Or Maybe Not

Okay, I take it back.

The coconut oil did not hold up yesterday. I mean, it seemed to work just fine for about five hours or so. But it doesn't have staying power over the whole day. (I still think it works better than Tom's, which I don't think even worked for five hours.)

Although, I am sold on it as a body moisturizer. I put some on my legs yesterday morning, and this morning my legs still feel super soft.

So, now I may try mixing the coconut oil with baking soda. I am really hoping that this doesn't make a weird paste. I'm envisioning a situation much like Ross with the leather pants and the powder and cream.

I'll keep reporting back. But at least I can still use this whole jar as a moisturizer!

Dirty Hippie Deo

Yesterday, I officially became a dirty hippie.

I know what you're thinking.

The diva cup did not make you a dirty hippie? What about giving up toilet paper? What about washing your hair with soap? Those things didn't make you a dirty hippie?

To which I say no! But yesterday, oh man, yesterday.

I bought a jar of coconut oil and used it as a deodorant.

See, about a year ago The Thistle wrote a post about how much she loved her coconut oil deodorant. And I kept meaning to give it a try, but I already owned a Tom's of Maine deodorant. Which frankly was pretty useless, but I figured I needed to use it up.

Anyway, I finally lost? pretended to lose? my Tom's deodorant along my many, many travels, so I figured it was as good a time as any to give the coconut oil a shot.

After I got over the momentary "Oh my GOD! I'm such an eco-nut!" pangs, I found that ... I think it works!

I mean, truthfully, I'm not entirely sure. It seemed like throughout the day I seemed to smell mostly fine. But like, I had never really spent too much time sniffing my underarms when I was wearing antiperspirant. Mostly I just assumed it worked. So now I have no real basis for comparison. Plus, since coconut oil still allows you to perspire, which I think is probably a good thing, it's obviously not going to have the same effect.

So, it works. I think. But if you see me, and I ask you to smell me, don't get weirded out, okay?

Thoughts on ClimateGate

I've been following the Climategate blow out with a fair amount of interest recently. For those of you who haven't heard, basically some one hacked the emails at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and then published the emails on the internet.

And the emails released were incredibly damaging both for climate science and the climate scientists involved.

Now, I'm not a hard scientist. So when Real Climate explains this email by Phil Jones:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

by noting that:

"The ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."

I'm pretty much willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Although, scientists, if you actually use the term "trick" to mean "way to solve a problem," you ... really shouldn't. It's not jargon, it's just stupid. If it ain't a rabbit appearing from your top hat, it's not a trick.

So, I'm willing to cut the climate scientists some slack and acknowledge that "insider language" that may look damaging to an outsider could very well have been used in private emails destined for colleagues.

But there isn't really any good way to explain why Professor Jones tried to delete emails that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act. And while Real Climate tries to defend some of the less than polite emails by noting, "Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person," I'm not sure that that's such a great excuse.

Indeed, a mere couple weeks before the ClimateGate blow out, another blow out took place over the internet, in which Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute contested that Joe Romm of Climate Progress had repeatedly resorted to McCarthy tactics to smear anyone who disagreed with Romm at all about climate change or the policy implications thereof.

As a frequent reader of climate blogs, I have to say, it is a little shocking how much these blogs do descend into ad hominem attacks on fellow colleagues. The unprofessional impoliteness is not limited to private emails, and in any case, as everyone knows, in the digital age, nothing is private. I get that all scientists do not get along. I understand that science is competitive, and I do not expect the world's top scientists to be singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands with each other. But the lack of professional courtesy is out of control.

If there is something to be taken away from this PR disaster it's this:

Nothing sent over the internet is ever private.
Professional discourtesy will come back to bite you in the ass.
There is a need for transparency in science.

And the biggest take away:

Science is political.

It's useless to deny it. There is no such thing as completely objective science, at least not in a highly charged and uncertain science like climate science. And the sooner we start acknowledging this, the better.

For a brilliant analysis of ClimateGate, check out Mike Hulme's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Captain Scrooge

I'm not doing Christmas this year.

No Christmas cards, no presents, probably no tree. Nothing.

I'd like to say it's because I'm being a good non-consumer, but it's really because I simply cannot afford it this year. Christmas usually costs me around $1000. I don't have $1000 to spare, hence no Christmas.

I'd like to say that having no money has woken me up to the true spirit of Christmas, but the truth is, not participating in the cards/presents orgy kind of means that actually, I'm just kind of ignoring the holiday season. Le sigh. Does that mean I have to consume in order to appreciate the holidays? That's a pretty freaking awful thought.

But what is a non-consumptive Christmas for a secular person? I guess one could say it's about friends and family, but I think every day of your life is about your friends and family.

It could be about Christmas music. I do love listening to carols.

Or about strolling the neighborhood looking at Christmas displays. Although given that the displays are an example of someone else's consumerism, I'm not sure it's fair to call them non-consumptive.

It could be about Christmas cookies ... except that eating cookies is literal consumption.

I guess the truth is, I'm not really SURE what Christmas is about without the consumption. But this month, I hope to find out.

Hello

I've been a bad blogger lately. I think I seem to have more absences than I have periods of consistent posting. And I can't really explain why it is, except that lately I have felt pulled in several directions at once.

Oh, also I've been a wandering nomad. After spending two months in New York, I spent a week in Chicago. And now I'm in the SF Bay Area for a couple weeks before I go to LA.

So let's see. I'm in California. I'm applying for full time jobs. Which is basically a full time feat. Meanwhile, I'm trying to do some writing privately on a couple things I have going. A novel that I've been mulling over for the best part of five years.

What else? I made the turkey for our Thanksgiving dinner for twenty. An impressive feat for the girl who two years ago couldn't cook a turkey burger on a Foreman, don'tchathink? I also made a vegetarian stuffing and cauliflower gratin. The stuffing was actually the biggest headache. I wanted to use store bought bread stuffing mix, because I just did not have time to sit there and toast and cut up loaves of bread. Big mistake. I had to go to four stores in search of stuffing which didn't contain high fructose corn syrup.

And this week I've been just eating left overs! How very No Waste of me. But really it's because I'm too lazy to go grocery shopping.

Anyway. Bay Area bloggers, let's meet up! The rest of you, I love you, and I'm sorry I'm such a bad blog buddy.

Yes, This Is Important

I've been thinking a lot about Melinda's recent posts about environmental social change. Read her thoughts here about how to get people to change their lifestyles, participating in your community, and how doing it alone is not enough. It's a great series of posts and it asks a lot of important questions. Why is social change important? How do we affect change? How do you build a social movement? These are questions I have been pondering myself for the past two years.

There are a lot of people critical of individual action in the name of the environment. It is easy to poke holes, to label people as hypocrites. It is easy to point out that the changes we all make are microscopic drops in oceanic buckets. But none of those critics ever have a better solution. Almost everytime I go to a lecture on climate change, without fail, someone in the audience will ask what they can do about the crisis we face. And almost always, the answer given is, "Well, the truth is there isn't much you can do aside from vote."

How is that helpful?

I remember many years ago when I saw "An Inconvenient Truth." I still remember the combination of fear and helplessness that washed over me. The world as I knew it was coming to an end, and there was nothing I could do about aside from changing a few lightbulbs or considering a Prius. After I saw that movie, I immediately went online and bought a Terrapass. Then I continued to do nothing. For about a year. Because well, there was nothing I could do anyway!

And then one day everything clicked. I realized there was something I *could* do. So, I attempted to do it all. I stopped shopping, I started air drying, I even made my own jam and butter and started taking public transit in Los Angeles of all places. And then I moved to London in order to attain a better grasp of environmental policy issues.

Almost every seasoned environmental social activist knows that none of the changes we make are enough or anywhere near enough. But we also believe that our work creates a ripple effect. It is hard to determine the exact results of social action, especially one as amorphous as the environmental social movement. But it seems to me increasingly clear that the world is growing more environmentally aware. And part of that is due in part to a growing band of environmentalists who are challenging conventional rules on air-drying laundry, increasingly patronizing farmers markets, as well as advocating for a global deal on climate change in Copenhagen. Individual action at home begets slightly more public action which begets large scale activism for international change.

Do we need a global deal on climate change? Yes. Do we need more government investment in renewable energy? Yes. Do we need higher efficiency standards? Yes.

But we need social change to get those things. We need social change to help us maneuver to a new era of renewable energy.

In the movie Who Killed the Electric Car, one of the culprits cited is the American people who were not ready for the electric car. As I drove around the city of LA, I would be haunted by this failure. I'd drop by the library where the only empty parking spot was that reserved for electric cars. I'd drive by my coffee shop and see another empty parking spot labelled "electric vehicle only." The infrastructure was there, but we had not been able to change people's behavior. Of course there were many other reasons for the failure of the electric car, but I believe that this example demonstrates the need for a social movement. We cannot transition to a new era of renewable energy without changing people's behavior.

And that's why this social movement is important. In the end it's not about the plastic bags saved or the reusable coffee mugs used though those are good things to do. It's about the large scale awareness that is gradually being generated. That's why I continue to fight and work to grow this movement.

Yes, this is important.

Transportation Smackdown

I've been traveling a lot and experiencing a number of different public transit systems. Each one has its pros and cons ... for example the New York subway is

1. Open 24 hours
2. Is super cheap (P.S. New Yorkers, stop complaining about subway fares. $2.25 is a ridiculously cheap price to go anywhere in the city.)
   
3. Nice and roomy (especially compared to the London Tube)
   

On the other hand, it is also

1. Kinda dirty
2. Difficult to get across town
3. Doesn't properly service the East Side
4. Still hasn't moved on to smart cards (Though you could also say that is a 'pro' since you know, people argue that London's smart Oyster cards are yet another way of the police monitoring our actions. To which I say, yes, but they are just SO DARN CONVENIENT!)

Anyway, I was thinking of doing a series of posts on transportation systems and then we could all vote for the best one. So I'm asking you all for your input. What are the transport systems you love? Which ones would you include in the Transport Smackdown?