What does Green Mean?

Ever since my last post on sustainable cities, I've been thinking ... what does sustainable mean anyway? What does it mean to be green? What is the point of Earth Day?

Heavy stuff?

Perhaps.

A lot of people associate being green with nature. One person on Jenn's original post about the suburbs versus cities argued that cities might be less green because they lacked yards to grow food or for children to play in.

Which made me wonder: is having a yard a green attribute?

The reality is that greens have a fairly incoherent relationship with well ... greens. By which I mean, ya know, trees, and shrubs, and grass, and dear little woodland creatures.

Let's take yards. Yards are considered wonderful because they allow us to grow food and allow our children to play in nature. Enviros will take pictures of their gardens, their fruit trees, their flower bushes to show the world the beauties of nature. Yay yards! Let's build more yards!!

But wait! Before we rush out to build yards! We must remember that yards are terrible because they require so much water. Lawns are a waste of such a precious commodity. Also, gardens hardly constitute "nature" because they are human constructed. Rows of heirloom tomatoes aren't "natural." Nor are those peas growing on that human-built trellis. Yards are not nature!

No, to find nature, we must go to Yosemite. Or Yellowstone. Or some other national park. That's where NATURE is.

Except, that's not nature either! Look at all those stupid campers sitting there. They are destroying the nature with their ENJOYMENT of it. Look at them smugly sitting on that log. They are SITTING on NATURE.

Nature is somewhere else. Somewhere where humans have never been. The real nature, the nature we need to save, is actually the nature we've never seen. Because if we see it, WE RUIN IT! Do you hear me?!!! We must save it from us!! STAY AWAY FROM THE NATURE!!!

Actually, maybe those lawns aren't so bad. But maybe instead of lawns, we could just let our yards run wild. Except that, hmmm, then it might become "nature" and our kids couldn't play there. Alternately, it might become filled with tumbleweeds and the local high school kid might smoke pot back there.

Hmmm.

Is pot nature?

Ultimately, this gets carried forward to the inevitable conclusion, which generally results in ritual suicide because, let's face it, there'd be a lot more "nature" around if humans were all dead.

Kidding. About the ritual suicide.

But the truth is, there are greens who do think there'd be a lot more "nature" if the human race went extinct.

Personally, I think there would be a lot more of somethings ... certainly there are some species that would multiply without humans and there are others that would probably die off without us.

But as for nature?

Well, I'd argue that "nature" is a human construct. Without humans, there is no nature.

The truth is that from the moment humans first roamed the Earth, we have had an impact on the non-human world. We shouldn't aim to separate ourselves from our world for a multiplicity of reasons, and honestly, we CAN'T separate ourselves from the world.

We are humans. We are nature. And, as Oprah would say, if we want to love and protect nature, we are going to have to learn to love ourselves as part of nature first.

How Much of a Sacrifice Do You Feel You Make?

Although I have done innumerable crazy things in the name of the environment, I don't think I've sacrificed all that much. Sure, I went a year without buying new stuff. But I was never a big shopper to begin with. It's not like if Carrie Bradshaw went without buying new stuff.

Which leads me to wonder. How many of us are willing to change our lives drastically in ways that really don't appeal to us?

For example, while there are many child-free environmentalists, how many of those child-free environmentalists really want children, but are not having any for the sake of their ideals? Versus, how many don't really want children regardless of potential environmental consequences?

How many local food proponents miss McDonalds?

How many of those who don't travel desperately want to travel?

How many of those who don't drive love driving?

Because, I don't have a car. I don't drive. I barely ever shop. But I can't claim to enjoy driving. And while shopping can be fun, it's also something I can live without.

So in terms of a sacrifice, well I'm probably not making much of one.

Part of me thinks that in some ways this is okay. If everyone was willing to part with some aspects of their lifestyle, we'd be in a lot better shape. But part of me wonders then, should we be framing things in terms of sacrifice?

People, Cheer Me Up!

I had a really depressing post here about how basically, I feel like we're all totally screwed. And then I realized that such a post is not particularly productive and was just going to bum you guys out. 

So I deleted it.

Instead, I'm going to call on you guys to cheer me up and get me out of this funk. Tell me one good story about the environment. It can be from your personal life, it can be a local story, it can be a national story, or an international story.

Just some good news. Because sometimes we all need a little dose of hope.

Are The Feminist Movement and The Personal Environmentalism Movement Compatible?

It's the night before I fly back to London, and I should be ... doing any number of things. Sleep comes to mind.

But I can't sleep right now, because I'm a little riled up. See, I've been following Crunchy's excellent discussion regarding Depletion and Abundance, and today's discussion topic delved into the subject of domestic work.

I haven't read Depletion and Abundance, so I don't mean this to be a critique of the book one way or the other. Instead I want to specifically talk about the feminist movement and whether or not it can be compatible with personal environmentalism.

Because, see, here's the thing. Unlike a lot of eco-bloggers, and unlike a lot of my readers, I hate all kinds of domestic work. And yes, this includes cooking.

Oh, I'll do it. I've cooked three course meals. I've made homemade butter and homemade jam. But frankly? If I had to cook for myself every day of the week, I'd shoot myself. My dream life involves having my own chef and maid and gardener. And maybe my own personal butler who would feed me hand-peeled grapes. Given this, I tend to resent it when it is suggested to me, that, oh! but cooking and canning your own food is so much fun! And so rewarding! And you should totally make all your own tomato sauce, because, AWESOME!!

Um, how about, instead, I don't. And I let you make your own tomato sauce because *you* enjoy it, and then I buy some off you instead, because, yes, I would prefer to spend more money on a jar of tomato sauce, than make my own. Yes I would.

The problem is, all this cooking and canning and pickling and storing, not to mention all the line-drying and non-toxic cleaning, and non-toxic child rearing, generally falls to the woman in the relationship. I know there are exceptions. But in most of the blogs I read, it's the woman who is doing the bulk of the domestic work. Sometimes, they continue to do the bulk of the domestic work even when they have a job that is just as demanding as their husband's.

Now, maybe the women who do this work do it because they enjoy it. And if so, then, more power to you, sister! I salute you. But I think a lot of women don't enjoy said domestic tasks. But, because we live in this Martha Stewart-obsessed culture, we are told that a) we are wrong for not enjoying scrubbing toilets or baking cookies and b) that we should just suck it up, and domesticate.

As a result, a lot of women live with a lot of guilt. Guilt that is compounded by every freaking eco-blogger touting do it yourself laundry detergent! and do it yourself soap! and do it yourself jam! and do it yourself ... you get the picture.

And at its core, we're not seriously addressing the gender inequities that result in one person doing all the canning and cooking and cleaning while the other gets to enjoy the perfectly canned fruits.

The truth is, we're never going to address gender imbalance when one set of people, largely women, are consistently being told "you should enjoy cooking and cleaning, and if you don't, you're not feminine." Or that if you don't enjoy making organic baby food from scratch you're not a good mom. Because the truth is, you can be a good woman, and you can be a good mom even if you would rather pay a service to wash your baby's organic cloth diapers. Or you would rather buy $8 jam from the farmers' market. Or you think that if the toilet only gets cleaned once a month ... well, no one will die.

So let's not claim to tell people what they will or will not enjoy, or how they should spend their time. Instead, let's try to get people to do what they actually *do* enjoy. For me, that might mean that I would rather get a paid job in the workforce than stay at home. And maybe that would mean that I would use my money to then pay someone who would rather stay home for their homemade jam. Because in the end, my paying someone else for homemade organic local jam benefits the environment, benefits feminism, and freaking benefits me. And all of you. Because all y'all don't want to be near me when I'm cranky. /End rant.

How I Became An Environmentalist

I'd always cared about the environment ... sort of ... in theory. I recycled, when I could. I even had a couple reusable bags. Sometimes I ate organic when it was not too expensive. After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I immediately went home and bought some carbon offsets. And then had nightmares for a week.

But ... I didn't really do anything more than that, because frankly, what could I do? Al Gore was a Vice President for pete's sake, and he was reduced to power point presentations. How was it possible that anything I did could have an effect?

So ... I ignored climate change, basically. I mean, rationally, I believed it was happening, but basically yes, I was in denial. Because to contemplate something like that without feeling like I could do anything about it? It was just too horrifying to contemplate.

And then one day, I was lying on my futon watching The Colbert Report, when everything shifted. Evan Osnos was talking about cashmere goats, and how they were ruining China's land with their hooves. Stephen Colbert was suggesting that the goats should maybe wear cashmere booties.

And I was sitting there thinking idly, "Wow it's too bad about China's land. But man, it would be sad to give up cashmere. Except, I kinda already have a lot of cashmere. Hmmmm. Hey, I know! Maybe I won't buy any more cashmere since I already have so much. Or better yet, maybe I just won't buy anything new at all!!"

I know, I know, what you are going to say. Arduous, your inner thoughts are eloquent! It's true. My inner thoughts could fill a really .... boring quote book. That no one would read. Sorry, I do wish my aha! moment was a little more spectacular. Instead it involved a cable comedy show and later on a toilet seat cover Stephen claimed was made of cashmere. But I guess it would be fitting that as an environmentalist who tries not to take herself too seriously, I would find my "call to action" in such a way.

Anyway, that's my story. What's yours?

Vegas, Baby Vegas

I'm back from Vegas! Sans pictures, because I am lazy. Maybe tomorrow. Who knows? 

Vegas was wonderful in many respects. I spent the entire weekend getting quality time with 5 of my favorite girls, and one of my favorite guys. I didn't get on a computer, I didn't watch TV, I didn't read a newspaper, I just hung out with my friends, ate food, got drunk, and hung out at the pool (in no particular order.)

It was Danger J's first time in Vegas, so we took him around from casino to casino, showing him the Eiffel Tower at Paris, the Chihuly sculpture at the Bellagio, the canals at the Venetian, the Caesar Salads at Caesar's Palace. (Okay I made the last one up.) It was really neat getting to see Vegas almost for the first time through his eyes: the beauty, the seediness, and the ostentatiousness. "Vegas is like one huge mall," Danger J finally declared, and ... it is. The Strip is known more for its casinos and its exotic dancers, but it is also absolutely bursting with shops, shops, and more shops. Consumerism knows no bounds here in Sin City. If you're not the gambling type, fear not. You can lose your money to some tacky jewelry instead!!

Overall, I tried to keep the blogging in my head to a minimum, and instead just enjoy the company of my friends. We are all in our late twenties or very early thirties. It won't be too long before marriage and children prevents us from engaging in a weekend of debauchery. I wanted to make the most of the weekend, instead of wasting time agonizing over the plastic waste in Vegas (yes, it's terrible) or the water waste (bad, though clearly steps have been taken so it's not quite as bad as one might fear) or the food waste (the buffets! the buffets!)

Oh, sure, I had my moments, like at breakfast when the waitress threw like 15 straws at us, and I reacted like someone had just killed a puppy. (Honda: What is wrong with you? Me: Nothing. Honda: Oh my God. It's the straws, isn't it? Me: No? Honda: Yes. Me: Yes.)

And then there was the yard (yes a yard) of some delicious pina colada concoction that came in a ridiculous plastic glass. Every time we go to Vegas, we end up buying one of these, and this year was no exception. Yes, I did hear Fake Plastic Fish writhing in agony, but what can I say? I am a weak woman when it comes to my bitch booze.

I didn't, I am proud to say, end up with an over-priced bottle of water though. Instead, I carted my Klean Kanteen around with me, filling it up in the hotel sink. I also didn't end up buying any of the junk I might normally have succumbed to: no chocolate at 2 am, no ice cream, no pretzels. Instead, I stuck to the necessities: meals and alcohol. I'll offer a detailed accounting later, once the credit card charges get processed, but all told, I think the Vegas vacation cost about $275 including the $100 for the hotel that was paid ages ago.

And that, is honestly why we go to Vegas. There are few places that we can go to for that little money. Pie and I spent some time in the car on the way back trying to think of other places that might be more suitable since we don't really gamble, and aren't much into the clubbing scene anymore. But unfortunately, there aren't many places within a five hour drive of LA where one could find nice hotels priced cheaply, and good restaurants, and a pool. 

So anyway, that's our trip to Las Vegas. It was a fabulous weekend, and I wouldn't have traded it for the world, but at the same time, I couldn't help but feel that Las Vegas, and especially the Strip, is just not sustainable. Because I live in LA, I am extremely hesitant of calling places unsustainable. I have learnt that even cities like LA that don't seem eco-friendly at all, can actually be very sustainable in their own ways. But the Strip is out of control extravagant, and I really can't foresee that kind of decadence surviving the next 20-30 years. 

And in a way, that's too bad. Because yes, Vegas is opulent and ridiculous, but she is also a city of love, of friendship, of dreams, and of plain old fun. I have teetered out into her streets, arm in arm with one of my best friends, drunkenly expounding on everything and nothing in particular. We have stayed up all night gossiping in our hotel room. I have danced until I thought my legs were going to fall off in the club. Vegas is littered with memories of my twenties. It is a city that I used to hate, and which I have grown to love. Because, ultimately, for me, going to Vegas doesn't mean gambling, or seeing over-priced shows, or hooking up. Vegas means spending time with people I love. And it's frustrating to me to think that this place that has provided me with so many fond memories, is ultimately not sustainable. 

But I don't think it is. I hope I'm wrong.

In Which I Argue That It's Okay To Compromise Your Ideals

Last night, after I wrote yesterday's post, Honda and I ended up having a semi-long phone conversation about the whole mall thing in specific, and my environmentalist lifestyle in general.

"Sometimes I feel like you're part of this new religion and some of the things that we used to enjoy and do together are now not okay," she said to me.

And that was hard to hear, but I knew where she was coming from, and told her so. "To be fair," I said to her, "I think we're talking shades of Protestant here. I mean it's not like you're that materialistic either."

And she agreed with me, and we talked some more, and in the end, we decided that at the end of my non-consumerist year, Miss V and Honda will come over, check out my closet, and figure out with me exactly what I need. If I need staples like sensible shoes, then we'll probably go to the mall to try and find something. If they decide, on reflection, that I don't really need new clothes, then we'll just hit up the thrift stores and see if we can score some cute designer dresses for cheap. In the end, I think we came up with a fun plan that will allow us all to spend quality time with each other. And honestly, if Honda didn't ever pressure me to buy new shoes, I'd probably be wearing 10 year old shoes that didn't support my feet and that had massive holes in the soles. So it's not like she doesn't have valid reasons for overseeing my shoe collection.

Which brings me to the point of this post: compromise. What I'm learning is that life is about compromise. Sometimes, life is even about compromising your ideals.

A couple days ago, Colin Beavan wrote a very powerful post. And he included a quote from his dad that has stuck with me for the past couple days. His dad said, "You should worry less about your carbon footprint and more about your family footprint."

I'm realizing more and more how true that statement is. We environmentalists talk a lot about the benefit environmental living can have on your relationships. Less time watching TV or working, and more time eating family dinner or playing Scrabble.

But it is undeniable that there is also a flip-side. Commuting by bus instead of car can mean more time spent away from your child. Staying close to home instead of getting on a plane can mean less time with distant family and friends.

Where's the balance? What's the solution?

It's a tough question. For some people, the environment trumps all. They are not willing to compromise their ideals for their family and friends. I understand this thinking. After all, compromising your ideals? That sounds at best hypocritical, and at worst, akin to rending your soul in two.

But for me, personally, I've learnt that I can't NOT compromise. Ultimately, my friends and family are more precious than anything else in this world, including my lofty-minded ideals.

Let me give you an example. When my dad died unexpectedly four years ago, I had FIVE friends fly from all over the country to be with me. Literally, I called them crying, and the next thing I knew, they were beside me.

I can't tell you how grateful I am for that. That they would drop everything to be beside me is a testament to how absolutely spectacular my friends are.

What if they had decided not to come because of the carbon emissions? How would I have felt?

Lonely. Crappy. Unloved.

Because I needed them there with me. And they knew that. They knew that it was more important to be with me than it was to be at their jobs or their homes. So they came.

And if the situation is ever reversed, you can bet I will hop on a freaking plane and head wherever, to be with my friends in their time of need.

Carbon emissions be damned.

Is it selfish of me to put my friends and family ahead of the environmental movement?

Yes, it is. But without them, I'm just a lonely, sad person who sits in my un-air-conditioned apartment eating my stupid local sandwich alone. They are my r'aison d'etre. If I didn't have my loved ones, frankly, I'm not sure I would be able to remember why I was trying to "save the world" in the first place.

But there is a silver lining to this cloud of compromise.

You see, I'm not the only one making compromises and adjustments.

A couple weeks ago I was in Honda's Honda, and it was kinda unnaturally stuffy in there. "I'm trying to challenge myself to do without the a/c in my car and at home," she said to me.

Mind you, I had never told Honda not to use her air conditioner. To be perfectly honest, I still use MY air conditioner in the car. But after watching me take on challenge after challenge, she had decided to set this challenge for herself. And I was mad impressed and proud of her. And also hot and sweaty. No car a/c is hard!

This past weekend, I went up to the Bay Area to my mom's house. Staying at someone else's home generally requires environmental compromises, and a couple months ago, my mom and I had gotten into a little argument about some fruit from New Zealand. So I was trying not to push my values onto her, and when we were discussing how to procure martini glasses for a party she was throwing, I swallowed my ideals and mentioned that party stores do make plastic martini glasses.

"Plastic cups?" she asked in disbelief that I would even talk of such a thing. "No, I don't want plastic cups. Haven't you noticed? I'm not using any disposable plastic for this party."

I hadn't noticed, exactly, but she was right. In fact, the only disposable items were a few appetizer napkins. My mom threw a party for thirty people, and didn't use a single plastic cup. Not one. Pretty impressive, huh?

In the end, I think that it's because I make compromises, because I am flexible, that my friends and family are willing to make changes to their lives. If I was unyielding, I think they would feel alienated from me, instead of inspired by me.

And so, I have to remember. There is no one right answer. These things are not black and white. My moral code is not intrinsically superior to anyone else's. And that being a good environmentalist/friend/relative/person means spending less time prostelytizing and judging and more time accepting and listening.

Because one person can't save the world. We're going to need all hands on deck. But we're never going to get there without making some compromises along the way.

A Little Debate

Colin Beavan, Michael Shellenberger and I have been engaged on a little back-and-forth in the comments to the Gandhi post on the Breakthrough blog. Here's my response to the discussion. (If you want the full discussion, you'll have to visit the post, but it's not strictly necessary.)

Michael, you know I love you, but I think this is a straw-man's argument you're making here.

If you look at Colin's first comment, he was specifically talking about "resource consumption" NOT income. Neither of us started discussing income until you brought it up. I'm not against money, I quite like money actually. And I won't speak for Colin, but, considering his wife works for Business Week, I would venture he'd agree with me.

I actually disagree with Bill McKibben when he talks about how it would be a-okay if we all made less money. I'm pro-growth. That's why I believe in creating a new economy, because I think we could be happier and maintain our income levels if instead of spending and making money on stuff, we were spending and making money on experiences. A world with a more piano teachers and fewer Gap clerks if you will.

But Michael, I think we agree much more than we disagree, and I think there's an opportunity here. As you know, I found the part of your book where you discuss "building an environmental church" particularly compelling. I agree with you completely, but I think what you're perhaps missing here is that we are BUILDING that church. That's what people like Colin, and Deanna Duke, and to a lesser extent myself, are doing day after day.

Every day, hundreds of "personal environmentalists" read and blog about their sustainable living adventures. These people are mostly women (Colin's a lucky man), and many of them are stay at home mothers. These are women who are not environmentalists by training or schooling, but are simply women who have started to look at the crises ahead, and are asking of themselves, "What can I do?"

Will any of my actions (not buying, driving less etc) by themselves stymie global warming? No, of course not. I'm not under any illusion that they will. But I believe I am out there, helping to build a social movement. I am building that church. I am reaching out to my fellow women, who, by the way, have been the cornerstone of every social movement from abolition onwards.

You talk extensively in your book about how we need to follow the paths of evangelical churches in creating an environmental movement. That we need to get people invested so they do more than merely throw a $25 donation to the Sierra Club once a year. I completely agree with you. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what the personal environmental movement is about. I think you possibly underestimate the satisfaction derived by us when we walk rather than drive, or buy local food from the farmers’ market, or make our own butter. 

Not only that, but these environmental bloggers, these women, are doing so much more. They’re investing in their community both online and offline. When an important member of the community is going through a rough time, they do the electronic equivalent of baking a casserole, they create a blogger tribute. Closer to home, they’re going to their city council meetings and demanding city-wide composting programs. They’re challenging Brita to recycle their water filters. And they’re slowly learning about the policy, reading books by Sachs, McKibben, and yes, by you and Ted. After all, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation in the first place if I hadn’t read about your book on a personal environmental blog.

So regardless of whether you think what Colin or I do makes a tangible difference, remember, we are your number one allies, Michael. We are doing this because we ultimately believe in the same things, because we’re trying to build a movement. We are building our church, we’re building your church, the best way we know how. So instead of focusing on where we disagree, let’s focus on where we agree. There’s a lot of energy here, and a lot of passion. Together, we can harness this energy. We can build a better future. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” Michael. Come help us build that church.

Changing Focus- Part One

All right guys, it's time to put your thinking caps on. I'm sorry, I DID talk about fashion and brunch for like three days. But now I gotsta wax philosophical again, yo.

Well, it's all the ever thought-provoking Chile's fault really. Because a week ago, after she announced a "Quit Your Addictions" challenge, she and her readers engaged in a really fantastic discussion about "changing the focus."

I didn't jump in the fray, because frankly, I was just enjoying soaking up the discussion. But I've been pondering the discussion for days now, and so I feel I have to come clean.

There was a time a few months ago, when trying to lead an environmentally-conscious life was killing me. Reading green blogs all the time was making me nutso. I was having nightmares about worst-case scenarios, I would watch people eating ice-cream and think, "How can people be laughing and eating ice-cream when the world is in crisis!"

In short, being green was making me miserable. (Okay, one of my best friends had just passed away so I would have been fairly unhappy either way, but I think it's fair to say that thinking about environmental catastrophes all the time wasn't helping either.)

I felt hopeless. Like here I was trying to do little lame things to "save the world," when there WAS no saving the world. Scientists agree that even if we were all to stop carbon emitting right now, global warming would still happen to some extent. There is no way to completely turn the clock back. So I'd get all upset about global warming, and then I'd happen on a site about peak oil or the food crisis or the economic crisis and how we're sliding into a depression, and pretty soon I would be a total mess.

By this point, I was seriously contemplating saying "eff it," and giving up on my personal environmentalism. Because, I'm sure you haven't noticed this (ha ha) but I have a contrary streak a mile wide. When people tell me that the world is getting worse day by day, my instinct is to be like, "Fine. Then what's even the point? Maybe I'll just turn on ALL my lights and then rent a plane and fly around the world twelve times for no reason!"

I admit it's not the most mature response, but there it is.

I don't respond well to negativity. When the focus is negative, I want to give up. I want to be a bad person. I want to stop caring.

It was especially fortuitous then that about the time I was going through this personal environmental turmoil, I decided to read Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus' book Break Through. I've already discussed the book a few times, but suffice it to say, the book turned me around. It helped me to shift focus, and made me realize that there IS hope.

But to go back to last week's discussion on Chile's blog, one comment in particular hit me very hard. Mollyjade writes:

I've been internally debating whether I should join the challenge (aspartame). And I think a good deal of my conflict has to do with this positive/negative divide. I have a chronic illness that means I won't survive if there's a massive breakdown in our infrastructure. So preparing for a world in which I have to be totally self-sufficient seems pointless because I could never live in that world.

I just can't believe that the world will deteriorate that much, because then I have little personal interest in doing anything about it. It's not logical, but it gets me through the day.

After reading Mollyjade's comment, I realized there is more at stake here. This isn't just about changing the focus because people respond to positivity better than negativity. This is about shaping our destinies, shaping our future. We owe it ourselves, and we especially owe it to the Mollyjades of the world to remember that the future is not set in stone. Is it possible that climate change and peak oil will cause a massive breakdown in infrastructure? Is it possible that competition for oil will result in a zero-sum game where a few very rich people win, while the rest of humanity loses? Is it possible that if CO2 in the atmosphere hits 400ppm "life as we know it" (whatever that means) will cease to exist? Yes, I think it is possible. BUT, BUT, that is not to say it WILL HAPPEN. We are not doomed, people, unless we resign ourselves to doom.

My friend Honda who is very wise is forever saying to me, "You can't resign yourself to two fates at once." (I think she's quoting someone, but I can't remember whom.) Well, here's the deal. We can't resign ourselves to doom AND also believe in a brighter tomorrow. If I really thought global warming was going to submerge the city of Los Angeles underwater, I couldn't ALSO be trying to improve the public transit infrastructure. But I don't believe either LA or New York are ever going to be submerged. Because I trust in human ingenuity, I trust in science, and I trust in the abilities of our engineers to do whatever it takes to keep frickin Wall Street above water.

It is tempting to feel like we have no control over the future. Like the best thing to do is to accept the inevitable environmental apocalypse, learn to be totally self-sufficient and start stocking up on guns and food.

If that is your philosophy, I understand where you are coming from. But for me personally? I can't do that. Not just because I have no desire to do it all myself, but because I know that there are many people in this world who CAN'T do it all by themselves, who can't live without civilization. And I'm not willing to resign myself to a world in which only the fit can survive.

So instead, I choose to believe that we DO have control over the future. That we can buttress our ailing infrastructures. That we can build new food systems that don't rely heavily on oil. That we can spur demand for alternative energies and invest in new technologies.

In short, I believe this crisis could lead to the creation of better systems, better technologies, and a better future for all of humanity.

Tomorrow (hopefully) Part Two: Why I'm not just wearing rose-colored glasses and how crises can bring about positive change.

Our Top Priority

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I believe that in January of 2009, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

Come January, we will have a remarkable opportunity to not only reverse the damage from the past eight years, but to enact a more sweeping liberal agenda the likes of which the country hasn’t seen since the 1960s. Democrats will most likely retain the House and Senate, liberal groups are stronger than ever, and increasingly the American people support liberal policy. And the first ninety days, the so-called “honeymoon period” where the media typically refrains from much criticism of the administration are vitally important.

So what should be the number one priority for the first ninety days? To me the answer is obvious. In fact it's so obvious and so vital that I believe that every liberal organization from Planned Parenthood to Greenpeace to Moveon.org should let go of their internal agenda for ninety days and focus on one thing:

Universal health care.

You thought I was going to say global warming? Gotcha!

Now why would a woman who spends her days prattling on about the environment turn around and say that for 3 months we should focus solely on health care? Simply because health care is a basic need.

To try and deal with an issue like global warming when millions of Americans have insecure access to health care is not dissimilar to trying to deal with the issue of literacy in India when millions of Indians have insecure access to water. It doesn't work. When Green Bean and I unveiled the "APLS," acronym, I admit, I was surprised by how many people balked at the word affluent. But the truth is, many of us are One Major Health Care Crisis That Insurance Won't Cover away from poverty. How do you like them apples?

If you are an American, you know what insecure health care means. People stay in horrible jobs, forgo early retirement, and give up on owning their own business because of health care. For the uninsured, things are worse. I've had friends ignore countless health-related red flags because they just can't afford to deal with the medical bills. I had an insurance-less friend who had a cyst removed, not in a hospital, but on the floor of a hotel room. And yet another who was denied insurance, because she occasionally took medication for cold sores.

This is not right. 

We can talk about living simply, we can talk about how our uber-consumptive economy doesn't work, but until we fix health care, all that is moot. Voluntary simplicity advocates talk about how if you buy less stuff, you can work less. Sorry, no. Not in America. Because in America part-time work generally does not confer benefits.

Yes, but there are other important issues! We can't drop everything for NINETY days! Global warming, peak oil, ZOMG TIPPING POINT!!

I know, I know, I know. But here's the problem. The health insurance companies have lots of money and lots of power. They have so much power that Obama, who used to support single-payer health care, now advocates a watered down form of voluntary health care. But, I believe universal health coverage is achievable if we all band together. Besides the fact that health care is so basic that it affects everything else.

How so?

Here's an example. About 10 months ago, I was at work when I felt like I was having an asthma attack. I didn't have an inhaler with me, so I started to panic, which made my asthma worse. I quickly decided to go to the drug store and get an inhaler right there and then.

At the drugstore, the pharmacist handed me an inhaler right away. After a few pumps, I felt better and calmer. I handed my credit card over for my co-pay which I was then informed was ... 40 dollars. 

"FORTY Dollars?" I asked horrified. I had never, ever paid forty dollars for an inhaler before. Ever.

The pharmacist assured me that was correct. 

"How much was it without insurance?" I asked. Apparently, $44. My insurance had covered four dollars.

Now, I'd like to say right here, that I have awesome insurance. You know when you hear an "average American" talk about how they love their insurance? That's me. I *adore* my insurance. I want to marry my insurance and have little insurance babies. So the fact that they had covered so little was ... really, really weird.

As I walked back to the office, I fully intended to figure out what the deal was with that ultra-expensive inhaler. But the truth is, I forgot. Forty dollars is a lot, but frankly, I need an inhaler about once a year. I could afford  it. And so it remained one of those strange unsolved mysteries, until yesterday when I saw this article in the New York Times.

Apparently, the reason that inhaler was so expensive was because unlike the original inhalers,  this inhaler was made CFC-free to comply with federal regulations set to go into effect in January 2009. Those old inhalers? Cost $13.50.

I finished the article feeling really bothered, somehow. How, I wondered, had I never known any of this? Isn't it odd, that though I have read countless articles by environmentalists about the effects of pollution on poor kids with asthma, I have never, ever, not once, read an article by an environmentalist about this new, expensive, albeit CFC-free, inhaler and its effect on poor kids with asthma?

Why? Is asthma in poor kids just a means to an end, or do environmental groups really care about asthma? Because, frankly, if environmental groups are just using asthma as a way to talk about diesel buses, then I don't want to be part of that group.

For the record, I have no issue paying $40 myself for a CFC-free inhaler. But $40 is too much money for a medication that many people have to take once a month. Just because we have achieved our goal in mandating a CFC-free inhaler does not mean our job is done. If we really care about poor kids with asthma, then we must make sure that those CFC-free inhalers are easily affordable. Caring about the environment does not mean caring about global warming and ozone depletion while ignoring the very people we claim to want to protect. 

And that's why health care needs to be everyone's priority. Because, really, we're not environmentalists because we want to "save the world." We all know that the world itself will continue to turn. We're environmentalists because we care about the people and other species that inhabit this world. So it's time for us to put our money where our mouth is. If we care about Americans, we must support universal health care. It's time.

Why I Have Hope

About a month ago Mouse and I were at a music show, and I brought up my standard diatribe about the music industry and how there are no seminal artists for this decade. Every decade has had its share of landmark artists who have defined that decade. Imagine the '50s without Elvis. Or the '60s without the Beatles. Or the '90s without Nirvana. You can't right? But the '00s without ... Coldplay? No offense to Coldplay, but it seems like the decade would be much the same as it is today.

So here I was lamenting the state of the music industry, and to be honest with you, I pretty much assumed that Mouse was going to agree with me. I mean, come on. Isn't it an article of faith among music nerds that the State of Music is a sad one, and that once upon a time music was so much better and so much more original, etc, etc?

So you can imagine my surprise when he disagreed with me. Oh, don't get me wrong. He agreed that there aren't really any "landmark" artists of this decade. But where I saw this as a sad thing, Mouse, because he is much smarter and also more positive than I, saw this as a great thing. Because, in his opinion, it wasn't music going downhill that has led to a decade bereft of 'seminal artists.' In fact, it was because there was TOO MUCH good music that it was now impossible for there to be just a few definitive artists.

Now, you need to read his most recent blog post if you want the full manifesto, but the more I thought about what he said, the more right he seemed. Fifteen years ago, if you wanted to reach more than a few hundred people, you had to be signed to a major record label. Now, any band can reach countless thousands of people through MySpace or iTunes. If you take a look at my iPod, it's crammed to the gills with local LA bands. And these aren't dinky amateur bands. These bands are fantastic, certainly better than most if not all of the stuff you hear on Top 40. How many of these bands would the LA music scene have been able to support 15 years ago? Three? Five? Fifteen? I don't know the answer, but I would almost certainly bet that its fewer than the number that are thriving today.

Isn't it interesting that Mouse and I took the same view of music history and transformed it into two different narratives? One (mine) was the negative narrative, "Music is different and therefore DOOMED!" One (his) was the positive narrative, "Music is different and therefore FLOURISHING!"

That night, I went to bed with a huge smile on my face. By changing the narrative, Mouse had (metaphorically) handed me another world. A world in which our choices are multiplying and the opportunities were boundless.

And then I started reading Break Through. The subtitle of the book is "From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility" which I think is a particularly apt description of the book. In it, Nordhaus and Shellenberger attempt to break free of the "We're all doomed!" paradigm towards a new paradigm focused on possibilities and not limits.

Is global warming a crisis? Yes, no doubt. But in the Chinese language, the word crisis is composed of two characters: danger and opportunity. Let us not focus solely on the danger aspect. Let us remember the great opportunity we have been given. Simply put, we have a chance right now, to remake our society into one that is happier, healthier, and more prosperous than one history has ever seen.

Let us not forget that obesity is a problem created in a society that is largely free from hunger. Let us be mindful that the rapid increase in carbon emissions is the result of thousands of Chinese and Indians escaping poverty. Let us give thanks that young people today have more opportunities than ever before, and that those opportunities are no longer constrained to the white, straight, and male.

In 1962, President John F Kennedy made a very remarkable speech. Against all odds, he challenged the American people to reach the moon by the end of the decade. He knew it would not be easy, and yet he said this to the American people:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

And it was not easy, and it required major investments in both time and money, and yet, somehow, amazingly enough, we succeeded. Within the decade, for the very first time in the history of the human race, a man would walk on the moon.

So listen to me, and listen to me good. If we can walk on the moon within SEVEN years of choosing to do so, we can do anything. We can build a society free from the confines of oil. Much of the technology from electric cars to photovoltaic solar cells is already here. And the technology that hasn’t yet arrived? We can create.

It will not be easy. In fact it will be extremely hard. It will require no less than an overhaul of government policy. It will necessitate the countries of the world to act in concert like never before. It will call for the minds of the finest thinkers all over the world. And yet, a sustainable society is firmly within our grasp.

Let us not waste our time longing for years past. We can never go back, and the past wasn’t as great as we think it was anyway. We will never again be the Jeffersonian “nation of farmers,” no more than we will ever be a country with separate drinking fountains for separate races.

Instead, let us set our eyes on the future. Let us imagine a world with denser cities that encourage use of public transit. Let us imagine gardens on every rooftop of New York City. Let us envision a new economy, not one based on things as pedantic as goods, but an economy befitting the 21st century based on ideas, experiences and service.

We can build sea walls in Bangladesh. We can put a composting toilet in every village of China. We can build tube wells and ecologically sensitive dams in the dry lands of India, and what’s more, we’re already doing it.

I want to quote a passage from Break Through. Shellenberger and Nordhaus write:

When we called on environmentalists to stop giving the “I have a nightmare” speech, we did not mean that we should close our eyes to our increasingly hot planet, the destruction of the Amazon, or continued human suffering. Rather, we meant that we all should open our eyes to the multiplicity of ways we can see and experience the world. Global warming could bring drought, disease, and war─ and it could bring prosperity, cooperation, and freedom. The future is not destined to be dark or bright, fallen or triumphant. Rather, the future is open (240).

Our destiny is not fixed. We can choose to be the generation that eradicates world hunger; we can choose to be the generation that eliminates dependence on oil. We can choose to be the generation that extends the American dream to every child in ever corner of the world.

We can choose to go to the moon. The future is ours for the taking.

Why I Bother

It seems like every few days a post crops up on the blogosphere questioning whether personal action makes a difference to the environmental movement. Now, I'll admit that when I first decided I wasn't going to buy stuff, I didn't have a very clear idea of what I was trying to achieve. But, I figured, why not dive in and figure out everything else later? And you know, that worked for me. But it's been several months now, and I do feel that the question, "Why do you bother?" is an important one to address. So, let's get down to it.

Question: Can my individual actions to lighten my carbon footprint really have an impact (on a global scale)?

Short answer: No.

The long answer is also no, but that doesn't mean individual action doesn't matter.

Individual action doesn't happen in a vacuum. Individual action leads to collective action. And collective action in turn leads to change in public policy.

Think about every great social movement in the history of this country. Abolition. Women's suffrage. Temperance. (Okay, that one was not so great.) Civil Rights. Gay rights. All of these movements share a common history: that is they grew out of individual action. Before the Emancipation Proclamation there was Harriet Tubman. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Public policy has always FOLLOWED social change, not preceded it.

So yes, it was the 13th amendment that ended slavery. But there never would have been a 13th amendment if it weren't for individuals like Harriet Tubman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and the members of countless sewing and quilting circles.

Rosa Parks. Harriet Tubman. Sewing circles. Hmmm, am I insinuating something here? Isn't it ironic that the same week that some of the leading environmental policy makers in America engaged in a flame war on each others' blogs, a woman who is known to most of her readers as "Crunchy Chicken," was getting it done? This is not to denigrate the work of Joe Romm, Michael Shellenberger or Ted Nordhaus, all of whom I greatly respect. But I bring it up more to illustrate that old adage, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." Women have historically been the backbone of social movements. Just as Abolition stemmed from sewing circles, so too does the environmental movement stem from book clubs, food buying clubs, and swap-o-rama-ramas.

Right now I'm actually reading Shellenberger and Nordhaus's book "Break Through," which is a fantastic must-read for anyone interested in the environmental movement. In it, they lament the fact that environmentalists do not know how to organize like churches. Well, no disrespect to Shellenberger and Nordhaus, but we're building our church, thank you very much. We've got groups committed to 10% carbon emissions, and others committed to victory gardens. We've got 40 people cutting clutter, 25 people giving to others, and over 200 people not buying a dang thing! And just like a church, our challenges and virtual eco-groups offer participants support and fulfillment.

So, no. Individual actions by themselves don't mean much. We cannot expect to drastically cut emissions without changes in policy. But the policy change will never happen without social change happening first. And social change begins at home.

Individual action doesn't matter? Tell that to Rosa Parks.

A Not Entirely Comprehensive List of Changes I've Made To My Life

In addition to the changes I make every month for a month and the year long non-consumerist challenge, I've made a lot of smaller day to day changes in my life since starting this blog. Here are some of the changes I've successfully made:

1) Using rags instead of paper towels for almost everything. (I have one roll of paper towels that's lasted me about 5 months or so. I plan to keep it that way.)
2) Not drinking bottled water.
3) Cutting drastically the number of bottled and canned sodas/other drinks I consume. And when I do succumb, I only drink from aluminum cans or glass bottles. No plastic bottles.
4) Using my own bowl/spoon/fork/plate at work instead of disposables.
5) No more frozen meals or other one-serving convenience meals.
6) Saving bread bags to hold produce.
7) Washing out Ziploc bags and re-using them.
8) Saving yogurt containers as Tupperware.
9) Borrowing kitchen stuff from a friend instead of buying my own stuff.
10) Buying beans, rice, sugar, etc in bulk and bringing my own containers.
11) Not using the garbage can under my desk at work so that the plastic bag isn't being changed every day. (I use the trash can in the kitchen instead.)
12) No heat.
13) Opening my window more often because outside air even in polluted LA is better than indoor air.
14) Switched from rubber cement to eco-friendly glue for scrapbook projects. The only problem is that this glue smells so good I want to eat it!
15) No toilet paper for number one when I'm at home.
16) Letting it mellow. (Which frankly, is SO much easier from an 'ew' standpoint when there's no tp in the bowl.)
17) Using compressed sponges from Trader Joe's that come in minimal packaging.
18) Using the nylon bags that California Cuties come in for scrubbies.
19) Reusing envelopes to make shopping lists on.
20) Using the bar soap that had accumulated in my bathroom instead of buying new body wash.
21) Getting on my hands and knees and scrubbing the floor instead of using the Swiffer. (Which to be honest never REALLY worked.)
22) Being okay with some dirt.
23) Adopting a live and let live standpoint when I see ONE ant or spider or other bug in my apartment. (I plan to take action though if I see a whole gang though.)
24) Freecycle.
25) Spend more time in my bedroom which gets a lot of natural light instead of sitting in my living room where I always have to have a light turned on even during the day.
26) Walk as much as I can to things.
27) Using my stash of plastic grocery bags from when I still got plastic grocery bags as trash bags. It now takes me at least two weeks to fill one little grocery bag up.
28) Cutting down drastically on fast food, take out, delivery etc. Trying to only get delivery or fast food when I know that the restaurant does NOT use Styrofoam.
29) Use a diva cup!
30) Buying organic all the time as opposed to only when I feel like I have enough money.
31) Subbing ingredients in recipes instead of going out and buying a whole bottle of watchamagiggit just for one recipe.
32) Using a hand towel at work instead of paper towels in the bathroom.
33) Donating money to environmental organizations and writing letters and emails regarding environmental issues.
34) Keeping my microwave, electric kettle and toaster unplugged when not in use.
35) Shutting down my computer every day instead of leaving it on.

Okay there's probably more, but that's all I can remember for now. Here are the changes I have NOT yet made, but have hopes I will implement soon:

1) Go to the farmer's market instead of buying produce at the store.
2) Get rid of non-stick pans.
3) Use natural cleaning products. (I'm using up the "unnatural products" that I still have from my pre-environmentally conscious days.)
4) Compost. Well maybe. I have fears about killing my worms. Or else the worms gnawing at me in my sleep.
5) Using no A/C. (I actually kind of hate air conditioning so this shouldn't be SUPER hard on me.)
6) Using solid shampoo. This one won't happen for a while. I go through about one shampoo bottle a year, and I still have PLENTY of shampoo left.

And here is some stuff that just didn't work for me:
1) Bringing my own Tupperware to restaurants for leftovers. For some reason I just can't remember to do this. Ever.
2) Using hankies. I hate this so much. I don't know why it's so hard, but it is. Luckily I haven't gotten a bad cold since I started this project, but if I did, I will probably just use my toilet paper.
3) Making my own crackers. Yeah.

There's probably stuff I'm forgetting, but for now that's what I've got. I have to say, that the BIGGEST change I've made is simply: being more mindful of my actions at all times. If I could boil down "green" living into one thing, that would be it. We all occasionally screw up. The point is not to be perfect, the point is just to always be conscious of your actions and choices.

Food For Thought 2

My uncle works in the dry lands of India doing watershed development. Water isn't the sexiest of issues for Non-Resident Indians, and so when my uncle speaks or does fundraisers, he's often asked, "Why water? Why not women's literacy or something like that?" To which my uncle invariably replies, "If people cannot EAT they don't have much use for reading."

Yesterday I talked about how most first world citizens have their basic needs met, yet still live in a state of uncertainty. While this is true, what I failed to mention was that for many Americans, secondary needs such as health care and affordable education are not being met. Why is this important? Because, simply put, if people are sick, if they are going into debt to pay medical bills, or college tuition, they aren't going to care so much about global warming.

In fact, according to a 2005 Nicholas Institute poll, when voters were asked what issue was the most important to them personally, the environment ranked last at ten percent. The economy/jobs ranked first at 34%, health care came in second at 25%, and Iraq came in 3rd at 22% (Break Through 32.)

Honestly, the most surprising thing about that for me? Is that a whole ten percent of voters chose the environment. Because as concerned as I am about the environment, if I'm being honest, I'd probably choose health care as my number one issue.

So what does this mean? Does it mean we have to wait around until we solve health care before doing anything about the environment? No, of course not. The real answer is that we can't afford to pick and choose one most important thing. It's all important. The more confident people are in the economy, the more likely they are to start looking outward more, and the more likely they will care about the world they live in. Getting out of Iraq means that money will be freed up for things like tackling our debt, or fixing health care. Healthier citizens have more energy to focus on such things as the environment.

As for my uncle, once his NGO had time to tackle the most urgent water needs, they did start a woman's cooperative. The women are learning important skills from reading to sewing to even using computers. Most importantly, they have learnt to make and sell products so they can earn a living, and be guaranteed fair wages. Here is a reusable bag one of them made:

Ecological AND empowering for women! What could be better than that?

Eco or Nut

Yesterday, Beany said that she liked reading my blog because it was like, proof that there are other people out there who are just as crazy as she is, or even crazier than she is. I find it interesting that Miz S*ck But Don't F*ck finds my posts about the Diva Cup oh so out there! Whatevs, Beany, I am SO NOT as nutty as you!! :)

But Beany brings up a good point. Because, see, there is a fine line between being good to the environment, and being crazy. I know, I know, crazy eco-bloggers it is hard to see that line sometimes. Because what seemed nutty to us once, like the diva cup, now seems oh so sane. And the more you delve into the green blogosphere the more that crazy becomes normal, and you start to wonder, if said fine line even exists. Can anything be crazy where saving the earth is concerned?

Well, I'm here to tell you that the answer to that is yes. And to help you understand the fine line between crazy green and just plain old crazy, I have drawn up this handy primer.

Eco: Looking for a mate who shares your passion for the environment.
Nuts: Leading with, "I don't use toilet paper and I compost my poop," on a first date.

Eco: Bringing in your own dishes and utensils to work to avoid using disposable products.
Nuts: Screaming, "It's killing the world! Get it away from me!" and fleeing the room when the Big Boss gives you a piece of birthday cake on a paper plate.

Eco: Greening up your birth control.
Nuts: Skipping the condom with Dude You Just Met At The Bar because of the plastic waste.

Eco: Expressing your disapproval over pesticide spraying by writing the Governor a strongly worded email.
Nuts: Expressing your disapproval by drunk dialing the Governor and singing "You Oughta Know," into his voice mail.

Eco: Using hot pasta water to kill weeds.
Nuts: Saving greywater to kill aliens. Aliens who die when they touch water are NEVER GOING TO COME TO A PLANET THAT IS MOSTLY WATER. I don't care what M. Night tells you! This also holds true for saving greywater to kill wicked witches.

Eco: Adhering to a healthy vegan diet.
Nuts: Refusing to breastfeed your baby at all costs because breast milk comes from an animal.

Eco: Telling your friends how much you like your new diva cup.
Nuts: Talking about your cycle all through Thanksgiving dinner with your new Sig O's family, and then asking his mom if she'd like some of your blood to fertilize her plants.

Any questions?

When Life Hands You The Suck Make Less-Suck-Ade

The past year and a half or so has been pretty hard for me for a variety of reasons including but not limited to being literally a world away from The King and some career things that I won't bore you with.

I know that there are a lot of people much worse off than me. I know that in general I have led a very blessed life, and therefore I shouldn't whine or complain, but the point is that for a good long while I felt nearly constantly depressed, heartsick, and lonely.

And I think that that is part of what turned me towards environmentalism. Similar to how some people find God in tough times, I found living simply.

I guess it gave me a project. It gave me something to do. Something to think about other than myself that was greater than myself. I've already written about how this experiment has affected me monetarily, and as I wrote, the reason that my finances got better is also the same reason that I started to get better. By focusing on something greater than myself, I was able to pull myself out my funk.

I'm not really a religious person. I was brought up in a household where religion didn't enter the picture too much. And yet, instinctively, in hard times I followed the path of a more spiritual person. I started to focus on a greater cause, and I took a leap of faith that my teeny tiny individual actions of not buying clothes or not using toilet paper or bringing my own bag could have some positive impact on the world.

I became more involved in the world around me. I started getting more involved with my volunteer organization, and going to see more local LA bands. I started just walking around the neighborhood more. At first, I was going through the motions. But gradually, I started to realize that ever so slowly, the fog was lifting.

I found a vibrant, wonderful community of fellow bloggers, all of you amazing people who share your lives with me and read my stories even though you've never met me, and don't even know my real name.

I was talking to a friend last night about how much things have sucked and been awful in the past year or so, and I realized that, amazingly, I feel okay now. In fact I feel really good, maybe not the best I've ever been, but probably emotionally healthier than I've ever felt in my life. Because now every day is a new adventure in which I might decide to try out a new recipe, or organize a clothing swap, or write a letter to my legislators about a high speed train. I can't tell you how empowering that is. And every day I read your blogs and I learn something new, or someone makes me think about something I've never thought of before.

I've never been someone who lived much in the moment. I've always been the type to dream (and unfortunately stress out) about what might be or what will be.

I still think about the future of course. But not obsessively. Not as much as I used to. Because, for the first time in my life, I'm learning how to live one day at a time. For the first time in my life, I'm learning to enjoy the journey.

(Whew! What is up with all these introspective posts! I promise tomorrow I'll post about something that isn't me, me, me!)

Wanting More

Thank you all for your well wishes. Yesterday night was a particularly bad night for me, and you don't know how comforting it was to read everyone's comments. I really cherish all of my blog-friends, even if I don't know you all in real life!

Anyway, yesterday I was in a kind of bad place where I was like, "What's the point of it all?" and "Why does it matter if we recycle if my friend just died?" But today I'm a little more in my right frame of mind, and the truth is, if we care about our loved ones, if we care about our children, or our grandchildren, or our friends, or our parents, we have to realize the impact the environment has on these people. My friend who passed away had leukemia that had been almost completely asymptomatic prior to Tuesday. Now, I don't pretend to know what gave her cancer, or what could have prevented it, but I do know that there are carcinogens all around us. In our plastic bowls, in our dryer sheets, in our household cleaners, in our hairspray.

Why? No, really, why? Because non-toxic solutions do exist. So why do we allow these toxins in our environment? Why do these toxins still fill row after row at Target? Why doesn't our government regulate this more stringently? Because, here's the thing. You can make a non-toxic dryer sheet. And some people might buy them. But by keeping toxic dryer sheets on the market, you are implicitly saying, "It's okay. There's nothing wrong with this dryer sheet."

I'm reminded of Jane Smiley's brilliant work, "A Thousand Acres." It's a retelling of King Lear, but there's a twist. It's set on an Iowa farm, and a great deal of the tragedy of the piece stems from the toxic environment of the Iowa farm. I'm not going to spoil it for those of you who haven't read it, but seriously, pick it up at the library. It's a fantastic read, and Smiley received the Pulitzer for it in 1992.

Our government currently seems to be ducking its head in the sand and ignoring the very real, very large environmental problems that exist. They cater to businesses by not enforcing stringent safety and health standards, by allowing known carcinogens to stay on the market, and then they turn around and cut funding for cancer research and other scientific endeavors. And it's bullshit. I'm sorry to swear, but it is. And we shouldn't put up with it, and yet, we do.

And I just want to go up to the American people and shake them. And say, this is not right. We don't have to just go along with this. Judith Levine put this so eloquently in an interview about her book, "Not Buying It." I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't have the book on hand but she said that we Americans don't want too much, we don't want ENOUGH. That instead of demanding more vacation time, or universal health care, or affordable daycare, or paid maternity leave, etc etc we're settling for an iPhone and credit card debt. And it's true.

Let's think for a moment how different it could be. What if, after September 11th, the government hadn't asked us to go shopping. What if they had raised taxes instead? Now, look, taxes aren't fun. But neither is government debt. So what if the government had decided to raise taxes for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to increase homeland security instead of going into debt? Or what if the government had decided to prevent recession by increasing government jobs a la the New Deal instead of sending us all rebate checks. What if Americans woke up and realized that we're getting a very raw deal right now. That we deserve better than this. That education and health care and the environment are more vital to our happiness than this year's boots.

And that's why I'm an environmentalist. That's why I'm a non-consumer. I don't want less. I want more.

When The Environment Clashes With Your Choice of Beer

Last night, I was thinking of you, Jennie, when I resolutely abstained from the gross three dollar PBR. Unfortunately, it seems that PBR is the only thing that Spaceland has available on tap, so instead of ending up with a washable glass of beer, I ended up with a disposable bottle of Amstel Light. I hope they recycle! I actually almost thought about putting the empty beer bottle in my purse and taking it with me to ensure it was recycled, but I didn't because it seemed possibly illegal and at best, very sketchy. "Hi officer, why yes, I DO have a beer bottle in my purse. But I'm not a drunk who carries around beer bottles, I'm just a wacky environmentalist!"

Yeah, no.

So I might have to go back to the PBR, gross and hangover-inducing as it is. Because A#1, it's three bucks, A#2, it's on tap, and A#3 it's domestic, right? So fewer fossil fuels?

Or maybe I should be drinking liquor. I dunno, people, anyone have an idea of what my greenest option would be at a standard bar with a standard drink list? I kind of think given that I drink one serving of alcohol 1-2 times per week, bottled, imported beer is probably the least of my concerns, but on the other hand, the quality difference between an Amstel Light and a PBR is probably not THAT huge that I couldn't just deal.

Rainy Sunday Reading

I wanted to highlight some great reads on the internet recently:

Brave New Leaf has the text of a letter from Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer regarding peak oil. It's a very interesting, not to mention surprising letter from Shell. Here's a key nugget:

Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.

Elsewhere, Chile tipped her readers off to a fascinating National Geographic article regarding the drying of the Southwest (including Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, and our very own Hell-A.) It's so worthwile, that I wanted to call attention to the article as well. As bad as the news is (and it's bad)I found some reason for optimism here as well:

Every utility in the Southwest now preaches conservation and sustainability, sometimes very forcefully. Las Vegas has prohibited new front lawns, limited the size of back ones, and offers people two dollars a square foot to tear existing ones up and replace them with desert plants. Between 2002 and 2006, the Vegas metro area actually managed to reduce its total consumption of water by around 20 percent, even though its population had increased substantially.

Lastly, an absolute must read from Scientific American: a plan to produce 69% of the U.S.'s electricity and 35% of its total energy needs by 2050 through solar energy. Here's a taste:

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

There's a lot of depressing information and statistics out there, and peak oil and climate change are reasons for grave concern. But in a world of limited resources, I believe very firmly in one virtually limitless resource: human ingenuity and adaptability. Every time I get depressed about the world around me, I remind myself of this. We can effect change. We just have to want change.

How Will Global Warming Be Solved?

There are a lot of scientists who read this blog, so I was interested to take your temperature and see what all of you think will be the solution to the global warming crisis.