Strollerderby : thrifty

Time for Gummy-Worm Compost: Green Gingerbread House Competition

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:30:00 GMT

Are you fond of gingerbread houses, but always found them a little, well, wasteful? Perhaps even (dare we say it?) too greenhouse-gas emitting?

Step up to the plate! Have your gingerbread and green it too! (Sorry. Couldn't help it.) It's the 2nd annual Bake for a Change challenge, wherein gingerbread houses compete for the title of most sustainable!

No, really, check it out. The rules are simple: it must be all edible, contain at least four sustainable design elements, and include a minimum of four walls, a floor, a door, two windows, and a roof. The hosts even helpfully include links to both sustainable design primers and ginderbread recipes. Enter by uploading pics to Flickr. And there's still time: deadline is Dec. 31.

The winner from last year was creative and super super nerdy (licorice shoelaces representing the "ground-source heat-pump external ground loop" anyone?).

I'm a little fonder of the approach of Janet Stemwedel over at Adventures in Ethics and Science, who, along with things like an orange-peel gutter leading to a rain barrel, also took the mandate more literally, using "recycled candy from a kindergarten graduation 4.5 years ago" and "ancient lollipops" and reducing the carbon footprint of making new gingerbread by using "reclaimed graham crackers." (Her family's house is pictured above.)

That may be stretching the "edible" rule a bit, but it's at least as much in the spirit as artificially-flavored-wafer-cookie solar panels, you know?

More by this author:

Presents for Cheap—If You Can Sew

Miriam Axel-Lute — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:37:00 GMT

Ah, the holiday presents frenzy in the midst of economic hard times. A lot of us are feeling the squeeze—what are we to do? The good folks over at You Can Make This are here to help—kind of.

Specifically, the DIY site has launched a Thrifty 50 challenge, where you can follow along the escapades of 50 cheapskate over-acheiving black-belts in crafts who each appear to have devoted an entire room of their house to a "stash" of fabric, ribbon, and assorted other craft materials, making it deceptively easy for them to whip out clothes, bookmarks, centerpieces, and "door hangers" for practically no cost. (Am I the only one who's never heard of "door hangers"? They appear to be little pillows hung from ribbons on your doorknob for some reason. I don't get it. See picture.)

To be fair, some of the simpler, more useful ideas they're churning out do seem within the reach of a mere mortal like me, and some even seemed fun, but I still have to admit to being skeptical of the "super-cheap yet Martha Stewart" ethos. First of all, where in the world do they find the time for this? And secondly, the gift lists many of the 50 are trying to fill seem to contain not only multiple kids, but extended lists of in-laws and even kids' teachers (really!).

In recognition of these, um, ambitious, obligations, apparently participants don't actually have to come in under $50 total, as long as "some portion" of their gifts are under $50. Which means . . . what, exactly? That you're at least spending under $50 per gift? With all that time put in, I sure hope so. Otherwise it's a bit like New York magazine's idea of cheap. To be fair, reported actual costs per project so far seem to mostly come in well under $5, not counting depleted "stash," so even if the rules are lenient, these folks do knw how to stretch a dollar.

As for me, I'm torn: I like the idea of handmade gifts, repurposing things you already have, and not feeling guilty over not buying expensive crap. And I love the feeling of having just the right thing for someone. I do expect to be cobbling together a few pieces of decidedly unfancy dollhouse furniture for my kid this year, and I might pick up a few other ideas from these sewing ninjas.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that hanging on to the idea that we need to have the perfect, special, professional-quality thing for everyone we know plus the mailman, even when we're broke, is less stressful or less distracting from enjoying the holiday season than the mall-warrior approach. To me, I think "thrifty" is going to mean downplaying the presents mandate to its proper, small, part of the festivities.

More by this author:

Explaining Financial Troubles to the Kids

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:57:00 GMT

With disappearing 401(k) savings, exorbitant gas prices, and piling up medical bills, many families are being forced to make serious changes in their spending patterns. This can be a shock for teens and preteens who grew up in the 90s, during affluent times in which the prevailing wisdom in the U.S. extolled making your kids happy. Average teen allowances nationwide are upwards of $100 a month, and many high schoolers have credit cards.

But last week, a survey found that teen spending had dropped by 27 percent. Considering that much of this spending money comes from allowances or gifts, we can be pretty sure the kids are not being thrifty out of choice.

As parents struggle to explain the crisis to teens freaked out by dire newspaper headlines and cutbacks in family expenditures, parents may see their kids as spoiled or bratty, while teens may see their parents as unreasonable or over-anxious. One mother interviewed by the New York Times started showing her confused and upset teenagers the monthly bills. Another father threatened to charge his kids’ friends rent for sleeping over.

Some families have found the crisis to be a good opportunity to become close with their children in new ways. Asking your kids to brainstorm about ways to cut back on family spending makes them feel valued and useful, and helps prepare them to find their own way in less than optimum economic times. Some parents have stopped hiring lawn cutters and housecleaners, choosing instead to pay their kids (far less) for the same services.

How have other parents changed your families’ spending patterns? Have you talked to your kids about the changes?

Photo: New York Times