I could be wrong on this one, but my instincts are telling me it’s more environmentally sound to use matches instead of lighters. On the one hand, to make a match, you need to chop down trees for both the stick and the packaging, and there’s the phosphorus on the tip; but then to make a lighter, you need the plastic and/or metal holding case as well as lighter fluid. Although you can refill most lighters, you still have to buy another canister of butane; at least with matches, you can recycle the box, and there’s no toxic waste.
Now, I’m no phillumenist — I love a good barbecue lighter for reaching the wicks on candles that have melted to the bottom of the glass, and it’s not exactly cool to be at a concert waving a series of lit matches back and forth during some power ballad — but there’s something about that smell you get with real wooden matches, especially my favourite brand, Redbird, that brings along memories of camping and bonfires and s’mores (gotta love the Wikipedia entry here with a photo of “a common s’more” — why not show a picture of an extraordinary s’more?).
So the next step in leaving a lighter footprint: no more lighters.
Photo courtesy of photoplasia at Flickr
Hey, I think there is a good alternative to both
It’s a type of kitchen lighter, only it’s not really a lighter because there is no fuel in it. It’s more of a sparker actually. Yes it is made of plastic and metal but at least it will be tree/packaging/petroleum free for a really long time.
After you’ve lit the flame, what are you doing with your burned match stick? Composting it? Saving it for winter kindling? I ask because I’ve collected a small pile of used wooden matches and toothpicks. I’m thinking paper matches might be less wasteful.
Dude, buy a ZIPPO and use it for life!