My Kingdom for a Simple Bike Ride

Okay, so Sarah Goodyear reports for Grist in this article about Lucette Gilbert, a sweet little old lady in her "very high 70s" who lives in New York City (of course), that said little old lady stands as proof that you're never too old to ride a freaking bike.

There's even a video of the lady riding her bike. How nice. Really!

I would be the last person to claim otherwise. However, perhaps it hadn't occurred to Sarah that a non-bicycle rider isn't always "one of those people who comes up with endless excuses about why you can't get your ass onto a bicycle and use it to go somewhere." In point of fact, Sarah might not be aware that you don't have to be old to suffer infirmity sufficient to make bike riding extremely difficult.

Perhaps it would be instructive for Sarah to watch these videos:

The trailer from the documentary Twisted.



A PSA about dystonia.



Okay, Sarah. Do you think these people are going to just hop on a bicycle and ride anywhere they want?

And here's the thing. These people are obviously disabled. What about folks whose disabilities aren't obvious? Would you believe I'm one of them?

I've had dystonia in my hand and foot for about six years. It's something most people don't notice, but I feel it all the time and it wears me down. And I can't grip with my left hand, anymore. And it's constantly clenching and twisting. Sometimes it hurts. But I keep going, anyway. I won't bore you with the details about my constantly clenching toes.

There are people with other disorders that can't be seen. Lupus, chronic pain syndrome, to name just a couple. Who are you to judge, Sarah? That's my question.

The other day, I rode my bicycle around the neighborhood. I was only out for an hour or so, but it felt good to know I could. But I felt sad, too, because it'll never be quite the same experience again.

But even though it hurt, and I won't be riding on a daily basis or much farther than my own neighborhood, at least I did it. Because I could and I believe in doing things if I can.

PS: Lucette Gilbert is one lucky lady. And if she'd like to trade places with a certain New York Times bestselling mystery author, tell her I'll do it in a heartbeat. :)

'Green' Cereal Packaging: It's Complicated

Okay, so Malt-O-Meal (you know, that cereal that no one eats, but that's been around for years) has never changed its packaging. But the company that makes it says it's always been sustainable because the cereal comes in big bags, so that's green, right? Follow?

Well, the Malt-O-Meal people have been touting the benefits of buying its big-bag product on some Web site, while giving sh*t to companies that sell cereal in boxes, according to this article.

But just how "green" is this practice (or doing of the same thing in the same way) really?

To quote from the article:

At the top-most level, yes, putting cereal in just bags compared to bags and boxes has benefits: Not sourcing material from trees, and not using energy and fuel to produce and transport boxes.

But again: Is that green? And is Malt-O-Meal green as a result of this practice?

The answer, as near as I can tell, is a qualified "no." Or "I don't know." Because green or not, Malt-O-Meal is an example of a company that is adding to the already overwhelming cacophony of green stories, by touting the environmental benefits of their products and packaging, without having made a single change.

Semantics is just one of the issues I take with Malt-O-Meal's campaign. They company says it's "saved" 156 million pounds of paperboard and 1.1 billion BTUs of energy since 2001 by using just bags. To be more accurate, they avoided that packaging and energy: If they didn't switch away from boxes, they didn't save anything.

Well, okay. Are you finding fault with Malt-O-Meal for not wasting resources to begin with? I don't know ...

Anyhow, onward.

And those energy figures highlight another problem with Malt-O-Meal's announcement: a lack of specificity.

Nowhere does Malt-O-Meal say how much energy or fuel it uses and how many emissions it puts out from the production or shipping of its packaging, making it hard to discern the actual difference between their packaging and paperboard boxes. Then again, we don't know of any other cereal company that's put out such specific figures, but we also haven't seen other cereals make such bold claims about their packaging being better than others'.


Um ... okay, so no other cereal company has specific figures either. Basically, Malt-O-Meal is basing its argument on the large size of its bags. Period. I think we've got that sussed.

One thing Malt-O-Meal also doesn't say is that its bags use more plastic than cereal in boxes, since the bags are thicker and also have a resealable enclosure. That means more petroleum-based plastic. Now, I don't think that extra plastic would be enough to rival the impacts of paperboard boxes, but it's worth noting.

Make of that what you will.

The fact is, Malt-O-Meal has never used boxes. They are a discount brand. Boxes would increase their costs. So it seems disingenuous to twist that into a green act without more accurate facts and figures.

Um, ditto.

Interestingly, Malt-O-Meal does have a line of cereal called Mom's Best Naturals that comes in boxes. It appears, then, that they're saying their conventional, sugar- and corn syrup-fueled cereal is greener than its slightly more natural brand.

WTF????

And that leads to yet another quibble I take with Malt-O-Meal's Bag the Box campaign (as well as with other companies who pat themselves a bit too hard on their backs for packaging changes when their ingredients leave something to be desired): Green is about more than what's on the box or bag: What's inside counts just as much. And making cereals from conventional, pesticide- and oil-intensive corn, wheat, sugar and partially hydrogenated oils hardly counts as green or sustainable. But more important than what Malt-O-Meal puts in its bags is what it's sharing with potential customers, and the media. Until they publish more details about their environmental impacts, and set some goals around improving them, this is just a bag half-empty.

I think I'll stick with English muffins. Thank you.

Filthy Reusable Bags -- Revisited

Yeah, here we go again. Way back when I started this blog, I put up a post called Paper, Plastic ... or Filthy Reusable Bag? I'd say the title is fairly self-explanatory, but feel free to read the post for more on that.

So now someone's come up with something even more mind boggling: Ten Commandments of Reusable Bag Use.

Okay, I see that headline and think, WTF???

I read the post. It's all the usual stuff. Long lines, inconvenience, dead ants, nasty things stuck in the corners and cracks of reusable bags, etc., etc.

Finally, I get down to the list. Just read it, okay? Now, really, how much of this is plain common sense and/or courtesy? Especially #10???? I mean, honestly!

I'll Drink to That

Okay, so it turns out that Coca Cola isn't quite the green company it makes itself out to be, according to this article.

When you come right down to it, it's not such a hot idea to drink a lot of soda anyway. Even diet soda. Apparently.

But there's always good old water. But not bottled water, because that's not sustainable, is it?

Of course, tap water might not be so good for you, either. Depending on who you ask.

I don't know. Got milk? Perhaps not.