Living the Good Life by Linda Cockburn
November 26, 2007 by marygm
Living the Good Life is the record of six months spent by an Australian family; Linda Cockburn, her partner, Trevor and their six-year-old son Caleb, in an experiment to try to reduce their impact on the environment to a minimum. To drum up more interest in their project, they also describe it as an attempt to live without money although Linda is at pains to say that this is not their main motivation.
Before the experiment, Linda and Trev were working long hours, travelling a lot and leaving Caleb in full-time childcare. They decided to look for a better way to live and this describes their attempt to find it.
The blurb on the back describes this non-fiction book as a ‘practical, fascinating and inspiring account’, an analysis I largely agree with. But what distinguishes it for me from much of the literature on the environment is its positivity and its humanity. So, for the lack of a better system, I’ve taken these four themes as headings to structure my review: practicality, inspiration, positivity and humanity.
Practicality
This is not a ‘how-to’ book, rather a ‘how-we-did-it’ book although it does give a lot of practical information about the kind of changes made. It is written in a readable, entertaining, diary style interspersed with recipes, news items, statistical information and photos.
Although this ‘adventure’ is far from a spur-of-the-moment affair, Linda wisely jumps straight into the action of her story allowing us to discover gradually the preparations and motivations that pre-date the six months.
Little by little, we discover the practical measures they have taken which individually appear manageable (well, depending on your perspective, most of them do anyway!) but which, together, add up to quite a significant impact. They harvest rainwater, use a dry, composting toilet, use solar energy to heat water, put away their car in the garage, grow almost all their own food using organic methods and gave up alcohol, packaged consumer goods, chocolate, books (thank goodness for libraries !) and many other things we consider essentials. They even grew their own biodegradable toilet-paper in the form of loofahs.
Some of the detail may be of less relevance to readers in the northern hemisphere as much of the data refers to Australia and the very different seasons, climate and crops can be a bit disorientating but the essential principles remain the same.
Although they tried their best to ‘stick to the rules’, they were sensible; taking Caleb to the doctor when he needed to go; taking ‘a day off’ for Easter. Their aim was to live sustainably but well.
Inspirational
Throughout the book, Linda dispenses facts and figures on our impact on the environment but almost always in a digestable form (watch out for the mistake in the table on page 217) and certainly they provide food for thought. Her enthusiasm is infectious and would encourage the laziest environmentalist to take stock. She leads the reader to question what their priorities are and the extent to which they are the slave or master of money and consumerism.
Positivity
Although Linda doesn’t hide the difficulties of their lifestyle, such as the trials and tribulations of living with a noisy, belligerent goat, the worries of drought conditions, the hard work involved, she is extremely positive about the other changes it has brought to their health, family life, mental well-being. I did wonder about her claim to have a lot of free time when she grows, produces and cooks all their food, home-schools her child and writes although it is highly possible (probable, even) that she is much more organised than I am.
The negative aspects of their adventure tend to be more visible in their contact with the outside world. Trev, who continued to work full-time, experienced more difficulties with temptations from the wider world. Caleb gets upset when he is not invited to a birthday party in McDonalds and during the course of the six months asks to be home-schooled. Linda openly says that they don’t socialise much and live pretty much like hermits. Although she denies that they are becoming too introverted it did make me think about how difficult it must be to integrate when out of sync with the society you live in. Recently I called in on a friend who was washing-up while we talked. She had no stopper in the sink and allowed the hot water to flow freely while she washed, stopping to chat as she cleaned her kitchen. Although I am not as environmentally committed as Linda is, it made me very uncomfortable and unable to concentrate on the conversation. How easy is it for people diametrically opposed on this issue to be friends?
One statistic was a grain of sand in the oyster for me though. Linda claims that ‘the ecological footprint of each person should be 1.7 hectares’ and that ‘our six-month experiment resulted in an ecological footprint of exactly 1 hectare, well within the prescribed allowance’. Towards the end of the experiment she also says ‘It’s too early to start spouting firm numbers, but it wouldn’t be too far off to say it’s around 5 % of average household use on all counts.’ It’s worrying if this can be interpreted to mean that it would require all families to reduce by 93% their consumption of power, water, petrol, waste etc in order to achieve the ‘allowance’. How feasible is this?
Humanity
One of the things that makes this book an entertaining read as well as a stimulating one is getting to know Linda, Trev and Caleb. They have their faults, their disagreements, their self-doubts but are all the more likeable for it. They have fun together, they enjoy life, they are proud of their achievements.
All too often, the climate change deniers, claim an end to all the pleasures of life if we can no longer consume extravagantly as we do now but, cliché though it might be, this book reminds us that the best things in life really are free (or at least very cheap) and that the reason the environment is worth fighting for is precisely because life is a great thing and worth passing on.
Snowbooks (5 Jan 2007), 304 pages, ISBN-10: 1905005296
Related posts:
- Interview with Emma Barnes from Snowbooks (interview by Rosy)
Really enjoyed reading that, Mary. Not just a review but a bit of a wrestle with the whole concept behind the book too, which made it extra interesting.
I am with you on this: “I did wonder about her claim to have a lot of free time when she grows, produces and cooks all their food, home-schools her child and writes although it is highly possible (probable, even) that she is much more organised than I am. ”
Err…my god. Is all I can say. I hardly manage to heat up my microwave meals! But that might have a lot more to do with laziness than time, come to think of it.
Trouble is, I am always unconvinced that this sort of individual extreme living is the answer when there are quite simple measures - like stopping people having several cars for example - that governments are just refusing to act on. Even measures like putting in proper bike lanes and stopping people (on my street for example) turning their tiny front gardens into car parks so that one small family can own three or four cars - could transform the way we live at a stroke. But you don’t want to get me started on all that stuff.
[...] Linda Cockburn: Living the Good Life (review by Mary) [...]
I’m amazed that this family achieved it.
This is depressing though, and I wonder if it would turn off readers: ’ It’s worrying if this can be interpreted to mean that it would require all families to reduce by 93% their consumption of power, water, petrol, waste etc in order to achieve the ‘allowance’. How feasible is this?’
Really interesting review. Not the sort of book I’d normally read but I’m intrigued.
Thanks for commenting, both of you. The thing is, as you read the book, you realise that they actually have very enjoyable, fulfilling lives, and Linda claims (and I can fully see her point) that their new lives are much more enjoyable than their old ones. Where the positivity comes in is that they feel good because they are active and doing something about the problem, which, no matter how you slice it, is pretty mega-depressing.
George Monbiot’s analysis of the situation is in line with Linda’s. He says that it will require an 80 to 90% reduction in our consumption of all energy in order to curb the problem so that it doesn’t veer completely out of hand.
So I’m not sure, Rosy, that there are any ’simple measures’ that will sort the problem out. There is no way out that won’t hurt. What Linda is trying to say here (I think) is that in fact it doesn’t hurt as much as people think it will.
Interesting, a very relevant dilemma. One benefit of being poor is that it reduces your environmental footprint significantly. - they seem to have discovered this, only from the opposite direction, if you see what I mean.
I can’t find the quote, Ariadne, but she makes the distinction somewhere between chosen ‘poverty’ and enforced poverty. Chosen poverty is a decision to live more simply and find fulfillment elsewhere, other than in the possession of material goods and has to do with reducing stress. Enforced poverty, however, can be very stressful to live in.
“It’s worrying if this can be interpreted to mean that it would require all families to reduce by 93% their consumption of power, water, petrol, waste etc in order to achieve the ‘allowance’. How feasible is this?”
Why is it worrying? It sounds like they had a great time for 6 months, and had they had some friends and neighbours who were doing the same thing, or at least more sympathetic, it would have been great all round. I’d love to live like that (and would, if I didn’t feel the need to take more immediate political/direct action), and if we only need to drop our consumption by 93%, and Linda and co. dropped it by 95% on their own, without much guidance, what’s to be scared of?
rosyb, you have to remember that when she claims to have more free time, even while working in the garden, etc, that she’s not working a 9-5 job. That makes things a lot easier (I mean, where does most of your money go, really? transport, food, energy, and random crap that mostly can be done away with, like magazines, crazy amounts of clothes, etc.). Not having a job, and living the way these people did does away with all of those problems. The only remaining thing really, would be some bills, but are they really necessary?
People who do this sort of thing nowadays are seen as modern Swiss Family Robinsons; a period of adventure, but it never turns into a sustainable lifestyle, which is unfortunate. Six months isn’t really a long time, especially considering that some of their methods probably took months to become effective. Still, I would like to read this book, though I’m sure I’d be plaugued with guilt at all I could be doing to help the planet. I try to be an environmentalist, but I’m sure there’s more I could be doing.
Doesn’t the little boy look like a cherub on the cover?
Hi naught101, to answer your question, what I find worrying about that is that it’s not going to happen, at least not voluntarily. A reduction of 20% or even up to 40% might be achieved relatively easily because there is a lot of ‘fat’ in the system but every percentage after that will hard gained. Some people will do it but so many more will not. There has to be some obligation to comply but which politicians have the courage to apply that?
Jackie, it seems that this family are continuing their efforts in this area and are now trying to self-build a strawbale house. I’m not so sure that people who do this do give up easily because the motivation behind their efforts is not a temporary one. And I don’t think you’d be plagued with guilt if you read iit, I found it more encouraging than condemning.
Mary, I’ve got to agree - the majority of people will never make changes of this kind, not even relatively minor ones, unless they absolutely have to. Also, these efforts are much more likely to succeed if they have the backing of the entire community.
Not to mention that in order to try ‘voluntary poverty’ you need to be comfortably off to begin with. In our society it’s almost impossible to break out of the vicious circle of wasting money and natural resources unless you’ve got some ready cash.
Glad to hear the family is continuing their efforts in this direction.Will they be writing about the strawbale house? There’s been a couple of those built here in cold Clevlenad, which might work in summer, but are they warm enough for snowy winters? There’s been a couple short articles about them in the newspaper, but I’d like to read more.
I agree that folks won’t reduce their dependence on natural resources unless it’s mandatory. It’s a form of growing up & we all know humans hate to do that.
Enforced poverty, however, can be very stressful to live in
Oh, tell me about it. My point was that the poorest people on the planet cause the least damage to the environment, and suffer the most from the damage caused by the richest people.
That’s exactly it, Ariadne. And it’s a situation which was liveable-with (barely) when we thought the world’s resources were inexhaustible but now that we knew they are far from that, it’s intolerable. A statistic from the book struck me: 25% of all food purchased in Australia (this probably applies to all developed countries) is not consumed. This in a world where 15 million children die of hunger every year!