Re-fridging

One too many rounds of frozen fruit at the back of the fridge and I decided it was time to replace our refrigerator.

The old fridge had served us for eleven years. It was secondhand, so had a couple of years life already before that. On average, your fridge makes up about 16% of a household's electricity use; it seems our old one accounted for between 25% and 40% of ours.

Tyson did the research and sourced us a brand new fridge that was the most efficient model we could afford. Although almost 50% bigger (inside - strangely, not 50% bigger outside) it was rated as using only about 60% as much electricity.

Note that the star ratings compare 'like products' (similar size and configuration) so are not directly comparable; also star ratings are reassessed every few years, so an old 4-star and a new 4-star are not equivalent. The important information is the red 'kWh per year' estimate - that IS directly comparable.


Initial Time: Approx 5hrs (including research, visiting the store, arranging trailer, doing pick-up and swap over)

Initial Cost: $720    

Ongoing time or cost commitment: zero time; cost saving

Impact:

On the ratings alone we would anticipate saving 269kWh per year ($71 on current prices)

However, Tyson hooked up a nifty device to check how much electricity the fridges REALLY use.

We measured the old fridge for two days before unplugging it and found it used 4.8kWh in 40.5hrs - which works out at 1,038kWh per year - considerably worse than it is rated. Given that we measured in the middle of winter, it is likely that the actual number is higher than that, as the old beast would use more electricity in summer.

The new fridge, in comparison, has used 14.4kwH so far over 24 days, which is 219kWh per year - far FAR better than it is rated.

Comparing these real measured figures, we are saving 819kWh of electricity per year with the new fridge: $217 (at current prices); 672kg of CO2 (on data from 2014)

On these figures, the fridge pays for itself in 3yrs 4months. However, as I imagine the difference between the two would be greater in summer, it is likely to be even less.

But what of the embodied energy used to manufacture, transport, sell and ultimately dispose of the fridge? This academic paper by Jenessa Doherty (York University Faculty of Environmental Science, Toronto, c.2015) calculates everything from raw material extraction to the fridge reaching a customer, comparing a fridge that is approximately three times more efficient than the one being replaced, which saves 935kWh a year. She determines that the embodied energy in a new fridge equates to equates to between 2.3 and 2.9 years of electricity savings (depending on what portion of fridge is made from recycled materials, and whether there is a computer in the fridge - high in trace metals). Other websites, which were mostly much more vague, also threw around an approximate three-year figure.

This doesn't allow for disposal. However, it looks like from around November 2020, electricity savings on the new fridge will have paid off both its embodied energy and its purchase price, and it will be all savings from there on.

And that is without calculating how much less food we are now wasting as the fridge is doing its job properly at last.

(The gpo power meter cost $49 for a pack of three. We are now measuring electricity use of the computer system, washing machine and fridge. I will let you know if anything exciting results)

Links:

http://www.academia.edu/22753163/Efficient_Refrigerators_The_Embedded_Energy_Footprint_in_Modern_Technology  - Jenessa Doherty paper

www.energyrating.gov.au - Australian government website where you can compare energy ratings for specific models of a whole range of products, if you no longer have the ratings sticker that your appliance came with.

Jeans

I live in my jeans. I work from home and often wear jeans every day of the week.

So when all three pairs came through the same washing load recently with irredeemable holes it was a small-scale clothing crisis. I had mended and patched my jeans many times over, but they had gone beyond repair. 

I have been vaguely aware that jeans have many levels of ethical concern. I decided that as this is an item of clothing I rely on so heavily, it was time to research properly and find ethical jeans. 

According to the Shop Ethical website, there are at least six areas of potential concern around jeans: transparency in the supply chain, use of sweatshops overseas, use of underpaid Australian outworkers, forced child labour in cotton production, excessive pesticide and insecticide use in cotton production, and toxic sandblasting in preparing denim. It was quickly apparent that if I wanted to attempt an ethical purchase on all six fronts I would need to purchase from a small operator, almost certainly online. If I wanted to walk into a store and buy jeans over the counter my best option looked like being Jeanswest (pretty good on addressing labour and supply chain issues; not so good on the pesticides/insecticides/sandblasting issues). 

The options I found online that looked reasonably sound were: Kuyichi (from the Netherlands), Nudie Jeans (Sweden) and Monkee Genes (UK). Australian brands Denimsmith and Nobody Denim (both Melbourne) are each accredited with Ethical Clothing Australia. However, this considers workers pay and conditions but not broader environmental considerations.

The only problem was: none of the jeans available through these companies was a style I was prepared to wear. The trend at present is for super slim legs and I am not of a build that takes kindly to skinny styling. Where I could find some looser designs the fabric was artificially 'aged' with fake wear and tear. Having spent plenty of time patching worn or torn knees I can't come at buying clothes with holes in them, however stylishly arranged.

In the end I chose to visit an op shop. There I found jeans in a size and style that suited me. Perhaps they were originally made in sweatshops using cotton doused in pesticides and picked by child slaves, but my money did no support any of those things: it went to the St Vincent de Paul Society, who provide services for the poor. Further, by supporting op shops I am encouraging recycling of clothing, hopefully reducing the demand for the blood-sweat-and-poison soaked clothing of mainstream stores. (Is that too dramatic? Over 10% of the world's pesticides and nearly 25% of its insecticides are used in growing cotton, of which jeans are made; in Uzbekistan, the world's 5th largest cotton exporter, the government enlists children as forced labour to harvest the material; thirteen other cotton-producing countries also use child labour, with children reporting health issues as a result of exposure to pesticides; silicon used in sandblasting denim causes emphysema; in sweatshops throughout Asia underpaid workers are crowded into unsafe conditions to sew Western clothing and periodically these conditions kill them)

Initial Time: researching online took a couple of hours; visiting the op shop took about half an hour. I find the lack of choice liberating: there were only about seven pairs of jeans in my size in the store; three were acceptable so I bought them. Simple.

Initial Cost: Had I been able to find a style that suited me, the online ethical options had jeans from about $100, with a wide selection around the $120 mark. Buying at an op shop is of course a cost saving. However, as I can afford to pay more than $4 for my jeans, I also made a donation to the store above the shelf price. It was still a lot cheaper than buying jeans new.

Ongoing time or cost commitment:

 

It is now over three years since I committed to twelve months of buying only ethical clothing for myself. In that first year I bought one jumper and a couple of bras. In both instances I used the Shop Ethical Guide to check that my purchase wasn't from a company with terrible human rights records, but I didn't got out of my way to chase up the most ethical option. I had some worthwhile conversations with shop assistants about ethics in clothing, raising issues with them that they had never had customers ask before. Those conversations were probably more important than the impact of where my dollars were spent.

Taking action about jeans is an outworking of that earlier commitment and will hopefully lead to other related actions.

Since the first year I have bought a few items from op shops, a few rounds of unconsidered underwear, and some clothes from Kathmandu (a big chain doing pretty well on several fronts: workers' pay and conditions, source of materials, and reducing packaging) and Nomad Gnome Fremantle (a local store personally sourcing from ethical small producers in Nepal). All up my 2013 commitment has, as I anticipated at the time, meant I have spent far less time and money overall on buying clothes. Never a big clothes buyer anyway, my acquisition is down to a trickle. It makes me happy not to be overfilling my wardrobe.

Nomad Gnome shirt with Op Shop jeans

It will be a few years before I need to buy jeans again, but I am committed to having another go next time at finding something ethical that I am also happy to wear, even if it means paying a little more (perhaps fashion will have changed by then). In the meantime I will tell my slender friends about the great online ethical jeans options they have available to them!

Impact: This has mostly been discussed above. I recommend the Shop Ethical Guide's discussion of ethical issues for denim (click arrows for detail on each issue) - this explains things clearly and concisely, so I have not repeated most of it here.

One area not mentioned is packaging. This is a concern of mine with online shopping, as everything seems to come packaged in plastic to ensure it arrives safely. Any store that is not producing on site is likely to use packaging in transporting goods - the more stages in the production, the more rounds of packaging. I put my unwrapped purchases in my bicycle basket to get them home: zero packaging.

And of course the carbon footprint of transporting from farm to fabric production to clothing production to warehouse (usually multiple stages of) to store is not insignificant either. Clothes at Vinnies may have been moved around the city a couple of times from donation bin to sorting centre to store, but its hardly comparable with the way new clothes criss-cross the globe, as raw materials, fabric and finished products. Opting for an op shop meant drastically reduced carbon footprint on transport and almost zero waste on packaging.

Choose the UpCycle

What to do with all old top-loader washing machines that are no longer considered sufficiently efficient?

I've written before about upgrading to efficient washing machines but this creates a waste problem as obsolete washing machines relocate to landfill. Earlier in the year my sister bought a house that came with an old washing machine, which she replaced. Tyson has been re-using parts from that machine ever since, along with a second one he 'rescued' from the roadside on bulk rubbish.

Project one: fire drum.

This is the stainless steel drum from a top-loader washing machine removed from its casing. All those little holes keep the fire supplied with oxygen, and ensure warmth is at foot-level as well as face-level.

Tyson also rescued pieces of the electrics to use as the guts for a disc sander. That is, the spinny bits from the washing machine are now spinning a sanding disc. But it was a bit more complicated than that makes it sound - not really a straight swap.

 

He would like to add that if you are not at least a little familiar with electronics, this should not be attempted. In particular, the capacitor in an old washing machine (looks a bit like a D-cell battery) can retain enough charge to give you a nasty shock even long after the machine has been unplugged.

Some of the components of this sander, including the power switch, were amongst items salvaged from Tyson's Grampy's shed years ago, which are still being sorted through at his parents' house.

   

Smaller pieces from the washing machine were also used (along with much recycled timber) to build The Marble Run. Oh, the Marble Run... quite possibly the coolest thing in the world. Built in association with remodeling the children's bedroom without buying anything new. A photo just won't do, so here is a little video clip. See if you can spot pieces that might once have lived in a washing machine. Clue: look for metal.

 

The timber for the Marble Run was partly left over from building the loft bed (which was in turn largely made from furniture found on the verge at bulk waste time) and partly out of the skip bin for a construction site down the road.

The casing from the washing machine now stores wood for the fire drum

The power cord was reused for the sander. Tyson also salvaged a pile of screws and other bits and pieces for future use.

I believe trendy types call this 'upcycling'. But I am not trendy so to me its just using every possible piece that can be kept out of the bin. Yes, we do have a shed full of things that 'might be useful'. In fact, two weeks ago we acquired a second shed (Thank you gift-ers!)

Of course, not everything is re-usable, even with Tyson's handy-skills. The picture at the very top of this blog shows Tyson also pulling apart the old dryer that my sister removed from her house when she moved in (even new dryers are unbelievably wasteful and, in Perth, completely unnecessary, let alone really old ones). He discovered that the metal was inferior quality - flimsy sheet metal  - and most of the dryer ended up as rubbish, although a portion is in use as a shed shelf, and smaller bits and pieces were added to Tyson's stock of construction materials.

Initial Time: Pulling the first washing machine apart sufficiently to transport it home took Tyson a couple of hours. The second machine was quicker - he had learnt a few tricks by then. Building the sander took many hours snatched in bits over weeks and weeks, but (as with many of Tyson's projects) was also an activity often shared with Small Boy (and Bigger Girl, but it mostly happened when she was at school). The Marble Run keeps getting updates and alterations. The basic straight-run sections took only an hour or two, but if all the modifications were added together it has consumed a lot of hours. Ratio of fun-had-by-children to time-spent-building is still massively on the side of fun, though. So many hours of glee.

Initial Cost: zero for the fire drum; approx. $20 for a set of ten sanding discs and $25 for a velcro pad to attach them to the sander.

Ongoing time or cost commitment: sourcing firewood for the fire drum.

Impact: 

Anything we can do to reduce our waste is a good thing, as Australian households average around one tonne of household rubbish each year. When trying to explain recently to our Small Boy why we use cloth nappies and reusable nappy wipes, I slightly exaggerated by telling him every disposable nappy we threw away was being stored up to give back to him when he was a grown-up (which he pronounces 'donut'). But its only a slight exaggeration. The stuff we put in landfill will be around for our children and grandchildren to deal with into their adulthood. Would we think differently about our waste if we could see our one-tonne-per-year growing into a bigger and bigger pile, which would be ours personally to manage along with our pensions, long after we had all turned into donuts? I certainly would, and I am someone who already thinks about waste. Perhaps I have influenced my Small Boy - last time the truck came to pick up remaining bulk rubbish from the verge he wept and howled to see it all crunched away.

By re-using materials we also reduce our consumption - the opposite end of the cycle. At the consumption end the impact is around reducing the raw materials extracted from the earth to create the objects we desire, the fuel used to transport both components and completed items all over the globe, and superfluous material used in packaging all along the way. It is easy to forget both the origin and the end point for goods we consume - as if they begin life on supermarket shelves wholly created and vanish into thin air when the rubbish truck goes around the corner. 

Because of these concerns about consumption, we would never have bought ourselves a fire drum, as its not important enough to us in the scheme of things to warrant spinning the consumption wheel to acquire one (Tyson may have eventually purchased a sander, although he says probably not). A final impact, therefore, is that we are now very much enjoying items we would otherwise have foregone.

glass of wine not pictured

Getting to school without getting in the car

Our Big Girl started full-time school this year (Pre-Primary). 

Best friends on the bus on the first day of school, back in February

The school is 1.6km from our house - exactly one mile. There is a very busy road to cross. However, we have committed to getting her there without getting in the car. 

Most days we take the bus. There is no 'school bus' (they are not common in Australian cities) but a public bus route picks up about a block away and drops off at the school gate.

Other days we walk, ride or scooter. We are more than halfway through the year, and we have driven less then ten times - almost all when the car was on its way somewhere else and included a school drop-off or pick-up in the same journey.

Initial Time: Walking with Eva takes about 20 minutes, plus about ten minutes for an adult to walk home again. The bus only takes five minutes of actual bus time, but by the time we walk to the stop and wait, it is a 15 minute journey all together to get to school (generally Tyson or I then walk rather than bus our way home again). After school, the bus includes a wait, and is almost always late on top of that, meaning getting home at least half an hour after school lets out, often longer. If both Eva and parent scooter or ride, its less than a ten minute trip each way, including time for tying up the bike. If Eva rides and her adult walks, its more like 15 minutes. 

Driving takes about 5 minutes, so all these options add time.

Initial Cost: Riding, walking and scootering are free (Eva's bike was a hand-me-down gift; her scooter we found on bulk rubbish and Tyson fixed it up). The bus costs 60c each way for Eva and between 60c or $2.25 for Tyson and I (depending on whether our concession is current, and whether we bus home again or walk back). If we caught the bus each way each day that could be between $12 and $28.50, but as we always mix it up with some walking/riding/scootering, and also share accompanying children on the bus with another family, in practice its more like $6 a week.

Ongoing time or cost commitment: Over the course of a year, I estimate we are spending about $240 on bus fares getting to and from school. Best case scenario we add about 1 hour a week to our travel times; worst case (lots of slow walking or waiting for late buses) we add up to 5 hours. However, this time has its own value (see 'impact'), so is not 'wasted' time in the week.

Impact: 

If we drove to and from school every day, this would be approximately 32km of driving per week. Given the stop-start nature of the trip, including a set of traffic lights that often takes a couple of cycles to get through at peak hour, the car doesn't run as efficiently for this sort of trip as is it can at optimum. Driving every trip would use around 2.72L of fuel per week - approximately $3.80 worth, generating around 7.4kg of CO2. (By comparison, this tool suggests that taking the bus would add about 3kg of CO2 to our carbon footprint, but that's a very rough estimate with many variables). In a year, allowing for some carbon footprint when we take the bus, we are saving around 270kg of CO2 each year by not driving to school.

Studies have shown that the rates of Australian school children in suburban areas using 'active transportation' (ie human-powered) to get to school have declined by around 40% since the early 1970s. In 2003, around 65% of primary and 40% of secondary school students in a Sydney study were driven to and from school, up from approximately 21% and 10% in 1971. Walking and bus-riding both declined. (Cycling was such a small number it didn't figure in the statistics, possibly because the area studied was quite hilly, However, other studies show the number of children riding bikes at all, let alone to school, is declining). If we were to postulate that 50% of Australia's approximately 3.7 million school students are driven to school every day, and conservatively estimate round trips of 1km at each end of the day for these students, that adds up to 74 million kilometres each week being driven to get children to and from school. That's over 1.3 million kg (1,300 tonnes) of CO2 being pumped into our air every week just getting Australian kids to school (much more, actually, as this doesn't allow for longer distances travelled to country schools, but I accept that in regional areas there are fewer alternate options). Taking our car off the road is a small contribution to reducing that, but hopefully we can inspire a few others to join us too. 

Not driving also addresses general traffic congestion. Everyone knows how much easier it is to get around the city when its school holidays, because there are far fewer cars on the roads. When congestion in the school carpark was a problem earlier this year, the school staggered the times of classes ending their day but never once suggested that parents could consider not driving to address the carpark problem! We can do better than that, surely?

Its not just about getting our car off the road, though - its also about getting us active. I prefer to walk or ride rather than bus because the exercise at each end of the school day is good for both me and Eva. She is a pretty active, physical person - it helps her school day a lot if she has burned off a bit of steam before arriving in the morning; it helps our afternoon tempers a great deal if she has one mile of exercise to stretch herself out after being cooped up all day, especially when wet weather has kept them off the playground. Of course, exercise is good for our general health as well!

Although I err away from the bus when I can, Eva loves it, especially as her best friend is mostly on the bus too, and they sit with admirable self assurance amidst the teenagers from our local high school who also use that bus. The after-school time playing freely on the vacant lot beside the bus stop waiting for the always-late bus is a highlight of her day (less so of mine).

There is also much intangible value in teaching our children that they can be self-sufficient. They can transport themselves to school (with adult supervision at this age, but eventually alone or with friends). In a culture that breeds dependence and, in doing so, de-skills children, this is very important. We are also teaching by example that they don't need to have a car to get everywhere, which will hopefully shape their implicit sense of 'normal' into adulthood.

Links:


Key 2012 Heart Foundation report into 'Active Travel to School' in Australia, which everyone else quotes in their articles.

Environmental Benefits of Walking (Diabetes Australia)

2011 article at The Conversation about decline in Australian children riding to school, what is causing it, why its a bad thing and what can be done to reverse the pattern.

Bicycle Network's Ride2School program

Results hot off the press for the National Cycling Participation Survey 2015 (released last week)

Cycling tips for school drop-off

Australian Bureau of Statistics article (2013) on Australian car ownership trends and implications. Gosh I love the ABS. Such brilliant, ongoing data collection and analysis.

International Walk To School (yep, that's a thing)

Walking School Bus program in Victoria and more generally

Various SA Education Department fact sheets on safe travel to school, including everything from catching a train to knowing the road markings as a pedestrian.

Take the stairs... or the lift

While working in the city for a few months, I have made the effort to take the stairs rather than the lift (that's 'elevator' for you friends in the USA).

When they are such beautiful stairs as these, its hard not to. Mostly I do it for the pleasure of the stairs, and for my health, but it also seemed the obvious sustainable choice.

However, when I sat down to research it I discovered that lifts use hardly any electricity to operate. This is completely counter-intuitive to me: great big metal boxes being lifted many metres straight up through the air by electric power... surely that must guzzle energy? It seems, on account of the system of counterweights involved, not really. It probably uses more energy to keep the lift air-conditioned with a light on and back-lit buttons than it takes to actually lift me three floors to the office.

I use more energy to make my cup of tea when I reach the office than I would have used to get there in the lift.

So for once I am saying to you:  This thing I've chosen to do? It doesn't make much difference to the environment; don't feel remotely guilty if you're not doing it too.

That said,  I still feel better taking the stairs.

Initial Time: To climb three flights of stairs generally takes me about half a minute longer than if I walked straight into the lift. If I have to wait for the lift, the time is not much different and the stairs can even be quicker.

Initial Cost: Zero (although it uses more of my energy)

Ongoing time or cost commitment: Same as above each time.

Impact: 

There are many factors determining exactly how much energy a lift uses, but calculations on this reputable-looking blog put it at roughly 0.0015kWh per floor. That would mean I use 0.009kWh per day if I use the lift (I don't leave the office much once I'm there). Over the course of the three-month contract I'm currently completing, in a third-floor office accessed by the gorgeous 109-year old timber staircase shown above, I will have saved 0.342kWh of electricity - a grand total of 280g (yes grams, not kilograms) of CO2. Even if these calculations are wildly low, its in no way a substantial saving.

Of course, there is the issue of embodied energy in the lift, as well as air-conditioning, lighting and computer systems to run the lift, which are questions when considering whether to put in a lift at all, but on balance having universal access to all levels of a building without enormous ramps probably outweighs these concerns, and this energy is used whether I get in the lift or not.

Climbing stairs uses approximately 0.17 calories per stair going up and 0.05 per stair going down (depending on your weight and how fast you climb - slower uses more!) so my daily climb uses about 15.5 calories up and 4.5 down. I'm not a very fit individual, so it is definitely worth me using those calories each day.

The other stairs I climb regularly in the course of my work. If you recognise them and value this place, you might consider popping a letter to your MP about funding cuts...

Links:

One Two Three blogs or articles about the energy savings (or not) of taking the stairs (the last one has quite a detailed calculator, but you need to know a bit of technical detail about your favourite lift)

A mug's guide to how a lift works.

Fun facts about stair climbing -  but don't believe their 'fact' about taking the stairs saving 0.3-0.6kg of CO2 per day; I can't find any data to support this claim.

Why we don't have a TV

We don't have a TV.

Why watch TV when you can watch the highlight of 2014 live, right across the road: 'Excavator knocking down HOUSE!'

As we never made a 'sustainability commitment' to not having one, I've not written about this. However, several times when I have presented about our sustainable living efforts it has emerged as a choice people are interested in, so here is my effort to share.

Disclaimer: Let me put right up front that this is not an attempt to judge anyone else's choices about television. If you have negotiated the issues I raise below in other ways, or the benefits of TV out-weight these issues for you, that's great. This is my attempt to explain my choices, not to have a go at yours.
 

Our family grew up without a TV* and, although I resented it many times as a kid, I am now grateful for that. [*We did have one in a box after I was seven, which came out in school holidays and for the Olympics]. When house-sharing, my flatmates often had one and I had patches of watching it. I learned that I am easily addicted to TV programs, especially ones with never-ending plot lines and endearing characters. I negotiated several times for the TV not to be in the main living area of our share-houses, once even buying a suitable wheeled table so it could be moved easily into the room of whoever wanted to watch it. Since Tyson and I have lived together we have never had a TV in the house. We watch a little Iview some evenings after the children are asleep, when we are too exhausted to do anything else (mostly British drama), at most perhaps five hours a week, more often one or two shows in a week (2 hours?). On very rare occasions Eva has been permitted to watch ABC kids TV shows on YouTube when she has been really sick. We also sit with them to watch and talk about clips on YouTube relating to things that interest them (most often excavators, excavators, chickens, giraffes, excavators).

I am not opposed to all TV watching forever, but I am choosing not to own one, and to limit our use of digital TV through the internet. It is a key strategy for us towards ensuring that as much as possible we create a home on our own values, not values absorbed by accident through a screen.

There are a whole range of reasons we don't have a TV. The summary version is: I believe TV primarily disconnects us from each other, sets up unrealistic and unhealthy social norms, and pushes us to be insatiable consumers. To explain a bit further...

How we shape our 'wants' 

I think the biggest problem of our unsustainable western lifestyle is that we want so much. One of the simplest ways to reduce our wanting is to cut out the voices of those suggesting more things for us to want. 

At the most obvious level, this is about not having advertising in our house (we also do not receive junk mail, read our news online so we don't have newspaper ads sitting around, and don't subscribe to the sort of magazines that are padded with ads). This makes a big difference. It was a change for Tyson when we moved in together, and over about the first year of sharing a predominantly ad-free house we both observed a noticeable reduction in the things he was wanting to obtain. Our children know very few brand names - in contrast to an American study that showed children entering primary school could identify on average 200 brand logos.

Of course it is possible to watch TV without advertisements (God bless the ABC and lets raise our voices to protest the budget cuts there!). However, in more subtle ways television as a medium, regardless of the advertisements, tempts us to want more. People are presented in an airbrushed manner (or presented as 'lacking', often by presenters who are clearly not 'lacking' in the same areas), creating a sense that the wonderful, earthy, fallible ordinariness of real lives is inadequate in some way. From the decor of fictional houses to the clothes of documentary presenters, the television world shows us a million things that we don't have, which we could potentially have, which could potentially redress that 'lack'. Yes, popping in to your neighbour's house and seeing their stuff can have the same effect, but it comes with a relationship, a possible story (including the reality of how little impact stuff has on happiness), and the limits of how many people we actually know to pop in on.

Focus of living areas

The way our houses are arranged both reflects and shapes the values we live by. Many Australian living rooms are arranged with seating almost in a line - perhaps a semicircle - focused on a television screen. If you are in a room like this, it can be quite hard to make good eye contact with everyone when having a conversation. The very way we place ourselves within the room reinforces a sense that we are spectators, passive recipients of someone else's agenda. I feel like this occurs even when the TV is turned off, because it remains the visual focus for how the furniture is set out.

In many ways television sets are placed within homes in the way that an altar might be placed within a home where religious observance is part of family life. It becomes a thing we worship. I find it a little obscene that it is considered the norm in Australian house design at present to include a 'home theatre' - a room virtually without windows, designed for people to not interact with each other or the outside world at all, but to be completely in relation to the digital world. This room is generally larger than the size of a whole house in many parts of the world, and uses far more energy and resources to create than those simple dwellings.

Our living room is a circle of couches and armchairs. There is also a piano, sort of at the side, and a toy shelf/play bench under the window, flanked by armchairs. I like that when we sit in this space, the focus is each other. When the children play they are central to our living space. Guests in our home have at times noted how relaxing they find it to be in a space without an omnipresent screen. (When we watch Iview or YouTube we use the office computer. The office, being also the guest bedroom, has a fold-out couch that can be used to watch the screen)

When we go on holidays, accommodation pretty much always provides a TV. We always cover it with a cloth, and sometimes move a couch in front of it.  

Objectification of people

The nature of television turns people into objects. We are watching; they are performing. We consume them. 

This is fairly obvious when, for example, an actor is performing a fictional role for our entertainment, and is not such a problem in that context (not so different from live theatre). However, we don't have the opportunity to see the actors leave by the stage door in their street clothes after the show, as ordinary and wonderful as us. When we do, it is in the context of celebrity-watching: trying to pretend we know these actors because we know something about them (however tenuous), or to pick holes in their presentation, to take evidence of ordinariness and hold it up as a fault, not a gift. Actors become semi-fictional realities that we seek to somehow have some ownership over.

However, objectification is more of a problem, in my opinion, when it relates to non-fiction content. News reporting is the most troubling for me. Other people's life crises become objects for me to watch. People being reported on cease to be people, cease to be 'like me', and become a Thing, a News Item, which I consume.

I believe that spending a great deal of time watching other people as objects, without any relationship with them, imprints on us a sense that people can be treated as objects; A sense that it is OK to think of others in a transactional way, rather than a relational way - where interactions always have a quality of what I give and what I get, rather than who and what we are building between us (with acknowledgement to William Cavanagh for getting me thinking about these things). Once we have made that step - and I think to at least some degree we have all made it - we can partition off some people, some 'objects', as less deserving of our compassion, or attention, or effort. Particularly, in the context of this blog, those among us who are most vulnerable as a result of our unsustainable lifestyle.

Gender representations

Somehow we have made it through five years of this blog without me beating this drum, but here goes:

The presentation of men and women on television is grossly imbalanced. The number of men, particular 'serious' men (in suits) far outweighs the number of 'serious' women, or women at all. Some excellent television drama includes strong female characters, but far more often women are presented within strongly gendered stereotypes. At worst, they are actively violated. More often, they are sexualised props for male-driven plots, with male heroes (sometimes with one token woman to make up the 'balance') and outcomes affirming male dominance. These are not the assumptions of a woman's role that I want my daughter to have imprinted into her (or my son, for that matter).

And men are poorly presented too: male characters, when not being macho aggressive strong-men winning situations by force and speed, are often goofy, a bit daft and easily led astray. Neither inspires my son to grow into a strong, thoughtful, compassionate, relational, confident man ready to take his place as an equal in the world with every other human.

Oversexualisation

Once you add together objectification and gender stereotyping it is no surprise that I have deep concerns about the sexualised manner in which both men and women are represented through television. The way a person looks is paramount to their TV appeal; the rules of what is 'appealing' are set by a narrow understanding of what is sexually attractive. Women are never seen without make-up (the way women actually arrive at every day of our lives, and the way we are known and loved by those we are really important to) or in clothes that might be described as 'shapeless': ie, not emphasising legs, hips and breasts. There is nothing wrong with dressing up and enjoying fitting a particular social norm; there is something deeply wrong with being made to feel unacceptable, to yourself or others, if you don't do it. I also have a problem with people's bodies, male or female, being an object for the gratification of people who don't know them, but watch them.

At the very pointy end of this, objectifying and over-sexualising women makes us vulnerable. Presenting men as either macho strong-men or a bit hopeless makes women vulnerable too. Both contribute to women being abused, and to men staying silent about it (or even encouraging it). 

Many of the things I hope for my daughter and my son are actively discouraged by the gender and body-image social norms that television is a big part of creating. I am helping them learn to navigate these cultural assumptions (yes, even at 5 and 2, and ever more so over the next twenty-odd years) but I am also inviting them to live their home-lives without those abnormal 'norms' constantly surrounding them.

Disempowering narratives

Most television content resolves problems within a viewing period. Perhaps it may take a whole season, but problems will be resolved. The overwhelming dominant narrative is that problems will be resolved by being the strongest/smartest/highest-tech or by straight out violence.

My understanding of the world is that actual, genuine change is slow, often hidden, and generally comes about by the sustained effect of countless tiny acts of love, kindness, bravery, generosity, hope, peace... most of which would not be remotely worthy of being 'viewed'. If you happen to be strong, smart, or equipped with marvels, the dominant narrative puts enormous and unrealistic pressure on you to provide results on behalf of all those ordinary people who are not so 'fortunate' - and it is little wonder that violence is so often the chosen approach. If you are not one of the 'fortunate' (I think it is a very mixed 'fortune'), this narrative either excuses you from having to contribute to our common good, or tempts you to feel hopeless about what you can actually achieve.

For those living within a narrative that is not heading for solution - chronic mental illness, for example, or the death of a loved one, or cyclical discrimination and poverty - the dominant narrative of problem-strength-solution has no place for you. Your grief is not permitted space. Your insights are not welcomed. Your ordinary daily struggles and triumphs are neither lamented nor celebrated - they (and you) are ignored. Perhaps that is its own blessing. It can also be degrading and disempowering.

Limiting children's creativity

I know there is much good children's television produced. However,  the nature of the medium largely makes the child a spectator while someone else does the creativity. Where good children's programming gives ideas for activities children can follow up, this tends to be a particular activity with a particular outcome.

We like to give our children materials and opportunities where they can invent their own outcomes, and often their own process as well. We like to read them books where there is plenty of room for their imagination to work, and the range of books available makes it pretty likely they won't be internalising quite the same mix of characters and stories as any one of their friends. It might be cute to have every girl at kindy playing at 'Elsa' but I am delighted that my daughter has instead played a hundred different characters of her own invention, including many that TV would have suggested to her were boys' roles.

 

Who's agenda?

Television programming can become a household's programming. Its 7pm, finish dinner so we can watch the news; I need to be home to catch the next episode of [insert favourite drama].

This is being somewhat addressed by digital TV-on-demand, but there is still a drive to watch it as it is aired (someone might spoil the ending for you on Facebook otherwise) or to catch it before it expires online. I have had dinner guests go home early because of a TV show they wanted to see; I have myself made choices about staying home to 'catch up' on a show online, and I don't like that.

The value systems implicit (or sometimes explicit) in both televised content and the medium itself are an agenda that I don't want to be run by. I feel TV needs very careful handling if we are to maintain our family agenda of love -  love for each other, love for our wider community, and love for our earth.

What do we support?

Its not so difficult to come up with a list of reasons I am against TV, but the more important question is: what I am for? Some of our priorities are: hospitality; building relationships; compassion; all people being equally valuable regardless of appearance, strength, colour, religion, ability, intelligence, disability, size, age, gender...; community; creative play; imagination; encouraging reading; open-ended play resources; getting into nature; non-violence; celebration of our ordinary bodies and ordinary lives; hope and possibility; genuine, wide-reaching gender equity; sustainable living; simplicity. On the whole, I believe owning a television does not advance these priorities and in many cases it is actually a hindrance to them.

So there you have it. Bless you for reading this far - I hope it is at least something interesting to think about.

What do we do instead? At gremlin hour, between 5pm and 6pm? When the kids wake up early on the weekend? The photos in this post are a few illustrations. We are fortunate that our work situation has meant we very rarely have only one adult in the house in the late afternoon, so one of us can cook and the other give the children 100% attention. Or the children help cook. Or we send them to jump on the trampoline, that magnificent child-minding device. They do get up early and they mostly find toys and activities without us. Mostly lego or craft, but I can see that when Eva learns to read it will be books, books, books.

Initial Time:  zero

Initial Cost: zero

Ongoing time or cost commitment: Not having a TV is both a time commitment, and a gift of time.

It is a time commitment, because without TV to mind the children they need more of our attention, patience and creativity.

It is a gift of time because I have available to me the hours I might otherwise spend watching TV to do all manner of other things. Things like writing this blog, being on the kindy parent committee, reading books, having really good conversations with my husband, hosting various groups in our house, playing Scrabble, writing in my journal... Sometimes I wonder how people who regularly watch TV fit anything else in, as my days and weeks are generally full to the brim without it.

Impact:

I believe I learned to be a more imaginative and creative person by not having a TV as a regular part of my childhood. I am hopeful to pass this gift on to our children.

A plethora of studies about the impact of television on child development suggest links between TV watching and aggression/violence, and long-term lower academic outcomes for children with high TV exposure. Here's a well-referenced article on potential impacts of TV on child development that goes into these and other issues in more detail. We are hopeful that our TV choices are having a positive impact on the sort of people our children are becoming, their views of the world and their ability to creatively navigate the challenges of their lives. 

 

Its not just about the children, though: I think limiting my adult TV viewing has a positive impact on the sort of person I am becoming. The people I admire and aspire to be like are people shaped by influences outside of the world of TV.

I think as a household we 'want' less than is considered 'normal' for our culture. There are whole cultural trends I genuinely know nothing about, or very little (loom bands? Frozen? Game of Thrones?). I know this will shift as we get deeper into school years, but Eva has not been in complete isolation - the last two years she has been part-time at kindergartens; she attended daycare; we are part of a church community; we have a wide network of friends and family, many of whom do not share our tentative approaches to certain cultural norms. We talk about things together, including advertising. We try to ensure birthdays and Christmas celebrations are not all about getting more stuff (see previous posts one two three four five).

Energy savings are not listed above as a reason we don't have a TV, because I have never been motivated in this choice by electricity use, but it is an energy saving to not operate a TV. The average Australian child in the 2-10 age bracket watches between 1 and 2 hours a day of TV (not including other screen activities), and more on weekends (the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010 recommended no more than two hours TV a day, but various American studies estimate kids in the USA are watching closer to 30 hours a week of TV). Australian adults on average watch TV about two hours a day. So, if we were 'average' our household might watch about 25 hours of TV a week between us. The other 143 hours of the week nearly all Australian TVs are on standby, which also uses electricity. How much energy your TV uses depends on many variables: how much it is turned on, what sort of technology it is, how big the screen is, how bright you choose to have the settings. Here is more detail on TV energy use, including a TV-energy use calculator (scroll way down). Apparently, most TVs use between 80 and 400 watts. Older models can use up to 15% of this when on standby, but newer models often have efficient standby settings that draw as little as 1-3 watts. If we had a super-efficient 80-watt TV and watched the average 25 hours a week, we might use around 2kWhr (units) per week watching and another 143Whr in standby: a total of 111.5 kWhr per year (at current rates this would cost $34.55). If we had the 400-watt inefficient model, and allowed for 15% standby, 25-hour viewing weeks would result in an annual usage of 966.2 kWh (nearly half of which is standby usage) - a cost of $299.51, so not exactly 'free' entertainment for your children! Using these calculations, running a TV in Perth creates between 91.43 and 792.28 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - more, if you have an inefficient model (plasmas are particularly bad) and watch more than average amounts of TV. Plus there are the issues of embodied energy I discussed recently in relation to washing machines.

Perhaps the greatest impact for me personally is that when I don't watch any TV I am happier. I would like to give this gift to my children.