|
Editor
of
Author of
|
Welcome to these regular musings, meanderings, wonderings and wanderings by Wendy Priesnitz. Blog Archives Highlights - Environment The
Ramifications of Cheap and Free – August 21, 2009 Recycling Frugality –
May 16, 2009 Enter the new eco awareness…and recycling the old into the new and useful – known as “upcycling” – has put a coat of fresh pain on the trend. Then the recession got even more people began sewing, knitting and gluing as a way of saving money…and that became hip too. Even the official poet of President Obama’s inauguration, Elizabeth Alexander, invoked images of the old thrifty ways, describing “[Someone] stitching up a hem, darning / a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, / repairing the things in need of repair.” Apparently, craft supply stores, knitting cafés and craft courses are doing a booming business these days. And that brings me to Natural Life magazine, which will be launching a new column in the July/August issue called Crafting for a Greener World. I’m very excited about it, especially since it’s written by Robyn Coburn, a professional artist and environmentalist who is also an unschooling mom (and contributor to our Life Learning book). You can read all about it here. Posted: 2009/05/16 5:27 PM Still
Cynical – March 27, 2009 Symbolism is Powerful…But – March 25, 2009 The hype is hyper. And it’s driving me nuts. The talk in some places is about “celebrating” Earth Hour. Pardon me, but there’s precious little to celebrate. Here in Canada, our political “leaders” are moving in the opposite direction from solving the climate change problem, gutting what environmental laws we do have. So I don’t think they’ll be paying any attention to the symbolism of people turning out their lights for an hour, even if WWF’s target of one billion participants worldwide is met. WWF admits that Earth Hour is a symbolic event and is publicizing it as a vote for climate change action. It says, “Turning off our lights for an hour won’t stop climate change but it does demonstrate that our individual action is important and adds up to make a big difference. More importantly, it sends a very powerful message to government and world leaders that people want policies and regulations put in place that can achieve meaningful emission reduction to help fight climate change.” I very much hope those leaders are listening. Action is urgent: In December, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to try to establish an international agreement for controlling greenhouse gasses. This meeting must result in a commitment to a fair and ambitious climate deal. However, it’s not as simple as watching people turn out their lights for an hour in March, then saying, “Oh, yes, we must regulate industry and we’re all in agreement!” The first Earth Hour, three years ago in Australia, was a brilliant (so to speak) idea. The second one was a wonderful community-building expansion worldwide. But this year’s Earth Hour might be one too many. It has degenerated into a meaningless Earth Day-type of feel-good exercise that has taken on a life of its own. As such, I fear that it’s paradoxically in danger of losing its focus on individual action (which has been a hallmark of my work and of Natural Life’s editorial for 30 years) and attracting a lot of greenwash. And if that continues, my cynicism could be catching, which would make the event backfire big time. The PR firms are working overtime as usual, but what is particularly disturbing to me is the way ordinary people seem to have gone so far off-track. Last year, I wrote about people driving downtown in their SUVs to “celebrate” Earth Hour. But this year, there was the newspaper article describing how one high profile environmentalist will be drinking wine and relaxing with friends in front of the gas fireplace…hope the electric fan is turned off. Or how about the Toronto VIPs who are dining by candlelight at the top of a downtown office tower…hope they plan to walk up. But they have to go, because they’d be Earth Hour Grinches – seen as unconcerned about the environment – if they sent regrets. Then there’s Earth Hour Canada, which is offering one lucky participant a trip to visit the polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba…courtesy corporate sponsors Frontiers North Adventures and Sears Travel, which is donating airfare (there’s a frivolous use of carbon if I’ve ever seen one). Not sure what corporate sponsor Coca Cola is donating. Cynical, maybe. Turning off my lights on Saturday evening,
sure. Neither will change the course of events much. We need to turn the
symbolism into action. Quickly. And I can’t help but wonder if the time,
energy, community and money could be better spent to that end.
We Need a New Way of Tracking the Costs – December 1, 2008 Speaking to BBC News at the recent World Conservation Congress, study leader and Deutsche Bank economist Pavan Sukhdev emphasized that the cost of natural declining natural capital dwarfs losses on the financial markets and has been happening every year. (Watch Sukhdev on YouTube talk about the WWF’s Living Planet Report.) This calculation of the financial cost of environmental degradation is a new way of looking at things, at least among the guys at the top. And it might be too new to be on the radar of most of the 8,000 delegates from 180 countries who attending the international climate talks beginning today in Poznan, Poland. If it’s not front-of-mind, the current economic worries will make it hard for them to keep fighting global warming. Lower oil prices mean less of an incentive to invest in renewables. Already, wind and solar power companies are slashing spending and the value of their stocks is plummeting. That’s crazy, given the urgent need for renewable energy! However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that it would cost less than 0.12 per cent of global gross domestic (GDP) product every year until 2030 to avert the worst of climate change. So what are we waiting for? I think we need a paradigm shift, a whole new way of looking at quality of life that goes far beyond the GDP and the stock market, and that questions the value of growth at any cost. We’re fixated on the GDP’s rise or fall as an indicator of how well things are progressing or not. But the problem is that the GDP just measures spending and makes no distinctions between transactions that add to well-being and those that diminish it; as long as money changes hands, the GDP increases. For instance, under the GDP, environmental pollution ends up being a positive because it creates economic activity – and is even counted positively twice: once when it’s created and again when it’s cleaned up. And the result of that pollution, which is often illness such as cancer, also ends up on the plus side of the ledger because it, too, creates economic activity. This mindset also affects families because, for instance, it doesn’t account for things like the value of household and volunteer work, which are invisible in the GDP because no money changes hands. And it values schooling – no matter how awful the quality – because, once again, it creates economic activity. There is a rising awareness of this problem and there are
some solutions being proposed. I’ve been writing about them for decades. Here
is a
simple article explaining the
issues, that will appear in Natural Life in March/April 2009 but is now on the
website because it’s too important to wait.
Be Careful What You Ask For – November 21, 2008 Green,
Frugal and Within Our Means – October 24, 2008 Thirty-two years ago this week, Rolf and I mailed out the first issue of Natural Life magazine from our rural kitchen. Since then, our family and our business have weathered a couple of major recessions and a couple more smaller economic downturns. The focus of that first issue and a large part of each one since then has been to provide information and inspiration for families to live within our means – both economically and environmentally. We used to call it “self-reliance” then, for awhile, “frugality” was the word of choice, and then “green” became hip. Unfortunately, what’s now called “green living” has gone off the tracks in the same way that our economy and environment have…and has become about buying things labelled “green,” “natural” and “organic,” rather than about making thoughtful and prudent choices, and refusing, re-using and recycling. And that has some commentators wondering if the recent trend toward environmental responsibility will be stalled by the economic downturn. So I’m back to talking about frugality, self-reliance and living without our means. I hope that
I won’t be a voice in the wilderness. I hope that the convergence of economic
and environmental problems will make people think what “responsibility”
means. I hope that it will create a broad awareness that short-term
gratification without thinking about long-term survival is irresponsible, even
– especially – in times of economic chaos. Sigh. I think I’m sounding more
and more like my mother – a woman who was the only person in a family of 11
who worked during the Depression in the 1920s and who knew what living within
one’s means truly meant. The Most Important Topic – July 19, 2008 Um, they forgot education! Thoroughly educating ourselves and our children about global warming is not a choice anymore. It is the most important issue of our day – more important than terrorism (although they are related in some ways), more important than the economy (although, again, there are strong links). Our children are the ones who will pay for what the previous few generations have done wrong. An awareness of the problem and what each of us can do to try and fix it is crucial. So learning about the problem and seeking solutions must be a part of the everyday life of each individual and each family. We affect the world by the way we consume, travel, work and play. Lessening our environmental impact is the central challenge to humankind today – the most important topic we can think, write and talk about, no matter whether we learn at home, at school or on the street corner. Having said that, I do believe that young people who have
been given the freedom to be self-directed learners are the ones most able to
create solutions to the problem. And, as I wrote in my editorial for the
July/August issue of Natural Life, in order to create the circumstances that
will nurture a large enough number of these self-directed learners, we need to
examine our attitudes towards children and re-evaluate not only how we educate
them, but how we birth them. We need to nurture their ability to think creatively and
independently, to respect their rights, to shape their values, and to learn from their
instinctive kinship with the natural world and with each other. The need is
urgent and it is immediate. Mothers
and Daughters – June 14, 2008 Will it be the Economy or the Environment? – April 27,
2008 But I think this time around things may be different, given the urgency of the consensus about climate change. In fact, a full-blown recession – in spite of its short-term pain – might be the best thing that could happen right now. Almost two years ago, in his review of the economics of climate change, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern warned that international action needed to be taken immediately if we are to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. His message was clear: We must act promptly or pay a far higher economic price later. So I’m hoping that the issues currently in the news, which range from melting glaciers and declining fish stocks to the hoarding of rice and the escalating price of wheat and oil, might be converging in a way that will motivate individuals, companies and governments to maintain and extend this embryonic focus on living within our means – both economic and ecological. If we pay close enough attention, one of the lessons to be learned is that there are limits to growth and that the growth-at-all-costs economic mentality is a sure path to destruction. Pursuing energy efficiency is one of the best ways to deal
with an economic downturn…and, obviously, has environmental benefits too.
Continuing their pursuit of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies
would also help companies create and maintain their green reputations in front a
public that I don’t think is going to stop paying attention. There is plenty
of work to be done on the technologies necessary to create and maintain a
low-carbon economy, so the dinosaur-like high-carbon oil economy companies might be motivated to shift their
focus in a way that would help both their bottom lines and the Earth. And that
should mean that we reach the end of the decade with both the economy and
environment in better shape than going in. When the Green is Just Veneer – April 12, 2008 However, the fact that there are increasing numbers of businesses trying to present themselves as green when they’re not is, I think, an inevitable growing pain in the move towards real sustainability. Yes, these greenwashers are exploiting people’s honest desire to be responsible consumers and environmental friendliness is often little more than the sales angle du jour. But if there is an upside to this, it’s that companies are competing for customers based on their perceived greenness! And that can be seen as both a sign of and a precursor to progress. Until we live in a perfectly green world, the answer to this conundrum lies partly in balance and in understanding that toxicity is a tricky issue and that ridding our lives of all toxins and pollutants is almost impossible. A huge part of the solution is for governments to create better standards and labeling regulations…and to enforce them. Furthermore, as author and green business guru Joel Makower points out, we all need to be as hard on ourselves as we are on the companies we criticize. In his blog, Two Steps Forward, he writes, “While it’s good that we maintain high standards for companies seeking to claim environmental leadership, I can’t help but ponder the hypocrisy of it all: how much more we expect of companies than of ourselves.” So while we’re on the lookout for greenwash, let’s all
examine our own lives to be sure we are doing all that we can to address
environmental problems…without holding others to a higher standard than we
have set for ourselves. Bleached Green – January 15, 2008 Now, I have been wondering if this environmentally unfriendly company was trying to wrap itself in a stylish cloak of green ever since it bought out uber-eco body care manufacturer Burt’s Bees a few months ago. And, sure enough, it’s just come out with a line of “natural cleaning products” called Green Works. But why is Sierra Club – which has, in the past, joined lawsuits seeking to clean up chlorine – telling me about Clorox’s new product line? “The Green Works line will make it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy eco-friendly products,” according to Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s Executive Director. “The Sierra Club is excited to help influence the buying behavior of millions of Americans [it will be available in Canada too] who want to do the right thing by purchasing safer products. People are out there looking for solutions, and we’re eager to give a giant kick-start to the market for green, affordable household cleaning products.” Up until now, says the Sierra Club, “a big stumbling block for families who want to live a greener lifestyle has been the high cost of ‘green’ products and the fact that they are not always easy to find.” Well, I’ve been cleaning quite effectively with lemon juice, baking soda and vinegar for 35 years and have found them to be neither expensive nor difficult to find. According to Sierra Club/Clorox, Green Works is “99 percent natural and made from ingredients derived from coconuts and lemon oil, and contains no phosphorus or bleach. The products are formulated to be biodegradable, non-allergenic, packaged in bottles that can be recycled [which is no different than any other cleaning product] and not tested on animals.” There is no word as to whether or not Clorox is going to stop animal testing its bleach and other toxic cleaning products, or stop making bleach or remove toxic ingredients from its other products. But to its credit, the company uses the relative term “environmentally-preferable” in addition to the over-used and unregulated “natural” (chlorine is “natural”) and it does list its ingredients (including the one percent non-natural ones) on its labels. I’m happy that one of the major manufacturers is
seriously recognizing the growing market for responsible products (sales
of natural cleaning products rose by 23 percent between 2006 and 2007,
according to SPINS, a market research and consulting firm for the
natural products industry).…and I am even willing to consider the
possibility that this could be an indication of a permanently raised
consciousness on the part of Clorox (although I see no evidence yet).
But – aside from Clorox’s other non-green products, its current
motives and whether or not Green Works is a quality product – I’m
very unhappy that a major environmental organization has compromised its
independence and integrity by entering into this branding partnership:
In exchange for Sierra Club’s endorsement (name and logo on the
label!), Clorox will be providing “support for Sierra Club’s efforts
to preserve and protect the environment,” which translates into an
undisclosed fee based on sales. Now, Sierra Club has always been
pragmatic, encouraging companies that do the right thing, like when they
issued a press release in 2005 congratulating Ford for creating a hybrid
SUV. But unless they’re setting themselves up as a certification
agency with clearly published standards (and I see no evidence of that
either), accepting royalties on sales in exchange for their logo on the
label is selling out big time in the name of greenwash. As a journalist,
I will now be wondering what’s behind every new Sierra Club press
release that I receive. Or maybe I should tell them to stop bothering to
clog up my in box. Shopping to Save the Planet – November 21, 2007
Simon Fanshawe, writing in the UK-based magazine Green Futures suggests that male-dominated governments have been destroying the planet for too long, and now women need to clean up the mess. And, since we already control the majority of the shopping decisions, all we need to do is buy the right foods, shoes and handbags. Fanshawe is referencing a serious initiative on the part of two British organizations – the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and the Women’s Environmental Network – which have launched the Women’s Manifesto on Climate Change. And, yes, women may be more inclined than men to initiate and value small, personal and family-based changes, which is an approach I’ve long championed in the pages of Natural Life Magazine. But Fanshawe’s article highlights something I’ve also been saying since the latest wave of environmental concern surfaced awhile back: While ethical consumerism is important, we can’t shop our way out of the problem. Writing in the Guardian newspaper last summer, British writer George Monbiot cynically derided ethical shopping as “just another way of showing how rich you are.” For the record, I may be the only person on the planet who dislikes that highly opinionated man and his best selling book Heat…well, actually I couldn’t stomach his attitude enough to finish reading the darn thing. But I do agree with him on that point. If I receive one more cute little miniature recycling box or one more supposedly biodegradable plastic pen from a PR firm, I’ll have to move out of my house to make room for all the “eco-junk.” That has been defined as the Sixth Sin of Greenwashing in a just released study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing. They’re the company that administers the EcoLogo marketing program begun in 1988 by the Canadian government. They say that the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils, illustrated as organic cigarettes or a hybrid-yet-inefficient SUV, occurred in one percent of the 1,000 products they tested. Unfortunately, 99 percent of the products were, they say, guilty of greenwashing or stretching the eco-truth. The study and details about the other “sins” can be found on their website. So shopping ethically ain’t easy, folks, even if it might do some good. Fanshawe says that we will probably have to define
ourselves less by what we buy, and more by how we behave, to make a real
change. So the solution is to buy less stuff, not just substitute green junk
for non-green junk. Perhaps the best immediate choice is to celebrate
Buy Nothing Day this Friday! Organic Industry Shoots Itself in the Foot – June
22, 2007
Not only is locally grown food fresher and tastier, it lowers the environmental impact of transportation, supports small farmers and encourages a sense of community. Not all locally grown food is organic, of course, but in the best of both worlds, it would be. In the same issue of Natural Life, we report on new Nielsen survey results showing that in spite of huge growth in the Canadian organic industry, consumption outpaces production. So then why am I reading in my local media that
organic growers across Canada are busy filling out applications for “Canada Organic”
certification so their products can be exported to supermarkets in France
and Japan? It looks like Europe is outpacing North America on the food front, in
the same way they are years ahead of us in terms of reduced packaging,
cradle-to-grave stewardship of consumer products and renewable energy
production. A World-Changing Legacy – May 27, 2007
Not a Movement – May 26, 2007
And today, I read an article that brought my discomfort into focus. It was written by Paul Hawken, a writer and green entrepreneur whose work I’ve admired for many years. (Back in 1995, we published an interview with him in Natural Life magazine.) Writing about what he estimates are hundreds of thousands of groups and individuals around the world fighting climate change, war, poverty and other social problems, Paul describes a phenomenon that is “dispersed, inchoate and fiercely independent.” And, he says, there is no authority to check with (she notes, gleefully.)The organic and collective desire among disparate people to provide a better educational experience for their children fits Hawken’s model. And that model feels good to me because it allows homeschooling (or unschooling, or radical unschooling, or home-based learning, or life learning, or whatever label we give it to facilitate conversation) to fit into what is a massive convergence of citizens who are putting aside constrictive ideologies in the name of creating a better world. And what’s more, says Hawken, “This is the first time in history that a large social movement is not bound together by an ‘ism’.” Yes! I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve rejected being labeled with an “ist” or an “ism”…and Natalie and I have had many a conversation about that as she has tried to understand where I am coming from and where I am going. I prefer to discuss – and identify with other people on the basis of – ideas, processes and goals rather than ideologies. Maybe that sets me apart from some in the homeschooling “movement.” So be it. Hawken ends his article (which, by the way, is an
excerpt from a newly published book called
Blessed Unrest) by noting that change is rooted in our willingness
to re-imagine and reconsider. That’s what life learners are doing in
terms of education. And
I’m proud to be part of that, however we label it...or not. Green and Growing – February 21,
2007
In fact, he said, the costs of action to correct global warming are far less than the costs of inaction. But politicians are busy telling us that we can’t make greenhouse gas emission reduction targets without risking economic collapse. Canada’s new Environment Minister John Baird said just two weeks ago that the country “should brace itself for an economic hit when limits are imposed on emissions from industrial polluters.” Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, admitted cutting global greenhouse emissions by 30 percent by 2050 would cost about one percent of the world’s economic output. However, he said, the cost of failing to act could be as much as 20 times higher. Meanwhile, Canada’s emissions continue to rise and are currently about 34 percent higher than the goal. I’m hopeful that the recent rise in
public interest in fixing our environmental errors will force
governments to get moving. But the auto and oil industries (and their
respective unions,) to name just two sources of greenhouse gas
emissions, aren’t going to appreciate being forced to redefine
themselves. So it will take bold and unwavering action backed up by a
strong conviction – not things most politicians are known for.
However, I think that we may be reaching a tipping point and that many
people are ready to accept much greater change than the politicians give
us credit for. So get on the phone to your elected representative today
and tell him or her you want them to put away the green paintbrush and
start to take real action on climate change. Fast, while there is still
a future for our children and grandchildren. It May Not Be Too Late – February 4, 2007
I am seeing a huge and sudden increase in the number of people wanting to learn to live sustainably, as demonstrated by the rising sales of subscriptions to Natural Life magazine. Sales of everything organic, energy-efficient and otherwise green are skyrocketing. Corporations are realizing that sustainable business can be profitable. I’m hoping the momentum can be continued, making 2007 the year that citizens, governments and the business sector alike mobilize to save the Planet. Never have the opportunities been greater, but never have the stakes been higher. And for that reason, look for the conservative naysayers – funded by the fossil fuel industries – to rev up their activities. With the release of the UN’s latest climate change report, they have begun creating a cloud of PR pollution, trying to convince voters to convince the bandwagon-jumping politicians that climate change is just part of a normal cycle and isn’t caused by human activity…and therefore the lucrative activities of big commerce shouldn’t be obstructed in its name. Be wary of groups with obfuscating names like Natural Resources Stewardship Project and Friends of Science trying to convince you that you won’t like the economic fall-out from sustainability. Dinosaurs can make a loud noise as they fall. One of the places to monitor the activities of the
dinosaurs is
DeSmogBlog. No Straw Bales or Birkenstocks Here – November
28, 2006 Here is an example: There’s a magazine out of San Francisco called Dwell. A six-year-old architectural and design magazine that is going increasingly green (but without Birks and sackcloth), it is one of those gorgeous publications chock full of ads for expensive products and artful photos of expensive houses. And there, on page 96 of the current issue, in a piece about a California condo loft project, is this comment: “It’s a testament to how mainstream green living has become that GreenCity doesn’t ‘wear its green on its sleeve,” says Swatt (the architect who says he didn’t have a clue about green building when he began the project). “You won’t find any straw bales here.” Huh? Has straw bale become the new Birkenstock? I’ve never been able to figure out what there was
in the early days of the environment movement that causes certain
people’s noses to twitch and elevate…unless it was our earnest
belief that there was a problem needing to be fixed. Nor do I think
it’s productive, now that the problem still hasn’t been fixed, to
further separate into snotty factions within a movement whose work has
never been more urgent. C’mon folks: If we don’t start serious
problem-solving and lifestyle changing, in 2050 it won’t matter
whether, in 2006, we sat on a $5,000 haute-design organic faux leather couch
with FSC-certified trim or some hand-me-down pine chairs. Meanwhile, feel free to search the
Natural Life magazine
website for a bunch of straw bale articles…and look for an interview
in the January/February issue with a Canadian woman straw bale builder.
She seems pretty chic to me, and she’s built some houses that could
easily be featured in Dwell and its ilk. I didn’t ask if she wears
Birkenstocks. It’s irrelevant. The Clichés Have It Right Green being the new black means environmental awareness has become hip. Rachel Sanderson wrote in a Reuters news story that a market research firm in the U.K. has found that sales of organic, free range or Fairtrade foods are surging because “Green is the new black in ethical Britain.” Fashion writer Suzy Menkes told her International Herald Tribune readers “Why Green is the New Black.” Why? Well, according to Bono of U2, supporting his wife’s Edun line of clothing, “We have got to find ways of making our activism sexy, and fashion is it.” Apparently the venerable Sierra Club agrees, because its magazine portrayed fashion designer Katharine Hamnett as “making green the new black.” Wouldn’t want to go back to wearing “hairy sacks” said Hamnett. Gee, I must have missed that fad. Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter proclaimed that (guess what?) “Green is the new black” when he introduced the magazine’s green issue last Spring, complete with a star-studded cover by celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz. I’ve seen the phrase used as a headline in the magazines Time and Inc., in the Guardian and Sunday Times newspapers, on many websites and blogs, and in materials published by the UK Environment Agency, the Australian City of Sydney, among many others. Somewhere along the line, that phrase gained the status of a cliché. Then there’s that business about the new tobacco. Unlike the color metaphor, there doesn’t yet seem to be a consensus about what exactly is the new tobacco. Writer Matthew Lynn wrote in Bloomberg News last fall, “There is a very real possibility that aviation is about to become the new tobacco – a product once universally popular that is now socially unacceptable.” Or maybe it’s junk food. In an effort to fight the rise in childhood obesity, five of the largest snack food producers have said they will start providing more nutritious foods to schools. Responding to the move, Dr. Thomas Robinson, associate professor of pediatrics at the Stanford School of Medicine, likened the problem as “similar to what happened to tobacco over the last several decades.” Along the same lines, the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has warned that “fat is the new tobacco.” A British shareholder activist group argues that “oil is the new tobacco”. Oil companies could find themselves facing large legal suits – similar to those launched against tobacco firms - if they ignore the potential consequences of global warming. Meanwhile, an Australian blogger feels that cell phones could be “the new tobacco.” Then there’s Printing World magazine, which asked “Is offset litho the new tobacco?” (It had something to do with environmental regulations that apparently weren’t being met.) Aside from an obvious need for creative headline writers
and as irritating as clichés are, they herald some
strong steps in the right direction. Public opinion polls show that the
health and the environment are at the top of people’s list of
priorities right now. And although I don’t think this concern involves
merely having the right to buy eco bubble bath, I do believe it means
that most of us – while we want our governments to stop embarrassing
us and get serious about the environment – are willing to make
fundamental changes in our lives in order to ensure a future for our
children. If it takes clichés to make people trade in their Hummers,
eat locally and organically, stop smoking and begin to question how
their children are being educated, I’m all for them. Buying While the World Melts – November 22, 2006 You’d think this report would galvanize people to action. But what’s coming across my desk these days? The Ideal Bite is advertising its Green Gift Guide, where these self-appointed “trusted advice-givers” and introducers of “light green living” share their personal recommendations about green bath and body products, eco gadgets, eco fashion and online movie rentals. The Vancouver-based GLOBE Foundation announces its EPIC sustainability expo, which “isn’t about being ultra-environmental, it isn’t about abandoning your car, eating only food grown in your backyard, or leading a life you wouldn’t want only because its better for the environment.” (The press release also claimed it was the first ever sustainability expo, which, of course, is a stupid comment because there have been hundreds in the past…including some that my company Life Media produced a decade ago…) Oh and Greenlight, a new “digital magazine,” is touting a “moveable and sexy fireplace.” Also in my in-box is a public opinion poll that has
announced that the environment is the second most important issue for
Canadians. I don’t think their concern involves having the right to
buy eco bubble bath. I believe it means that most of us – while we
want our governments to stop embarrassing us and get serious on this
issue – are willing to make fundamental changes in our lives in order
to insure a future for our children. Sorry, GLOBE Foundation, I’m
hoping that by the time your event happens next Spring you’re even
more out of tune with everyday people than you are today. There are
serious changes to make. Before it’s too late. Scary Stuff – October 31, 2006 Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman, will advise the British government on climate change. The government is reportedly considering new “green taxes” on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles and intends to become a world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in Bonn, Germany, the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just released new data showing an upward trend in emissions of industrialized countries in the period 2000–2004. This is not new information, but the report ‘Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006’ constitutes the first complete set of data submitted by all 41 industrialized Parties of the Convention to the Bonn-based secretariat. According to the secretariat, in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 per cent. However, this was mostly due to a 36.8 per cent decrease in emissions on the part of economies in transition of eastern and central Europe. Within the same time-period, the greenhouse gas emissions of the other industrialized Parties of the Convention grew by 11.0 per cent. The UN’s chief climate change official pointed
out that despite the emission growth in some countries in the period
2000-2004, Parties of the Kyoto Protocol stand a good chance of meeting
their individual emissions reduction commitments if they speedily apply
the additional domestic mitigation measures they are planning and use
the Kyoto Protocol’s market-based flexibility mechanisms. Trouble is,
both the U.S. and Canada have turned their backs on Kyoto. For instance, Canada’s proposed Clean Air Act will wait until 2050 to cut emissions by 45
to 65 percent. For further information on climate change and what
is being done about it, visit the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
website. Buying Our (Hip) Way to Salvation? – May 13, 2006 So what’s with this apparent need to make eco-consciousness hip? Is there a new generation of people who won’t do the right thing if it’s not easy? And what does “hip” mean anyway? Does it mean having not to exert oneself, change one’s lifestyle an iota, endanger one’s manicured (“naturally”, of course) fingernails by stirring a pile of smelly compost or – horrors – sweat by disembarking from one’s hybrid SUV and actually walking to the grocery store, cloth bag in hand? Obviously, it doesn’t involve wearing “Birkenstocks or burlap” as one of these self-styled eco-hustlers told me recently. Or eating granola. Who knew? Now, I’m all for creating a sustainable economy.
Matter of fact, I’ve been running a business for 30 years now that
helps do just that. (Why do new converts so often think they’ve
invented whatever they’ve just converted to?) But this apparently
“growing market of light green consumers” better wake up and smell
the organic, free-trade coffee. Call me old, square or cynical, but I don't think
buying our way to salvation will work, in spite of the oh so earnest laziness of this new genre. But I
guess some of them will be laughing their way to the bank as Rome burns.
On Being Effective – February 1, 2006 I responded that it takes only a bit of exposure to
the mainstream media to develop an awareness of the fact that many
aspects of society, including the environment and the public education
system, have big problems. The time has long passed when, instead of
wringing our hands and launching another academic study about the
problems, we should focus on creating and demonstrating solutions. In
his
EcoLetter, author Guy Dauncey quotes from an interview with Amory
Lovins,
co-founder of The Rocky Mountain Institute
where he said, “When I give talks about energy, the audience already
knows about the problems. So I don't talk about problems, only
solutions. But after a while, during the question period, someone in the
back will get up and give a long riff about all the bad things that are
happening – most of which are basically true. There’s only one way I've
found to deal with that. After this person calms down, I gently ask
whether feeling that way makes him more effective.”
Unnatural Disaster – September 5, 2005 A number of commentators (although not many in
the mainstream media, who mostly seem content to share the results of
the epidemic of photo ops that has broken out) have been making the
connection between our alteration of the natural world – and
increasing fossil fuel consumption – and the destruction wrought by
Hurricane Katrina. According to many scientists, the early results of
global warming may have exacerbated the destructive power of Katrina.
Unfortunately, watching the U.S. administration’s casual handling of the human and physical damage does
not reassure me that it understands that the world’s richest and most
powerful country needs to respect natural systems. If the escalating
human cost doesn’t convince the powers-that-be (and I do not intend to
even get started on a rant about the cavalier treatment of New Orleans’
poor and black
residents), perhaps the economic
toll will. Worldwatch
President Christopher Flavin has pointed out that indiscriminate
economic development and ecologically destructive policies have left
many communities more vulnerable to disasters than they realize.
“This,“ he says “together with rapid population growth in
vulnerable areas, has contributed to worldwide economic losses from
weather-related catastrophes totaling $567 billion over the last 10
years, exceeding the combined losses from 1950 through 1989. Losses in
2004 exceeded $100 billion for the second time ever, and a new record
will almost certainly be set this year once Katrina’s damages are
totaled.” But it is hard to be optimistic. As author Ross
Gelbspan wrote in the New York Times last week, “Unfortunately, very
few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina [Global Warming] because the
coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the
public in doubt about the issue.” And, he points out, the reason is
simple. “To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut
its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the
survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.”
Maybe that’s why the mainstream media is so quiet on that score: they
rake in a lot of money from advertisers in that industry. At any rate, something has to stop the
short-term thinking that has allowed the government to divert funding
from infrastructure repair and disaster preparedness to help finance the
Iraq War. The Americans aren’t alone in this; failure to protect
ecosystems contributed to the massive loss of life when the tsunamis
swept across the Indian Ocean last year and when Hurricane Mitch killed
10,000 people in Central America in 1998. When will we learn? And when will we begin to invest
meaningfully in alternative energy options that would both address the
climate change issue and leave us less reliant on fossil fuels? If not
now, when? Write your local politicians and ask that question. And keep writing. School
is Poison – August 1, 2005 Insecticides caused 35 percent of the illnesses, while disinfectants containing antimicrobial properties caused 32 percent. Thirteen percent of the illnesses were associated with repellants, and 11 percent with herbicides. The remaining nine percent were attributed to other causes, such as rodenticides or fungicides. Children are more susceptible to pesticide exposure because they breathe more air pound for pound than adults, they play on the floor and they live closer to the floor, where pesticides linger, than adults do. The study found that the incidence rates among children increased significantly from 1998 to 2002. While the study looked at acute, or short-term, effects, the study authors note that, “Repeated pesticide applications on school grounds raise concerns about persistent low level exposures to pesticides at schools.” Continuing, the authors state, “The chronic long-term impacts of pesticide exposures have not been comprehensively evaluated; therefore, the potential for chronic health effects from pesticide exposures at schools should not be dismissed. Unfortunately, the surveillance methods used in our report are inadequate for assessing chronic effects.” In addition, the authors note that pesticides on school grounds can be tracked inside school buildings. The researchers advise schools to use integrated pest management techniques and try to reduce or eliminate pesticide drift from nearby farms, to reduce the amount of pesticide-related illnesses. The public health advocacy organization Beyond Pesticides called on Congress to respond by passing the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA). On the other hand, the conservative
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) issued a press release suggesting
that West Nile Virus is a bigger problem than pesticide use., and saying
that “the public must be careful not to fall for the hype” of
“anti-chemical activists”. “For decades, environmentalists have
been trying to scare the public about pesticides, when in fact
pesticides pose little risk when used properly and are a critical part
of controlling disease outbreaks and pest-related risks at schools,”
said Angela Logomasini, CEI’s Director of Risk and Environmental
Policy. The CEI declares itself as dedicated to the principles of free
enterprise and limited government. But it clearly puts corporate rights
far ahead of those of children.
Creating Social Epidemics - May 28, 2005 I’m beginning to think we have reached or are approaching the tipping point for many of the ideas I have written about since 1976. Yesterday on my morning walk, I encountered a group of self-described “unschoolers” taking in a children’s festival. On a visit this morning to my local farmers’ market, I noted that almost all the vendors were advertising something “organic”. On the twelve-block walk home, a Starbucks I passed had a display promoting shade-grown, organic, Fair Trade coffee. On the newsstand next door, a glossy city magazine boasted a hefty environmental feature, which was printed on post-consumer recycled paper. And I counted eight hybrid cars, a biodiesel bus and two gas-saving three-cylinder Smart cars. Dan Becker, Washington Director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming Program recently said he believes that the auto industry is nearing the tipping point on clean cars. Canada and the state of Washington both recently adopted stringent clean car rules (sometimes called “The California Standard”), and the state of Oregon announced it would follow that lead. That will result in over 35 percent of new cars sold in the U.S. and Canada having to meet tailpipe pollution standards that are stronger that U.S. Clean Air Act. And that, says Becker, will tip the auto industry to make all of cars clean vehicles. “The automakers will find it financially impossible to make one clean set of cars for ten states and Canada, and a dirty set for the rest,” he noted. North American auto makers are losing market share to companies like Toyota and Honda, which have a huge lead in alternative fuel technologies, so the new laws could force the Big Three to abandon their gas guzzling ways. That’s how the tipping point works. Gladwell
describes such changes as “social epidemics”. Epidemics begin with
just a little input, but spread very quickly once they take hold. By
embracing new ideas in our everyday lives, each one of us is
contributing to reaching the tipping point for a thousand “positive”
epidemics.
Doom-Mongering or Wake-Up Call? – March 31, 2005 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released yesterday, warns that 15 of 24 global ecosystems are in decline and that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow much worse in the next 50 years. Hardly a lightweight assessment, the 2,500-page UN report is a synthesis of the work of about 1,300 researchers from 95 countries. It is being hailed as the most comprehensive survey ever into the natural systems that sustain life on Earth. UN Undersecretary Hans van Ginkel says the assessment reveals a consensus among the world’s social and natural scientists. Dr. Walter Reid, one of the report’s authors told reporters yesterday, “Clearly, the dual trends of continuing degradation of most ecosystem services and continuing growth in demand for these same services cannot continue...The assessment shows that over the next 50 years, the risk is not of some global environmental collapse, but rather a risk of many local and regional collapses in particular ecosystem services. We already see those collapses occurring – fisheries stocks collapsing, dead zones in the sea, land degradation undermining crop production, species extinctions.” Nevertheless, the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute – which describes itself as being “dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government” – calls the report “Malthusian alarmism”. Claims CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray in a written statement, “They’re at it again. This is simply the latest in a series of doom-mongering underestimates of resources coupled with a stubborn refusal to recognize the role of human ingenuity in solving such problems. The public has grown tired of these Malthusian malcontents constantly crying wolf, which is probably why the public no longer ranks the environment in the top ten issues it is concerned about.” CEI
founder Fred L. Smith, Jr. once worked as a policy analyst at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, so he should know better. Or maybe
that’s why he doesn’t. As the report clearly laid out, ignoring
those warning signs because they might harm the economy won’t make
them go away…but it will surely damage the very economy the CEI so
worries about.
Suburban
Angst – March 13, 2005 Unfortunately, the daily news seems to present more negative than positive action. Our provincial government has adopted a greenbelt plan in an attempt to promote better land use, but the development industry is working hard to overturn the initiative, trying to persuade us that sprawl is good, that commuting is fun and that global warming isn’t happening. Even farmers’ groups are upset because they won’t be able to sell off their land for development when they retire! In a neighborhood on the edge of the city, the fire department recently called off a meeting when more than 1,000 people tried to cram into a room with a capacity of 450. The purpose of this meeting? To protest the expansion of a commuter rail line. Even though the threat of major lifestyle change turns many people into ostriches, it is becoming harder and harder to escape the news about the problems with suburban living. Research worldwide is showing that fleeing to the edge of the city is not as good for one’s health as originally thought, due to the lack of exercise created by the sprawling design of suburbs, the stress of commuting on jammed highways, and the air pollution created by those commuters. A major shift is underway, notwithstanding the number of heads in the sand. In North American cities like mine (and yes, we just moved here from the country three years ago), downtown condo and infill residential construction is booming. Planners are changing their minds about density ratios, which are still much lower here than in Europe and Asia. For those who don’t want to move back downtown, there is a phenomenon called The New Urbanism. This is the idea that suburbs can be built (or retrofitted) as walkable, compact, complete mixed-use communities, which include housing, workplaces, shops, entertainment, schools, etc., all within easy walking distance of each other. These initiatives and
many more need to be encouraged. As author and commentator on the
suburban fiasco James Howard Kunstler says in The End of Suburbia,
“We’re
literally stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up.” So
no matter how loud suburbanites cry about the bill of goods they’ve
been sold, we’d better all do something about it fast.
Learning in Nature – February 16, 2005 There was a piece at the back of our backyard that was bordered on one side by the green wooden wall of a ramshackle garage and on the opposite side and back by a high (or so it seemed to me at the time) unpainted wooden fence. Dense foliage from a big, old elm tree located just beyond the fence in the neighbor’s yard created a summertime roof. It also meant that the corner was dark and a bit damp, making it useless for growing grass, roses or petunias, which constituted my parents’ definition of gardening. So they dumped grass and hedge clippings there, along with end-of-season annuals, dead roses and petunias. There were also a couple of fairly large rocks. Going there was forbidden due to mosquitoes, thorns and lots of other potential dangers...and some imagined ones too. When I was young, I obeyed the rule. I am not sure whether the hype convinced me of the danger or I just hadn’t learned to question authority. But I remember standing on the grass looking longingly – or perhaps just curiously – into its shady depths and inhaling the dank smell of composting greenery. I also remember the day when I ventured in and sat down
on one of the rocks. It felt wonderful. That feeling was, I suppose, a
combination of rebellious adrenaline and enjoyment of the space. It
seemed protected and cozy, yet retained a hint of danger due to its
“wildness” and forbidden status. Having crossed the barrier, I
subsequently went there often on hot summer days, taking a book and my
day dreams. Sometimes my feelings of anger or frustration also
accompanied me, to be left buried under the decaying grass. It was a
deliciously private place, and a healing one too. Eventually, as I got
too big to sit comfortably on the rock, I dragged a lawn chair there.
But I never felt that the chair belonged; it was too much civilization
in my wilderness. My mother must have noticed the chair but, oddly, I
don’t recall if she put an end to my visits or not. Perhaps I outgrew
that private place, replacing solitude with boys and broader horizons.
But as my first taste of Nature amid asphalt and stucco, it was the
beginning of a life-long reverence for that which is wild, green and
living...and of an understanding of the healing powers of Nature. Finding Nature – September 28, 2004 This morning, I returned to my tiny office to find
an email from a friend quoting Rachel Carson, the author of Silent
Spring. Carson perfectly captured the benefits of spending time in
nature – even if you find it between the cracks of a city sidewalk:
“Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of
strength that will endure as long as life lasts. There is a symbolic as
well as actual beauty in the migration of the birds, the ebb and flow of
the tides, the folded bud ready for the spring. There is something
infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature – the assurance
that dawn comes after night, and spring after the winter. The lasting
pleasures of contact with the natural world...are available to anyone
who will place himself under the influence of earth, sea and sky and
their amazing life.” The Safe Herbicide
That Isn’t – August 28, 2004 Glyphosate, the active ingredient of Vision (and of Monsanto’s agricultural herbicide Roundup, to which its equally controversial genetically engineered seeds are immune) is used to control grass, brush and other unwanted vegetation like hardwood trees in clear-cut forests or, as Monsanto puts it, on “areas where foresters wish to protect their regeneration investment”. Monsanto claims that the risk to humans is extremely small, noting in a technical bulletin that “a review...by Health Canada found no evidence that glyphosate caused mutations, birth defects or cancer.” It also claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as non-carcinogenic, a conclusion that has been endorsed by the World Health Organization. However, there is evidence that contradicts those opinions. And, in fact, in 1997 Monsanto was sued by the New York State Attorney General for misrepresenting Roundup’s toxicity through advertising. The most recent data (1998) from California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation found that glyphosate ranks first among herbicides as the highest cause of pesticide-induced illness or injury to people in California. Symptoms of exposure chronicled by the group Beyond Pesticides include swollen eyes, face and joints; facial numbness; burning skin; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains; congestion and coughing; headache; and nausea. Worse, a 1999 study by two Swedish oncologists at Orebro Hospital published in the Journal of the American Cancer Society links exposure to glyphosate with increased (three times greater) risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Professor Lennart Hardell says his group has conducted two studies, and the difference between them and other studies that have found no or less risk is that for the first time his group looked at herbicides and cancer in real life rather than the laboratory. Recent American research has also found that glyphosate negatively affects a variety of non-human creatures, including earthworms, insects and fish, and that it persists in soil and wetlands for up to three years. That is quite a litany of problems, I’d say, for a substance that, according to the
EPA, is the seventh most used active ingredient in agriculture
and that is widely thought to be harmless...a myth that Monsanto appears
to have fought hard to spread. A
Weed by Any Other Name – August 2, 2004 And, I continued, what is a weed anyway? And is that label on a plant enough to justify us shunning it? Philosopher and author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that a weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered. Perhaps, as some have suggested, defining a plant as a weed is an act of cultural valuation, a judgment of what the definer (often a gardener) deems to be a useless and destructive presence, by comparison to others that are approved of as desirable, productive and valuable. Under this definition, a weed becomes “anything growing where it isn’t wanted”. But that would include many wildflowers like chicory and herbs – not to mention goldenrod – which are otherwise valued. “Wildflowers,” wrote one apparently anonymous gardener, “are weeds with a press agent.” So how many wildflowers did you dig out of your garden this summer?! Given that my gardening is currently done in a few weedless pots in my sunny kitchen window, I decided to poll friends and relatives about their relationship with weeds. From those discussions, I began to think that “weed problems” are really “people problems”, resulting from poor management and a lack of imagination. Until one woman put it this way: “Weeds,” she said, “take valuable space, water, sunlight and nutrients that may otherwise be accessible to important food crops. And some noxious weeds compromise the biodiversity of ecosystems.” In my more active gardening days, I’d always assumed that “noxious” weeds were just ones that some people hated more than others and tried to ignore those I couldn’t conquer. But what my friend was talking about are those truly invasive plants – often introduced by humans from other areas, either purposely because they are pretty or inadvertently – that can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. Goldenrod doesn’t, as far as I can see, fit that description, although some types can become too much of a good thing. But here’s a thought – if weeds have survived the disapproval and eradication attempts of humans for generations, maybe we have something to learn from them! Posted: 2004/08/02 10:38 AM Return
to current weblog copyright © Wendy Priesnitz 2004-2009 |
Topics & Passions: natural learning
|
