20 May 2010

End of Year Recycling Tally

38,474.3 pounds.

19.2 tons.

Of recycling. This does not include the secure paper that gets collected, which I would guess is at least another few thousand pounds, and it definitely doesn't include all the items that were collected during Give and Go to be reused, or any of the composting that was done (another few thousand pounds).


Yes, it is the end of the year. And over the course of the spring semester, the recycling team collected a grand total of 38,474.3 pounds of recycling. Over the course of the entire year- 65,078.4 pounds (32.5 tons). Well done, recycling team. Well done. That is the equivalent of 12 adult male Asian elephants. Or 260 newborn elephants.

I have to add that a few thousand pounds of that recycling was done in the last week of term, after finals, when everyone apparently cleaned out every single liquor bottle they had drank throughout the year. I could tell, because they had signed and dated each and every bottle, and many of them dated back to September. I'm not sure what has prompted this trend, but it certainly makes end of year recycling a lot less fun. All those glass bottles are pretty heavy.

I also found, as I was recycling, several couches, refridgerators, tvs, two countertop grills, a coffee maker, a VCR, an untold number of lamps and trash cans, about a million storage boxes of some variety, a lot of unopened beers, books, clothing, two pairs of rubber boots, bedding, pillows, a desk, hundreds of hangers, vases, and a fish bowl. Oh, and my personal favorite, a deck of Bible Go Fish cards. I'm kind of mystified by how all these things get thrown away. We do offer a pick up for unwanted items- there is a drop off in the Student Center, where items can be left to be donated to thrift stores and the food pantry. But apparently some people were uninterested in taking the time to move their goods to the appropriate place. Leaving them instead for the poor housekeepers (and me) to haul away.

So while we've done an excellent job at recycling, we've still got a ways to go. Next year let's make it the goal to reduce as much waste as possible- and not just the bottle and can kind!!


Here's a fun post on recycling written by one of my favorite people ever, the trash guru clickclackgorilla: Save the Earth with Our Easy 12-Step Program


Read more...

06 May 2010

The Topic on Our Minds

Oh, the oil spill.

I’ve been avoiding writing about it, because it’s almost like, what can you say? I’m not surprised by it. Some people have expressed to me their disbelief that such a thing could occur: we thought the oil rigs were safe! I’m not sure what universe they’re living in, but I was never under the impression that they were safe. Have they been saying that on the news? I mean, when you think about it, what about an oil rig makes you think “that sounds like a brilliant idea”?

“Since 2001, 858 fires and explosions have broken out on oil and gas industry facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, killing more than 55 workers, according to the US Minerals Management Service.” - BBC

Yeah.

And of course, the irony is that this happens at the same time that Obama, supposed liberal hope of the future, approves offshore drilling. Hardy har har. It’s almost too coincidental to believe. It’s almost like his opponents went and caused an oil spill just to make him look like an idiot. Or that some group did it to raise opposition for off shore drilling. Or maybe it is a conspiracy to drive the price of oil up… by dumping half of what’s left into the ocean, there will be less of it? And then they will be forced to open the Atlantic to drilling because they will claim, like the flat out liars they are, that this will lower the prices again.

Here is part of a statement from Oceana that I think sums it up nicely:
Despite the oil industry’s statements, events like this one will happen again unless we act to prevent them. It is time for the U.S. to recognize that the risks of offshore drilling far outweigh any benefits. We must stop ignoring government studies showing clearly that expanded offshore drilling does nothing for the consumer: it does not lower the price of gasoline and it will not make us energy independent. As we watch the response efforts in the Gulf, and try to imagine the sheer magnitude of oil gushing from the bottom of the ocean with no end in sight, it is clear that our ability to find oil far outstrips our ability to respond to a blowout.

I think this is so hard to write about because it hurts, so, so, terribly. The sheer amount of devastation that comes from a spill like this- the lasting devastation- the loss of wildlife, of habitat, of livelihoods for thousands who depend on the sea for their incomes- it’s hard even to comprehend. And what is even harder to wrap your mind around is the fact that people want it to continue. People want underwater drilling to continue. People are willing to take the risk of THIS MUCH DAMAGE just so we can have a pittance more oil. Because that’s all you’re going to get out of the earth, at this point. There are only so many dead dinosaurs we can dig up.

The fact that the US government would be willing to spend billions of dollars chasing the pipe dream of additional oil, rather than say, oh, I don’t know, cut back on the amount of oil used, proves to me (as if I needed more proof) that the government does not have our best interests in mind. It has the interests of the lobbyists that pay the most. And those would be the oil companies. When I read the statements from legislators saying things like “we need this oil” and “with more research, this will never happen again,” I’m so angry I can’t even see straight. Both are blatant lies.

I think what disturbs me even more is the support American people have given to the concept of drilling offshore. There was an opinion piece in the college newspaper just last week arguing in favor of using more oil. This just makes no logical sense. There is no more oil, and the sooner we get that into our heads the more chance we’ll have to avert complete disaster. In the article the student argued that it is her lifestyle choice to use more oil, and that no one should be able to take that away. Which is fine, except that her lifestyle choice has caused tragedies like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. All of our lifestyle choices have. If you drive a vehicle, if you use ANYTHING made out of plastic, if you have power in your home, if you eat anything in a grocery store, if you buy anything from a store, it doesn’t matter if it’s the greenest hemp reusable bag out there, it used oil. And using oil causes oil spills. There is NO WAY AROUND IT. None. Don’t want oil spills? End the use of oil. Period. It belongs in the ground. It was there for a reason in the first place.

Sadly, people are delusional. I was having a conversation just the other night with two very intelligent young men- who were still arguing that it’s ok, we’ll find a technical fix long before oil runs out. But this is not the case, because we simply don’t have the time. Time’s up. Time to make a change. Time to end dependence not just on foreign oil, but on all oil. NOW. Because if you think this oil spill is a disaster, wait until you see what happens where there is simply no oil left- when people start starving to death because there are no more oil based fertilizers to make crops grow, when there are no more trucks to transport food, when suddenly oil is so scarce that our entire economy collapses under the increased price of literally everything- because that’s where we’re headed, people. There’s no way out. Not so long as we allow the status quo to remain.

Not so long as we ignore the fact that the US government is more interested in appeasing lobbyists than in the future health and safety of the entire US population.

One last note from the news, and the only person in the news I’ve actually agreed with: "That's what's sad about this opportunity," says Lisa Margonelli of the New America Foundation. "We're going to expend a lot of energy towards these moratoriums when we could be addressing the underlying problem, which is the oil consumption itself."



Read more...

21 April 2010

Things to Do This Weekend!

Readers, April is a difficult month for posting because there's so much going on. In fact, there's so much going on, that I thought I'd post the entire list, here for your perusal. All events are free unless otherwise specified:

Thursday, April 22
EARTH DAY CELEBRATION
11am – 2pm
Hodson Hall Commons and Cater Walk
An open community event for students, staff, faculty and friends of the college featuring foods from local farmers on our menu. We will be hosting a farmers market along Cater walk and showing the film "2 Angry Mom’s" in the Center Stage.
Fee to general public for lunch buffet $6.00

Friday, April 23
"Nourishing Traditional Diets for the 21st Century", a talk by Sally Fallon

7PM
Author Sally Fallon Morell exposes the dangers of low-fat diets and urges a return to traditional food choices and preparation techniques. She will speak in Hynson Lounge, Hodson Hall, Washington College. Sponsored by the Anthropology Department and the Center for Environment & Society.

Saturday, April 24
Mutt Strut & Earth Day Festival
9:00 AM to 1:00 PM
Fountain Park & Memorial Row
Chestertown

The Kent County Humane Society, the Town of Chestertown, and Washington College's Center for Environment & Society will present the annual Mutt Strut & Earth Day Festival in downtown Chestertown on Saturday, April 24, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Festivities begin in Fountain Park with the Farmers' Market, live music, and registration for the 13th annual Mutt Strut. The dog parade starts at 10 a.m. and winds through Town, finishing at the Courthouse where Shelter Associate Courtney Phelps presides over a series of "pawsitive" pet tricks, canine competitions and agility contests. There is a $10 registration fee for Mutt Strut, while Earth Day and pet fair festivities are free and open to the public.
Earth Day features eco-friendly exhibitors, crafters and vendors; free paper shredding; free recycling of fluorescent bulbs; free recycling of rechargeable- and alkaline batteries; environmental education, and opportunities for kids of all ages to learn why it is important to take care of Mother Earth's air, land and water. "The social, environmental and economic choices we make today have real consequences for the planet," says Mayor Margo Bailey.
For more information, call 410/778-7295 or visit ces.washcoll.edu and www.kenthumane.org.

* 8:00 AM - Farmers' Market opens in Fountain Park
* 9:00 AM - music begins on Memorial Row
* 9:00 AM - dog walkers register in Fountain Park
* 10:00 AM - dog parade begins
* 10:30 AM - dog agility contests begin in Fountain Park
* 1:00 PM - festival ends on a happy note

Mutt Strut & Earth Day is a community event sponsored by the Town of Chestertown, the Kent County Humane Society, and the Center for Environment & Society at Washington College.

Sunday, April 25
Taste of the Town
Featuring sampler plates of the signature dishes of 15 of Chestertown’s finest restaurants and caterers, including the beneficiary of the event, the Culinary Arts program of the Kent County High School.

Participating restaurants and caterers range from nouvelle gourmet to those famous for regional classics such as Maryland Crab Soup.

The tented event will take place from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m in Chestertown’s waterfront Wilmer Park.

In addition to food, Taste of the Town will offer beer, wine from the local Cassinelli Winery, beverage stations, a cookbook sale, raffles for restaurant gift certificates and
a live auction of select premier items donated by restaurants and sponsors.

"Skipjack: America's Last Sailing Oystermen", Christopher White and the Watermen of Tilghman’s Island
5pm – 6pm
Decker Theatre, Daniel Z. Gibson Center for the Arts
Join us for a powerful discussion about the decline of the oyster harvest and the future of the oystermen's way of life. The event will include a talk by Christopher White, author of the critically-acclaimed new book, Skipjack: The Story of America's Last Sailing Oystermen, and a unique public conversation with four legendary senior skipjack captains: 89-year-old Arthur Daniels, Jr. and his son Stan Daniels, both of Deal Island, and Wade Murphy, Jr. and Stanley Larrimore of Tilghman Island.
You are invited to "Meet the Captains" at the post-program Oyster Reception and book signing. Attendees will also have an opportunity to explore a remarkable exhibition of skipjack-inspired art, including photography, paintings and models by Chesapeake masters Marion E. Warren, A. Aubrey Bodine, John Barber, Carolyn Egeli, Tim Bell, the CBMM Modeling Club, and many others.
The event is co-sponsored by the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience and the Center for Environment & Society at Washington College.










Read more...

01 April 2010

McDonalds Scraps Composting Program Because Food Won't Decompose

McDonalds Scraps Composting Program Because Food Won't Decompose

Scary cause it's true. Or is that funny cause it's true?







Read more...

24 March 2010

Pointing the Finger

I was reading the book Cunt (Inga Muscio) again last night and had a thought. If you aren’t familiar with the book, it is a feminist book that attempts to reclaim the term “cunt” as a woman-positive word. I was reading the chapter on rape and abuse, and she finished it by suggesting that if women loved their vaginas, really loved them, they would not be so inclined to allow the silence and shame in regards to rape and abuse continue. The thought is, that if you really love something, you will stand up for it. What allows women who suffered rape or abuse to remain silent, and not to run out trying to find their attacker and kick his butt to kingdom come, is often a feeling that somehow they are at fault, or that they deserved it, or some kind of convoluted psychological analysis that leaves them feeling helpless and victimized but blaming themselves, not the perpetrator.

We have this problem in general, in our culture. We blame the victim. An author whose book I am in the middle of reading was attacked last week while in the middle of giving a talk- attacked by people who were supposed to be on her side. On the radio and online, people blamed her for the attack. Oh, she deserved it. Oh, she brought it on herself. She is a slight, middle aged woman with a spinal disease that renders her body very fragile. She was talking about the harm that agriculture does the environment. And for that, she deserves to be attacked? Really? She brought it on herself?

The point I am aiming for is that this happens in the environmental field, too. Environmentalists very often blame themselves for allowing the environment to be destroyed, or something. Like somehow they are personally responsible for deforestation, because they use toilet paper. They may be against deforestation, they may dedicate their entire lives to eradicating deforestation, but somehow it must be their fault that it continues. I myself am often guilty of this supposition. I have dedicated my entire life to trying to stop the destruction of the environment, but it hasn’t stopped, and there are many times when I despair and blame myself.

There are two reasons, I think, for this tendency. First, we are taught to take it personally. Recall the ending to An Inconvenient Truth. If you haven’t seen it, basically you are given a list of things you personally can supposedly do to stop climate change. They include things like changing light bulbs. I have spoken before on this blog on why I don’t believe for a minute that changing light bulbs will stop climate change. But this is common: most environmental books, most documentaries, most news reports, all end with what YOU are supposed to do to end climate change. Not once (at least in conventional circles) does someone say, you know what, I bet there are some things major industrial polluters could do to stop climate change. Not once does someone say, wow, I bet if those big polluting factories shut down, that would really help at least slow down climate change. Because it is clearly our fault. It’s because of what we’ve done, not because of what the big polluting factories have done.

The second reason is related. I’m reminded of the scene in Grapes of Wrath where a neighbor comes along and tells the family they have to leave their farm (and I am majorly paraphrasing here, because I don’t have a copy), because the land has been foreclosed or something. A company owns it now. The family asks, well, who is this company? Who are they, so we can go shoot them? And the neighbor answers, they are no one, they are just a company. There is no one to shoot.

We have this idea that companies, or corporations, or the government, or NGOs for that matter, are these entities that have no faces. How can we hold them accountable, if we can’t find someone to shoot (metaphorically)? When people first become conscious of environmental devastation (for many of us, this happens when we are children), they want to lash out at someone, anyone. And they realize that major corporations are a pretty big source of the problems. But how do you stop a corporation? Who are they? And so we blame ourselves, because the prospect of attempting to defeat a corporation is just too much to handle.

But it is not your fault. It is not my fault. It is THEIR fault. And a corporation is nothing but a group of people acting together. They have faces. They have names. They have no more power than they are allowed- and by hiding behind an “entity”, as they call themselves, they have an awful lot of power right now. But we have NO reason to remain silent and shameful, about rape or about the rape of the environment. If we love our environment, truly love our environment, and stop beating ourselves up because we sometimes have kind of a shaky relationship with it, we will do anything in our power to stop the abuse. Won’t we? Or are we too afraid of a bunch of random people who are too afraid to make their individual identities publicly known?

Rapists get off because they are sure the women they rape will not speak out against them, and that even if they do, they will not take matters into their own hands to make sure that rapist can never rape another woman again. Corporations get off because they are sure people will not actually speak out against them, and that even if they do, they will not take matters into their own hands to make sure that corporation can never rape another woman, I mean the environment, again. They are so certain of their power that they count on our fear and our own sense of powerlessness to keep us from acting.

But we are not powerless. If we really love our land, if we can love ourselves enough to stop blaming the victims and start blaming the perpetrators, it’s just a matter of finding the right person to shoot.


Read more...

22 March 2010

County Threatens to Cut Recycling

Chestertown Spy: County Cuts Curbside Recycling

Dear readers,

When you read the above news item, please also read the commentary. I would like to attempt to dispel some of the preconceived notions regarding recycling that the general public seems to hold. I feel that as the Recycling Coordinator for a 2000 person community I can speak with some accuracy in regards to the larger issue of the surrounding Kent County community.

First of all, recycling is an expensive proposition. As Ford Schuman states in the commentary (and he is one of the few other people who can speak accurately about recycling, being the head of a recycling company himself), “It has always been a misconception that recycling pays for itself. Recycling easily costs less than landfilling. Even if you have to pay $20/ton to ship a load to a manufacturer that accepts it free, you’re well below the trash tipping fee of $55/ton, not counting shipping. Plus you don’t have to safeguard the recycling for perpetuity and more jobs are created.”

Recycling does not pay for itself. Recycling will never pay for itself so long as raw materials are cheap and largely subsidized. Consider the plastic bottle. Plastic bottles are made of PETROLEUM, ie OIL, and we all know oil is in short supply. However, it is so heavily subsidized by the federal government that the price is unnaturally low. This allows beverage companies to use it copiously to produce plastic bottles for your consumption. You are not paying the price to them. They are not paying the price of extracting the oil, particularly from conflict areas. The federal government (and our soldiers abroad) are paying for this with YOUR tax dollars.

After you’ve used a plastic bottle, if it gets recycled, it is then somehow the county government’s responsibility to figure out what to do with it. They need to put out the money to collect it, and, because people are insufferably lazy, in Kent County they have chosen to do this via curbside collection to make it as easy as possible. We have gone a step farther at Washington College, because our community was too lazy even to be bothered with curbside. Instead, we installed 230 fairly expensive bins directly in hallways on campus and employ 10 students to empty them on a weekly basis, and still, STILL, we are not capturing all of the recycling that goes through this campus. An enormous amount of it goes into the trash, because apparently it is too “inconvenient” to walk ten feet down the hall to the recycling bin.

The fact that the county has been successful with curbside is a stellar recommendation for their efforts and commitment. But let’s talk costs for a minute. Here on campus, we have spent thousands of dollars on installing recycling bins (one sturdy bin that is able to hold up to the beatings students regularly give them is approximately $120- just as an aside, this is comparably cheap when placed next to your average public trash can). We annually (or rather, the federal work study program) pay about $25,000 for student work. And then there’s me, the only “full” time staff person dedicated to recycling, and considering I am technically only paid half of my salary to do recycling, but spend more like 80% of my time on it, the college is getting a pretty good deal. It’s expensive. And, to top it off, we aren’t paying for containers, or hauling. The county is (thanks, guys).

The point is, we as a society expect to pay to have our trash removed. We somehow expect recycling, because it is associated with the environmental movement, to pay for itself. Newsflash: it doesn’t. It never will, unless oil subsidies vanish and the real cost of raw materials reveals itself (I’m hoping for that option, personally). Recycling is not, and never will be, saving the environment. It is diverting a few types of waste away from landfills and converting them (through an extremely energy intensive and expensive process) into other materials. If we were really concerned about the environment, we wouldn’t be producing the recyclables in the first place, we’d be concentrating on zero waste and reusables. We’d be holding companies responsible for the products they are creating, so that the cost of dealing with a beverage container was put back on the creator (and the purchaser), NOT the tax-paying public and the municipalities.

But that, of course, would be inconvenient.

In closing, if the county is truly shutting down the recycling program because they are disappointed it’s not more of a money generator, I would really like to see the figures on how much they put out annually for trash removal and tipping fees. If these costs are covered by the towns (as I believe they are), then I move that it should be the responsibility of the towns to pay for recycling as they also pay for trash removal. And if people are not willing to pay more to live in town and have someone come to their doorstep to pick up their waste, they need not to create so much waste in the first place.

I invite anyone who complains about the expense of recycling to spend a day collecting and transporting recyclables from the public. After seeing the inordinate amount of materials people waste in the space of a single week, please feel free to come back to me and complain again about the expenses. All we, the recycling collectors of the world, are trying to do is manage YOUR waste in the most efficient way possible.

Believe me, it’s not a job that receives a lot of thanks.


Read more...

17 March 2010

Toxic Chickens, Anyone?

Chestertown Spy: MD Farms Putting Arsenic in Chickens
Washington Post: A Deadly Ingredient in a Chicken Dinner

This is a hot topic in the area right now, as we are in the middle of the chicken belt and Perdue's national headquarters are smack in the middle of Maryland's Eastern Shore (which is almost entirely rural, and dedicated almost entirely to raising chickens and grain for chickens- both of which are sorely contested as one of the main causes of the failing health of the Chesapeake Bay).

There have long been reports of arsenic in the drinking water on the lower shore, especially around chicken houses, and many children have tested positive for highly dangerous levels of arsenic in their systems.

This is the bit that got me going though:
"“It’s inhumane to withhold effective … treatment from sick animals,” Krushinskie said, comparing it to withholding antibiotics from a sick child."

Let's be clear that this is referring to giving arsenic based medication to chickens who are raised in chicken houses, to keep alive long enough to get to slaughter, because of the filthy conditions they live in- which are already about as inhumane as you can get.

Delegates against the ban actually argued that there is no problem with arsenic because it is natural and organic, citing its presence on the periodic table of elements as a basis for their argument. And of course, if the FDA says its ok, it must be.

Perdue claims to have stopped using it for their chickens but really have been using it off and on again, based on how much pressure they are getting from the companies they sell to (such as McDonald's). None of this is particularly surprising though, especially as Jim Perdue, CEO of Perdue, was recently awarded a prestigious award by the governor of our state: http://www.perdue.com/company/news/press_releases/press_release_detail.html?id=1224

Perdue cites their commitment to stewardship, sustainability, and family farming as the reasons for the success of their company- though they are well known around here for submitting their farmers to surveillance, harassment, and threat tactics to keep them from saying anything bad about the company, and several Perdue "family farms" have recently been sued for the MASSIVE amount of nutrient run off from their farms- including record levels of E. Coli, which run off straight into the Chesapeake Bay.

Just another example of how government officials are in the pocket of major corporations (did you catch O’Malley say he frequently turns to Jim Perdue for advice???), how corporations are able to get away with murder and yet still receive recognition as pillars of the community (AS IF), and how we are all in really, really deep trouble.


Read more...

09 March 2010

Confused Fish

Flushed Drugs Harming Bay Fish

I'm totally amused that he believes the fish no longer have any idea of whether they are boys or girls. Its an odd way to say it, it makes it sound like the fish are gender curious or something.

The idea for the take back makes sense to me. I don’t know how likely it is that drug companies will go along with the idea, however. And, as a veteran of recycling programs in general, I know it’s VERY unlikely that people will bring their unused prescriptions back to the drug store. Even I, coordinator of an entire college’s recycling program, constantly forget to take my recyclables up to the college, leading to the giant ziploc bags of batteries on my counter. So it’s a nice idea, and all, but I don’t have any faith that it will work.

I’m not sure what I would propose as an alternative. I do agree that drug companies should be responsible for dealing with the leftovers. They should also be responsible for recycling the containers. Maybe if there was a mail back program? Like when you received prescription drugs at the pharmacy, they came in an envelope that you could send them back in when the container was empty/ when you finished with the drugs but possibly had leftovers? I guess this would cause issues with the mail, ie transporting hazardous materials via the mail service. Who knows what kind of black market drug trade would spring up if you could raid mailboxes and steal leftover prescription drugs. But I don’t currently have any better proposals, aside from thinking that people take far too many prescription drugs in the first place.

Any thoughts?







Read more...

08 March 2010

Upcoming Local Food Meeting

If you live in Chestertown, on the Eastern Shore, or nearby, and are interested in local foods: eating them, supporting local farmers, and being part of a community that cares about it's members, then please join us on March 16, 2010, for a discussion on food freedom in our area. A small group of concerned citizens have decided to do something about the constant threats that endanger our access to local foods, the question is, what? What does our community need to make local foods available to everyone in the community, to increase knowledge of healthy foods and how to prepare them, and to assist local farmers in staying in business? In the interest of answering these questions, we are calling a meeting of all interested parties to find out more. In the future, we will most likely keep in touch by monthly or bimonthly updates on our activities, meetings, and information about local food in the area. If you are at all interested, PLEASE attend the meeting, if you are interested but cannot attend, please keep checking back on my food blog for updates. If you chose to join us, we will be doing our best to spread the word on articles, legislative actions, events, and opportunities in the area pertaining to local foods and food freedom.

Please pass this information on to anyone else who may be interested! We hope to see you at the meeting on the 16th.

Advocate for Local Foods
March 16, 2010
5:30 PM
Unitarian Universalists of the Chester River
914 Gateway Drive
Chestertown MD 21620

Even as small farms multiply and more local produce and farm products become available to consumers, the state government is just as quick to create new regulations making our access to those same products more difficult. Come learn about recent legislation that may threaten our ability to purchase our food at the farmer's market, as well as standing regulations that make it difficult for farmers to produce value-added products locally and direct market them to consumers. We will discuss what we as conscious citizens can do to ensure our right to choose our own foods, educate ourselves about the healthiest choices for ourselves and the environment, and advocate for food freedom throughout the state of Maryland. Activists from the local food movement around the state will be on hand to answer questions and propose solutions. Free and open to the public.







Read more...

The Wrong Kind of Green

The Wrong Kind of Green, by Johann Hari. Nation: March 4, 2010.

This is another one of those, no, REALLY? sort of articles. No, REALLY? Massive environmental organizations take money from major corporations?

No, it couldn’t be.

Sometimes it is so difficult to control the sarcasm on this blog. The funny thing is, I posted about this before, though in reference to the smaller scale version. Actually, upon reading that post again, I’ve already said just about everything I might say in response to this Nation article.

I do want to point out one other part. Hari mentions the phenomenon in which environmentalists are happy to be thrown a bone, any bone: a few trees here, a few concessions toward climate change there. Many environmentalists will accept just about anything if it makes them feel like they’re accomplishing something. It’s sad, but you see it happen again and again. They just back down and back down and say things like, well, the political climate isn’t right, and next thing you know, the actual, physical climate is too far gone to do anything about it. And then there’s no going back.

It’s so sad, and it’s one of the delusions that plague the environmental movement. We feel powerless. We have been raised feeling that nothing we do really matters, and really, how could we possibly defeat the massive corrupt army that is Congress and its multitude of corporate funders? What can we possibly do? Easy to accept the sad concessions thrown in our direction when faced with all THAT. I think the 2004 election had a lot to do with it. I think a lot of us, after staying up all night thinking to ourselves, no, there’s really no way that idiot could be elected president TWICE, woke up the next morning (or dragged ourselves into work after no sleep) with a different view of the world. No, our votes don’t matter. No, sense and the best interests of the population (and the planet) do not matter. Money matters. Money, and expansion, and the economy, and the rest, and we can scream ourselves hoarse trying to convince anyone else differently.

Some people seemed to become hopeful again after Obama election, and maybe these are the people who were still hoping something would actually come out of the Copenhagen debacle other than a lot of waffle. But really, anyone who actually expected some kind of effective decision to come out of Copenhagen was delusional. Anyone who still expects Congress, despite its immense corporate sponsors, to act in some kind of reasonable and responsible way as far as climate change goes, is living in a fantasy world. So in that sense, the accusation that the major environmental organizations are only aiming for what they think might have a chance of passing Congress is unfair. Those major organizations have a much better sense of reality than the environmentalists who thought real action would come out of Copenhagen.

Of course, that’s no reason not to take a hard line. After all, that’s how the major corporations get their way (well, that, and a whole lot of money). They stand their ground. They decide what they want and they fight tooth and nail, do everything in their power, to ensure that they get that outcome.

Shouldn’t that be what we do, as well? I’ve had about enough of waffle.





Read more...

06 March 2010

Surprise, Surprise: An Expansion

I realized, after posting on the recent death of a Sea World trainer, that I might not have been entirely clear on the subject. At the time, I was so pissed I couldn’t see straight, and that unfortunately leads to posts dripping with sarcasm and not really addressing the issue at hand.

Let me start with why this issue hits so close to home, for me. I wanted to be a marine biologist growing up. I wanted to be a lot of things, like most kids, but it was always a toss up between some kind of artistic career (art teacher/ fashion designer) and marine biologist. Specifically, I wanted to be a dolphin trainer. I have been nothing short of obsessed with the ocean and specifically dolphins for as long as I can remember. They are intelligent, arguably more intelligent than humans (they haven’t destroyed the planet, after all). And they seem to symbolize, for many people, something which is inherently lacking in our civilized lives: a freedom, a joy in living which is somehow expressed by a dolphin’s careening leaps above the waves.

My desire to be a marine biologist was thwarted by two things: an aversion to cutting dead things up in biology class to study them, and the realization that dolphins are not happy in tanks. It is highly deceptive, the dolphin’s smile: no matter what their mouths twist up at the corners, and it gives the impression that they are pleased as punch to swim in circles all day and leap out of the water for the entertainment of screaming visitors. But if you have spent any amount of time near captive dolphins, and I have spent long, long hours sitting by the window at the National Aquarium in Baltimore gazing at these magnificent creatures, you will begin to understand the ineffable sadness in their eyes. You can watch them swim around and around and around their tank between shows, always the same circle, as if they are pacing, frantically, looking for an exit, looking for something that isn’t there. There’s nothing in those tanks. They are solid concrete. They must be infinitely boring to a creature with an intelligence on par with most humans. I mean, think about it: how would you react to being kept, for your entire life, in the same room, with absolutely nothing to look at except blank concrete walls? There is absolutely no justification for that kind of torture.

The main arguments I’ve heard in favor of keeping marine mammals in places like Sea World (and performing for audiences) is that it promotes conservation efforts. I’ve used the same argument myself, in favor of the Baltimore aquarium. And it’s true, these places do a lot of great work to save the oceans, and to educate people as to why the oceans are worth saving (though this should be so blatantly obvious it appalls me that we NEED that kind of education). But is that a reason to keep marine mammals in captivity? And not only to keep them in captivity, but to force them to perform over and over again for human audiences?

I could maybe tolerate the argument in favor of rescuing injured marine mammals and nursing them back to health before re-releasing them into the wild. But most people seem to think that just because places like Sea World participate in conservation efforts, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not whales are kept in captivity. In fact, I’ve heard the argument that whales should be happy to be in captivity, entertaining humans, so that more people will be inspired to save whales. The thought is horrifying. If you applied the same argument to a human, say, if you proposed keeping children from Darfur in captivity to entertain and inspire Americans to donate money to end the civil war in Darfur, the uproar would be nearly unanimous. But most people also think humans are more important than animals, which, when it comes down to it, is why whales are in trouble in the first place. And really, so long as that attitude prevails, whales will continue to be in trouble: oceans will continue to be polluted, whaling will continue, climate change will continue unabated and we’ll all be screwed.

The real issue with a place like Sea World is that it encourages the notion that whales are there for whatever purposes we devise for them. They’re there for our entertainment, they’re there for our education, whatever you want to call it. They are there for human purposes alone. The purposes of the whales do not come into question. And I bet if you could ask one of these whales who have been in captivity their entire lives, would you rather be swimming free in the ocean or jumping out of a chlorinated swimming pool for the entertainment of humans who are probably not going to leave the theme park much more educated than they were going in, the whales would probably vote on the ocean. After all, it’s not like Sea World has thus far managed to end the threats to whales in its over 50 years of existence. If it had, I might be much more prone to agree with those who argue that a conservation program is reason enough to keep intelligent mammals in captivity.

There’s absolutely no reason why we should not be inspired to save whales by seeing them in their natural environments. But then again, as I said in my previous post, we keep ourselves in captivity, and seek to rationalize this at every turn. So it’s not in the least a surprise that we seek to rationalize the continued captivity and enslavement of marine mammals. After all, if we started to argue that whales have the right to enjoy freedom and joy in their lives, we might start to question whether we (humans) deserve the same.





Read more...

01 March 2010

26 February 2010

Western Shore Dorms Dominate Campus Recycling Competition

As was explained in a previous entry “RecycleMania: Now at WC,” the Recycling Program is hosting a campus-wide recycling competition to encourage recycling within dorms. As of February 22, the Western Shore dorms were sweeping the floor with the rest of campus, leading the competition with a staggering 7.71 pounds per capita. The Hill Dorms (namely East, Middle, and West Halls) followed in second with 3.77 pounds per capita. Sadly, our fraternity housing doesn’t seem to be pulling their weight, bringing up the bottom of the pack with a lowly 0.91 pounds per capita. With all the partying that us students know goes on there, one cannot help but wonder at what happens to all those bottles and cans.

With the addition of new recycling containers to Caroline House, Minta Martin, Reid Hall, and Queen Anne House, these dorms have joined in the competition. Information regarding their per capita recycling rates will become available in future updates regarding the competition.

Here are the rates in pounds per capita as of February 22, 2010:

Western Shore: 7.71
Hill Dorms*: 3.77
Cullen Dorms**: 3.11
Kent: 2.37
Harford: 2.27
Chester: 1.66
Sassafras: 1.20
Quad: 0.91

Thank you to all Washington College community members who actively recycle their reusable materials, and please continue to do so! If you haven’t been recycling those bottles and cans, it is never too late to begin. Stay tuned for additional updates about campus recycling and sustainability initiatives!

*East, Middle, and West
**Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester


Read more...

24 February 2010

Surprise, Surprise

So I caught this on the news today: Killer Whale Kills SeaWorld Trainer.

All I can say is, no, REALLY?

You put a 12,000 lb whale in a tank and expect it to jump through hoops? Seriously? Are you delusional?

But of course they are. People believe they can tame nature, that they can pen up a 12,000 lb social animal alone in a tank, and that everything will be fine. Because we're in control, aren't we? Don't we have control over everything? Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Of course, we put ourselves in cages, too. We call them offices. And we wonder when people "go postal," as they call it. And then we're just as shocked when a "killer" whale does the same. Of course, in that instance, it's all about a failure to follow job safety. I bet OSHA will get involved. Even the Humane Society recommends shooting the poor thing if it threatens human lives.

They can investigate all they want, to "determine what went wrong in this case", but it doesn't take an investigator to know an animal in an environment where it doesn't belong will eventually lash out.

Let me give you a hint, SeaWorld. Orcas do not give hugs.




Read more...

20 February 2010

The 11th Hour

I have a long list of environmental documentaries in my Netflix queue, but I very rarely watch them (even though many of them are instant!). I think the reason is that they annoy me far too much. I imagine many of them are intended for people who don’t know that the environment is in trouble, but for me, I tend to tune out half of what they say (because I’ve heard it a thousand times before) and then become aggressively angry at the other half because I don’t agree with the type of solutions they suggest.

The 11th Hour was a perfect example. Leonardo DiCaprio managed to annoy me so badly I nearly turned the movie off half way through. If you are new to the environmental movement, or looking to be told what you already know for the umpteenth time, than by all means, watch this movie. This is a perfect film for those who are just getting their introduction to the concept that humans have royally screwed themselves over by destroying so much of our environment (read: our surroundings, the place that we live). It will also make the many people who believe that environmental destruction is bad but don’t want to change their lifestyles feel very good about themselves, because it promotes, unsurprisingly, the same “vote with your dollars” nonsense that ended An Inconvenient Truth.

Let’s start with the same old, it’s us and nature, and we have to save nature nonsense. I was glad that he (Leo) at least acknowledged that part of the problem is our society’s tendency to view the two as separate entities: we are part of nature, whether we like to believe it or not. But, after pointing this out, he went on to ask if nature holds the answers to our environmental crisis. I suppose he is referring specifically to the non-human part of the world, which yes, Mr. Smarty-Pants, probably holds some answers. You will notice that the non-human part of the world would be getting along very well if it weren’t for us. They must be doing something right, don’t you think?

Leo clearly thinks so, too. At least, he featured plenty of fairly uninteresting speakers who seemed to think so. But then he went on to ask what a city would look like if it was designed like a forest, and my brain nearly exploded. This particular bit boggled me so much that I will ignore his assertion that we need a “new industrial economy,” which means more regulation from the federal government and a revised tax structure, to more heavily tax those persons who pollute. It is naïve and somewhat delusional to think the government will ever tax industry more than a pittance for pollution, and will never charge them with cleaning up the mess they’ve created. Government and big industry go hand and hand, and you can be sure that no politician is going to cut off their own funding by angering big business.

But to get back to this city designed like a forest thing. If a city were designed like a forest, it wouldn’t be a city at all. This is one of those paradoxical questions. A city, apparently, according to the dictionary, is a large town or an incorporated municipality (which would technically make Chestertown a city). A forest is, well, a forest. It’s got trees, diversity, healthy soil structures… it’s self-contained… and a city requires thousands of people to be living in the same place. Usually all on top of each other, in one big building. That’s the definition. In order for a city to exist, massive amounts of resources must come from other places, to the city. Even if they invent some fabulous way of creating food in quantities large enough to feed all the people in cities, I can almost guarantee it will require some kind of technology (because we’re big fans of technological fixes), which will require some kind of metal, which will require mining, which will probably require petroleum, which is a non-renewable resource- are you seeing how this is unrelated to a forest? People in those kinds of numbers always require outside inputs, which are inherently unsustainable, which forests are not.

Not to mention the fact that forests, every few decades or sometimes hundreds of years, deteriorate and decay and burn down or fall down and go back to shrubs or prairie or what have you before growing back up into big forests again. It’s part of the cycle of life. Death, growth, change. Forests evolve. Species come and go. There are cycles.

Can you imagine a city like that? Would it still be a city? Cause I think the answer is no.

And oh, please, shut up about the voting with consumer dollars thing. It’s getting old. There are ways to create change without going out and buying more THINGS.

Besides, where’s YOUR shirt from, Leo?


Read more...

18 February 2010

Suspicious Statistics

I read an article a while back (The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies) that brought something to light I had always known but never really thought about. Companies make claims all the time, without any of us really expecting them to mean anything. So often you see billboards that say things like “best beer ever” or “#1 in the US”, which, if you look at the products being advertised, seems very unlikely. But no one is fussed by this, it’s just the way things are. Companies can make all kinds of claims and no one questions them or pays much attention to them.

As I was driving into work this morning, I passed a Waste Management truck. Waste Management does all sorts of things, but mostly they haul trash and other waste away from businesses and towns and that sort of thing. The side of this particular truck said, “Our landfills provide 17,000 acres of wildlife habitat.” Or something very close to that, I was driving rather fast.

Now, this kind of baffled me. Landfills… wildlife habitat?



Sorry, that was a pause while I attempted to make sense of that. I looked it up on the Waste Management website (Waste Management Wildlife Habitat Council), and apparently what they mean is that after landfills are full, they cover them over and plant things on top. I’ve seen covered landfills, but usually they just have grass on top, due to the fact that there are vents all over it to let the methane out. The smell is usually pretty horrendous. Sometimes I think they build schools on top and that sort of thing. Apparently now they’re building wildlife habitat, which is all well and good, we could use more wildlife habitat. It’s the landfill bit that’s got me a little perplexed. Somehow it just doesn’t seem like a great idea.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use landfills for SOMETHING. And wildlife habitat seems to be a better suggestion than most. I’m glad Waste Management is concerned about wildlife habitat. I’m just suspicious when I see messages purporting that a company is environmentally friendly on the side of a truck hauling trash. Their whole company is founded on hauling waste- they are (to my knowledge) the largest such company in the US. And I, personally, do not believe we should be producing all this waste, no matter how much wildlife habitat we build on top of it. I’d rather have the wildlife habitat intact in the first place, thanks ever so much.

But I suppose it’s technically not Waste Management’s responsibility to reduce the amount of waste produced- all they do is haul it after it’s been created. But, I have to ask, if it’s not their responsibility, whose is it?


Read more...

15 February 2010

RecycleMania: Now at WC

The Recycling Program, located within the Center for Environment & Society, has been incredibly busy during these first few weeks of the spring semester in order to coordinate a wide variety of events and competitions promoting recycling and sustainability initiatives on campus. One such event that is currently underway is RecycleMania, a competition among over 600 colleges and universities to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of recycling programs by collecting results from participating colleges and universities in a variety of categories.

According to their website, RecycleMania is “a friendly competition and benchmarking tool for college and university recycling programs to promote waste reduction activities to their campus communities.” This competition, which was founded in 2001, occurs over an eight-week period and is currently in its second week. Sunday, January 17 marked the beginning of the two-week trial period, which precedes the official competition. During the two trial weeks, recycled materials at WC weighed in at 1.26 lbs. per capita and 1.57 lbs. per capita. Unfortunately, these numbers did not carry through to the first actual week of the competition, during which recycled materials weighed in at 0.49 lbs. per capita.

WC has been participating in this competition since 2007.

RecycleMania categories include Grand Champion, Per Capita Classic, Waste Minimization, Gorilla Prize, and Targeted Materials, including Paper, Corrugated Cardboard, Bottles and Cans, and Food Service Organics.

Additionally, the Recycling Program is hosting its own private competition among dorms to promote recycling. The competition, which started on February 1, is comparing recycling by weight per capita by dorm, and the dorms with the highest total pounds of collected recycling per capita will be announced at the end of the semester. Dorms will be penalized for their “grossness factor,” meaning that pounds will be subtracted from their total at the discretion of either the Recycling Assistants or the Recycling Coordinator based on quantity of un-recyclable products found in the recycling bins, and also for any items, such as food or plastic cups, that are particularly gross or annoying to find within the bins. The winning dorm will be recognized in the Elm and online, and results will be posted each week. Full details will be available at georgegoesgreen.com.

The Recycling Program has expanded this semester to include additional dorms. The only dorms not currently participating in the on-campus recycling program are Caroline House, Minta Martin, Reid Hall, and Queen Anne House. These dorms will receive new recycling bins, and therefore will be included in the competition, as soon as the snow clears and the recycling team can distribute bins among the halls.


Read more...

Snow, Snow, and more Snow

I’m going to admit up front this doesn’t have much of anything to do with the environment. It is a rant, pure and simple. But I think it reflects on why we treat the environment the way we do: we can’t accept a loss of control, pure and simple.

In my position at the college I am privy to most of the complaints levied by the population in relation to the goings ons of the everyday sort of campus affairs- broken toilets, out of order exit signs, and, most often, heat that is either too hot or too cold and air conditioning that isn’t functioning, depending on the season. I get just as many complaints at work as I do through facebook, which seems to be the repository of everyone’s bad feelings about their daily activities. And in the past week, there have been even more complaints than normal- and all about the snow.

Oh, I’m tired of being stuck in the house. Oh, there’s nothing to do. Oh, I’m so tired of shoveling, oh, I wish it would stop snowing, oh, the lines at the grocery store, whine whine whine. People who I know don’t like their jobs much complaining about how much they want to go back to work. People on and on and on about how the college shouldn’t have been closed for a whole week, that it was taking too long to get things cleared, that the state botched things up, that if we lived up north they never would have dealt with things so badly.

Well, I for one am appalled at these reactions. First off, knowing how hard the crew worked on campus to clear away the snow as fast as they could, staying overnight, not seeing their families, working endlessly to clear away snow that was already piled high on the ground, not to mention the places where it drifted- I saw damage to buildings, pieces of roofing pulled right off by the snow. And the understaffed crew had to clear it all away with two pick ups with plows, because one of them broke clean in half from the weight of the snow, a broken tractor, and a rented Bobcat. People asked why the snow wasn’t cleared faster. Well, what would you expect? It’s not like they’re willing to divert more money to the grounds crew, for extra staff, or for better equipment. And yet somehow they expect them to be able to make the snow magically disappear the day after it stops falling? Really the complainers should be ashamed of themselves for having so little respect for the people who have worked so tirelessly to clear the campus for them.

But it’s not just people on campus. Everyone I’ve talked to goes on and on about how miserable they were staying in their houses, not being able to get out and drive. It’s all about having to get out and drive- and honestly the roads would have been clear a lot faster if it weren’t for the people who insisted on trying to drive on them before they were ready, so that road crews (on campus included) spent more time towing people out of snowbanks than actually plowing. And what I can’t understand, is why people are so incapable of being inside their own houses (especially if they have children). Is being at home so bad? I got so much done over the week at home- and enjoyed myself more than I had in months. It was a right little vacation.

But then again, I’m ok with the slow pace. I’m definitely ok with not driving. I keep all the food I need in my house, because I don’t shop at the grocery store anyway. And I’m willing to admit that some things are just more powerful than business as usual, which seems to be what everyone else was so upset about. “Nature” cannot be allowed to stop the ongoing rush of daily activity. Snow? No. Snow cannot be allowed to cause interruptions, no matter how many feet of it fall on the ground. We must assert our control over it immediately, show that no manner of snow fall can keep US from driving on the roads.

And, to attempt to make this relevant, this is how it relates to the environment: we believe, as a society, that we can control natural forces. We believe weather has no effect on us. THIS is how we end up growing tomatoes with massive petroleum inputs in January. THIS is how we start to believe that we can change the composition of the atmosphere and not have any negative effects. We believe we, and the natural world, are two separate entities at war with one another. And, if we believe that it is direly important to conduct business as usual on a daily basis, we are at war with nature, because nature is not business as usual. Stuff happens, and that stuff usually happens for a reason (not like fate, or something), but because those weather events are important to the survival of the ecosystem. And we can fight them all we want, but in the long run, we will lose. Business is not going to conquer nature. Unless we accept the fact that we are as subject to its ever changing progression, we will get left behind.

So get over it, people. It snowed.


Read more...

04 February 2010

Recycling is Bull S***

Treehugger: Recycling is Bull S***

Before anyone gets offended, I’m borrowing the title from Treehugger. And I agree.

*waits for gasps of shock to disappear*

Recycling is a huge waste of time. The fact that students spend a total of about 50 hours per week collecting and sorting recyclables on this campus: waste. Those recyclables have to be trucked somewhere, and Kent County, just like so many other municipalities all over the country, is responsible for finding someplace willing to buy the materials (usually China). They don’t make very much money at it. But the alternative is to dump them in a landfill, and landfills are even more expensive.

Why is this such a waste? What alternative could there possibly be, you ask? Well, not so very long ago in the past, there were refillable bottles. You drank a Coke, say, and then you gave the bottle back. And they washed it out and put more Coke in it. Whoa. Same with most other beverages, including alcohol.

But for this to be possible, there had to be places making beverages in the relatively near vicinity of the place where people were drinking them. Otherwise you had to transport a load of glass bottles over long distances, and, well, obviously glass doesn’t travel very well. Plus it’s heavy, and costs a lot to transport. Having a lot of little places each making soda or beer or alcohol meant lots of little companies each making their own product, often unique, often with local ingredients. There were hundreds and hundreds of brands of sodas, and probably thousands of microbreweries.

Now, Coke couldn’t have that, could they? Thousands of people doing their own thing, making unique diverse products? Bad for business. And Coke couldn’t afford to have lots of little factories all over the place- far more efficient, and far cheaper, to make Coke in one place and ship it all over the country. But not if you have to ship glass bottles back, and wash them, and refill them, and ship them out again. Thus was born the aluminum can. Lightweight and cheap to ship. Can’t be refilled. Never mind the fact that aluminum is ridiculously expensive to mine, that’s all done in Africa, and who cares if strip mining demolishes native populations and leaves millions of people in stark poverty. For Coke, it’s not only cheaper, but now they don’t have to deal with the end product: it’s all yours! Part of the bargain! But what in heavens name are you supposed to do with that aluminum can?

Well, for years, throw it in the trash. Then the environmental movement got all crazy, and you had to recycle it. Notice the key word here: YOU. YOU had to recycle it. YOU had to figure out what to do with it. Municipalities, which are not exactly money making organizations, had to figure out what to do with it. And they, and you, have to do this with every single consumer product.

But I say NO. NO, it is NOT my responsibility to figure out what to do with this plastic bag. I don’t want it. I don’t take them. What the hell are they doing in MY river? I don’t remember anyone ever asking companies to make plastic bags. I don’t remember anyone asking the companies to start producing aluminum cans. And seriously, did anyone go around asking companies to make the ridiculous tons of plastic s*** that plague waterways around the world? I certainly didn’t. And yet it’s supposed to be MY responsibility to deal with it? Are you kidding?

It is time, far past time, that we stop putting all the blame on ourselves. Oh yes, you as a consumer can vote with your wallet and all that. I’m just not sure why we have to continue to be defined as consumers at all, as if we don’t have any option other than to consume. What if we become producers? What if there are local microbreweries, who start taking bottles back again, and refilling them, and selling them? What if you buy products locally, so they don’t have to be shipped at all? What if you buy them from craftspeople, who don’t wrap them in tons of packaging? Or, if you’re still determined to keep using those multinational corporation products, why don’t you DEMAND, with your consumer dollars that are supposed to be all-powerful, that THEY take responsibility for the packaging of their products? That THEY deal with the millions of tons of plastic, of aluminum cans, of other useless packaging, instead of passing that cost on to you, the consumer (because the municipalities are collecting recycling using your tax money)? What if THEY take responsibility for the pollution they create, and not just the waste, but the air and water pollution? Why is it our problem? Did we ever ask for it?

Companies will undoubtedly say this makes their products more expensive, but I say bull S*** to that too. Coke spends billions of dollars on advertising. If their product was really all that great, they wouldn’t have to. They could use some of that money to solve the problem THEY’VE caused.

But, oh right, the global economy depends on shifting all the responsibility away from corporations, who have the legal rights of people, but none of the responsibilities, and putting it on “consumers.” And CLEARLY the global economy is more important than the environment, and our health, and our lives.

How very silly of me.


Read more...

George Goes Green in US News & World Report

Look! We're in the news!

5 Unique Ways to Go Green if You're Living in a Dorm

I'm just amused that every time I'm quoted in a national newspaper, its for saying something that I have never in my life said. I definitely did not say "But if you want to get fancy, try organic hand towels and bamboo cutlery." I don't think I even said anything remotely resembling that. But, ah, well, the press. They do like to embellish.

At least we got featured! That's pretty exciting.







Read more...

14 January 2010

Ten Things Not to Buy in 2010

Ten Things Not to Buy in 2010

I think this list is kind of funny because I probably wouldn’t buy a single thing on it anyway, except maybe a newspaper subscription. I disagree that books are going out of style (send me your books! I’ll give them a good home), probably because I’ll never get a Kindle (my eyesight is bad enough without trying to read on yet another computer screen). I can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would buy new college textbooks anyway. And I definitely agree that buying CDs is pointless (when you can get them for free, and save waste in the process). Thumbs up to the no gas guzzling cars or energy inefficient appliances- but that’s another one that should have been a no-brainer.

I have another what not to buy list. In fact, call it a New Year’s challenge to rival the one to exercise more and lose that last ten pounds (except I encourage you to actually try and do this one). In fact, this one is even more of an imperative: it might actually make a difference.

1. Things from the grocery store
If you’re lucky, you live in an area with a farmer’s market and CSAs and co-ops. The marvelous thing about CSAs is that you don’t have to think about it at all- you just show up for your pickup and there is an array of fabulous delicious (local) produce for your selection! There are even meat CSAs and if you are in the right area fruit CSAs- all of which you pay for beforehand, in the winter- so you don’t even need your credit card when you go. The farmer’s market can supplement your purchases with things your CSA doesn’t offer- ranging from bread to pastries to jam to candles to produce to chicken to lamb to eggs and much more. Finally, for those products you can’t typically find at the farmer’s market, you can join a co-op to get (more or less) locally produced dry goods- I get flour and other baking necessities, as well as dry beans and rice, from my co-op. As long as I remember to put in my order each month, a wonderful friend of ours divides up the orders and gives everyone their bills. If you don’t know of a co-op in your area, start one up! It’s easy- it just requires a little extra time each month to put in orders and email everyone when its time to come pick them up. As a result, the only thing I buy at the grocery store is paper towels, and occasional random items like salt and lemon juice.

2. New Electronics
Seriously, why would you even bother to buy new electronics? Talk about a waste of resources. Check out this website for more on why: Last Year’s Model

3. Disposable Pads and Tampons
Many, many, reasons for this one, from the environmental to the personal. Check them out here: Green Girl Talk

4. Anything that comes in individually wrapped packages
And that includes granola bars- as well as candy, gum, tampons, crackers, snack products, and who knows what else. It’s pointless to individually wrap something when you can just buy a big version and save the waste. Besides, have you ever noticed that individually wrapped items are ALWAYS more expensive than bulk? Buy in bulk- save money, save time, save the waste!

I also want to include in this one bottled water. This is the biggest waste of resources known to consumerism, if you ask me. DRINK TAP WATER. If your tap water is not drinkable, bring it up with your city. Don’t spend all your money on bottles of water that are probably not much cleaner than your tap water, AND require ridiculous amounts of energy (and oil) to produce, as they are made out of oil, and the FDA does not allow bottles that contain food products to be made out of recycled plastic. So you can recycle all the water bottles in the world and STILL each new plastic bottle must be made from oil. Besides, even recycling uses ridiculous amounts of energy. Recycling plastic is not efficient.

5. Tissues
Handkerchiefs. I had to use a tissue again the other day, after having switched to handkerchiefs maybe… three years ago? And I got snot all over my hand. I was not pleased. Tissues are sad pathetic excuses for handkerchiefs. Believe me, your nose will thank you. I make mine out of old shirts, and just throw them in the wash when they get gross. They come out good as new!

6. Gag gifts/ Keepsakes/ Paper weights/ Things they sell at the Hallmark Store
I find these to be the most irritating things to receive from other people. They don’t DO anything. Apparently sales of them are high because there are entire stores devoted to these sorts of things. I go inside them every once in a while out of fascination: what is all this for? Why do we spend our hard earned money on things that have absolutely no purpose? Gag gifts can be funny, but it is more the concept that is funny, and after you’ve seen them once the laugh is over and that’s the end of it. Then what? Then it just sits around collecting dust and taking up space. Same with the objects people buy- I mean, one or two, sure, but seriously, some people have hundreds of these random little figurines and statuettes and who knows what else sitting around.

7. Soda
Do yourself a favor this year and give your system a break. It will thank you- as will the waterways that are poisoned every year by run off from the corn fields that go into the production of soda and other items made entirely of corn. You can find all about it elsewhere on this blog: here and here and here, to start.

8. Cleaning products, especially the nasty ones
You can clean with vinegar and baking soda. Really. There are tons of recipes out there for making your own cleaning products from very basic ingredients, and there are even more recipes for personal care products. Do some research, be a little creative and DIY, and spare our waterways from the nasty chemical runoff coming from our sinks and drains. No one needs fish kills and fish with both types of reproductive organs. If you must buy cleaning products, look for things that are biodegradable and contain the least number of toxic death chemicals possible. And buy in bulk.

9. Clothes
I once made a pact with my cousin not to buy any new clothing for a year. I used to have a serious addiction to buying clothing, especially shoes, and found myself spending an awful lot of money and time on the pursuit, and then not wearing half of what I bought. So I made a pact, and I broke the habit. Now I still almost never buy clothing, unless I really need something, and when I do I try and give away at least one item in my closet (to keep it even). I think in the last year I’ve bought: underwear, new snow boots, and leggings (which I wear every day). Definitely saves an awful lot of money, and reduces waste.

10. iPhones
This one is just because they annoy me. I know I already put “electronics” on the list, but I hold a special level of dislike in my heart for iPhones and Blackberries and the rest of them. When my dad is interrupting conversations to check his email on his Blackberry, and my friends are surreptitiously taking pictures of me and uploading them to facebook on their iPhones while we’re hanging out, I develop more and more reasons why the internet should just stay on the darn computer.


Read more...

06 January 2010

Forget Shorter Showers

Forget Shorter Showers

This is so spot on I almost don't feel the need to comment on it, except I think a lot of people might be confused by the message. But take a look at that statistic: if EVERYONE in the US did ALL of the things Al Gore promotes at the end of Inconvenient Truth, they'd still only reduce emissions by 22%.

22%, people. That's not exactly ending global warming.

It's not that it doesn't help. It's not that we should all go around leaving all our lights on all the time, because yes, the old saying "every little bit helps" stands true. It is, however, why I don't beat myself up when I take twenty minute showers.

I am not releasing billions of tons of carbon emissions into the air. Industries are emitting billions of tons of carbon emissions into the air. Now, whenever I've pointed this out to people, and suggested possibly shutting down industries, they usually reply with cries of horror and "no, that's not possible!" They then go on to tell me that it's me: the industries are producing all this stuff for me. Well, no, not really. Vote with my dollars? I do. I don't buy anything. Seriously, I really don't buy anything, except every once in a while a new pair of underwear. Oh, and soy milk, I still buy soy milk. But that's beside the point: I don't want the industries to keep producing things. I never asked them to produce all these (mostly) useless things. And yet somehow its supposed to be my fault that the industries keep emitting tons and tons of carbon and pollute the water and all the rest.

I get really, really tired of the arguments that put all the blame on consumers. Even if you stop consuming, which is next to impossible, because you are an animal and you have to consume SOMETHING to stay alive, you will not stop carbon emissions. You will not stop aquifers from drying up. You will not stop the production of millions of tons of waste. You really won't even make a dent- not compared to industry, government, and military uses. But you certainly aren't going to see Al Gore on TV telling everyone to take out industrial plants. Can you imagine? He'd be thrown in jail, or at the very least discredited and never heard from again. His supporters, after all, own many of the very corporate industries that are causing quite a lot of the pollution. Hm.

None of this is to say you don't have any power as an individual. You have quite a lot, as a matter of fact. But you can be guaranteed that any action that is condoned by people who stand to make money off it probably will not stop the destruction. Just a thought.

Also I love the phrase "systematic misdirection." I think that sums things up quite nicely.





Read more...

05 January 2010

Side with the Living

Side with the Living

Lovely article by Derrick Jensen.


Read more...