With the recent announcements from both Murdoch and Packer camps about charging for Web content, it looks as if print is finally conceding defeat to online media. I’m sure there are folks out there who count this as a triumph for the environment, but ironically, reading news on the Internet may not be as eco-friendly as they think; the environmental cost of making the computer plus the electricity required to run it probably far outweighs the impact of cutting down a few trees (which are renewable anyway). However, far be it for me – a geek – to harp on too much about the ills of the Internet, so let’s get back to bashing the amount of paper waste that is produced on a daily basis by the news :-)

On an average day, I might read about 15% of the Sydney Morning Herald so in a sense, 85% of that printed material is going to waste. I’m pretty sure very few people will read the paper cover-to-cover, classifieds and all, which makes it conceivable that a large amount of wood pulp and ink are being consumed for nothing. Notch that one up as a win for the Internet, where what you don’t read, you don’t click.

After I’m done reading a paper, it will of course go into the recycling. But on the odd occasion we’ll also use them to wrap vegies for storing in the fridge, and cleaning windows (non-colour newsprint is great for soaking up window grease). OK, so you can’t do that with the Web. Even Stevens.

Jenny used to bring the paper home from work, so while I’d always get the news late I still got the satisfaction from doing a teeny-weeny bit for the environment. But now that that her works has stopped getting the paper, my source has been cut off and I’ve simply stopped reading news. I don’t think I miss it, so maybe that’s the most efficient method of all… overall winner: me.

I realised that my last few articles have all been about shopping, so let’s take a break and look at other ways in which you can make a difference in your world for a change :-)

You probably already know this, but Australia’s climate follows a cyclical weather pattern influenced by various winds and ocean currents, which scientists have dubbed El Niño and La Niña. A friend of mine recently “predicted” that we’re heading towards another drought because of El Niño, which, according to studies by the Bureau of Meteorology, means that we can expect less rain.

The cycle sure seems to come around quick! It wasn’t all that long ago that we were on severe water restrictions. Maybe if we get the jump on this one early it won’t be so bad, so here are a few water saving tips that to try:

… in the shower
The best way to save water in the shower is by installing a low-flow shower head, which reduces the amount of water required without sacrificing the “punch” of a regular shower head. Better still, a quick google will help you to locate businesses that give these away for free (with some even offering free or heavily discounted installation).

Shorter showers will also help save water, but if you’re really looking for extreme water savings, then you could also try using a bucket to collect water while waiting for it to heat up, and using that to water the garden or flushing the toilet with!

… in the kitchen
Before I met my wife Jenny I used to wash the dishes with running water, but she helped me to see the light. The best way to wash dishes is to soak the dishes in the sink first, which both helps to reduce water use as well as the amount of scrubbing required. If you have an extreme kitchen with two sinks, use one for soaking and one for rinsing.

… in the laundry
Wait for a full load of washing before you run the washing machine. Apparently each load uses around 17 buckets of water depending on your washing machine, so less washes means less water. An extreme tip here would be instead of letting the dirty water run down the drain, keeping it for flushing toilets. I don’t think it’d be so good for watering the garden, to be honest :-)

I’m sure you know of many more ways to save water around the house. Share them with us in the comments!

Lastly, just for a bit of fun, here’s a video IBM created about how technology can be put to use to make water “smarter” (Disclaimer: I work for IBM). Check it out!

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that Coles and Woolies have started introducing per-unit pricing. That is, the price tag for products won’t just show how much the product costs, it’ll also show in smaller print how much it costs according to a standard unit of measure.

For example, for a 500g jar of Brand A peanut butter costs $6.49, and the price tag also shows you that it costs $1.30 per 100g. This becomes useful when you start comparing different sizes in the same product range. Say the 200g jar of the same brand peanut butter costs $2.99, but because that works out to be $1.50 per 100g it means that the smaller jar is more expensive in terms of bang-for-buck. It’s also useful for comparing prices between different brands, as well as figuring out whether discounted prices are really all that special.

Unit pricing has been standard practice at Aldi, and European supermarkets in general, for a long time. Australian retailers have been slow to adopt it though, due to disagreement between the major parties about how things are measured. Chief amongst their concerns is what constitutes a “standard unit”, because not all products are equal.

Take toilet paper rolls for instance (my pet topic) – because not all rolls from all brands are the same, should you give the price per roll or per sheet? You have 2, 3 and even 4-ply tissues now, with 190 sheets per roll or 200 sheets per roll. Which measure, from sheets, rolls or even weight, is the most relevant information to help customers make a choice?

That aside, unit pricing is otherwise a very useful tool to help you shop economically.