater aerodynamic efficiency.  In theory, it would reduce waste and traffic congestion at the same time.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/04/8566760/uber-executive-touts-potential-self-driving-cars

[Syonyk]

I don't see how replacing individual vehicles with shared vehicles is a huge win.

[firewalker]

Seems reduce, reuse and recycle does a very reasonable job in this regard. For example, if you need a lawn, make the mowed area smaller and let the natural landscape fill in. Your fuel use will drop radically, you may never have to discard the mower and you have contributed to your areas wildlife habitat.

[jmusic]

I don't see how replacing individual vehicles with shared vehicles is a huge win.

Just think about how much valuable real estate is taken up by parking lots.

Also, the sum total of vehicles would probably go down (for an equivalent population anyway).

[Syonyk]

Seems reduce, reuse and recycle does a very reasonable job in this regard. For example, if you need a lawn, make the mowed area smaller and let the natural landscape fill in. Your fuel use will drop radically, you may never have to discard the mower and you have contributed to your areas wildlife habitat.

You also, very likely, won't use nearly as much water as a lawn does.  Xeriscaping is very popular, for good reasons, in the desert states (Phoenix and surrounding areas seem to be the exception).  Instead of having a lawn, use native plants and usually a good bit of rock to do the same thing.  I believe Vegas is also paying very good money to rip up lawn and do something less water intensive.

Just think about how much valuable real estate is taken up by parking lots.

Also, the sum total of vehicles would probably go down (for an equivalent population anyway).

Where, exactly, will these magical self driving cars sit to recharge?  Or are you adding fusion power plants to them as well?

And the sum total of vehicles might go down, but the utterly clogged roads I bike past on my commute say "Most people use their cars at the same times every day."

[Lyngi]

In the spirit of leaving a smaller footprint, I signed up for my electric company's renewable energy program, enough credits for my highest energy using months.  Cost is  about $17 extra per month.  I also cancelled my unread newspaper subscription, $15.   Basically the same.  I also am trying to reduce electricity by keeping the blinds closed when the sun shines on them.   Dear daughter  really likes the AC on cold, though.  It's a battle of the buttons

[NICE!]

Where, exactly, will these magical self driving cars sit to recharge?  Or are you adding fusion power plants to them as well?

And the sum total of vehicles might go down, but the utterly clogged roads I bike past on my commute say "Most people use their cars at the same times every day."

Think bigger picture. When someone doesn't own a personal vehicle that will likely mean less superfluous trips. That will reduce traffic, emissions, and road use. That means less road MX is necessary, so budgets aren't strained as much by road costs. Pretty sweet if you ask me.

Also, maybe more people will be in the same vehicle? This already happens with HOV lanes and I'm thinking that if people can hop in a shared car, especially a driverless one in the not-too-distant future, more people will actually carpool. The future looks bright indeed.

Of course, I'd much rather everyone lived closer to work, biked, and walked...I just know that many people won't.

[Syonyk]

Cars don't destroy roads. Heavy truck traffic does.

As for the rest, I suppose we'll see. I'm less optimistic, but I live in the Seattle gridlock where they're turning HOV lanes into toll lanes to get more money.

Self driving cars will be likely. I think you'll have a huge fight to eliminate private car ownership in the US.

[GuitarStv]

Cars don't destroy roads. Heavy truck traffic does.

Around here the utilities tend to get in first and make thousands of cuts/patches that destroy roads long before the trucks can kill 'em.

[golden1]

One of my friends is an analyst in the green energy field.  He spends a lot of time looking at the viability of different alternative energy sources and their ultimate impact on the environment.  He drives a used Toyota Corolla, not a hybrid or an electric car, because his thinking is that the biggest environmental impact in the lifetime of a vehicles is in manufacturing the new car, not the fuel. 

[NICE!]

One of my friends is an analyst in the green energy field.  He spends a lot of time looking at the viability of different alternative energy sources and their ultimate impact on the environment.  He drives a used Toyota Corolla, not a hybrid or an electric car, because his thinking is that the biggest environmental impact in the lifetime of a vehicles is in manufacturing the new car, not the fuel.

In most cases, he's definitely right. I'm virtually certain he's right if he's driving a Corolla.

[Susan]

I think in a lot of cases this goes perfectly well together. For example, we don't eat meat, don't own a car and don't waste food. All save money and environment.

The thing I'm most conflicted about is clothing, but I think that's more from a ethical point of view and not too much an environmental issue. I would like to buy only clothes that are made 'honestly', mostly they are better for the environment as well. But they are really much more expensive, that's why I'm trying to not buy clothing at all this year :).

[Thegoblinchief]

For example, we don't eat meat...

Ruminants fattened on properly managed pasture are an excellent sustainable source of calories. Pigs can also be fattened entirely on forage with the right breeds and environment, especially sylvopasture as used to raise the famous jamon iberico. Perennial pastures are much more sustainable than the (predominately) annual crops humans rely on, unless you're somehow sourcing all of your ingredients from zero till farms.

Many would argue animals are essential for sustainable agriculture. Some of the best arguments would be Mark Shepard's work on replicating "savannah" landscapes with perennial plants at wide spacing, grazing animals through them. Ben Falk and Joel Salatin are also excellent proponents of sustainable animal raising.