Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2012
Eco-cartoon for kids!
My daughter discovered a great show on Netflix: Fishtronaut, about a fish, a young girl and a monkey who solve environmental mysteries in a nature preserve in Brazil. It's actually very intelligent and informative, teaching kids about everything from the habitats and lifestyles of different animals, to recycling, to hydroelectric power. And due to my love for all things Brazilian, the show's Brazilian setting is just the icing on the cake. (Note: the show airs on Discovery Kids in the U.S., in English).
Monday, March 5, 2012
Future vs. present tense
My blogging has dropped off tremendously... partly due to the busyness of life, but also partly due to my increased attention to current politics. I still do most of the same green things I've been doing (or have begun doing) since starting this blog, from making or buying natural health, beauty and cleaning products (except toothpaste!); to using reusables as much as possible (cloth napkins and towels, reusable menstrual products, water bottles, straws, sandwich bags, etc); to buying second-hand; to keeping the heat turned down, conserving water, and so on. But I haven't done much to seek out new or better ways to live green.
I have thought about why, and one big issue is that current political issues seem so pressing (folks are questioning whether insurance should cover birth control? Really?!), that environmental issues seem less important, or at least less urgent. Of course, that's nonsense: climate change and other environmental issues have global consequences that could potentially overshadow all other concerns.
I learned recently about the research of Dr. M. Keith Chen of Yale University. He has been examining the impact of language on cultural norms, and he has discovered something interesting: nations whose primary language has a future tense (such as English) do a poorer job of preparing for the future than nations whose primary language uses the same verb form to communicate present and future actions (such as Mandarin or German). People in countries with strong future-time-reference (FTR) languages, such as the U.S., are less likely to save for the future, eat healthily, or engage in a whole host of other behaviors that require delayed gratification in order to achieve a future payoff.
Of course, the caveat, "correlation does not equal causation" always applies. That said, the researcher is speculating about reasons for this trend. His idea is that when you use different words to communicate about the future, it's easier to see that future as separate from the present and therefore to put off future payoff actions in favor of what feels good now. Thus, when you say in English, "I will start my diet tomorrow," it's easier to put off the start of that diet than when you say in another language, "I start my diet." The latter feels more immediate, and you might thus be more likely to take action today.
I have been learning about affirmations, and the same concept applies. When you say an affirmation, you are supposed to say it in the present rather than future tense; for example, instead of saying, "I will become more patient with my child," you might say, "I am more and more patient with my child." The idea is that right now you are becoming that which you desire, even if you haven't fully arrived.
I wonder if this can apply to how we think about the environment? I have shared before that my green journey began when my daughter was a baby, because I wanted to ensure that the world would be a healthy place for her future. But maybe I should be thinking more about the here and now, and perhaps that will stimulate my urgency. In other words, today I am living in a way that makes the world a better, more healthy place right now.
What do you think?
I have thought about why, and one big issue is that current political issues seem so pressing (folks are questioning whether insurance should cover birth control? Really?!), that environmental issues seem less important, or at least less urgent. Of course, that's nonsense: climate change and other environmental issues have global consequences that could potentially overshadow all other concerns.
I learned recently about the research of Dr. M. Keith Chen of Yale University. He has been examining the impact of language on cultural norms, and he has discovered something interesting: nations whose primary language has a future tense (such as English) do a poorer job of preparing for the future than nations whose primary language uses the same verb form to communicate present and future actions (such as Mandarin or German). People in countries with strong future-time-reference (FTR) languages, such as the U.S., are less likely to save for the future, eat healthily, or engage in a whole host of other behaviors that require delayed gratification in order to achieve a future payoff.
Of course, the caveat, "correlation does not equal causation" always applies. That said, the researcher is speculating about reasons for this trend. His idea is that when you use different words to communicate about the future, it's easier to see that future as separate from the present and therefore to put off future payoff actions in favor of what feels good now. Thus, when you say in English, "I will start my diet tomorrow," it's easier to put off the start of that diet than when you say in another language, "I start my diet." The latter feels more immediate, and you might thus be more likely to take action today.
I have been learning about affirmations, and the same concept applies. When you say an affirmation, you are supposed to say it in the present rather than future tense; for example, instead of saying, "I will become more patient with my child," you might say, "I am more and more patient with my child." The idea is that right now you are becoming that which you desire, even if you haven't fully arrived.
I wonder if this can apply to how we think about the environment? I have shared before that my green journey began when my daughter was a baby, because I wanted to ensure that the world would be a healthy place for her future. But maybe I should be thinking more about the here and now, and perhaps that will stimulate my urgency. In other words, today I am living in a way that makes the world a better, more healthy place right now.
What do you think?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
When doing your best is not enough
I have blogged before that when it comes to going green, you should do the best you can rather than feeling guilty about what you can't do. I've blogged about the importance of making small steps, and how the small steps of many can make a big impact. I've even ranted about those who would criticize the green steps of others because those steps are less than perfect from an eco-perspective, not considering that that step may be the best the person can do in their circumstances, and may lead to bigger steps if you don't turn them off with smug attitudes.
I still think those things are true. One of the reasons I started this blog was to encourage people who feel left out of the environmental movement because of race, income, time, access, knowledge (both skills and awareness), etc., that green really can be for the rest of us.
But what happens when the best you can do isn't enough? When the small steps don't add up enough to save our world? I read this article today, about the threat of mass extinction of all marine life due to climate change. If that happens, humanity and our planet are screwed. There is so much division, greed and hostility in our nation and world that I fear we might never come together even to address our species' very survivial.
It makes me feel at times as if my green journey is for naught, and my green steps are just useless gestures to make me feel a little more in control and less overwhelmed. Any thoughts? Ideas? Reasons for hope?
I still think those things are true. One of the reasons I started this blog was to encourage people who feel left out of the environmental movement because of race, income, time, access, knowledge (both skills and awareness), etc., that green really can be for the rest of us.
But what happens when the best you can do isn't enough? When the small steps don't add up enough to save our world? I read this article today, about the threat of mass extinction of all marine life due to climate change. If that happens, humanity and our planet are screwed. There is so much division, greed and hostility in our nation and world that I fear we might never come together even to address our species' very survivial.
It makes me feel at times as if my green journey is for naught, and my green steps are just useless gestures to make me feel a little more in control and less overwhelmed. Any thoughts? Ideas? Reasons for hope?
Monday, July 5, 2010
In praise of small steps
Grist, an online environmental magazine, has a regular column, "Ask Umbra," which answers green living and environmental questions for its readers. Most recently, a reader named Patty asked the following of Umbra:
As I've shared before, I can relate to Patty's feelings of being overwhelmed. Here's what Umbra shared in response (emphasis added):
Umbra ends with a few famous quotes about doing small things with great love (Mother Teresa), about how small groups of committed citizens are the only thing that can change the world (Margaret Meade), and one of my favorites, from Dr. Seuss' The Lorax:
But right now with the oil spill taking over the Gulf and ruining so many ecosystems, I just don't know if anything I do really makes a difference. ...
I live in southern Louisiana and remember feeling the same way after Katrina. ... Why even bother? What can the little things I do matter when compared to one big horrible thing like this? I hope you disagree with me and tell me why I should care.
As I've shared before, I can relate to Patty's feelings of being overwhelmed. Here's what Umbra shared in response (emphasis added):
Being overwhelmed by a big crisis may cause us to think that our personal actions are meaningless. But this is where we’re wrong, dear Patty.
Just this week New York Magazine noted that, "recent neuroscience and behavioral-economics research suggest that changing people's individual behavior may be the best way to grow a movement."
Furthermore, an analysis from the Garrison Institute’s Climate Mind Behavior Project (CMB) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, found that "Americans can reduce U.S. carbon pollution by 15 percent -- or one billion tons of global warming pollution -- through collective personal actions that require little to no cost."
So go ahead and sweat the small stuff! The "little things" we all do are not futile. In fact, little things add up fast. Especially if you do them, and then talk to your friends and family so that they start doing them too. That’s the magic of the multiplier effect.
Grist put it best: "Practiced consistently, small steps facilitate both gradual evolution and rapid revolution for positive lasting change. Of course institutional and policy change is crucial, but it doesn't happen on its own; it happens when people fight for it, motivated by their values."
Umbra ends with a few famous quotes about doing small things with great love (Mother Teresa), about how small groups of committed citizens are the only thing that can change the world (Margaret Meade), and one of my favorites, from Dr. Seuss' The Lorax:
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Making it work for everyone
OK, confession time: I watched about half of the No Impact Man movie when I first got it from the library. It was due yesterday and remembering how long I waited for it on the request list, I watched the second half before returning it.
The second half was very thought-provoking. I really respect Colin Beavan and his wife, Michelle Conlin, because they were very upfront not only about the challenges of trying to spend a year making as little impact as possible, but also about the strain that it put on their marriage. They also went through the painful time that year of Michelle getting pregnant and losing the baby.
It was helpful to see some of the things that went wrong for them, or that were just plain frustrating, because it gave me encouragement when things don't go as well as I'd like (like my garden so far this year). For example, flies started breeding in their worm bin and then spread throughout the house. (At the end of the movie, as they discussed the new practices they'd keep and the ones they'd get rid of, Michelle said, "Worm bin goes!") They also tried, after shutting off their electricity, to use a "pot in a pot," a system for keeping foods cool developed in Nigeria, and it didn't work very well.
At one point, when Colin is installing a loaned solar panel on the roof of his building, he comments that he now realizes, "It's not about using as little as we can use, but about how to get people what they need in a way that doesn't harm the planet." In other words, how do we make living more environmentally work for everyone?
This came up for me in the context of a conversation on an online forum about eating locally. One woman who is lactose intolerant and can't absorb gluten (a substance in many grains, including wheat, oats and barley), said that eating local for her would mean not getting the nutrients she needs to live. In earlier times when local food systems were all that most people had, people with dietary restrictions like this woman often died young. I don't believe we should sacrifice people in the name of doing something environmentally good, such as more local eating. But, as someone in the same conversation pointed out (as do most locavores), our current non-local food production system isn't sustainable. So once more, we come back to Colin's question: How do we get people what they need in a way that doesn't harm the planet?
Mayer, a lifelong activist who mentors Colin about urban gardening, thinks that individual action isn't the way to go at all. He argues in the film that doing things like changing your lightbulbs fools people into thinking that's enough, and lets politicians and business off the hook for making the big societal changes that need to happen. Colin counters that "walking the walk" is the best way to get people to listen to you as you fight for the larger changes needed. I would add that just because big changes are what's needed shouldn't be a reason not to make the small changes. But Mayer's point is well-taken: I can't grow complacent and think that small changes are enough, or that, "At least I'm doing something!"
Colin later says, "Using less is NOT enough; we need to demand that our systems become sustainable." That takes action. In response to a question asked by a college student about the most important thing one could do for the environment, he answers, "Volunteer for an environmental organization." These groups have been on the frontline for years in trying to make our systems more sustainable, both through their actions and their advocacy.
The second half was very thought-provoking. I really respect Colin Beavan and his wife, Michelle Conlin, because they were very upfront not only about the challenges of trying to spend a year making as little impact as possible, but also about the strain that it put on their marriage. They also went through the painful time that year of Michelle getting pregnant and losing the baby.
It was helpful to see some of the things that went wrong for them, or that were just plain frustrating, because it gave me encouragement when things don't go as well as I'd like (like my garden so far this year). For example, flies started breeding in their worm bin and then spread throughout the house. (At the end of the movie, as they discussed the new practices they'd keep and the ones they'd get rid of, Michelle said, "Worm bin goes!") They also tried, after shutting off their electricity, to use a "pot in a pot," a system for keeping foods cool developed in Nigeria, and it didn't work very well.
At one point, when Colin is installing a loaned solar panel on the roof of his building, he comments that he now realizes, "It's not about using as little as we can use, but about how to get people what they need in a way that doesn't harm the planet." In other words, how do we make living more environmentally work for everyone?
This came up for me in the context of a conversation on an online forum about eating locally. One woman who is lactose intolerant and can't absorb gluten (a substance in many grains, including wheat, oats and barley), said that eating local for her would mean not getting the nutrients she needs to live. In earlier times when local food systems were all that most people had, people with dietary restrictions like this woman often died young. I don't believe we should sacrifice people in the name of doing something environmentally good, such as more local eating. But, as someone in the same conversation pointed out (as do most locavores), our current non-local food production system isn't sustainable. So once more, we come back to Colin's question: How do we get people what they need in a way that doesn't harm the planet?
Mayer, a lifelong activist who mentors Colin about urban gardening, thinks that individual action isn't the way to go at all. He argues in the film that doing things like changing your lightbulbs fools people into thinking that's enough, and lets politicians and business off the hook for making the big societal changes that need to happen. Colin counters that "walking the walk" is the best way to get people to listen to you as you fight for the larger changes needed. I would add that just because big changes are what's needed shouldn't be a reason not to make the small changes. But Mayer's point is well-taken: I can't grow complacent and think that small changes are enough, or that, "At least I'm doing something!"
Colin later says, "Using less is NOT enough; we need to demand that our systems become sustainable." That takes action. In response to a question asked by a college student about the most important thing one could do for the environment, he answers, "Volunteer for an environmental organization." These groups have been on the frontline for years in trying to make our systems more sustainable, both through their actions and their advocacy.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Small changes again
I was overwhelmed a few days ago, but I decided I need to keep making small changes. One is with laundry pretreatment. I use eco-friendly detergent, wash in cold water, hang most things to dry (unless it's heavy stuff like blankets, or I need something right away), and when I do use a dryer, I reuse squares of aluminum foil instead of dryer sheets to reduce static cling.
However, I still use Resolve (formerly Spray and Wash) to pretreat stains. That's partly due to the fact that I can buy a huge bottle of the stuff at Costco, and because it seemed to be the easy thing to do with a young child who gets a lot of stains on her clothing.
So a few days ago I decided to check out Resolve's ingredients list on the company's web site, and then google some of the ingredients to see whether/how toxic they are. And yikes!, several of them are, such as the first ingredient listed after water, ALCOHOL C-12 C-16 POLY (1-6) ETHOXYLATE. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this compound is "A major threat to the environment in case of a spill. Immediate steps should be taken to limit spread. Can easily penetrate the soil and contaminate ground water and nearby streams. Very toxic to aquatic organisms."
So I found a recipe online for making homemade laundry pretreatment spray from water, glycerin, castile soap and borax*. I've made it and will try it. One logistical advantage is that you can spray clothing and let the stuff sit, whereas the instructions for using Resolve say that you must launder clothes right away after spraying it. (Or else what? Will it burn a hole in the clothing?) This recipe will save me the half-hour or more before doing laundry of endlessly spraying stains, plus I can treat stains right away, instead of waiting until laundry day.
Another small thing I'm trying to do is buy gas at someplace else besides Arco (which is part of BP). I found a Chevron station recently with gas just as cheap. I know that Chevron's environmental record isn't that great either (is there any oil/gas company that is?), but I think the current goal is to send a message to BP so that they take their responsibility for the Gulf spill and cleanup.
===================
* Borax is toxic if ingested, so keep out of children's reach. Also, if you follow this recipe, be sure to read the tips and warnings at the end (under the ad links).
However, I still use Resolve (formerly Spray and Wash) to pretreat stains. That's partly due to the fact that I can buy a huge bottle of the stuff at Costco, and because it seemed to be the easy thing to do with a young child who gets a lot of stains on her clothing.
So a few days ago I decided to check out Resolve's ingredients list on the company's web site, and then google some of the ingredients to see whether/how toxic they are. And yikes!, several of them are, such as the first ingredient listed after water, ALCOHOL C-12 C-16 POLY (1-6) ETHOXYLATE. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, this compound is "A major threat to the environment in case of a spill. Immediate steps should be taken to limit spread. Can easily penetrate the soil and contaminate ground water and nearby streams. Very toxic to aquatic organisms."
So I found a recipe online for making homemade laundry pretreatment spray from water, glycerin, castile soap and borax*. I've made it and will try it. One logistical advantage is that you can spray clothing and let the stuff sit, whereas the instructions for using Resolve say that you must launder clothes right away after spraying it. (Or else what? Will it burn a hole in the clothing?) This recipe will save me the half-hour or more before doing laundry of endlessly spraying stains, plus I can treat stains right away, instead of waiting until laundry day.
Another small thing I'm trying to do is buy gas at someplace else besides Arco (which is part of BP). I found a Chevron station recently with gas just as cheap. I know that Chevron's environmental record isn't that great either (is there any oil/gas company that is?), but I think the current goal is to send a message to BP so that they take their responsibility for the Gulf spill and cleanup.
===================
* Borax is toxic if ingested, so keep out of children's reach. Also, if you follow this recipe, be sure to read the tips and warnings at the end (under the ad links).
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
What do you do when you're overwhelmed?
I'm feeling overwhelmed by a few things environment-related. The first is, of course, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which is appearing more and more each day to be an environmental catastrophe the scope of which the world has never before seen. Even my daughter seems to realize it. She had heard about it from radio news stories in the car and was asking questions, so I showed her some photos of the oil spill on the Internet. Her response was, "Mama, we have to do something. What can we do to help?"
But so far, I have done nothing. It can be so easy to get (choose one: busy, lazy, apathetic) about these things. But I also feel overwhelmed because I realize that my efforts alone aren't enough, that we as a society have to drastically change.
I am also feeling this way because I recently watched the No Impact Man movie, after waiting for it for months at the library. It's incredible just how radical the Beavan family was in their decision to live one year with as little environmental impact as possible. And it's a reminder just how many things I have yet to change.
But from reading the book, I know that Colin Beavan wanted to be so radical because he no longer wanted to sit on the sidelines with causes he cares about, because he wanted to see what was possible in terms of reducing one's impact, and because he wanted to become a credible spokesperson for environmental issues by walking the talk. He found that some things were too onerous to continue after the year was up (such as doing laundry by hand), but other things made his and his family's lives better.
I think I have to remember that. To give a (very) small example of better, I have seasonal allergies and year-round allergies to dust mites, so I have a runny nose pretty much all the time. I used to carry tissue with me constantly, and no matter how carefully I thought I checked my pockets, invariably I'd overlook a tissue in some item of clothing. This meant that whenever I did my laundry, I'd find small pieces of tissue on all the clothes in the load when the wash was done.
I no longer use tissue but handkerchiefs instead, and guess what? Even if I leave one in a pocket, no tissue scraps on the rest of my laundry! OK, small victory, but maybe it's remembering those things that will help me not feel overwhelmed. And maybe also motivate me to do something about the BP oil spill.
But so far, I have done nothing. It can be so easy to get (choose one: busy, lazy, apathetic) about these things. But I also feel overwhelmed because I realize that my efforts alone aren't enough, that we as a society have to drastically change.
I am also feeling this way because I recently watched the No Impact Man movie, after waiting for it for months at the library. It's incredible just how radical the Beavan family was in their decision to live one year with as little environmental impact as possible. And it's a reminder just how many things I have yet to change.
But from reading the book, I know that Colin Beavan wanted to be so radical because he no longer wanted to sit on the sidelines with causes he cares about, because he wanted to see what was possible in terms of reducing one's impact, and because he wanted to become a credible spokesperson for environmental issues by walking the talk. He found that some things were too onerous to continue after the year was up (such as doing laundry by hand), but other things made his and his family's lives better.
I think I have to remember that. To give a (very) small example of better, I have seasonal allergies and year-round allergies to dust mites, so I have a runny nose pretty much all the time. I used to carry tissue with me constantly, and no matter how carefully I thought I checked my pockets, invariably I'd overlook a tissue in some item of clothing. This meant that whenever I did my laundry, I'd find small pieces of tissue on all the clothes in the load when the wash was done.
I no longer use tissue but handkerchiefs instead, and guess what? Even if I leave one in a pocket, no tissue scraps on the rest of my laundry! OK, small victory, but maybe it's remembering those things that will help me not feel overwhelmed. And maybe also motivate me to do something about the BP oil spill.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Ten Ways to Help the Gulf Coast
I'm pretty sickened as well as frightened by the recent oil spill. US News & World Report published this list and the Daily Green has published this one, of things you can do to help clean up the spill.
I have to admit that the idea of boycotting BP is very challenging to me. BP owns Arco, which has the cheapest gas around in my community. Because we live far from public transportation, we have to drive. Because our finances are tight, Arco is where we go to buy gas at Arco. I'll write more as this story (and my conscience) develops.
I have to admit that the idea of boycotting BP is very challenging to me. BP owns Arco, which has the cheapest gas around in my community. Because we live far from public transportation, we have to drive. Because our finances are tight, Arco is where we go to buy gas at Arco. I'll write more as this story (and my conscience) develops.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Bixby's Rainforest Rescue
This act, which teaches children about the rain forest and encourages them to care for the environment, was a really great part of the Puyallup Spring Fair/Livable Communities Fair. The young man who plays Bixby is very talented; in the course of the half-hour show, he sang, did magic tricks, performed ventriloquism, interacted wonderfully with children, and handled wild animals, including a macaw, a coati, and a Burmese python.
BTW, my daughter is pretty sharp. When he did his ventriloquist act with a toucan puppet, she commented, "The boy's making that puppet talk, right, Mama? I can see his throat moving." (Bixby's adam's apple was bobbing up and down).
She also asked a great question. At the end of the show, Bixby asked for donations to help save the endangered animals of the rain forest. I gave her a dollar to put in the basket. She asked, "How does that money help save the animals?" I told her a few possibilities (to pay scientists who help the animals have babies safely and then release them into the wild; and to set aside land as nature preserves). But the real answer is, "I'll have to get back to you on that!"
BTW, my daughter is pretty sharp. When he did his ventriloquist act with a toucan puppet, she commented, "The boy's making that puppet talk, right, Mama? I can see his throat moving." (Bixby's adam's apple was bobbing up and down).
She also asked a great question. At the end of the show, Bixby asked for donations to help save the endangered animals of the rain forest. I gave her a dollar to put in the basket. She asked, "How does that money help save the animals?" I told her a few possibilities (to pay scientists who help the animals have babies safely and then release them into the wild; and to set aside land as nature preserves). But the real answer is, "I'll have to get back to you on that!"
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wind power in Boston
Crunchy Chicken had a blog post today about wind turbines, asking her readers to weigh in on whether they thought they were awesome, or if they had the concerns that are often expressed about them (an eyesore, too loud, a danger to birds).
One reader wrote that they would never work in the city--too much turbulence and noise. So I had to respond, because when I lived in Boston, I lived a few blocks away from a wind turbine. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 in Dorchster installed a wind turbine in 2005. Walking by it on numerous occasions, my opinion was that it was neither loud nor an eyesore. Just the opposite: it was one of the most attractive objects on the city skyscape (see photos above).
From what I remember, the wind turbine was a source of pride throughout the city. People thought it was cool, both visually and because of what it was accomplishing. I remember hearing at a public meeting that it was supplying a significant amount (maybe 50%?) of the energy needs for the IBEW building.
Curious to know what the current opinion of the wind turbine is in Boston, I googled it, and found this article. It describes how the city of Boston is now planning to install wind turbines on top of city hall and at several schools, and is creating wind energy zoning regulations for private property. Sounds like Boston definitely wants to be at the forefront of wind energy use in urban areas!
Friday, September 4, 2009
More on The New Yorker and No Impact Man
The New Yorker article I wrote about is getting quite a bit of attention. Grist, a major online environmental magazine, wrote about it two times (and my blog post was linked in paragraph 4 of the second article!). Crunchy Chicken also weighed in, and I'm sure others around the blogosphere have been discussing it.
The consensus seems to be that the article's author, Elizabeth Kolbert, a leading journalist who writes about climate change and the environment, was rather unfair in her assessment of No Impact Man. And now the man himself, Colin Beavan, has added his own voice to this discussion. He makes a few primary points: that individual and collective action are both necessary--and indeed, the two often feed each other. Individuals who try to live more sustainably in their personal lives often become more aware and motivated to get involved in collective action. And collective action will be ineffective if we as individuals do not go along with the changes that it requires. He also notes that with so many forces aligned against environmentalism and sustainability (such as modern consumerism, climate change skeptics, and enormously profitable non-green industries), we can't afford to have people on the same side in-fighting like this.
The consensus seems to be that the article's author, Elizabeth Kolbert, a leading journalist who writes about climate change and the environment, was rather unfair in her assessment of No Impact Man. And now the man himself, Colin Beavan, has added his own voice to this discussion. He makes a few primary points: that individual and collective action are both necessary--and indeed, the two often feed each other. Individuals who try to live more sustainably in their personal lives often become more aware and motivated to get involved in collective action. And collective action will be ineffective if we as individuals do not go along with the changes that it requires. He also notes that with so many forces aligned against environmentalism and sustainability (such as modern consumerism, climate change skeptics, and enormously profitable non-green industries), we can't afford to have people on the same side in-fighting like this.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
A few years ago, I read an article titled something like, "Five Things That Are Just As Scary As Global Warming." It was then that I heard about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for the first time. The Garbage Patch is a vortex in the middle of the Pacific Ocean that is drawing in plastic and other garbage at alarming rates. According to the Associated Press, scientists--who've only known of its existence for about a decade--are now studying the Patch to determine the extent of damage to the environment.
One of the biggest problems is that plastic degrades into small toxic pieces, which are then ingested by marine animals. And the strength of the vortex is such that scientists have no clue how to clean it up. As one researcher wrote, "Seeing [humanity's] influence just floating out here in the middle of nowhere makes our power painfully obvious, and the consequences of the industrial age plain. It's not a pretty sight."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thoughts on hypocrisy and "No Impact Man"
The current issue of The New Yorker has an article by Elizabeth Kolbert titled, "Green Like Me," that's a critique of the recent crop of confessional memoirs by people who are striving to live in more environmentally conscious ways. The article makes some good points, but I found the overall tone distasteful and counterproductive.
OK, the good points Kolbert makes:
1) Individual action and changes aren't enough to save the environment. Collective change is what is needed.
2) Sometimes eco-conscious people miss the forest for the trees, or focus on small changes while rationalizing the really big changes they aren't making. Kolbert cites Vanessa Farquharson, author of Sleeping Naked Is Green, as one example: Farquharson resolves to use no more toothpicks and to use natural lubricant instead of K-Y, while purchasing a new house and flying around the country to pursue relationships with various men (the problem there is the air travel).
The primary examples in Kolbert's article, however, are Henry David Thoreau and his somewhat modern counterpart, Colin Beavan of No Impact Man, and here's where I think her arguments really become unfair. For example, she writes:
A more honest title for Beavan’s book would have been “Low Impact Man,” and a truly honest title would have been “Not Quite So High Impact Man.” Even during the year that Beavan spent drinking out of a Mason jar, more than two billion people were, quite inadvertently, living lives of lower impact than his. Most of them were struggling to get by in the slums of Delhi or Rio or scratching out a living in rural Africa or South America. A few were sleeping in cardboard boxes on the street not far from Beavan’s Fifth Avenue apartment.
If she had spent any time reading Beavan's blog or book, she would know that he knows he's not living with no impact; no impact living is impossible for any living thing. The name is just a clever way to call attention to what he's trying to do. His goal is also to try to balance out his and his family's impact, by reducing their negative environmental impact as much as possible, while increasing their positive impact through environmental activism.
Second, it's also nearly impossible for anyone in a western developed nation to live with as little impact as people in the most impoverished parts in the world. That doesn't mean we should do nothing in response, or denigrate the efforts of those attempting to live more sustainably.
Kolbert ends the article with this statement:
What makes Beavan’s experiment noteworthy is that it is just that—a voluntary exercise conducted for a limited time only by a middle-class family. Beavan justifies writing about it on the ground that it will inspire others to examine their wasteful ways. ... [However] the real work of “saving the world” goes way beyond the sorts of action that “No Impact Man” is all about.
What’s required is perhaps a sequel. In one chapter, Beavan could take the elevator to visit other families in his apartment building. He could talk to them about how they all need to work together to install a more efficient heating system. In another, he could ride the subway to Penn Station and then get on a train to Albany. Once there, he could lobby state lawmakers for better mass transit. In a third chapter, Beavan could devote his blog to pushing for a carbon tax. Here’s a possible title for the book: “Impact Man.”
Again, although she's quoting from his book, I wonder how much of it she's read, or if she has visited his blog at all. Throughout the two years I've been following No Impact Man, I have read countless posts about times in which he has:
-- written about environmental issues on a local, national and international level. I especially appreciate that he has addressed issues of poverty while doing so;
-- called his representatives (and encouraged others to do the same) about local and national environmental issues;
-- visited some of his reps in person to address such topics as making the streets safer for cyclists and preventing the air pollution that makes New York City one of the worst places in the country for childhood asthma;
-- swum in a benefit swim meet to raise funds to clean up polluted waters, and he will soon participate in a Climate Ride for Change;
-- spoken to groups of students about how they can work together to address their own personal impacts as well as that of their schools;
-- and organized the No Impact project "with the goal of engaging citizens in our cultural response to the crises in our environment and our way of life."
In other words, Beavan's story has been anything but simply the limited personal journey of a middle class family. The family stuff is in there, because that's what makes it personal and relatable to most people. But Beavan's goals and actions go far beyond that, so I find The New Yorker's belittling attitude shameful.
OK, the good points Kolbert makes:
1) Individual action and changes aren't enough to save the environment. Collective change is what is needed.
2) Sometimes eco-conscious people miss the forest for the trees, or focus on small changes while rationalizing the really big changes they aren't making. Kolbert cites Vanessa Farquharson, author of Sleeping Naked Is Green, as one example: Farquharson resolves to use no more toothpicks and to use natural lubricant instead of K-Y, while purchasing a new house and flying around the country to pursue relationships with various men (the problem there is the air travel).
The primary examples in Kolbert's article, however, are Henry David Thoreau and his somewhat modern counterpart, Colin Beavan of No Impact Man, and here's where I think her arguments really become unfair. For example, she writes:
A more honest title for Beavan’s book would have been “Low Impact Man,” and a truly honest title would have been “Not Quite So High Impact Man.” Even during the year that Beavan spent drinking out of a Mason jar, more than two billion people were, quite inadvertently, living lives of lower impact than his. Most of them were struggling to get by in the slums of Delhi or Rio or scratching out a living in rural Africa or South America. A few were sleeping in cardboard boxes on the street not far from Beavan’s Fifth Avenue apartment.
If she had spent any time reading Beavan's blog or book, she would know that he knows he's not living with no impact; no impact living is impossible for any living thing. The name is just a clever way to call attention to what he's trying to do. His goal is also to try to balance out his and his family's impact, by reducing their negative environmental impact as much as possible, while increasing their positive impact through environmental activism.
Second, it's also nearly impossible for anyone in a western developed nation to live with as little impact as people in the most impoverished parts in the world. That doesn't mean we should do nothing in response, or denigrate the efforts of those attempting to live more sustainably.
Kolbert ends the article with this statement:
What makes Beavan’s experiment noteworthy is that it is just that—a voluntary exercise conducted for a limited time only by a middle-class family. Beavan justifies writing about it on the ground that it will inspire others to examine their wasteful ways. ... [However] the real work of “saving the world” goes way beyond the sorts of action that “No Impact Man” is all about.
What’s required is perhaps a sequel. In one chapter, Beavan could take the elevator to visit other families in his apartment building. He could talk to them about how they all need to work together to install a more efficient heating system. In another, he could ride the subway to Penn Station and then get on a train to Albany. Once there, he could lobby state lawmakers for better mass transit. In a third chapter, Beavan could devote his blog to pushing for a carbon tax. Here’s a possible title for the book: “Impact Man.”
Again, although she's quoting from his book, I wonder how much of it she's read, or if she has visited his blog at all. Throughout the two years I've been following No Impact Man, I have read countless posts about times in which he has:
-- written about environmental issues on a local, national and international level. I especially appreciate that he has addressed issues of poverty while doing so;
-- called his representatives (and encouraged others to do the same) about local and national environmental issues;
-- visited some of his reps in person to address such topics as making the streets safer for cyclists and preventing the air pollution that makes New York City one of the worst places in the country for childhood asthma;
-- swum in a benefit swim meet to raise funds to clean up polluted waters, and he will soon participate in a Climate Ride for Change;
-- spoken to groups of students about how they can work together to address their own personal impacts as well as that of their schools;
-- and organized the No Impact project "with the goal of engaging citizens in our cultural response to the crises in our environment and our way of life."
In other words, Beavan's story has been anything but simply the limited personal journey of a middle class family. The family stuff is in there, because that's what makes it personal and relatable to most people. But Beavan's goals and actions go far beyond that, so I find The New Yorker's belittling attitude shameful.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
We're breaking records here!
Today the temperature here in the Puget Sound region will hit triple digits--for the first time ever.
The relatives who encouraged us to move out here said that the weather is usually mild: chilly but not freezing winters, damp and cool springs and falls, and warm, sunny but not sweltering summers.
That hasn't been the case this year, when we experienced one of the worst blizzards in the area in years, and now one of--scratch that-THE hottest summer ever.
I happen to believe in human-caused climate change, although I'm not a scientist and can't make a case for it scientifically (that's not to say a scientific case can't be made, just that I'm not the person to do it!). But it seems obvious to me that humans can have a negative impact on the environment, in everything from pollution to overfishing to destroying natural habitats for development.
Also, from what I've read, climate change will create more extreme weather conditions everywhere. Contrary to those who point to really cold winter days as "proof" that global warming is a sham, it makes sense that global warming would cause both warmer and cooler weather in different places and seasons: warmer because things are heating up overall; colder, because as Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets melt, they dump freezing cold water into the oceans.
That's not to say that the extreme weather we've had in the Puget Sound this year is due to climate change. It might be, but I'll leave that to the scientists to determine.
The relatives who encouraged us to move out here said that the weather is usually mild: chilly but not freezing winters, damp and cool springs and falls, and warm, sunny but not sweltering summers.
That hasn't been the case this year, when we experienced one of the worst blizzards in the area in years, and now one of--scratch that-THE hottest summer ever.
I happen to believe in human-caused climate change, although I'm not a scientist and can't make a case for it scientifically (that's not to say a scientific case can't be made, just that I'm not the person to do it!). But it seems obvious to me that humans can have a negative impact on the environment, in everything from pollution to overfishing to destroying natural habitats for development.
Also, from what I've read, climate change will create more extreme weather conditions everywhere. Contrary to those who point to really cold winter days as "proof" that global warming is a sham, it makes sense that global warming would cause both warmer and cooler weather in different places and seasons: warmer because things are heating up overall; colder, because as Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets melt, they dump freezing cold water into the oceans.
That's not to say that the extreme weather we've had in the Puget Sound this year is due to climate change. It might be, but I'll leave that to the scientists to determine.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Swine flu and pig farming
You've all heard about the current swine flu going around, and the possibility it could become pandemic. It's making me nervous for several reason, many due to flying: hubby is to fly to LA for a few days in late May for job training; and in June, my mom and sister are coming to visit from Ohio and New York, respectively; a week later, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law are coming from Boston and New Jersey. My sister-in-law is especially at risk, because she had a kidney transplant four years ago, and so is immuno-compromised.
My other fear has to do with pig farming. The farmer my hubby wants to help owns pigs. Now, chances are, because theirs is a small, organic family farm and their pigs and chickens are raised humanely, their farm is unlikely to be affected by swine flu. (Large factory farms are more likely the culprit. Read this 2006 article titled "Boss Hogs" from Rolling Stone--it will make you never want to eat pork again). But still, there's the perception, and we want to try to bring young people out there to help on the farm.
Anyway, read the article. I can't help thinking about Joseph Luter, the CEO of Smithfield Foods, the nation's largest pork producer, as described by Rolling Stone. He is pretty upfront that he's about his own wealth and power, and to hell with the environment. But, I have to wonder, doesn't he care about his grandchildren? Money can only protect you so much--environmental degradation affects us all.
My other fear has to do with pig farming. The farmer my hubby wants to help owns pigs. Now, chances are, because theirs is a small, organic family farm and their pigs and chickens are raised humanely, their farm is unlikely to be affected by swine flu. (Large factory farms are more likely the culprit. Read this 2006 article titled "Boss Hogs" from Rolling Stone--it will make you never want to eat pork again). But still, there's the perception, and we want to try to bring young people out there to help on the farm.
Anyway, read the article. I can't help thinking about Joseph Luter, the CEO of Smithfield Foods, the nation's largest pork producer, as described by Rolling Stone. He is pretty upfront that he's about his own wealth and power, and to hell with the environment. But, I have to wonder, doesn't he care about his grandchildren? Money can only protect you so much--environmental degradation affects us all.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Earth Day, thrift shopping, and water hauling (again)
Last Wednesday was Earth Day and I didn't post, because I wasn't able to do what I wanted to do for it until this weekend.
For most of my adult life, I scorned environmentalism, because I mistakenly thought it was about saving the whales or the trees, but not people. I was never an animal lover either; my parents never let us have pets, except for goldfish, I'm allergic to cats, and I've been bitten on several occasions by dogs.
It was only when I was pregnant and learning about the environmental threats to fetuses, babies and young children, that I began to realize that caring about the environment IS caring about people. Humans reap the consequences of environmental damage just like the rest of nature.
A next step in my journey, I think, is to care as much about the rest of nature as I care about people. I'll never become one of those environmentalists who think that humanity should just die out to save the rest of the planet, but I am growing in my understanding that the rest of creation is valuable in its own right and worthy of concern.
I'd like my daughter to have a greter appreciation for nature than I did, so I decided that I wanted to buy a bird feeder so she could watch birds in our yard. I was partly inspired by catching sight of a blue jay in our yard last week, which flew away before my daughter was able to see it.
I was able to purchase a bird feeder for $7 at Value Village (cue my plug for the National Thrift Store Month petition!). My daughter had a ball playing with the wild bird seed we purchased and pouring it into the feeder, and her dad helped her tie it to a tree. So now we're just waiting to see if we get any visitors. The bird food bag says to be patient, it may take a few weeks for the birds to realize it's there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update on water hauling: Dear Daughter no longer uses her hamper (also purchased at Value Village thrift store!) for her dirty clothes, since she discovered that she can turn it over and use it to climb upon and reach for things. (She now uses a cardboard box instead). So I left her bathwater in the tub last night, and this morning, I took her hamper, filled it with the tub water using the bathroom wastebasket, and carried it outside to water the trees, shrubs and flowers in the front yard. It took me three trips and about a half hour. Hubby saw me and said, "That's weird. Cute, but weird!" :) But hey, if it helps save water and helps our plants, it's worth it. I just have to stay motivated to do it, because I could easily get lazy about it.
For most of my adult life, I scorned environmentalism, because I mistakenly thought it was about saving the whales or the trees, but not people. I was never an animal lover either; my parents never let us have pets, except for goldfish, I'm allergic to cats, and I've been bitten on several occasions by dogs.
It was only when I was pregnant and learning about the environmental threats to fetuses, babies and young children, that I began to realize that caring about the environment IS caring about people. Humans reap the consequences of environmental damage just like the rest of nature.
A next step in my journey, I think, is to care as much about the rest of nature as I care about people. I'll never become one of those environmentalists who think that humanity should just die out to save the rest of the planet, but I am growing in my understanding that the rest of creation is valuable in its own right and worthy of concern.
I'd like my daughter to have a greter appreciation for nature than I did, so I decided that I wanted to buy a bird feeder so she could watch birds in our yard. I was partly inspired by catching sight of a blue jay in our yard last week, which flew away before my daughter was able to see it.
I was able to purchase a bird feeder for $7 at Value Village (cue my plug for the National Thrift Store Month petition!). My daughter had a ball playing with the wild bird seed we purchased and pouring it into the feeder, and her dad helped her tie it to a tree. So now we're just waiting to see if we get any visitors. The bird food bag says to be patient, it may take a few weeks for the birds to realize it's there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update on water hauling: Dear Daughter no longer uses her hamper (also purchased at Value Village thrift store!) for her dirty clothes, since she discovered that she can turn it over and use it to climb upon and reach for things. (She now uses a cardboard box instead). So I left her bathwater in the tub last night, and this morning, I took her hamper, filled it with the tub water using the bathroom wastebasket, and carried it outside to water the trees, shrubs and flowers in the front yard. It took me three trips and about a half hour. Hubby saw me and said, "That's weird. Cute, but weird!" :) But hey, if it helps save water and helps our plants, it's worth it. I just have to stay motivated to do it, because I could easily get lazy about it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
You can only do the best you can
That is something I used to tell myself frequently when reading, "No Impact Man," one of my favorite environmental blogs. NIM, aka Colin Beaven, is a New Yorker who, along with his wife and young daughter, embarked on a year-long experiment to see if they could make no environmental impact. Since no impact is literally impossible, they wanted to make as little negative impact as possible, and counteract any negatives with positive impact (i.e., doing such things as environmental cleanups and advocacy). The year is now over, and they are retaining many (but not all) of the habits they developed during their no-impact year. A documentary has been made about them, and a book is forthcoming.
So I'd read his blog, and sometimes I'd go nuts, thinking, "How in the world could I ever do that!" I remember commenting on one entry in which he described the solar panel used to power up his laptop. I said something like, "The average person can't afford solar panels." Someone commented back, "The Beaven's can't either! Someone donated that to them!" Um, OK. The average person isn't likely to have someone donate solar panels to them, either.
Another issue that came up for many readers (not me, living in public-transportation friendly Boston at the time), was Colin's discussions of taking public transportation and biking instead of driving. A lot of readers lived in rural areas, or in urban areas with poor or no public transportation and with such heavy traffic that biking is very hazardous. These readers often responded with the same anger/ guilt/ defensiveness that I often felt when a green idea seemed impossible for me.
Anyway, I finally decided that I could only do the best I could do, given my circumstances, and to stop feeling guilty about the things I can't do (although I want to keep learning new ideas). For me, cost is a big issue. One of my reasons for starting this blog is that I am always searching for very cheap ways to go green, and I want to share what I discover. For example, I can't afford to buy expensive organic clothing. But I can buy all of my and my daughter's clothing second-hand, except for underwear and socks. (Hubby is a different story. He's 6'7" -- it's nearly impossible to find used clothing in his size).
"Crunchy Chicken" is another environmental blog I read, based in Seattle. She often issues challenges to her readers, and the current one is the "Sustainable Food Budget Challenge." The goal is to eat sustainably on the same budget allotment as food stamps. For my family of three, it's $463/month. The goal is to eat almost everything either locally-produced or organic within that budget.
Several people wrote in saying that that was totally doable, and were excited to accept the challenge. Then I wrote about the fact that my grocery budget is already below that amount (about $300/month), and I can't afford to increase it, and at this point, only about 25% of what we eat is locally produced and/or organic. After I wrote, several other people said something similar, including questioning the assertion by both Crunchy and several commenters that produce at farmer's markets is cheaper than in supermarkets. (That was true in Boston; it is NOT true in Tacoma). Others commented that to travel to the farms or farmer's markets where they could then then buy the local and organic foods, they'd have to drive a considerable distance; all the driving then cancels out the sustainability of the food they purchase.
So what can I (or anyone) do if they want to go green in an area, and find it's not feasible for their circumstances? I'll use the Sustainable Food Challenge as an example.
1) Don't feel guilty about it. Guilt is generally counter-productive.
2) Decide what you can do. In my family's case, we are eating less meat (less meat being less poultry in our case; we already almost never* eat red meat). We stock up on non-perishable organic foods when they're on sale. And we can try to grow our own.
3) Work with others for more collaborative solutions. In Boston, there is an urban gardening and youth development program called The Food Project (thefoodproject.org); the Dudley Street farmer's market run by the kids was one of the affordable ones where we shopped in Boston. I currently work in a Tacoma neighborhood called the Hilltop; my husband has an idea for a Food Project-like program that he's calling Hilltop Farms. We are also members of the not-yet up and running Tacoma Food Co-op, and we can see how we can do more to help that group get started.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* "Almost never" is literal. We'll eat red meat if it's being served at someone's home, and two or three times per year, my husband gets a hankering for steak or ribs.
So I'd read his blog, and sometimes I'd go nuts, thinking, "How in the world could I ever do that!" I remember commenting on one entry in which he described the solar panel used to power up his laptop. I said something like, "The average person can't afford solar panels." Someone commented back, "The Beaven's can't either! Someone donated that to them!" Um, OK. The average person isn't likely to have someone donate solar panels to them, either.
Another issue that came up for many readers (not me, living in public-transportation friendly Boston at the time), was Colin's discussions of taking public transportation and biking instead of driving. A lot of readers lived in rural areas, or in urban areas with poor or no public transportation and with such heavy traffic that biking is very hazardous. These readers often responded with the same anger/ guilt/ defensiveness that I often felt when a green idea seemed impossible for me.
Anyway, I finally decided that I could only do the best I could do, given my circumstances, and to stop feeling guilty about the things I can't do (although I want to keep learning new ideas). For me, cost is a big issue. One of my reasons for starting this blog is that I am always searching for very cheap ways to go green, and I want to share what I discover. For example, I can't afford to buy expensive organic clothing. But I can buy all of my and my daughter's clothing second-hand, except for underwear and socks. (Hubby is a different story. He's 6'7" -- it's nearly impossible to find used clothing in his size).
"Crunchy Chicken" is another environmental blog I read, based in Seattle. She often issues challenges to her readers, and the current one is the "Sustainable Food Budget Challenge." The goal is to eat sustainably on the same budget allotment as food stamps. For my family of three, it's $463/month. The goal is to eat almost everything either locally-produced or organic within that budget.
Several people wrote in saying that that was totally doable, and were excited to accept the challenge. Then I wrote about the fact that my grocery budget is already below that amount (about $300/month), and I can't afford to increase it, and at this point, only about 25% of what we eat is locally produced and/or organic. After I wrote, several other people said something similar, including questioning the assertion by both Crunchy and several commenters that produce at farmer's markets is cheaper than in supermarkets. (That was true in Boston; it is NOT true in Tacoma). Others commented that to travel to the farms or farmer's markets where they could then then buy the local and organic foods, they'd have to drive a considerable distance; all the driving then cancels out the sustainability of the food they purchase.
So what can I (or anyone) do if they want to go green in an area, and find it's not feasible for their circumstances? I'll use the Sustainable Food Challenge as an example.
1) Don't feel guilty about it. Guilt is generally counter-productive.
2) Decide what you can do. In my family's case, we are eating less meat (less meat being less poultry in our case; we already almost never* eat red meat). We stock up on non-perishable organic foods when they're on sale. And we can try to grow our own.
3) Work with others for more collaborative solutions. In Boston, there is an urban gardening and youth development program called The Food Project (thefoodproject.org); the Dudley Street farmer's market run by the kids was one of the affordable ones where we shopped in Boston. I currently work in a Tacoma neighborhood called the Hilltop; my husband has an idea for a Food Project-like program that he's calling Hilltop Farms. We are also members of the not-yet up and running Tacoma Food Co-op, and we can see how we can do more to help that group get started.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* "Almost never" is literal. We'll eat red meat if it's being served at someone's home, and two or three times per year, my husband gets a hankering for steak or ribs.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Gotta love the Web: even stories about tasteless, racist cartoons can have an upside
I do love the Web! The best part is the access to information, which is a major reason I started my blog: I want to share what I learn.
So the latest story on the Web about Republicans making tasteless, racist jokes/ cartoons/whatevers about Obama has an upside (for me), via the Web. Apparently, right on the heels of the NY Post chimp shooting cartoon, a Republican mayor of a California town sent out an email with a cartoon of the White House surrounded by a watermelon patch. As usual, when called on it, he claimed he had no idea it was racist. (Seriously?? And even apart from the racist angle, why don't these guys realize that sharing this type of stuff is inappropriate in a professional setting?).
On the web site where I read about this, a commenter wrote: "I love how these guys always say they didn't intend anything racist. So what did they intend? Is there any way to interpret this cartoon that doesn't play into racial stereotypes?"
Someone snarkily responded: "Hey, he's just promoting Michael Pollan's 'White House Farmer' plan!" (and the person included a link*).
Now, I've heard of Michael Pollan, but not of the White House Farmer. Pollan is the author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." I haven't read the book, but I've read articles by him, and I know his creed is, "Eat food. Mostly plants." By eating food, he means things that our grandparents would recognize as food: bread and eggs and fruit, for example, rather than say, Pop Tarts. By "mostly plants," he advocates eating low on the food chain, consuming a lot more grains, fruits and veggies than meats and dairy.
I clicked on the link provided by the snarky commenter. The "White House Farmer" is a plan to convert much of the land surrounding the White House to farm land, in order to grow produce for the White House. It would allow the White House to set an example for the nation in producing its own sustainable, organic, local food.
Pollan asked for "White House Farmer" nominees from around the country, and had visitors to the site vote. The three top vote getters have been selected, and Pollan will soon forward their names and more information about the plan to Obama's staff. I looked at the three winners, and stopped at #2. Carrie Ann Little (who received about 50 votes less than the #1 vote-getter, and about 3,000 more than #3) is from Puyallup, WA! Right outside of Tacoma!
Ms. Little runs the Mother Earth Farm, which provides food for Pierce County's Emergency Food Network. Part of the reason this excites me is because she is farming for the needy here. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we were shocked when we arrived to see how expensive everything was at the local farmer's markets. (I seem to find organic goods cheaper here than in Boston. Locally produced food, not so much). So it's great to learn about people producing local, organic food for those in need.
I'm also excited because she is very local, for me. I'd like to learn more about the farm, and perhaps volunteer there. And she's not from Seattle! That's significant, because Tacoma is considered the unsophisticated, somewhat hickish little brother of Seattle, and so much of the cutting edge environmental stuff seems to come from our older sibling. (Like ads on the radio informing Seattle residents that they can now put their food scraps in a separate bin on garbage day, and it will get picked up for composting).
In addition, the nonprofit community development organization I work for has "providing the community with access to healthy, affordable organic food" as one of its goals somewhere down the line, and the not-yet up and running Tacoma Food Co-op, of which my husband and I are members, has that as its primary goal as well. Thus, it's great for me to learn about others in the area already doing what we're hoping to do.
So Mr. Mayor, grow up. Attend a workshop on diversity, while you're at it. And indirectly, thanks.
* Here's the White House Farmer web site url: http://whitehousefarmer.com/
So the latest story on the Web about Republicans making tasteless, racist jokes/ cartoons/whatevers about Obama has an upside (for me), via the Web. Apparently, right on the heels of the NY Post chimp shooting cartoon, a Republican mayor of a California town sent out an email with a cartoon of the White House surrounded by a watermelon patch. As usual, when called on it, he claimed he had no idea it was racist. (Seriously?? And even apart from the racist angle, why don't these guys realize that sharing this type of stuff is inappropriate in a professional setting?).
On the web site where I read about this, a commenter wrote: "I love how these guys always say they didn't intend anything racist. So what did they intend? Is there any way to interpret this cartoon that doesn't play into racial stereotypes?"
Someone snarkily responded: "Hey, he's just promoting Michael Pollan's 'White House Farmer' plan!" (and the person included a link*).
Now, I've heard of Michael Pollan, but not of the White House Farmer. Pollan is the author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." I haven't read the book, but I've read articles by him, and I know his creed is, "Eat food. Mostly plants." By eating food, he means things that our grandparents would recognize as food: bread and eggs and fruit, for example, rather than say, Pop Tarts. By "mostly plants," he advocates eating low on the food chain, consuming a lot more grains, fruits and veggies than meats and dairy.
I clicked on the link provided by the snarky commenter. The "White House Farmer" is a plan to convert much of the land surrounding the White House to farm land, in order to grow produce for the White House. It would allow the White House to set an example for the nation in producing its own sustainable, organic, local food.
Pollan asked for "White House Farmer" nominees from around the country, and had visitors to the site vote. The three top vote getters have been selected, and Pollan will soon forward their names and more information about the plan to Obama's staff. I looked at the three winners, and stopped at #2. Carrie Ann Little (who received about 50 votes less than the #1 vote-getter, and about 3,000 more than #3) is from Puyallup, WA! Right outside of Tacoma!
Ms. Little runs the Mother Earth Farm, which provides food for Pierce County's Emergency Food Network. Part of the reason this excites me is because she is farming for the needy here. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we were shocked when we arrived to see how expensive everything was at the local farmer's markets. (I seem to find organic goods cheaper here than in Boston. Locally produced food, not so much). So it's great to learn about people producing local, organic food for those in need.
I'm also excited because she is very local, for me. I'd like to learn more about the farm, and perhaps volunteer there. And she's not from Seattle! That's significant, because Tacoma is considered the unsophisticated, somewhat hickish little brother of Seattle, and so much of the cutting edge environmental stuff seems to come from our older sibling. (Like ads on the radio informing Seattle residents that they can now put their food scraps in a separate bin on garbage day, and it will get picked up for composting).
In addition, the nonprofit community development organization I work for has "providing the community with access to healthy, affordable organic food" as one of its goals somewhere down the line, and the not-yet up and running Tacoma Food Co-op, of which my husband and I are members, has that as its primary goal as well. Thus, it's great for me to learn about others in the area already doing what we're hoping to do.
So Mr. Mayor, grow up. Attend a workshop on diversity, while you're at it. And indirectly, thanks.
* Here's the White House Farmer web site url: http://whitehousefarmer.com/
Thursday, February 19, 2009
TerraCycle
More on my attempts at gardening: a few months ago, I purchased a basil plant starter kit that included a pot with soil and a packet of seeds. I let my daughter help me, and when she emptied the pack of seeds in the soil, it looked like nothing was there, the seeds were so miniscule. The instructions said to water it, cover with plastic wrap, and keep in a cool place, and the plant should sprout in 1-2 weeks. Well, 2 weeks later, nothing. I thought, "Me and my lack of green thumb, again."
But about two weeks after that, my daughter noticed that the plant had started to sprout. So I did what the instructions said at that point: remove the plastic wrap, water again, and place in sunlight. Well, sunlight in Tacoma is relative: it's mostly overcast except in the summer. But I placed it in a window.
Weeks and weeks and weeks went by, I watered it on occasion, and: nothing! No growth, no additional sprouting. I kept the plant, because it hadn't died, but figured this was another failure.
Then this morning, I looked at it. It has started growing suddenly! I haven't a clue why, but I watered it and decided that maybe now I should buy some plant food.
Enter TerraCycle. I learned about this company recently. They have a great story on their web site. They're a pair of Princeton grads who decided to start a company to maximize the "triple bottom line." Basically, there are three bottom lines a company can (and should) be concerned about: profit, people, and environment. Conventional wisdom says that the only way to maximize profit is to in some way shortchange people and the environment. That's why none of the most socially conscious companies out there (e.g., Whole Foods, Seventh Generation), while profitable to a degree, are among the top 500 companies in America.
These guys thought they could figure out a way. They started by making fertilizer, but have branched out into a range of gardening supplies, as well as cleaning supplies, office supplies, and handbags (!). Here's their concept: currently, waste is a huge industry in this country, and we're running out of ways to deal with it. People pay you to haul away their waste. So they decided that if they could make all their products from waste, including the packaging, they would eliminate their materials costs (and in fact, they often get paid by others for using their waste materials), and thus their revenues, minus labor, marketing, etc., becomes sheer profit. Their products are a crack-up: you can tell that they've used old soda bottles and milk jugs to package their plant food and potting soil, and they use stuff like snack wrappers, juice boxes and old diskettes to make office supplies and handbags.
I love it! And their supplies are sold at reasonable prices in a variety of stores, including Walgreen's, Fred Meyer, Home Depot, and Target. So after work today, I'll head over to Fred Meyer to purchase some TerraCycle plant food (made from food waste/worm poop!).
But about two weeks after that, my daughter noticed that the plant had started to sprout. So I did what the instructions said at that point: remove the plastic wrap, water again, and place in sunlight. Well, sunlight in Tacoma is relative: it's mostly overcast except in the summer. But I placed it in a window.
Weeks and weeks and weeks went by, I watered it on occasion, and: nothing! No growth, no additional sprouting. I kept the plant, because it hadn't died, but figured this was another failure.
Then this morning, I looked at it. It has started growing suddenly! I haven't a clue why, but I watered it and decided that maybe now I should buy some plant food.
Enter TerraCycle. I learned about this company recently. They have a great story on their web site. They're a pair of Princeton grads who decided to start a company to maximize the "triple bottom line." Basically, there are three bottom lines a company can (and should) be concerned about: profit, people, and environment. Conventional wisdom says that the only way to maximize profit is to in some way shortchange people and the environment. That's why none of the most socially conscious companies out there (e.g., Whole Foods, Seventh Generation), while profitable to a degree, are among the top 500 companies in America.
These guys thought they could figure out a way. They started by making fertilizer, but have branched out into a range of gardening supplies, as well as cleaning supplies, office supplies, and handbags (!). Here's their concept: currently, waste is a huge industry in this country, and we're running out of ways to deal with it. People pay you to haul away their waste. So they decided that if they could make all their products from waste, including the packaging, they would eliminate their materials costs (and in fact, they often get paid by others for using their waste materials), and thus their revenues, minus labor, marketing, etc., becomes sheer profit. Their products are a crack-up: you can tell that they've used old soda bottles and milk jugs to package their plant food and potting soil, and they use stuff like snack wrappers, juice boxes and old diskettes to make office supplies and handbags.
I love it! And their supplies are sold at reasonable prices in a variety of stores, including Walgreen's, Fred Meyer, Home Depot, and Target. So after work today, I'll head over to Fred Meyer to purchase some TerraCycle plant food (made from food waste/worm poop!).
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Trying to go green when you suck at certain things, Part II
Adventures in Composting
I've already mentioned that I had a few problems with my first attempt at worm composting (or vermicomposting). I recently joined the Vermicomposting group at Yahoo and posted about my problems, and got a few responses back. I'm going to cut and paste my post and the responses here, and then add my new thoughts.
=========================
My original post
In the fall I took a worm composting class, after which we were given a worm bin (a plastic tote with holes), shredded cardboard and a bag of worms. I went home eager to start. After a week, none of the food scraps I added seemed to be disappearing, so I emailed my teacher. He suggested adding a scoop of dirt. This would add other organisms to the bin, which he said would speed up the decomposition process.
After another week, the bin was crawling with fruit flies and other bugs, and I saw very few worms. I wrote my teacher again, who said to put a small glass jar in the bin with apple cider vinegar and a little dish soap in it. I did this, and while it captured a lot of bugs, it still seemed like just as many were swarming around.
For many weeks thereafter, this was the situation: very few visible worms, even when I dug around, and lots of other bugs. But since the bin seemed to have the right moisture level, it didn't smell, and food seemed to be disappearing, I thought that maybe it was OK.
However, since then I've read differing opinions on the web. Some say that you don't want to add decomposing food, because that attracts bugs and reduces your worm population. Others, like my teacher, say that decomposing food and other bugs are helpful, because they make the digestion process easier for the worms. So I am very uncertain.
Also, I have neither a garage nor a basement, so I keep the bin outside on my porch (I surrounded it with styrofoam, except for the holes, to protect from cold). When the first frost hit, however, everything in the bin died. I looked at it recently, and it has this white, spider-webby covering over everything that I assume is mold.
So now I have no clue what to do. Do I start over with a new bin and new set of worms in the spring? Did I do wrong or right with the bin I had in the fall? What should I do differently? And what should I do with the rotting mess in the bin I already have?
One more question...
How much food is a good amount to feed your bin? I kept food scraps in two 16-oz rubbermaid containers, and I generally filled both of them weekly. But I would only add one to the container at a time. Is that a good amount? Is it too much? How can you tell?
===========================
Responses
1. I don't know where you live but you probably need to keep your bin inside during the winter months. I'm in WI and I keep mine inside and will probably do so during the warmer months too just so I can keep an eye on it. I started my bin in November and I'm no expert but I've read alot and know what you mean about the information available - it can be confusing. Unless you have a well insulated bin that has some microbial activity working to help keep it warm during the winter the worms can freeze outside if you're in an uber cold place like I am.
To help keep fruit flys at bay you can microwave the food before you add it to the bin or freeze it. Both are effective ways to keep the fruit flys away. Also be sure to cover whatever you put in the bin with plenty of bedding to further deter the fruit flys.
It sounds like you need to dump the whole thing, wash it out and start over fresh. If you can't put the bin inside I'd personally wait until it's warmer outside to start a new one. I don't know that you did anyting wrong but make sure you have plenty of bedding next time. More bedding than food for sure. Cover the food well and I'd say either freeze it or microwave it before you add it to the bin and don't worry about if it is decomposed or not before you add it. It will decompose once it hits the bin. I personally blend my food too before adding it but I have a stackable system with good drainage so if you don't have good drainage you might want to skip that step. It's not really necessary.
2. I killed my first apartment worm bin too. Here is what I did wrong:
--I made it too moist because I was dumping my daily coffee grinds in it in a pot of water. The bin became sludgy.
--I added way more food than my worms could handle. It attracted flies because the worms could keep up so the food would decmpose on top.
--I didnt keep enough shredded newspaper on top of the bin so there would be no room for flies.
I would dump out your current bin and start over.
Once I realized that my worms couldnt eat all my scraps, they thrived. My goal now was to get some good vermicompost every three months for my plants. I would add a little food each week...and actually monitor their progress.
I now live in a place where I have a big yard. An outdoor worm bin is much easier to maintain because of space. I can dump everything I have into a large pile...and the worms just grow with the space. since it's in the corner of the yard, flies and other critters dont matter. it all just decomposes and breaks down.
3. I'd say to start out add a handful or two then montior it. If it's disappeaing then add a little more. How much you feed all depends on what kind of worms you have, how much they eat, how often you feed, temperature, bin conditions, etc. so there are no hard and fast rules.
When you start your new bin put in some stuff that breaks down fast like banana or melon and mix it with some other stuff that is a little slower like potato peels or carrot peels to get the process going.
Just some thoughts. . . .
===========================
My thoughts
As I said in my original post, I have no basement or garage, so the bin's NOT coming into the house. Thus, I'll have to wait until spring to restart the bin.
I always used a lot of bedding and did the microwaving bit, but it sounds like I might have fed them too much food. So I think that's what I have to do when I restart the bin: feed them less, and gradually let it build up.
Anyway, here's to hoping I have more success with my next compost bin!
I've already mentioned that I had a few problems with my first attempt at worm composting (or vermicomposting). I recently joined the Vermicomposting group at Yahoo and posted about my problems, and got a few responses back. I'm going to cut and paste my post and the responses here, and then add my new thoughts.
=========================
My original post
In the fall I took a worm composting class, after which we were given a worm bin (a plastic tote with holes), shredded cardboard and a bag of worms. I went home eager to start. After a week, none of the food scraps I added seemed to be disappearing, so I emailed my teacher. He suggested adding a scoop of dirt. This would add other organisms to the bin, which he said would speed up the decomposition process.
After another week, the bin was crawling with fruit flies and other bugs, and I saw very few worms. I wrote my teacher again, who said to put a small glass jar in the bin with apple cider vinegar and a little dish soap in it. I did this, and while it captured a lot of bugs, it still seemed like just as many were swarming around.
For many weeks thereafter, this was the situation: very few visible worms, even when I dug around, and lots of other bugs. But since the bin seemed to have the right moisture level, it didn't smell, and food seemed to be disappearing, I thought that maybe it was OK.
However, since then I've read differing opinions on the web. Some say that you don't want to add decomposing food, because that attracts bugs and reduces your worm population. Others, like my teacher, say that decomposing food and other bugs are helpful, because they make the digestion process easier for the worms. So I am very uncertain.
Also, I have neither a garage nor a basement, so I keep the bin outside on my porch (I surrounded it with styrofoam, except for the holes, to protect from cold). When the first frost hit, however, everything in the bin died. I looked at it recently, and it has this white, spider-webby covering over everything that I assume is mold.
So now I have no clue what to do. Do I start over with a new bin and new set of worms in the spring? Did I do wrong or right with the bin I had in the fall? What should I do differently? And what should I do with the rotting mess in the bin I already have?
One more question...
How much food is a good amount to feed your bin? I kept food scraps in two 16-oz rubbermaid containers, and I generally filled both of them weekly. But I would only add one to the container at a time. Is that a good amount? Is it too much? How can you tell?
===========================
Responses
1. I don't know where you live but you probably need to keep your bin inside during the winter months. I'm in WI and I keep mine inside and will probably do so during the warmer months too just so I can keep an eye on it. I started my bin in November and I'm no expert but I've read alot and know what you mean about the information available - it can be confusing. Unless you have a well insulated bin that has some microbial activity working to help keep it warm during the winter the worms can freeze outside if you're in an uber cold place like I am.
To help keep fruit flys at bay you can microwave the food before you add it to the bin or freeze it. Both are effective ways to keep the fruit flys away. Also be sure to cover whatever you put in the bin with plenty of bedding to further deter the fruit flys.
It sounds like you need to dump the whole thing, wash it out and start over fresh. If you can't put the bin inside I'd personally wait until it's warmer outside to start a new one. I don't know that you did anyting wrong but make sure you have plenty of bedding next time. More bedding than food for sure. Cover the food well and I'd say either freeze it or microwave it before you add it to the bin and don't worry about if it is decomposed or not before you add it. It will decompose once it hits the bin. I personally blend my food too before adding it but I have a stackable system with good drainage so if you don't have good drainage you might want to skip that step. It's not really necessary.
2. I killed my first apartment worm bin too. Here is what I did wrong:
--I made it too moist because I was dumping my daily coffee grinds in it in a pot of water. The bin became sludgy.
--I added way more food than my worms could handle. It attracted flies because the worms could keep up so the food would decmpose on top.
--I didnt keep enough shredded newspaper on top of the bin so there would be no room for flies.
I would dump out your current bin and start over.
Once I realized that my worms couldnt eat all my scraps, they thrived. My goal now was to get some good vermicompost every three months for my plants. I would add a little food each week...and actually monitor their progress.
I now live in a place where I have a big yard. An outdoor worm bin is much easier to maintain because of space. I can dump everything I have into a large pile...and the worms just grow with the space. since it's in the corner of the yard, flies and other critters dont matter. it all just decomposes and breaks down.
3. I'd say to start out add a handful or two then montior it. If it's disappeaing then add a little more. How much you feed all depends on what kind of worms you have, how much they eat, how often you feed, temperature, bin conditions, etc. so there are no hard and fast rules.
When you start your new bin put in some stuff that breaks down fast like banana or melon and mix it with some other stuff that is a little slower like potato peels or carrot peels to get the process going.
Just some thoughts. . . .
===========================
My thoughts
As I said in my original post, I have no basement or garage, so the bin's NOT coming into the house. Thus, I'll have to wait until spring to restart the bin.
I always used a lot of bedding and did the microwaving bit, but it sounds like I might have fed them too much food. So I think that's what I have to do when I restart the bin: feed them less, and gradually let it build up.
Anyway, here's to hoping I have more success with my next compost bin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
