Invasive specie continues to cause massive ecological damage after nearly 500 years

By far the most destructive invasive species to North America has been the Western European Homo Sapiens.
Introduced between 1500 and 1600 by Spanish, German, and English settlers, this large hominid almost entirely eradicated the native breed of their own specie throughout the continent, and then went on to do absolutely massive destruction to nearly every aspect of the landscape with their natural instinct to modify their surroundings, ultimately affecting literally every ecological niche extending not only across the land but even well into the oceans on both coasts.

In order to restore the damage done by their introduction, a two part strategy may be most effective: a massive catch, spay/neuter and release program coupled with relaxed or even eliminated hunting restrictions.  This may take lots of time, but would surely be more cost effective and humane in the long run, compared with any attempt to directly euthanize the entire population.

Comments from MMM Forums Part 3: Lets Talk Charities

Part 3 of the ongoing series of posts taken from the MMMdiscussion board

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By I.P. Daley :

Let's talk charities - (Afghani brick kilns and us)

Was reading the evening news tonight, and came across the following article in the world news feed:

Afghan family works to pay off crushing debt

Nutshell on the article? Guy gets married, wife gets sick, guy borrows $900 from his employer to get medical attention for his wife. Nine years later, he's still in debt and he and four of his six children (youngest working is 4 years old) are working in the kilns along with him to try and just eat and pay off the debt. And they aren't the only ones:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41177
http://www.essex.ac.uk/armedcon/story_id/000786.html
http://www.afghanistan-today.org/article/?id=215

This isn't some new story in the history of man... it's happened before, it's happening right now, and it'll keep happening. This sort of thing even occurs in today's United States, just look at the immigrant tomato field workers in Florida as an example right off the top of my head.

A lot of us give a lot of lip service to frugal living, staying out of debt, being socially responsible, and extol the virtues of the bounty of goods that allow us to pursue financial independence. We also frequently want to punch people in this country in the face for their decadent living beyond their means and wasteful consumerism, and honestly, this article just re-stirs some of that anger because some of these never-to-be-forgiven family life debt balances on loans taken out for basic necessities in the third world are for less money than many people waste on frivolous crap in a month here. A lot of times, we also forget where a lot of these goods that give us the quality of life we have come from and who made them as well as how little (by our standards) it can take to dramatically change their lives.



We've all discussed a lot of things in these forums over the months, but I think the above article should serve as a reminder to us all that we should perhaps be doing more. More frugal living, more kindness to others, more self-sufficiency... you get the idea. Charitable works and worthwhile efforts to improve our fellow man's life has never really come up in these forums, and I think its time we changed that. There is no perfect charity, and some people's charities will probably rub others the wrong way... that's okay though. This shouldn't be an argument about who's giving to better causes. Although personal biases and politics may be involved with many of the charities, let's not badger one another about our choices. This should be about openly sharing information with our fellow mustachians about some greater and lesser known causes that we can all potentially invest in to try and make the world a better place. If you've never really considered or done so before, perhaps now is a good time to start.

I'll begin by listing Charity Navigator and the ECFAas resources for vetting charities.

I feel uncomfortable making a list of who we support due a desire to remain as anonymous as possible with tzedakah as we don't give for the thanks, but it's difficult to avoid given the subject. The specific charities that we currently try to support are World Vision, Habitat for Humanity, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Child's Play, and the MJAA. Most of you are probably already familiar with World Vision, the EFF and Habitat for Humanity, so I'll refrain from describing those outfits. Child's Play is an organization that basically provides toys (digital and otherwise), books and games for sick children in hospitals. The MJAA (Messianic Jewish Alliance of America) is an Israel-focused, faith based humanitarian relief and ministry organization. Not all of these are the most lofty and noble of humanitarian aid causes, but they're given to with the intent of improving people's lives, to spread a little joy, and help preserve some freedoms.

What organizations do the rest of you consider worthwhile to share and support?

…

[Several responses, including my own, answering the original post’s question, followed by a segue into the question of what percentage of income is appropriate to give – you can click the very topmost hyperlink in the OP if you want to read all the inbetween posts]

…

By Bakari:

Re: Let's talk charities - (Afghani brick kilns and us)

« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2012, 06:34:01 AM »

People frequently talk about percentages (or total amounts) given, esp. by wealthy people, as though the size of the donation made it esp. admirable (as in "random rich guy 'aint so bad, he gives fully half his money to charity)

But I think the true test of giving isn't how much you give away, its how much you keep.

If you have a billion dollars, its easy to give away 90%, because then you still have 100 million dollars.
On the other hand, if a homeless guy with $100 to his name gives away 5%, he has only $95 left.
In this extreme example, giving 5% is more charitable than 90%, because it is the bigger personal sacrifice.

So I don't think it makes sense to talk about "how much" OR "what percent", because everyone's circumstances are so different, and therefore what they can potentially afford are as well.

Quote from: sol on July 27, 2012, 10:42:57 PM

Quote from: JadamR15 on July 27, 2012, 10:35:24 PM

Well, I suppose one has to start with "how many" - with larger groups, a smaller percentage would be prudent, and vice versa -

Are you suggesting giving larger sums to smaller charities, and smaller sums to larger ones?  Maybe I'm not following correctly.

"how many" as in how many different places do you give.  Do you make one large donation to the one organization you really believe in, or do you give small amounts to a dozen different charities?  Its like being a teacher vs a mentor: you can help lots of kids a little bit, or you can totally transform just one person's life, but you can't do both.

Quote from: grantmeaname on July 27, 2012, 12:09:21 PM

If you think it's a moral imperative to help your fellow man financially, and that other uses of wealth are less just, I'd like to hear your argument why. I think there are several pragmatic and theoretical problems with the assertion,

I question whether "just" is the foundation of "moral".  One could argue that "an eye for an eye" is a just policy, but that doesn't make it especially moral.  I think morality is built on the existence of sentience, the ability to feel pleasure and pain.  It need not be financial, but helping others is moral, basically by definition.  Now whether it is imperative, that is another question.  But whether other uses of wealth may be less valid, consider the diminishing returns one who holds wealth gets for each additional dollar.  Even for a normal consumer, but esp. a mustachian!  For an already FI mustachian, $100 may provide literally no value at all, while it could provide a vaccine against a terrible but easy to prevent disease for some kid in the 3rd world.  Given the benefit we all receive from past and present exploitation of the 3rd world, giving some back seems to be both moral AND just.

Quote

Grant here seems to think that social altruism is fundamentally indefensible, though I'm not yet sure why.  If he's right, then the correct amount of money to donate to charity would be "zero".

Just because it is determined not to be a "moral imperative" wouldn't make it fundamentally indefensible.  It would just mean we aren't obligatedto give. 

…

By Bakari:

Re: Let's talk charities - (Afghani brick kilns and us)

« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2012, 12:07:31 PM »

Quote from: I.P. Daley on July 29, 2012, 11:16:02 AM

Quote from: darkelenchus on July 29, 2012, 11:04:15 AM

What about social businesses? There's no expectation of a monetary return at all, other than what's been given. It's effectively an interest-free loan, and facilitates "teaching a man to fish," which is almost invariably more valuable than "giving a man a fish."

Giving with the expectation of a return is not giving, no matter how non-existent the return profit might be. This isn't to say that investing in these sorts of things isn't socially beneficial, I'm just saying that it isn't charity.

I take that to also imply that if one takes a tax deduction for a donation, it was not charity either?
I actually find that a reasonable outlook, one I kind of agree with, but I'm just trying to clarify what you're saying.

In fact, come to think of it, that seems an interesting related concept that I don't think I've seen brought up yet.
Does anyone here deliberately not claim tax-deductible donations, and/or make donations anonymously?

…

By Bakari:

Re: Let's talk charities - (Afghani brick kilns and us)

« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2012, 10:52:39 AM »

I realize I've been posting a lot, and they've all been long, and I apologize for taking up so much thread space.
Also: this is going to be another one.

See, these posts have been going through my mind the past couple days, keeping me up at night, distracting me at work, and I think I have finally pinned down exactly what it is that has been bothering me so much about the outlook that has been expressed here multiple times by different people in regards to donating money versus volunteering or consuming less or other forms of bettering the world.

Up until now I've mostly been participating in a philosophical kind of way, but the more I think about it, the more I think the arguments I've seen made here are actually counter-productive - ironically enough, in the exact kind of way that Sol's very first post was talking about.  So now I'm going to have to make the same disclaimer that was given to me a couple times recently: I don't mean this as a personal attack one anyone specifically.  I respect you guys, and I enjoy the discussions we have here, and most of all, I recognize that everyone here means well.  The topic of how much we do to make the world better has been broached, and now that pandora's box has been opened, I'll go ahead and tell you what I really think:

Your privileged is showing.

I realize that the average level of income among MMM readers is higher than the average US citizen (although it often seems that many of you forget that).  The upper middle class is disproportionately represented, and we even have some of the infamous "1%".
I grew up in on of the poorest cities in the SF Bay Area, with subsidized rent and government food programs, and then went on to live in various trailer parks across the US.  Even now that I am finally able to save a portion of my income, I have always lived around poverty.

Among the people I voluntarily associate with, my friends and co-workers and associates, the majority of my circles don't have much money - and here's the key part - because they have chosen to do something with their lives which is meaningful, but doesn't pay well.

D_ has a law degree, and gave up a successful career as a corporate lawyer in favor of working as an advocate for bicycle access in urban planning.
A_ graduated from UC Berkeley with a physics degree - at the age of 18. Smart enough to do anything.  She went on to get a Master's in education, so she could work as a math teacher in low-performing public schools.
J_ makes around 20k a year working as a special education assistant for special needs preschoolers.
B_ works for the local food bank
N_ is a fundraiser for a major non-profit foundation - one which has received a number of bomb threats due to a certain Fox News commentator's insane conspiracy theories.
M_ manages a non-profit community bike shop who's primary service is free of charge
JH_ runs a tiny underfunded non-profit which aims to educate poor inner city people about healthy nutrition as well as providing them access to fresh local produce by setting up farm stands and school gardens deep in the ghetto.
My friends with Master's degrees use said degree to work as teachers in public schools.
This is just a sample, but there are a lot more.
None of these people make much money.
And they don't make much money because they choose to do meaningful work instead of high paying work.


There has been a lot of mention - and general consensus - about how us in the first world have access to a life of luxury, how we have more than our fair share, and how this is largely at the expense of the rest of humanity.
But there seems to be some sort of disconnect about what that actually means.
That excess we have is in the form of fancy coffee drinks and iPads and new cars and cable TV and large wardrobes and the chance to travel to interesting places on vacation.
The destructive thing we do is consume.
The more one consumes, the higher their negative impact is.
There is a direct relationship between how much you spend and how much you consume, and between how much you consume, and the size of your negative impact on the world.
Again, to be clear, because this is important: there is a DIRECT relationship between how much you spend and the size of your negative impact on the world.

I think the real issue, in terms of our personal responsibility to the world is - has to be - our net impact.  You can not just look at how much one gives while ignoring how much they take.
You need to take all the charity and donations and volunteering and self-sacrifice, and then subtract all the consumption, and only then do you get a meaningful result.

If you are taking more than your share in the first place, then hell yeah, you should feel obligated to give something back.  But if you are taking 20 times your share, then giving back 10% is hardly anything to be proud of.  You are still in the red.  Way, way in the red.
Maybe the reason yall in the upper-middle-class feel so strongly about giving cash is because on some level you know you have more than your share to begin with.
But then, instead of acknowledging that imbalance in your own mind, you make it about the principal of giving, which basically lets you off the hook for giving back 2 units (after you took 20 units in the first place) - and then that in turn leads to the idea that everyone else should be giving back 10%, even if they didn't take so much extra to begin with.

It may not have been your intention, but more than one person has implied that they are morally superior to the friends and associates I listed above, because those people don't donate cash.
These are people who are spending their lives following their values, while you are sitting there feeling morally superior because once a month you open up your checkbook and give 10% of your massive wealth from the comfort of your living room - money that goes to paying my friends' living expenses while they go about doing the real work that needs to be done.

I'm calling BS on that.

That's like the investor who thinks he deserves the credit for creating the tangible things of value that the worker actually built with his hands.  Take away all the investors, and society still functions.  Take away all the workers, and it does not.


While y'all talk about the savings you can have by cutting cable or buying used cars, the people in my circles have never paid for cable, don't own cars, and still live with roommates as middle aged adults.  They don't do these things so they can retire early.  They do these things because that is what life is like when you aren't middle class.  Buying a new car isn't an option.

When someone actually donates so much money that all they have left is the $20k a year my friend makes as a special-ed teacher - 20k to spend on both living expenses AND savings, then come back and tell me about how meaningful it is to donate cash, or that it is a mandatory part of ethical living.  In other words, if you make 100k gross, donate 80%, not 10%.  Then, and only then, will I even consider donations to be as meaningful as actually living ones life according to their values.


The fact that I believe that the root of the first worlds destructiveness is consumption is the whole reason I am here (on the MMM forum) and promote MMM to everyone in my real life.
I really don't care about getting rich.  I would enjoy the freedom of FI, but it has never been a primary goal.  Like I mentioned in a previous post, I could easily expand my business following the standard capital model and make lots of money, but I find it unethical to skim money off the top of a worker's labor, so I will not expand and hire employees.
I rarely even read the investing posts.  They don't interest me.  I'm here to give bicycle and composting advice, to learn and teach about saving energy, to have thought provoking political and philosophical discussions like this one.
I'm a fan of MMM because it has a reason for everyone to consume less.  Whether you are rich or poor, selfish or socially minded or environmental, or just interested in being a badass human being, the message is the same: consume less.  Yes, it would be great if everyone in the world acknowledged their own privileged and wanted to give something back - but they don't.  That will never be universal.  And MMM says, even if you don't care about the developing world, even if you don't care about the environment, you should still drive less, you should still buy less clothes and electronics.  The wider that message spreads, the better the world becomes, as peoples' negative impact becomes smaller - even the people who don't give a damn about charity and are not going to change their minds no matter what you say.  And it gets all the people who care, but don't realize that the single most important thing they can do is stop being so destructive.

You want to donate cash, fine.  But get your priorities in order.
A person who drives an SUV 20 miles to work each day, eats meat with every meal, owns all the latest gadgets and has 4 kids is not making up for the damage they do to the world by donating a few thousand dollars a year.
Its like if you are trying to get out of debt and start saving by clipping coupons when you live in a 2500sq ft home and own a car bought new on financing.  If you want to do good, take care of the big stuff first.  Then, if you still feel like you need to do more, then by all means add in some donations and call it charity.
But don't tell me that because you give away some of your excess wealth you are morally superior to people who actually are avoiding the destructive habits that so many American's think of as normal.


In fact, there is my challenge for everyone in this thread:

Stop doing the major destructive things that we Americans (and to a lesser - but still large extent, the rest of the first world) do
Don't have (biological) children.  If you already do, fine, of course an existing person has inherent value.  But don't have more.  If you want to raise a child, adopt.
Don't eat meat (unless you personally raised it, hunted it, or at least went to the farm and witnessed the practices of the farm)
Don't drive a car
Don't take (voluntary) plane trips
Keep your spending for all (new) stuff less than however much you donate each year

Y'all brought this topic up, and have been fierce in suggesting it is everyone's responsibility to do the right thing.
So now I'm stepping it up a notch.
Lets get serious.  Not this feel good donate a little and feel good about it crap.  Actual personal sacrifice so that we don't take more than our share of the world's resources.
That should really be the minimum - the absolute minimum - that is expected of each and every one of us, and buying indulgences, carbon offsets, or charitable donations does not let anyone off the hook

…

[I was expecting a backlash, but in fact, I got quite the opposite: almost all of the responses were strongly supportive!  Well, almost all…]

…

By Bakari:

Re: Let's talk charities - (Afghani brick kilns and us)

« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2012, 08:52:29 AM »

Quote from: sol on August 01, 2012, 11:17:54 PM

Oh get off your high horse for just a moment.  Has anyone in your circle lost a child to dysentery, or are they also just as privileged?  The beauty of relativism is that it applies to everyone.  Claiming your moral superiority over me is no different than me claiming my superiority over Romney or an Ethiopian claiming his over you. 

I wasn't claiming to be part of that circle myself, nor was I claiming they were morally superior.  I was defending the notion that different people can choose to give back in different ways, and that accepting lower pay in order to have a more meaningful job is no less valid a way than donating money.  I was never the one who claimed that if a person doesn't do this one very specific action that I do (donating money) they are immoral.

Quote

Quote

Don't have (biological) children.  If you already do, fine, of course an existing person has inherent value.  But don't have more.  If you want to raise a child, adopt.

While we're on the topic of value systems, this point is one I take issue with.  It is valid if you assert that environmental health is more important than human happiness, but I tend to think all systems of value, ethics, and morality exist solely in relation to humanity.  I would gladly see the entire planet go up in flames if it ensured the continued survival of the human race.  I would voluntarily push an entire species to extinction to save an entire ethnic group.  I value people more than nature, not solely because I'm innately anthropocentric but because I think it is people who have made up the value system in the first place and thus people who get to decide how to apply it.

Your point about population control is a good one, if interpreted in the context of "more people will reduce the quality of life of those people who are already here".  It seems less defensible to me if interpreted in the light of "people are inherently bad because they consume resources".  The former need not be a mandate for population control if quality of life does not go down.  The latter requires population control a priori.

First, I believe that anything with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain deserves recognition as being part of a system of morality.  I doubt it is what you mean, but it sounds like you would approve of torturing animals so long as it amused at least one human.  For that matter, if we get to "decide how to apply it", wouldn't that suggest that we needn't have any value system at all, and that if any person decides on me-my-mine that is neither good nor bad?

Second, I meant it in terms of "more people will reduce the quality of life of those people who are already here" anyway.
Remember the whole infinite growth on a finite planet thing?  Us humans having children, that's the growth.    Its billions of individual couples  who want to have the experience of producing and raising children.  All it takes is an average of 2.2 children per couple, and you have exponential growth.
Even as frugal and environmentally conscious people, we still - as you just pointed out - consume far more resources per person than the third world, and when you factor in the relative resource use, US effective population growth is many times higher than that of the developing world.  If we tend to use roughly 20 times the resources, than having "just" the replacement level of 2 kids is equivalent to having 40 kids - ones that aren't likely to die of dysentery before they have a chance to have 2 (40) kids of their own (each).
There would be plenty to go around if we kept up economic development but halted population growth (actually, James made an entirely feasible argument that we have too many people already), but currently, even in the developed US, population is still increasing (not considering immigration).

Of all the things in my list, that is the biggest impact.
I put them in the order they were in for a reason - they are, more or less, in order of significance.

http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-economics-philosophy.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-forum-part-2-pursuing.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-forums-part-3-lets.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-forums-part-4.html
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-forums-part-5-ows-99.html

Prius C: A sub-compact hybrid, at a non-hybrid price.

by Bakari Kafele on July 13, 2012

The newest Prius, available for only 2 months now in the US, is a compact fuel-efficient hybrid.

One thing it is not, however, is a Prius.



The car is really a Yaris hybrid.

But, given that “Prius” is basically synonymous with “hybrid” among average Americans, and that the Yaris may seen by some as an “econ-o-box,” it is a smart marketing move on Toyota’s part to label it as a Prius. (In its home country of Japan it isn’t called a Yaris hybrid either, its called the Aqua).
Despite the misnomer, both the pricetag and the size reflect its true roots as a Yaris.
Sticker, at just under $19,000 baseline, is over 20% less expensive – $5000 less – than the standard model. Of 337 different models available for sale in 2012, only 17 cars are cheaper – and none of them are hybrids.

The first time I was in the original Prius, I was shocked at just how large the interior felt. It almost seemed more like a small minivan than the “compact” car it was classified as. I guess this shouldn’t have been surprising given how most long-lasting models have been super-sized over time (the modern Honda Civic, for example, is an entire 3 feet longer than the original Civic) – but it was not that long after the debut of the first US hybrid, the Insight, and I had assumed the Prius would be a 4 passenger version of that tiny car.

Ever since, it has seemed rather odd to me that the vehicle with the best (standard) mileage for sale in the US is one which falls in the 4th highest of the 5 size ratings. Surely, I imagined, something with a Prius like drive-train, but in a mini or compact size, should be able to get even better mileage.
It took them 12 years to do it, but the “Prius” C is just that.

It is over 1 1/2 feet smaller, 2 inches thinner, and almost 2 inches shorter than the original Prius, as well as 500lbs lighter – it’s actually lighter than many non-hybrid compact cars, such as the Fit, the Miata, and the new “Mini” Cooper.

The ‘C’ in the name stands for ‘City,’ where the small size would make parking easier and the lighter weight will help fuel mileage. As it does, at least in city traffic, where its meant to be used. By US EPA standards it gets 53mpg city, the highest rating of any (non-electric/plug-in) mass-produced commercially available highway capable auto in the country. At the same time, the EPA gives it 46mpg highway, slightly worse than the original Prius, and the two average out to a mixed rating of… 50mpg, exactly the same as the original Prius. However, it is very interesting to note that – although the marketing department is limited by law to only advertising the EPA generated numbers – Toyota’s own engineers estimate the mileage at a whopping 82mpg(US) under Japan’s mileage testing system. One tester even got 57mpg on the excessively hilly streets of San Francisco, so the official ratings are clearly conservative. Even a lead-footed car-guy tester with Car and Driver beat EPA with 55mpg on his test run.

Some of the reviews coming from professional car reviewers are pretty much what you would expect before even looking at them: this is a nice car – looks good, comfortable though small inside, handles decently, lots of technology and gadgets – but it doesn’t have enough acceleration. Its 0-60 is around 11 seconds. This apparently feels like driving through syrup to someone who is used to reviewing modern overpowered passenger cars, but for comparisons sake, a semi-tractor-trailer measures its 0-60 time in minutes or miles, and they are apparently capable of merging onto freeway onramps somehow. The more a particular reviewer is able to shift their frame of reference from performance to fuel economy, the more they liked it.

Bonus: everyone agrees that its 25-40mph acceleration of 3.6seconds – more what you’d use in city driving – is plenty.

Apparently consumer’s minds are coming around. Despite its small size and <100hp 10="" 2012.="" 2012="" 337="" 3="" 3rd="" 4="" 5000="" all="" and="" any="" aqua="" are="" as="" at="" award.="" been="" between="" by="" c="" can="" car.="" car="" cars="" combined="" compact="" countries="" deathtraps="" demand="" dying="" earn="" fact="" faster="" fastest="" first="" for="" have="" helped="" higher="" highway="" in="" institute="" insurance="" is="" it="" its="" japanese="" just="" keep="" literally="" minivan="" models="" month="" most="" much="" myth="" new="" of="" one="" only="" op="" original="" out="" over="" p="" part="" perhaps="" pick="" plug-in="" popular="" pre-orders="" prius="" produce="" production.="" projected="" rii="" riuses="" s="" safety="" same="" selling="" slowly="" small="" sold="" than="" that="" the="" them.="" they="" three="" time="" times="" to="" toyota="" two="" units="" up="" v="" was="" with="" world.="">
Then again, even though it is smaller than its predecessor, it isn’t really that tiny. While it is 1.5 feet less in front to back length than the original Prius, it is still a full 3 feet longer than the Scion iQ, another city car made by Toyota, which (unlike the Smart Car) has room for 4 passengers. The last 2 passengers might not be in luxury, but the reality is that most people, most of the time, don’t have 4 adults in the car. They have one, maybe 2, and possibly one or two children. So the iQ would probably be an appropriate size for many, if not most, households – especially if it’s the second of two cars. Of course the iQ gets nowhere near the C’s mileage (36/37), it is also $3,000 less.

I guess I will just have to keep waiting for a car to come out with the size of the iQ but the mileage of the Prius C. They are heading in that direction.

If one was going to get a new car now, the Prius C is the most efficient car out there, at a pretty reasonable price. In a decade or two, when used ones can be found on Craigslist for a few thousand, I might just pick one up myself. In the meantime, hopefully an ecomodder with a bigger bank account than mine will pick one up. I’d love to see what could be done with it in the right hands.

Jacob Aziza / Bakari Kafele; Ecomodder / Hypermiler

by Bakari Kafele on May 2, 2012

Good morning fellow ecomodders, hypermilers, and efficiency enthusiasts of all kinds.

The EcoModder blog has been inactive for over a year (save Tim’s two most recent updates), and I have been asked to help pick it up again.
So, since I also have not been active on this site for nearly a year, to start I thought I would re-introduce my self:
My name is Bakari Kafele.  My internet screen name (or at least one of them) is Jacob Aziza.
You may remember me from such internet sites as the EcoModder Forum and Instructables.com
I have an old (1983) full-size truck with a 6.9L diesel V8 that I use for deliveries and hauling and occasionally towing.  It would be a monstrosity for a commuter vehicle, but it’s about the smallest thing that could serve my work needs – most people hauling large or heavy loads (see below) would use a box truck, a flat bed, or maybe even a dump truck.


At the very least an F-350 or equivalent1-ton pick-up.
So, depending on how you look at it, getting 15 miles per gallon, (as I was five years ago), could be considered decent, given the type of work being asked of this old truck – 15 mpg being what I measured I was getting, which coincided more or less with what most people report getting in the same make model and year truck.
Then, in 2008, I read an article about Wayne Gerdes…


I found it to be revolutionary and inspirational.  It was one of those moments where it seemed like the idea should have been glaringly obvious all along, and yet somehow never occurred to me.  Slow down, accelerate with moderation, coast early instead of braking last minute.  Obvious stuff, right?
While I had always been environmentally conscious (I was running the truck on biodiesel most of the time,  and my personal transportation was – and is – mostly done by bicycle), I had also been a speed enthusiast in my youth.  The only reason I gave up on casual street racing, drifting, and other performance and trick driving in my Honda Civic was that I totaled it when I attempted to take a tight turn (the sign recommended 20MPH) at 55MPH.
I never put two and two together; never recognized the direct correlation between driving habits and resource consumption.
After reading the article, my driving habits underwent a 180 degree turn.
Despite having once received a letter from the DMV warning me that I was one point away from a suspended license, I now started driving below the speed limit, anticipating stops, and even coasting.
And after a few months, I was pulled over by the CA Highway Patrol once again.
Not that driving 50MPH on a 65MPH highway is actually illegal in CA; but because EVERYONE speeds here, all the time, the officer assumed I must be intoxicated to actually drive below the speed limit.  When I passed the breathalyzer, I was free to go.
I found that to be a (tragically) funny thing – I am surrounded by people breaking the law.  I am the one person NOT breaking the law.  And I am the one who gets stopped by law enforcement, because it is suspicious that I am not breaking the law like everyone else.  I thought that would be an interesting story to share, especially with people who were also trying to get the best possible fuel mileage from their own vehicles.
So I went online, and tried to find out if there were any discussion boards specifically dedicated to this “hypermiling” thing.
And that’s how I discovered:  EcoModder.com
Wow.  A whole new level.  Not only were there dozens of more in-depth secrets to driving technique, but people were actually modding their cars – not to make them faster or look cooler – but to actually make them more efficient.  Revolutionary, mind-blowing, and in the end as it turned out, life changing.
I won’t chronicle the entire process here, because I already did in the forums, as it was happening.
During this process a friend of mine (and fellow mechanic at the bikeshop I work at) convinced me to write about my truck mods for Instructables.com.
They happened to be doing an energy efficiency contest at the time, which I entered and took second place in, winning a T-shirt!
But even better, the founder and CEO of the company noticed my contest entry, and personally hired me to do a little work at his home.  How cool is that?
Throughout this time period, I had also been writing my own personal blog, and one of the founders of faircompanies.com, Kirsten Dirksen, happened to run across my article on anthropogenic global warming, in which I argue that the evidence is still inconclusive, but we should be acting as though it is true regardless of what science eventually finds.  She asked if I would post some of my content on their website, which I began doing.
About a year or so later she emailed me saying they were taking a trip to the US (from Spain) and asking if I would be willing to be interviewed on camera.
I was still new to hypermiling and hadn’t started ecomodding when the video was taken, so while I did mention driving the smallest vehicle that meets ones needs, fuel efficiency, and bicycles, the portion on my small home got most of the attention.
As my ecomodding habit began, since I was already posting eco related content to the Faircompanies website, Kirsten followed the development of the truck, and its transition from 15mpg to up to 30mpg. The next time she came to the US, several years later, she requested a follow up interview – and the new video which came out recently is all about hypermiling and ecomodding.

That brings us to today.
I recently looked into replacing the rear differential, as was suggested to me in the forums, but it turns out the 2.73  and 3.08 were never made for the stronger 8 lug / F-250+ wheels.  So I’m back to wanting to replace the transmission with one that has overdrive to lower my highway RPMs, but I haven’t found a diesel ZF with the granny gear yet.
I’ve been getting slightly lower mileage than my peak, just over 25 miles per gallon over the past 6 months, VS 29MPG average over the 6 months before that – but still a whole lot better than the 15MPG I started out at.

I suspect this is mostly due to having re-installed the alternator after my onboard 120v charger died, and being lazy about pulse and glide (as in, not doing it at all).
Between the video coming out and writing here, I’ve been more motivated to get my mpgs back up.
I’ll let you know how that goes.
UPDATE – I recently replaced all four tires with the General Grabber HTS, which is one of only two brands that is supposedly low rolling resistance in a tire with a 120 load rating.  I have only had them on about a week, so its too soon to say if/how much they will help (they are replacing on/off road tires in back, and dangerously worn road tires in front) – but what I can say is that the first time I drove with them fully inflated (the shop of course only inflated to 50 – even though I specifically asked them to go to the sidewall max of 80PSI) it was so easy to turn the (manual) steering wheel that for a split second I actually thought there might be something wrong.  I had gotten used to the old tires, and these ones turn with so little resistance that it feels like power assist by comparison.  That feels like a good sign to me.
I also just received my new battery charger (yesterday!) so I can take the alternator belt back off.  Between the two, I’m hoping to hit my 5th 30+mpg tank average – and then keep it there.  We’ll see…

"Mad Max" hypermiler questions and comments answered

As I am very sure that anyone who has found this blog is already aware, me and my work truck were recently featured on  TreeHugger, Huffington Post, HighT3CH, and Faircompanies.com, among others, for my new video (shot, edited, and posted to Youtube by Faircompanies' Kirsten Dirksen)

It is 14 minutes long, which is long by modern internet video standards, but still was only enough time to provide a little snapshot into the entire concept.
I've been crawling the web for the various re-posts and the comments on them.  Not surprisingly, given how unorthodox everything I'm doing is and how unfamiliar the general public is with the idea of hypermiling, there are a lot of questions and criticisms and misconceptions.
First, I'm not in or from LA.  I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Also, the grill block is not made of concrete!! :P
That error is just bizarre.  I wrote to treehugger's editor about it, but I haven't heard back yet...
[update: he wrote back, and fixed it]


Some of the more common questions and comments I have noticed follow:



Why don't you just use a smaller truck (or, "I get better mileage than that in my compact truck")?

What you see in that video is just one random day.  On other days I have to move a couple tons of soil or concrete, or the entire contents of a 1-bedroom apartment including furniture:

I recently had to move an original painting that was 5ft x 8ft.  Being able to lay it down flat with the cover on allowed me to transport it safe, clean, dry, and out of the wind and direct sunlight from the artist's home to the gallery.  Monday I will be needing to get several full size sheets of plywood, which can only lie flat in a full bed.
While most would put loads this size into a box truck or a flat bed, or even a dump truck, I am using a 170HP full-size pick-up. 
When you look at it this way, my truck could be considered small.

Of course, if you aren't a hauler, there is no reason you should be driving a full size truck.
Everyone should use the absolutely smallest vehicle that meets their needs.  For the majority of Americans that probably means a compact car, or even a motorcycle.

The point of the video isn't the specific number "30".  The point is that it is 15mpg better than when I started.  The same can be done with any vehicle.  If you are currently getting 30mpg, apply the same ideas and you could be getting 45.  If you drive a Prius, you should be getting at least 70.  But since most Prius drivers drive like regular Americans, the real world reported mileage is closer to 45.

The best example of the same ideas applied to a small car is the Aerocivic

100+mpg in a regular old, non-hybrid car with no special engine technology.

Doesn't it take more fuel to start than it does to idle?
No.
No it doesn't.

That is an incredibly common misconception, that was started back before fuel injection and computer controlled engines were invented.  Even back then, it was likely only true for idling under 45-60 seconds, especially if the engine wasn't warm yet.  It certainly was never true for idling 5 minutes while you wait for the person you are picking up to come downstairs, or even at a 2 minute long stoplight.

In a modern car, if you are at a stand still for more than 10 seconds, you are wasting more fuel by idling than it takes to start the car again.

http://www.iwilltry.org/b/projects/how-many-seconds-of-idling-is-equivalent-to-starting-your-engine/
(note that the number 10 is very generously rounded up from 0.2 seconds!)

Another example: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/fuel-used-idling-vs-restarting-5144.html

The moral of the story is this:  NEVER IDLE.  You are getting 0 mpg.  You are not getting anywhere any faster.
It is about the same as taking a dollar bill out of your pocket and lighting it on fire.
Both in that it wastes your money, and that it causes unnecessary pollution.

Do not start your car until after you are fully settled, seat belt is on, foot on the brake, and you are ready to put it in gear and go.
Modern cars do not need to warm up.  There is literally no benefit to warming up a car before you start driving.
If you have to wait for someone to run in the store "real quick", turn off the engine.  If you know that the stop light you are at is extra long, shut the engine.  While you are waiting in the drive-through, shut the engine...
Actually, no! Just park, and get out!  Seriously, how lazy can we get?  It's a few feet to walk from the parking lot to the door. You get at least a tiny bit of exercise to burn off what you are about to eat.  And you'll get your food faster, because the line at the drive-through is longer than the line inside.  But I digress...


You are going to wear out your starter / clutch
Maybe, eventually...

First, it takes much less force to start the engine once it is already warm than it did first thing in the morning.

Second, if done correctly, bump starting uses very little clutch (and no starter).
The trick is a technique called double clutching - very similar to the technique used by semi-truck and race-car drivers.  Basically, when used in hypermiling, you shift into the highest gear and very briefly 'tap' the clutch up until it just barely engages, and then immediately depress it again.  Instead of fully engaging the engine with the wheels, you just 'bump' the engine a partial turn.  When the engine is warm, this is enough to re-start it.  Once it starts you step on the accelerator enough to match the engine RPMs to the transmission RPMs, and when they match (or close to it) you then release the clutch again.  This entire process takes place in about a second.  If you look closely, you can see me doing it at 5:02 in the video.

It may be that in the long run the clutch and/or starter lasts a few months less than they would have otherwise. 
If you buy a replacement starter from an auto parts store, they come with a lifetime warranty.
I've had to replace a couple (long before I started shutting the engine to save fuel), and all you do is walk in with a faulty starter, tell them your phone number (because I had lost the receipt but they keep records in the computer) and walk out with a new starter (also with the same lifetime warranty.)
So for the cost of replacing the starter just once you get a lifetime of starting it at every stoplight.
As far as the environmental impact, the starters you buy are refurbished, and the old one you turn in for the deposit is refurbished in turn.

Given that hypermiling saves hundreds or even thousands a year as well as preventing an equivalent amount of pollution, the occasional odd extra starter is more than worth it.



Accelerating takes more fuel than driving steady state, so why do you repeatedly accelerate and then coast - doesn't take that more fuel?
Accelerating does take more fuel than driving steady, and so that is an understandable confusion.
If car engines were 100% efficient, (or even remotely close to it) then the hypermiling technique, known as "pulse and glide" (P&G) would use more fuel than driving steady.

But engines are not 100% efficient.
The basic laws of physics dictate that no heat engine (which includes everything from gas and diesel engines to steam engines and coal power plants) can ever be 100% efficient.
No matter what technology produces in the future, any flammable fuel powered vehicle (including natural gas, biodiesel, anything that burns) will waste some of its energy on heat.

In a typical gas engine, efficiency is only around 25%.

In order to understand how much internal resistance is in a car engine, try this:
-Park on a perfectly flat area.  Make sure there are no parked cars, small children, or cliffs in front of you.
-Turn off the engine.
-Put the car in neutral and take off the parking brake. 
-Get out, and try to push the car.
You will be able to.  No matter how small you are, and how big the car is, you will be able to move it (albiet slowly) on flat ground in neutral.

-Now put the car into gear (engine still off)
-Get back out and try to push it again.
You will not be able to, no matter how big and strong you are. 

The difference you feel between the first try in neutral and the second in gear, that is the engine's resistance to turning.
Every time the engine is on, it has to overcome that internal friction with each and every rotation it makes - and it makes about 100 rotations every single second! 

In other words fully 75% of the energy in the fuel is used just to overcome internal resistance, to turn the engine itself. 
That's why it gets so hot (and why it needs a radiator).
75% of the money you spend on gas is not used to move you and your car around, it is used to make your engine hot.

On top of that, belt driven engine accessories and drivetrain losses absorb another 5-10% of the energy in the fuel.

That means all together, when the engine is running, well over 3/4 of the energy never even reaches the wheels.
And that is in optimal conditions, at the peak of the BSFC curve!*

Any time the engine is off, you are not wasting that 85%.

As noted earlier, accelerating takes more energy than steadystate driving, however, the internal losses don't change (a significant amount) in acceleration vs stead state.

So, if you can P&G with a 1:3 ratio (10 sec pulse, 30 sec glide) the engine is off 3/4 of the time. Over that 40 sec span, the 85% of potentially wasted fuel energy is conserved.
In order for that not to save fuel compared to stead state, it would have to require 4x more fuel to accelerate - and of course that is before even taking into account pumping losses or the fact that acceleration puts the engine in a more efficient part of the BSFC curve.

*(BSFC refers to the fact that an engine is more efficient at some speeds and loads than others. The peak is where you get the most torque for the least fuel, and what RPM and throttle position that corresponds to varies from one car to another, but it is always at least slightly more efficient during acceleration)

While coasting is more efficient in any car, it shouldn't be done in many cars.  Most cars with an automatic transmission should not coast at high speed or for large distances, as the engine circulates the transmission fluid that lubricates and cools the transmission.  Cars with a turbo charger should also be wary of turning the engine off during transit.  And of course, unless you have a very old car or have modified it, turning off the engine will change the steering feel and limit the number of power assisted stops (more on that later)


Driving slow is illegal

Driving excessively slow is illegal in some places.  Laws vary from state to state.  In my state it is not illegal to drive at 45mph on highways.  I am not aware of any state which has minimum speed laws higher than 45mph.  In fact, the maximum speed for commercial trucks in my state is 55mph - only 10mph higher than the lowest speed I go. 
(Anything slower than that does not increase efficiency anyway, because it requires shifting to a lower gear, which raises engine RPM.  In most modern cars optimal speed is between 50 and 60mph, give or take.)

When there is a specific minimum limit, it is usually (but not always) marked:

In practice its rare for drivers to drive below the maximum speed limit, but it is important to remember that the number on the sign is just that: a MAXIMUM.  It is not a requirement.  It is not even a recommendation.  And it is most certainly not a minimum.

If where you live there are highways that have a minimum speed of 50 or 55, I don't recommend driving slower than that.

For many vehicles, driving slower than that offers no benefit anyway.  Various factors determine the optimal speed for each vehicle; primarily how the transmission is geared, followed by how aerodynamic it is.  Optimal speed will usually be at whatever speed the transmission shifts into its higher gear (or the lowest RPMs in high gear without lugging, in the case of a manual).  For most modern cars this will be somewhere in the range of 45mph to 60mph. Unless you have a very old vehicle, its unlikely you will gain any benefit driving slower than that.


Driving slowly is dangerous

This misconception is almost as common as the myth that it takes more fuel to start than it does to idle.
And like that one, it is understandable how it got started:
Some traffic studies have found an increased accident rate for drivers driving below the average speed of drivers around them.

But here is the really important part:
Studies have also found that the rate of accidents that involve INJURY OR FATALITY goes down with a decrease in speed.

In other words, driving slow will increase the risk that you get a dent or scratch on your nice shiny car.  At the same time, it will also decrease the risk that you die in a fiery car crash!! 


So, given that there is a trade off, you have to ask yourself:  "which would I rather avoid: a dent - or losing a limb?"
Driving fast is the single biggest factor in injury and fatality accidents - more than drinking, more the cell phones, more than teenage drivers.  Speed has an exponentially bigger impact on accident severity than the weight of the vehicle.  In other words, driving 45 in a compact car is safer than driving 75 in a big SUV.
This is due to basic laws of physics, so it will never change, no matter what new safety features come out.
I could go on, but I already dedicated an entire blog entry to the topic, so if you are still unconvinced, you can see the math as well as the traffic study references there:
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/slow-down-my-philosophy-for-life-also.html

The fact that everyone around you is breaking the law, wasting gas, and endangering their lives, does not legally or morally obligate you to also break the law and endanger your own life to avoid inconveniencing them.  Even if every single other person on the highway is speeding, it is still all of them who are in the wrong.



You are interfering with traffic
Good hypermiling takes road and traffic conditions into account, and changes appropriately. 
In the video I am driving on a 4 lane highway with light traffic.  On a 4 lane highway there is no possible way for me to impede traffic.
I think this is common knowledge:  The left-most lane is considered the "fast" or "passing" lane.  The right-most lane is the "slow" or "merging" lane.  If you want to drive fast you should be in the fast-lane.
Kind of makes sense, right?
But the law says the maximum speed limit is 65mph (on most highways in my area, replace that number with whatever is your local limit).  That means the fastest car in the fast lane should be going 65mph.  That is the law.  I'm sorry, I don't make the rules. 
This means that every lane to the right of the left most lane should be going slower than 65mph, with the slowest traffic in the right most lane.
On a 4-lane highway, no one should be going significantly faster than me in the slow lane.
If they want to pass, they can change lanes.

In heavy traffic, hypermiling strategy changes.  I didn't happen to get stuck in any, so you don't see an example of it in my video, but someone else has made an excellent video with an example of how to drive efficiently in heavy traffic:

(click through to the original youtube page to see an excellent write up by wbeaty, the person in the video)

As you can see in this video, the act of driving efficiently actually makes traffic SMOOTHER for everyone behind you.  It is everyone else's erratic and aggressive driving which actually causes (or contributes to) the traffic jam in the first place.  If everyone drove this way, everyone would get where they were going much faster, much like walking in a calm single file line will get you out of a burning building faster than trying to shove everyone else aside. 

True, coasting to a stop light sometimes agitates drivers behind me who are used to driving full speed toward red lights and then hitting the brakes at the last moment.  But they would have had to come to a full stop anyway, so being "stuck" behind me is costing them zero seconds of time.  Do I feel bad for forcing them to save a little gas and help their brakes last longer?  I do not.


Isn't it illegal to turn the engine off while you are moving?
I might well ask you whether it is illegal to drive 66mph in a 65 zone, or to cross the street in the middle of a block with no crosswalk.
No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that this is a stupid and unenforceable law...
What I will say is that law varies from state to state.
In some states it is legal to coast in neutral, as long as the engine is on.
If you happen to live where that is the case, P&G is still beneficial, even if you coast while the engine is idleing (although not by as much).  (This is also important to note because automatics should not coast with the engine off at high speeds or for long distances)
In other states there is no rule about whether the engine is on or off, but you aren't supposed to be in neutral - but that doesn't mean you can't hold in the clutch while still leaving the transmission in gear.

What is perhaps even more important than the finer technicalities of the law is whether or not it is safe.
As noted earlier, by driving well below "normal" speeds (i.e. slightly above the legal lower limit) hypermiling is already much safer than regular driving.  In addition, to avoid having to brake, all hypermilers leave large following distances between them and the car ahead.  This, obviously, increases safety by a huge margin.
Finally, by being constantly aware of the road, conditions, and other vehicles around you, very little takes you by surprise.

There are no accidents.  There is only negligence. 

Regarding having the engine off specifically:  in most modern cars both the brakes and the steering are enhanced with help from the engine.
This is because Americans are incredibly lazy and spoiled.  I'm sorry.  I shouldn't rant.  Power steering just really bugs me.  I mean, really really really bugs me.  It is so stupid.  It is not hard to turn a steering wheel with a manual steering gear.  I mean, not even a little.  My first "car" was a 15ft long camper van with manual steering.  My current work truck has manual steering.  The ONLY time it is even slightly difficult is parallel parking.  Then it is some effort.  Nothing like running a 5k or bench pressing 100lbs, but it is more than no effort.  99.9% of the time behind the wheel is not spent parallel parking. 
So, in order to avoid having to put in a little bit of effort 0.1% of the time, car manufactures build in a complicated expensive system that sucks up 1-3mpg at all times.  It is hard to find a car, even an entry level model, that doesn't have power steering standard.  It is perhaps a reflection of us as a society that we are so fat and lazy that even after having had a gas engine do all the work of moving us from one place to another, we can't even be bothered to take the effort to turn a wheel in order to park the machine.
[end rant]

Where was I? 
Oh, right... shutting off the engine will take away the power steering.
The steering wheel will still work, but you will definitely feel the difference.
The best way to avoid that, (and improve your mpg at all times, any maybe even build a tiny bit of muscle during your daily drive), is to simply remove your power steering.  This is easier than you may think.  My girlfriend did it on her own, with basically no previous mechanical experience.** Basically you need to do just two things:
1) disconnect the lines from the pump goes to the steering axle, and
2) remove / replace the engine belt with one that bypasses the pump pulley. 

As far as the brakes go, there is a reservoir of brake boost, so after you cut the engine there is still brake assist for at least 1, usually 2 or 3, good hard brake pumps, enough for a panic stop in an emergency (which is less likely to happen if you are driving slow and have a good following distance, but its still better to have the option)

The last potential issue is turning the key too far, and locking the steering wheel.
I don't recommend turning the key one click too far and locking the wheel while moving.
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and word that a little more strongly:
Don't do that.
That would be bad.

All that is for a typical, unmodified car.
I have modded my truck specifically to accommodate engine off coasting.
My brake booster is electric.
My steering is manual (I actually installed a factory original manual steering gear, as it was optional equipment when it was sold - in other words, it is all OEM parts, although I personally did the downgrade)
I have an engine kill switch and starter on the gear shift column so I don't have to touch the key.

All of this means that all of the control systems function identically whether the engine is off or on, and therefor there is no increased risk from coasting.


**Specifically, she had done 1 oil change, and changed 1 flat tire before tackling the power steering delete project.



 Why don't you just buy something newer / better / hybrid / electric?

First of all, there are no hybrid or electric trucks available in the US that can handle the loads I move.

Second, newer vehicles are not significantly more efficient than old ones.
They SHOULD be, because engine technology has improved considerably, however those improvements have been used to make cars and trucks heavier, more powerful, and more feature rich.  My truck is powerful enough, and I don't need "features".

Third, my truck cost $2000.  I spent about another $800 on the mods.  And I ended up with a truck that gets better mileage than a brand new truck of comparable capacity would.  In fact, it gets better mpg than the average passenger car on US roads gets.

Fourth, by buying used I avoiding having additional mining and energy use in building and transporting another new vehicle.  Buying used is (almost) always easier on the environment than buying new, no matter how "green" the product or how "sustainable" the production process.

In the end, being environmentally responsible (contrary to popular belief) goes hand-in-hand with saving money.  Saving lots and lots of money.
Its win/win

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that covers just about everything.
I'm not suggesting that everyone go out and do everything exactly the way I did.
But I do hope people will think twice about what things they can do differently.
Small changes taken by large numbers of people has a greater impact than big changes done by just a few people.  If you do nothing differently after reading this besides driving slower and never idleing, I will have made a bigger impact on the world by writing this than I have by all of my biodiesel-solar panel-vegetarianism ways ever could.
So help me out.
Help out the Earth and the country, and as a side-effect keep a little more money in your own pocket next time you head to the gas station.

My Green Living Projects

Remember the scene in The Jerk where Navin (Steve Martin) gets really excited because the new phonebooks has arrived?
Well, the new phonebooks are here.

The mini-documentary on my life that was filmed by Faircompanies.com several years ago now has a sequel.
In this one I talk about my truck mods and driving style that lets me get almost double the mileage my truck initially got, saving me a couple grand in fuel charges each year.

My last video with them is up to almost a quarter million views, but the company has gotten a lot more subscribers since then, so there is potential for this one to be even more popular.

If you have already seen it, this post answers the most common questions, comments, and criticisms I have gotten so far:
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/mad-max-hypermiler-questions-and.html

 

, I next went to the computer and electronics recycling center, then the Berkley Recycling Center, and finally the Berkeley Transfer Station which recycles refrigerators. 
I try to avoid making a trip just for one stop.

Kirsten, who shot and edited the video, said she may end up making another one with some of the rest of the footage.  I talked a lot about saving money and the freedom and time it buys you, how not buying into consumerism is good for both the environment and your own finances, and other random things on various topics.  Like last time, I didn't prepare a script, I just sort of free-styled messages I'd like to share with the world.

So, anyway, this is just the latest in a series of eco themed internet media I have been a part of.
It is all spread out in various random places, and in many of them I used different pseudonyms. 
Here are some others:

Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, why NASA wouldn’t have stopped Apophis
This was the blog post that originally caught the attention of Kirsten of Faircompanies, which led to her asking me to blog for their site, and eventually to the video interviews.  Out of 6 years of blogging, its one of my favorites still.  I will eventually get around to moving it to this blogger server, and updating it (I have had the opportunity to have an in person discussion with several actual climate scientists since then!)

My green/environmental blog, on Faircompanies.com:
http://faircompanies.com/blogs/BioDieselHauling/

The original 3-part interviews with faircompanies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFXgg2XnI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJc8973GURk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF8msBy6bMM

Step-by-step instructions on how I did the truck mods:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Vehicle-efficiency-upgrades/
(this one won runner-up in the website's energy efficiency contest)

DIY small-scale independent (non-grid-istertie) solar system:
http://www.instructables.com/id/NON-grid-intertie-independant-solar-photovoltic-/

Saving energy without spending money upfront:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Not-your-average-save-energy-advice-use-less-en/

Rain-water fed self-watering garden box:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Large-Self-Watering-Planter-made-from-recycled-mat/

A bicycle is the most energy efficient mode of transport ever invented.  But producing one takes resources.  Buying one used is both cheaper and more eco-friendly.  But if you aren't already knowledgeable about bikes, how do you pick the right one?  Read my guide, thats how!
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/01/buying-bikes-from-craigslist.html

This is where the ideas for all of my truck mods came from:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/
It isn't my project, but I am a member.  I haven't been active for about a year, but I do have a lot of old posts there.  I highly recommend it for anyone who owns a car.
This site hosts my fuel mileage log from when I first began trying to optimize efficiency:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-log.php?vehicleid=2486

This isn't my project either, its another forum I am a (currently active) member of, and I highly recommend it to anyone who ever earns or spends money on anything, ever:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/index.php
It is basically about how any middle class American can become financially independent simply by opting out of the consumer culture and making some small lifestyle changes - and investing all the leftover cash that results.  A significant side-effect is having a much smaller negative impact on the world.

I realized my various internet persona were diluting my potential to be a simple/green living spokesman when a couple people on the MMM (Mr Money Mustache) forums mentioned they had read my 12v solar project on Instructables, but hadn't realized it was the same person. 
I am Jacob Aziza on Instructables, David Craig Hiser in the comments of YouTube, Bakari on MMM (and ERE) - as well as in real life.  Occasionally stuff I've written online is credited to Lenard Simp or Robert Paulson as well.  All me
Maybe its getting time to start branding myself with my real name consistently :P
Because, its only with an audience that my message can have any impact...

Minor celebrity

Minor celebrity

I guess I'm not all that surprised.

A video I did for an environmental blog (faircompanies.com) was posted on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJc8973GURk

It is almost up to a quarter million views!

I have been getting people all over the country tracking me down on Facebook and asking to be friends and asking questions after the see it.

Since there are probably plenty of people with the same questions who don't go to the trouble to track me down, I'm reposting my answers to some of those questions here:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe how popular that video has become.  It was done with no preparation, no script, no practice, really not even a clear focus (they split the interview into 3 parts, but the other two never gained any viewers)

Its funny, I don't really even think of it as a "lifestyle".
I guess maybe because I've been doing it so long.
I bought a camper van right out of high school, which I slept in during the week to avoid having to commute to work. My girlfriend of the time went on a 2000 mile bike ride, and when she came back she suggested we get a full size RV and move in together. Eventually an opportunity arose to join a traveling carnival in the mid-west, so we set out across the country. We ended up spending a year on the east coast before moving back to the SF bay area. We upgraded to the trailer in the youtube video not long before we ended up getting divorced. For the past 4 years I've been in one place, and don't really consider the trailer to be a vehicle.

So I have been in 3 sizes and types of RV, full timed on the road and in trailer parks, and lived in different climates, different size cities, etc.

For the most part, living in an RV is a lot like living in a house. Driving an RV is like driving a car.

You know, I never thought of what I did as "scavenging" until that video was taken. I didn't come up with a script in advance, and was just making stuff up as I went along. I didn't know it was a movement either.

------------------------------..--------------------

In answer to specific questions:

This is my 3rd RV.

-Length: 35ft
-Width: 8ft (slide out covers living room and kitchen, bedroom is smaller)
(total of about 250 sq ft)
-Weight: 8500lbs
-Towing: My 1983 biodiesel powered F-250 can tow it.  However, I've only moved it twice.  It lives in the trailer park permanently.
-Purchased: Used in 2005 (it was made in 1995)
-Cost: $7,500
-Manufacturer: Jayco
-Model: Designer Series 3120 FK SS Travel Trailer

Prior to this one, I had a 1973 27' "Robinhood" Class C motorhome (purchased for $2500) which I shared with my (now ex) wife and two cats.
Before that I had a 1969 converted Dodge B100 utility van Class B motorhome, which I never officially lived in full time, but stayed in during the week to avoid a long commute.

My camper van was small and nondescript enough to get away with sleeping in parking lots or on the side of the road. Then I moved in with my fiancee, and we upgraded to the Class C motorhome, which was big and old and in moderate condition. We spent much more on repairs than it cost us to buy it, but we drove it across the country and back, and lived in it for about 5 years, including an east coast winter. I currently live in the 1995 35' travel trailer which you see in the video, which cost me $7500 and has had almost no problems since I bought it. It is very spacious, comfortable, and efficient, and I have done very little to it. I live in a trailer park, which means I have to pay rent, but also that I have a permanent (legal) place to stay, access to water, sewer, electricity, phone, internet, and mail.

I lived for about a year in Northern NJ (just east of the Lincoln Tunnel) in the 27ft Class C.
Our sewer pipes froze, the cat's water dish froze, the solar panel on the roof got snowed over and the batteries died.  The temperature was regularly below 0 all through the winter.  I haven't lived anywhere where it gets above 100 regularly, but I stayed in a spot in CA that hit high 90s in the summer.
The RV was insulated, double walls with fiberglass in between, just like a house.  I'm fairly certain all modern RVs are.  They are also easier to heat and cool just because they are small, so there is much less air space.  In addition I tinted the windows to retard radiant heat loss.  When we were parked in NJ, I added rigid foam insulation all around the bottom outside of the RV, covering the wheel wells and trapping an air space under the RV.  I routed the furnace exhaust into this space so it would heat the floor and not just be wasted.  It was our first time living in snow, so we had no idea what we were doing (they make heaters specifically for pipes!) but once we got all the details worked out, we were able to live very comfortably.

My current rig is in a park in the San Francisco Bay Area in CA, and the weather stays nice here.  I very rarely turn on the central furnace, opting to use a cheaper and more efficient electric space heater (to heat only the room I'm in).  Now that I upgraded to a instant (tankless) waterheater, I am only refilling my propane about once or twice a year ($40).  I do still use the air conditioning when its hot.  Sometimes I end up paying $10 a month for electricity instead of $5.

I never expected so much feedback from that video!  I am happy to know it is inspiring people.  Feel free to ask anymore questions you may have if you go forward with it!

------------------------------..--------------------------
So, you are inspired to look into living small (and mobile)...

Where to start:
Decide the basic type you want. There are 6:

Class A - great big motor RV based on a bus body
Class C - slightly smaller motor RV, with an overhang above the driver compartment
Class B - much smaller motor RV, basically a large van
Travel Trailer - gets towed with a standard hitch
5th Wheel - has a hitch similar to a semi truck - need a special mount installed in the pickup that tows it - usually larger than travel trailers
Pop-up trailer (or tent trailer)- a travel trailer, but one that folds down for easy transport, walls are made of fabric
Camper Shell - entire RV installs on the back of a pick up truck.

They all have to be registered, whether or not they are driven (although on parked on private property, that is rarely - if ever - going to be enforced). If it was parked you could register it as not being driven for a discount (this is all in CA, I don't know about other states.) If you are just traveling through, its fine to just be registered in your home state (even if "traveling through" means staying for several months, or even years in most cases).
Motorhomes have to be insured if they are driven. Trailers don't (the tow vehicle needs to be insured). But its a good idea. I don't have full coverage on my truck, but my RV is my home, and cost me a lot of money, so I pay for the full coverage insurance. Plus, it also doubles as home owners insurance. Its less expensive than full coverage for a car or homeowners insurance.

Every style has its advantages and disadvantages. The main considerations are how much space do you want, and do you want it to be self-propelled or towed. If you plan to actually travel, a built-in engine (Class A B or C) is incomparably more convenient. If you plan to stay in one place, the engine in a motorhome just takes up space and makes it more expensive. The advantage of more size is, obviously, its more comfortable to live in and you can fit more stuff in it, but it becomes increasingly harder to drive, find a place to park, stay inconspicuous when parking on public streets, and is less efficient.

When I wanted to travel and stay low profile, I looked at motorhomes. When I wanted to stay in one place, I looked into trailers. With a motorhome driving is a lot easier. With a trailer you can separate the two and make use of the truck for errands or commuting.
Aside from that, the main considerations are size, age, and price. Size is a compromise between fuel efficiency (and easy of finding parking) and comfort.

Another huge consideration is your budget. The newer you can buy, the less maintenance and repair headaches you will have. Newer will be more expensive up front, but it can be worth it. A motorhome is always more expensive than a trailer. The bigger the RV, the more it will cost. A higher quality RV will have more insulation, and more features (some of which are more useful than others).

All RVs are energy efficient, by their very nature. They are designed so that you can go out to the woods and live off of battery power and stored water for a week or two, so they have to be. There are ways to increase its efficiency even more (tinted film on the windows, LED lighting, instant water heater, solar panel), but it makes a lot less difference than it would in a house.

Its less expensive to heat and cool a small space, due to the fact that its a small space. Insulation still makes a big difference, and newer trailers do much better in that area than older ones. It also helps to put plastic sheeting over the windows (I use saran wrap) to make a cheap double pane, and to use spot heaters instead of the central furnace.

There are 2 types of trailer park. Mobile home parks are usually long term, and charge by the month, like an apartment. RV parks are short term, and charge by the day, like a hotel. They are geared toward vacationers, and are much more expensive.
On the road you will more likely come across RV parks.

You can also always park at Walmart. Their policy is that RVs can stay in their lots (as long as there is space) even if they aren't customers. That saves a lot of money on RV park fees. We would usually go to an RV park one or two days of the week in order to empty the waste tanks, fill the clean water, wash clothes...

Things that might not be obvious to someone just starting out:
Use RV specific toilet paper. Regular stuff will clog. You can get it at RV parks, RV supply stores, or walmart.
Drive slow. In a big square vehicle mileage and safety are both going to drop really fast with even small increases in speed. No more than 55mph, or 5mph under the speed limit, whichever is lower.
Try to drive with water tanks as low (or empty) as possible. The weight will affect mileage, handling, and braking distance. Keep tires fully inflated for the same reason.

I always use city water. Water in the US is safe to drink even in the worst cities. Bottled water has lower standards imposed on it, and is often tap water in a bottle. It is crazy inefficient. In a park you get pressure by hooking a garden hose up to the RV, the rest of the time you fill the water tank and use the onboard pump.

I am not familiar with purpose built "green" RVs, but I am familar with those systems. They would be fairly easy to retrofit (for much less money!!) if one wanted to. I have a instant water heater and am only spending about $40 a year on gas, so, although it would be cool to have a solar pre-heater, its really not worth it. Same with electricity - on my old RV I did install a solar panel, but in the new one I am only using around 50kWh a month, at $5 a month in electricity, I don't have much incentive to buy a $500+ solar system.

For the most part though, living in an RV is a lot like living in a house. Driving an RV is like driving a car.

RVs are terribly inefficient at driving. Here are some ideas of ways you could improve it:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/..showthread.php/okay-heres-..challenge-mod-my-winnebago-..1051.html

http://ecomodder.com/forum/..showthread.php/getting-..mileage-motorhome-9123.html

And, of course, my own page:
http://www.instructables.com/..id/Vehicle-efficiency-..upgrades/