If you don't get it, we can't help you....

Read more...

Side with the Living

Side with the Living

Lovely article by Derrick Jensen.

Read more...

The Cove

Well, I was amused to spot one of the people in the film wearing a Sharkwater tshirt, having shown that film at the college a few years back.

They’re very similar films, Sharkwater and The Cove, except The Cove is (sorry Sharkwater guys, we love you) overall a little more coherent and compelling. Part of that is the underlying narrative which gives the film its name: a group of concerned activists discover a place on the coast of Japan where thousands of dolphins are annually driven in to shore, where they are rounded up and captured to be sold in the live dolphin trade. The dolphins that aren’t taken, including infants, are herded into a nearby secret cove where they are slaughtered for their meat, which is packaged as whale meat in Japan since the Japanese do not traditionally eat dolphin. The group of activists decide they must infiltrate this cove and film the slaughter process to get the word out to people the world over.

The film definitely had me on the edge of my seat, as it combines real life activism with a kind of Ocean’s 11 crack team operation suspense (they make the reference themselves in the film, but I found it to be fairly accurate). They obviously get the footage, and by the time you finally get around to the slaughter part your brain feels like it’s about to explode. Well, mine did. I was so angry that things like this constantly continue to go on that it was a miracle I didn’t run from my house screaming. It wasn’t simply the slaughter- it was the capture and trade of live dolphins, it was the fact that they were hiding that they sold the meat, which is highly contaminated with mercury, it was that children were dying of mercury poisoning because someone was trying to make money- it was the Japanese representative to the IWC blaming the decline in global fisheries on whales, who, according to him, eat too many fish- and backing it up with "scientific" evidence.

None of this is actually surprising. If you’re still surprised that stuff like this goes on, you’re living in a naïve fantasy world. And maybe I’m bitter and cynical, but stuff like this is going to CONTINUE to go on. Endlessly, maybe. Because no matter how many movies you make about this stuff, it doesn’t stop. Making movies does not stop people from slaughtering whales. Nor does writing letters, the suggestion given by the website of The Cove. Yes, write letters. Go for it. To whom? Who are you going to write a letter to who’s actually going to stop these people? It’s great to raise awareness, for people to know what’s going on. But everyone in the world being aware that dolphins are being slaughtered is not going to stop them from being slaughtered. Stopping people from slaughtering them is going to stop them.

Oddly enough the better depiction of how to stop people killing whales is to be found on South Park- given, they do a bang up job of making fun of everyone in the process, but that’s what the point of the show is. But as always, decide for yourself. Watch the movie, get angry, and decide for yourself if “letter writing” is the appropriate response to that slaughter- to the man who believes whales eating too much are responsible for the catastrophic decline in global fisheries- to the slaughter of millions of sharks- to all the rest of it.

Oh. And happy holiday.

Read more...

Film Review: Not Evil Just Wrong

I had the opportunity to attend a world premier public screening of Not Evil Just Wrong, a documentary about "global warming hysteria" hosted by the Republican Club at Washington College. The movie targets the belief that our planet is heating up, focusing on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. It posits that Gore is the leader of an environmentalist movement intending to fulfill its doomsday prophecies by destroying the fossil fuel industry, subverting the global economy, killing millions of Africans, and shattering the American dream.

Co-directors Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney recollect exaggerated human risk scenarios such as Y2K and "mad cow" disease. They show the morbid fascination of schoolchildren who are affected by Gore's film and emphasize that An Inconvenient Truth has nine inaccuracies or distortions. They present intermittent misconceptions about global warming: we are living in an ice age and extra heat would be pleasant, the melted ice shelves are regenerating, polar bear populations are rising, and coal power plants are exhausting no pollutants.

Detour to Africa, where human populations have plummeted since environmentalists helped to ban DDT, resulting in increased vectors of malarial infection. McAleer and McElhinney explain this is the result of Rachel Carson's seminal ecological work Silent Spring, which Gore continues to champion. Cut to Vevay, Indiana, the heartland of America, where residents share their conviction that their way of life would deteriorate if the local coal power plant were to close. Environmentalists agree: the rapid transition to a non-fossil fuel energy infrastructure will be painful.

Now we can balance the liberal cadences of An Inconvenient Truth with a conservative rebuttal: the agenda among environmentalists to save the planet at the expense of humans—depriving nations of DDT to control population; scaring children with apocalyptic visions; attacking coal production in the spirit of bad science.

The selective scholarship can be dismantled as quickly as it was cobbled together.

Read Silent Spring to clarify that Carson advocated the use of DDT for insect control. Watch Everything's Cool for an alternative stance on global warming. Screen Kilowatt Ours to learn more about our relation to coal as an energy source. Peruse The Weather Makers to illuminate modern climate science. Watch I.O.U.S.A. to see the cost of taking more than we have; imagine more with what we have in Cradle to Cradle.

The film aims for an audience that sympathizes with its message. It does not invoke challenges to the thesis that we can continue living on non-renewable energy, which it shrouds in a fog of DDT and heartland pathos. It presupposes that its viewers will not ponder the agenda behind a film that promotes endless fossil fuel consumption.

Ultimately, Not Evil Just Wrong hopes to perpetuate a culture besotted with cheap fuel, and to that end, it's added more coal to the fire.

Read more...

So what exactly is composting all about?

I spend my afternoons knee-deep in rotting fruits and vegetables. I’m quite friendly with maggots, worms, and other creepy-crawlies that you’ve probably never even heard of. I chase off swarms of flies reminiscent of the Amityville Horror. It’s not that bad; I’d even go so far as to say that I have fun doing it.

…No, really.

I’m half of Washington College’s formidable composting duo. Every weekday afternoon, Donna and I head out to Buildings and Grounds to work on the compost pile. When we get there, there are two or three trash cans waiting for us in front of the compost pile. The bins are filled with food waste from the dining hall. We drag them over and dump them on top of the heap. Then, we use our shovels to break the food into smaller pieces so it will decompose faster. Doing this also helps mix the new waste into the compost. When we’re finished, we cover the pile with dead leaves and woodchips and rinse out the trash cans.

I’ve heard that a lot of students on campus aren’t even aware of the composting program. I’m going to give you updates on our progress about once a week so you can stay informed about the environmental efforts on campus. But first of all, what is compost, and why is it important?



Compost, once it is complete, is an excellent natural fertilizer. It’s brown, crumbly, and doesn’t seem all that different from fertile soil. Compost is easy to make at home. It’s largely food waste, with dry materials, such as leaves, added to improve the chemical ratio. It needs moisture and air to decompose properly. All kinds of creatures find compost piles to be lovely places to live. If you were to dig into our pile here, you would find maggots, worms, and all kinds of other bugs that help decompose the food and make the compost more fertile. The process eventually concludes with mature compost- the familiar soil-like substance you might use to fertilize your houseplants.

But why compost in the first place? Why deal with all the rotting food and bugs? Is it really worth it? The answer is yes. First of all, compost saves space in landfills. America is quickly running out of space for landfills, and with the amount of trash we produce, this is a pretty serious problem. While food is biodegradable, landfills are terrible places for decomposition. The conditions aren’t survivable for all the friendly critters that live in a backyard compost pile. Oxygen can’t get to the trash that sits in landfills. The minimal decomposition that does take place in landfills actually creates explosive methane gas- something that is far more undesirable than a few maggots.

A compost pile has access to oxygen and water, making it an ideal environment for the bugs that aid in decomposition. Mature compost is nutrient-rich and chemically balanced, making it an excellent fertilizer. Some scientists even believe that the heat produced by a compost pile could even one day be used to heat homes!

While it is clear that a compost pile is far superior to a landfill, don’t just throw all trash into a compost pile. There are very specific guidelines about what belongs in a compost pile and what doesn’t. Of course, anything that is non-biodegradable is out. No matter how hard you try, you won’t be able to turn a plastic bag into compost. Food waste and paper, however, make excellent additions to a compost pile. Avoid composting animal products, such as meat, eggs, and dairy, because they will attract rats and smell really bad. Also avoid things that have been treated with pesticides because they will harm the bugs in the compost pile, and eventually the plants that receive the compost as fertilizer.

Now that you know the basics of composting, you might be interested to learn more about the program here at Washington College. Check back for weekly progress updates!

Read more...

The End of the Long Summer

So last night the environmental author Dianne Dumanoski gave a talk at the college. If you missed it, and I bet you did, then you missed quite a discussion. You can read all about her book, The End of the Long Summer, over at her website, www.diannedumanoski.com.

Dumanoski started by pointing out a fundamental flaw of the environmental movement, and one I’ve pointed out several times on this blog. We aren’t particularly honest with ourselves when we discuss our goals, if we discuss them at all. We talk about saving the planet, but this is an act of pure hubris- the planet will get on just fine if there’s climate change. There has been climate change many times in the past, and species have died back and rebounded in new and astounding ways.

What we’re really doing is saving the planet so we can still live on it. We can talk about saving whales and trees and rare species of butterfly, but let’s face it, we’re really talking about saving ourselves. There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing immoral about wanting to preserve your own species so your potential grandchildren can keep on trucking. Well, metaphorically- trucks may be extinct by then. But you get the idea.

In her book, and in her talk, she attempts to look beyond the symptoms of “planetary distress” to the actual cause. It was a refreshing talk in that she didn’t just ramble on about climate change- a frequent topic, among lecturers, and one she certainly brought up- but addressed the likelihood that we are in fact actually past the point of no return. Climate change, according to most research, is now inevitable. There’s no going back. We can mitigate the effects of climate change, certainly, and so there’s no reason to throw our hands up in despair and stop pursuing cleaner energy sources and things of that nature. But we also have to think beyond those mitigating efforts. If climate change is indeed upon (and it seems that it is- it is only the when and where and to what extent that are up for debate), our planning should be for how we handle the changes that will occur.

This isn’t a momentous idea. Most people, with only a cursory knowledge of human history, will agree that things change. Things aren’t the same now as they were 100 years ago. And yet we tend to act as if things are never going to change. Our economy is based on this notion of exponential growth, without taking into account that at some point there will be no more possibility of growth- we live in a limited environment (presuming we don’t expand into space, and the very thought makes me roll my eyes). Our food system is based on fossil fuels. Our communications (and most of our economy) are all based on a very fragile system that could fall apart with a few well placed keystrokes. And our heating and cooling is all based on electricity, as is our access to water. If these things are taken away- if something were to happen to disrupt public water systems, for example- would any of us know what to do?

These things are rarely taken into account. Dumanoski argues that we’re asking the wrong questions. We’re trying to “green the status quo”, a phrase that I love, because it so accurately describes efforts to find a technological fix for everything. On one of the green blogs I subscribe to, I am daily barraged with tips on “greening” everything from hair dryers to toothpicks to vacations to gym memberships. But there the question of whether we should continue to pursue all these avenues is never, not a once, brought into light.

The common law among environmentalists is that we can never, EVER, mention the dirty words “maybe we should just give that up.” No, we cannot question consumption. We can never, god forbid, question the mandate of constant economic growth, or the desire of people to own private jets. People will never subscribe to environmentalism if we’re so negative.

But Dumanoski’s call to action is not for us all to go around crying that the sky is falling. Rather, she simply suggests we be honest with ourselves, that we in fact must be honest with ourselves, if we hope to survive as a species. If we don’t prepare for climate change, how can we possibly face it? Wouldn’t the worst catastrophe be if climate change occurred, and very abruptly as scientists are predicting, and we all just stood there with a big “oh [insert four letter word here]” sketched on our faces?

She pointed out that the answers are in fact just in front of our faces. The planet organizes things in such a way as to be resilient to catastrophe. There are multiple species doing the same job, or similar, so that if one is killed off there are others to take their place. The college does this as an emergency planning measure- if one person is out, we are all required to have a second and third person trained to do our jobs so things don’t come to a grinding halt. Ecosystems are also modular- connected, somewhat, but not to the point where if one collapsed there would necessarily be a chain reaction wiping out all the others. But we in our global society are all very specialized- and all very connected- so that if oil reserves run out, for example, pretty much all of us are screwed. But that’s a topic I intend to write more about later.

During the Q&A the topic of hope came up- what is there to give us hope that we can face the momentous task of preparing for climate change, when we neither know when it’s going to occur or what form it’s going to take? Dumanoski responded that we can’t have hope unless it’s honest- unless we are willing to face the facts about what lies ahead, and realize that the “long summer” we’ve enjoyed will not and cannot last forever. She suggests large scale social reorganization as one of the only ways of becoming more adaptable to change- which is of course one of the things our society is most resistant to. She also pointed out that we’re currently educating for a future that doesn’t exist, and this is key. Even here at the college we’re still educating under the assumption that things will be more or less the same down the line when our students are facing the real world.

I think she’s partially right about the honesty- we absolutely have to be honest about what’s ahead. There is far too much unfounded optimism running around where “saving the environment” is concerned- and far too much despair. But I think we have something to be optimistic about. From what I’ve seen, when faced with the honest truth, most humans are able to step up to the challenge. When given a problem and asked to solve it, we have the creative capacity to find solutions- if only we are taught that we do have that capacity within ourselves, if only we are educated to approach problems with enthusiasm and an eye for the experimental, the untried path, the unconventional- and that it doesn’t take experts to save the planet for people, but people with the passion and dedication to be entirely honest with themselves and each other, and jump off that ledge into an unknown future armed with just their wits and one another.

Read more...

The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies

Reality Sandwich: The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies

It reminds me of the much passed around Stephen Colbert segment titled, appropriately, “The Word.” Specifically the one on Wikipedia. In it he points out that if everyone goes online and changes something on Wikipedia- for example that numbers of African elephants are in fact rising, not declining- then technically, for all the vast majority of the people in the world know- it becomes true.

The same holds true for all environmentalists. Our arguments have literally NO power- because we can say anything we like. We can talk endlessly about climate change, we can show a million charts and graphs and statistics, and the funny thing is, so can the other side. Everyone knows, nearly from birth it seems, that statistics can be manipulated to say anything you want. And so they have no power. You can list the tonnes of carbon in the air, spout percentages of increase until you’re blue in the face, and then someone will come along and point out that no, if you calculate the numbers in another way the increase isn’t so much, that there have been increases in the past, and so on and so forth until no one has the faintest idea who to believe. Another, less volatile example would be nutrition facts- we are back and forth from one year to another about which nutrients are good for you or bad for you and which foods you should eat and which leave out- to the point where most people refuse to believe any nutrition claims they hear, because they know perfectly well that they will change in the next few months, depending on the current fad.

This is not to say that some people won’t believe it- there are many who, among the constant barrage of messages, will cling to almost anything that comes into the mainstream media. Many people panicked over swine flu. But as the author of this article points out, many more just yawned and went about their lives. There have been so many crises- so many pandemics- so many scares about this and that, that it’s the least we can do to even pretend to pay attention to it.

So, if we are to supposedly to save the environment by changing the consciousness of the populace (as most of environmentalists will say- we can’t have change without changing the general attitude toward the environment), and at the same time the general populace is tuning out everything we say, how exactly are we supposed to bring about change? It’s something of a pickle. I think this is a rather valid point:
“When environmentalists focus on cost-benefit analyses and study data rather than real, physical places, trees, ponds, and animals, they end up making all the sickening compromises of the Beltway…Visit a real "mountaintop removal" operation and you know that there is no compromise that is not betrayal.”

It’s quite true. Visit the reality- put it right up in your face- and maybe, just maybe, you’ll get someone to pay attention. It doesn’t always work. I always wondered how anyone who had watched someone die of lung cancer- this was while I was in fact watching my grandfather suffer from the disease, the result of years of smoking- could actually smoke cigarettes. But I met people again and again who, despite looking the prospect of that debilitating, most unpleasant of deaths straight in the eye, weren’t in the slightest swayed from their determination to smoke a pack a day.

As the author points out, we fear that authenticity. We don’t want to look it right in the eye, because once you do, the elaborate web of illusions built up for you from birth begins to crumble, and your life becomes one mess of attempting to untangle reality from the “ubiquitous matrix of lies.” It’s not an easy task, and most people would rather stay in the matrix, though it leaves us with a sense of loss that can never quite be identified, and which we drown in via any number of mind numbing devices.

But there are some who are ready to hear- and it is to these people, the people who are tired of the status quo, tired of spin, tired of images and brands and the false tripe that’s surrounding you, everywhere you look, that we (if we wish to be successful as environmentalists) need to speak to- and not with more spin, not with more hype, but with the naked, simple truth- as plain and straightforward as possible, which means, as much as possible, without words (ironic to be writing this on a blog), but in the real world, where we can touch, and smell, and taste, and feel- the few senses that have yet to be entirely co-opted by others than ourselves.

Read more...

On the eve of the new year... a Reality Check

Does the fact that you turn off your light for an extra ten minutes really make that much difference?

Overall, no. We’re not going to lie to you and say that the 10 kWh you saved are really going to prevent global warming. They are, however, going to get you and those who will see what you do and follow your example in the right mindset, and that is that we need to start taking responsibility for our actions. That’s right, I’m about to be perfectly honest with you:

If we aren’t going to have a huge collapse, whether economic or ecologically or otherwise, we (as humans) can not go on living the way we have been, as if there are no consequences to our lifestyle and complete disregard for the balance in which every other living creature manages to function. If you use more resources than are required to support your population, you die. Period. No way around this one, no easy technological fix that is going to let us replace petroleum with solar panels (which are, by the way, made from petroleum), we simply can’t go on the way we are now if we want the human species to survive. It’s a simple matter of biological feedback. It doesn’t take a scientist to see we’re not only shooting ourselves in the foot, but we’re steadily drawing the barrel up to our figurative head.

This does not mean we are all bad people. This is what all those “Green Thoughts” are about. We are in fact an “invasive” species. But here’s where we differ from phragmites: we can make the conscious choice to get back in balance. We have the ability to realize we are on a one way path down catastrophe street, and that the answer isn’t so much as to turn the car around but to get out of the car and walk away. Time to find a new mode of transportation. Time to find a new street.

And here’s where I’m hopeful. Humans are innovative. We are immensely creative, when we aren’t fettered by our fears and the blindness induced by our culture. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, after all. Humans actually lived for millions of years without upsetting the natural balance- and if any particular group of people happened to do so, they died out. Pretty simple arrangement. If you don’t know who I’m talking about, I’m referring to the people we frequently call aborigines, or tribal peoples. Where they are still to be found, and by that I mean still found living the way they’ve always lived without interference from our culture, they manage to do the same thing that elephants and birds and fish have done all along: live without upsetting the balance that not only allows other species to continue to survive, but assures their own continued existence.
But we can’t live like that! We can’t live like elephants and birds and “primitives”!
Ok, fine. See you in the afterlife.

Living like elephants and birds does not mean we have to go back to living in the woods. For one, this is completely impractical. There isn’t enough space on the planet for nearly 7 billion people to go back to living in the woods. What we do need to do, instead, is figure out how to live without using more resources than our landbase can support. That means no more fossil fuels, for one. But it also means that everything we do, and I mean everything, needs to be examined from the perspective of its long term consequences not only on us (humans), but on our landbase and on the other species that live there. If we want to ensure our continued survival, we need to consider our actions in terms of not their economic viability or their efficiency (short term consequences) but of their ability to help us sustain human life for as long as possible (presuming this is the goal). To preserve human life, you need a planet to live on. Simple as that.

So let’s return to turning off the lights. I’m not asking you to stop having lights. I’m typing on a computer, clearly I am not running around in the wilderness without any electricity, nor am I suggesting you do so. I am, however, asking that you think what having a light bulb means. For a light bulb to exist, there must be a source of electricity to power it. This can come from any number of places, but aside from nuclear, solar, hydroelectric and wind, they more or less come from burning things to make steam which then powers lots of little machine bits and makes electricity. These things are not necessarily bad, unless you’re burning things that you don’t have an infinite, renewable supply of, like petrol. They also have the nasty side effect of filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and we all know what that means. The effects of hydroelectric power- meaning damming rivers- we all should know is bad for the environment. The fate of salmon should be enough to remind us that dams kill rivers, and everything that relies on those rivers, including, eventually, humans. As for solar and wind- well, you have to build solar panels and wind turbines out of something, and usually those things are mined and manufactured using, you guessed it, petroleum. Not an elegant solution. And anyone who argues nuclear power is a solution to the problem isn’t thinking in the long term, or is ignoring the fact that we can’t live on a planet filled with leftover nuclear waste.

The light bulb itself isn’t much better. It had to be manufactured, with more stuff mined up from the ground, not to mention the energy required to convert raw materials into a light bulb, and then it had to be packaged, shipped, sent to a store (this is also not mentioning the resources required to build the manufacturing plant, and the equipment inside, and the equipment used to mine the materials in the first place, and the materials and energy that went into building the vehicles used for transporting raw materials and equipment and finished light bulbs), and finally, eventually, taken home to be put in your lamp (which went through a similar process). And this is STILL leaving an enormous number of steps out of the process. You have a house to put the light bulb in, presumably.

So when you turn out the light for ten minutes, does it make that much difference? Not compared to the process required for there to be a light for you to turn on in the first place. Does this mean you should just give up, and not care? No. It means every single one of us needs to rethink how we (as a species) are living, and whether this whole mess we call civilization is really working out for us in the long run. If, after looking around for a bit, you conclude, as I have, that its time to get out of the car and make a run for it, you will begin to think about things a little differently. It doesn’t mean you won’t turn out the lights when you leave the room- because no matter what, there’s no reason not to live responsibly- it just means you’ll see the bigger picture. You turning off your lights will not make so much of a difference as light bulb manufacturers coming up with a light bulb without so many unpleasant consequences for ourselves and the environment. And no, I’m not talking about CFLs.

On campus, this means turning out your light will not make so much difference as the college itself switching to a better source of power- and let’s pause to define better as one with fewer long term consequences for ourselves and our planet- and beginning to think about our practices in the long term. Individual actions DO make a difference, because all the so-called green power in the world will not make up for millions of people acting irresponsibly with their light switches- but we also have to see the bigger picture, and know that individual actions are not going to save the world unless we also make some changes to the heavy hitters. For example, residential water usage accounts for only about 13% of the total U.S. water use- the other 87% comes from agriculture and industry. Your shorter shower may save a few hundred gallons over the course of the year, but if we aren’t also working to reduce the amount of water used by industries, we’re missing the bigger picture.

It’s not impossible. We invented the light bulb, didn’t we? I have every faith possible that we are more than capable of uninventing it as well.

Read more...

Two Sides to Every Story

Working in the Miller Library on campus has me riddled with two inquiries . First, why does no one seem to be using double-sided printing? Second, why is the temperature of the library controlled by another building? However, let us focus on the double sided printing dilemma.
Initially, I suspected no one would use double sided printing because they were unaware of its existence. I then took it upon myself to design advertising to promote eco-friendly printing, but much to my dismay posters to this effect were already strategically placed throughout the library. Not only were there posters in the library, students were aware of their printing options.
Trying to recover some dignity, I assumed students on a campus that emphasizes saving the environment must have a valid reason for not using double sided printing. Perhaps, the process of switching from single to double-sided printing is too complicated or time consuming. Further research led me to conclude that this process is neither complicated, nor time consuming. I managed to make the switch with about three extra steps. It took about a minute, but I am technologically challenged, and do not follow directions well.
Being absolutely beside myself I decided the students at WAC do not realize just how many trees are being destroyed due to their lack of consideration. Subsequent to a great deal of homework I discovered that there are about three thousand sheets of standard A4 paper per tree. I then set up the following statistics: there are approximately 300 seniors who all print say an average of 50 pages for their thesis, along with 100 pages in drafts and research articles etc. For those keeping score at home that amounts to 45 thousand pages, which is 15 trees; double sided printing reduces this number by half. So if every memeber of the senior class used double sided printing they alone could save eight trees. Not to mention every other student printing play scripts, power points, term papers, or other lengthy documents.
In addition, I found out that it requires 13 ounces of water to produce one sheet of paper. This is more liquid than is in a standard can of soda. Combine this with the above 45 thousand sheets of paper, and that is 585 thousand ouces of water, roughly 4, 570 gallons of water. This is enough water to fill an above-ground swimming pool that is 15 feet in circumference.
We all enjoy having unlimited free printing at the library. I myself often take advantage of it, but do everyone a favor, take the extra minute, change the print settings, save a few trees, and a great deal of water. It is not complicated, it does not hurt, and there are posters with directions for those who are computer illiterate such as myself. Also, if anyone is ambitious enough to install a thermostat in the library I would be grateful. This idea may seem far-fetched , but I think the librarians are responsible enough to regulate the temperature of the library.

Read more...

It's Easy Going Green. No, really, it is.

Standing outside the dining hall today at lunch, I heard a number of interesting responses to the new, reusable take out containers. I feel that about half the responses were “FINALLY! What a great idea!” and the other half were a little more concerned with the change. I’d like to address some of those concerns at length here on the blog, before the reactions really take off:

1. “We already pay for so much! Why do we have to buy something else?”
This is true. You all DO pay for a lot of things, and as a former student I can understand being rather concerned with how expensive it is to be in college. However, it’s only $4. This literally only covers the cost of the container, the dining hall is not making any profit on this deal. In addition, your meal plans barely cover the cost of running the dining hall, and it really doesn’t make sense for them to keep buying case after case of throw-away containers when they can purchase one container for every student one time. Think of it this way: if they save money, they will probably spend it on improving the food.
2. “Why don’t they just give them away?”
If the dining hall gave away reusable containers, would you still bring them back? Or would you throw them away? I had one student suggest putting a cap on the number given out to each student, but there’s really no way for the dining hall to keep track of this. Remember, limited staff, limited budget. There’s only so much they can do to feed hundreds of hungry students three times a day.
3. “Can we throw them away?”
That would rather defeat the point, now wouldn’t it? But yes, if, in direct defiance of being environmentally conscious you would like to throw the containers away, by all means. It’s your money. Or possibly your parents’.
4. “Do I have to take it to class?”
Not if you drop it off in your dorm first. Otherwise, yes, you have to take it to class. Get a backpack. They aren’t heavy, I promise. They also won’t spill or break or leak like those disposable ones, and there are three advantages right there.
5. “It’s not fair!”
This one I’m almost not sure how to respond to. Is it fair to the dining hall to pay thousands of dollars every year so you can conveniently throw away a take out container? Is it fair to the environment to use enormous amounts of resources to make all those containers? Is it fair to the environment to keep filling up landfills? Is it fair to all the other people in the world who have to deal with pollution from landfills, and from plastics ending up all over the place, including disposable take out containers? I don’t think it’s “fair,” or respectful, to expect the people of this campus to hand everything to you on a silver platter (or styrofoam container), or to clean up after the many, many containers that end up littering the campus, nor to make the environment and the health and lives of all the people on this planet suffer so that you don’t have to carry a lightweight container with you to class. Many colleges don’t even have take out. Many colleges would just tell you to bring your own container, without taking the extra step of providing brand new containers that are exactly like the old ones but better.

This is a good change for our campus. Long have I heard complaints that we talk about going green without actually taking action. Well, here we are, finally going green, and we are all going to have to suck it up and get used to it. The planet is dying, whether you want to admit it or not, and there are many things you can do to help prevent this catastrophe. Most of them do not require a huge sacrifice on your part. I don’t think I need to explain to anyone that if the planet dies, we (people) die. We cannot live without a planet. It’s our responsibility as living beings to do our part.

The new containers are pretty awesome, anyway. They can go in the dishwasher, or the microwave, and you don’t even have to wash them if you don’t want to, you can take it back to the dining hall and they will do it for you. Though I wouldn’t recommend letting food sit around your room, it attracts bugs. They are also sturdy, durable, lightweight, and should last you forever. And seriously, it’s only $4. What an investment!

Thank you to all the students, faculty and staff who are embracing this change and who gave me big smiles as they walked by with their new containers.

Read more...

Are you deep or shallow?

Since the inception of the modern environmentalist movement, there have been two major sections who both define what “being green” really means. The mainstream (and more popular) idea focuses on consumer environmentalism, where the buyer makes purchases based on whether or not the product is environmentally friendly. This is the environmentalism we are all familiar with – buy (certified) organic produce, recycle your milk jugs, and – look – you’ve helped save the world!

However, there is another branch of the green movement which feels that recycling just isn’t enough. Often, this movement, usually referred to as deep ecology or ecologism, is affiliated with radical groups such as Earth First! and PETA. With its ecocentric message, ecologism is often referred to by consumer-based environmentalists as misanthropic, which, of course, deters many people from even exploring dark green beliefs.

But is being deep really so radical? Many people don’t even realize that they are already following ecologist principles. Because ecologism is not an associative ideology like environmentalism, which attaches itself to an already existing political party, it often remains unknown to the public, especially in the United States. Ecologism has its own clearly defined principles that don’t adhere to the conservative and liberal parties. Here is just a short list of some of these principles:

• Emphasis on the spiritual and intrinsic importance of nature (Gaia hypothesis)

• Limits to growth is a reality

• Government decentralization (focus on local government)

• Anti-class posture

• Interdependence and complexity of systems

Just by looking at this list, it becomes apparent that ecologism is not part of any existing political system. It contains the aspects and principles of many political theories. I hadn’t even heard of ecologism myself until I took an environmental politics class in Ireland, where there is a much more prominent Green Party throughout Europe. After reading more dark green literature, I realized how much I agreed with ecologist principles.

Try it out for yourself. For more information on ecologism, try Andrew Dobson’s book Green Political Thought.

Read more...