I Know, I know

I said I was going on hiatus, but then I read some controversy-producing blog posts and articles and I can't help but comment on them. Also, I'm trying to stretch out the three hours of dissertation work I have left as long as possible for maximum crankiness.

Beth recently posted a link to an article by Derrick Jensen in Orion Magazine entitled "Forget Shorter Showers: Why personal change does not equal political change." The first couple sentences of his piece are pretty abysmal actually. I mean he invokes the NAZIS for crying out loud. And unfortunately those sentences do Jensen a great disservice because the rest of his article is actually quite thoughtful and insightful.

What Jensen is arguing is not that an individual's actions don't matter; rather, he's arguing a very specific point: that individualist environmentalism is not particularly helpful. By individualist environmentalism, I mean environmentalism that is not part of a broader linked-up action, but is done on a personal basis in the home.

Now, recently, one of my friends A got her landlord to put in a gray water tank into her bathroom. Which is pretty awesome, right? Anyway, she was telling us all this, and my friend J interjected and pointed out what a small difference one gray water tank is. Not that he didn't think it was worthwhile, but what's one gray water tank when there are wide swathes of residential lawn, golf courses, and water intense agriculture all over California? And the truth is, my friend J is right as is Jensen who also points out how small residential water usage is in comparison to agriculture and industry.

The point Jensen is making is ... well ... It's the Institutions, Stupid. (Seriously, I HAVE to get tee-shirts made saying that.) Given the crisis we're in, individual action isn't going to cut it. It's kind of like taking an Advil when your appendix is bursting. What is needed is institutional reform.

So, basically, ludicrous and easily refutable first few sentences aside, I completely agree with Jensen. But, in my mind, Jensen doesn't go far enough. Pointing out that individual action isn't enough ... that's the easy part. Look, we all KNOW individual action isn't enough. But as Jensen points out, we're in a double bind. One can give up, and go with the status quo, or one can participate in semi-meaningless individual action. There aren't really many other options for most people.

I think the point is, that individual action can result in two things. One: it can result in complacency. Oh, I recycle and bring my own bags to the grocery store, so I'm doing my bit and I can just sit back.

Or, two, it can propel people to action.

The thing is, if it weren't for individual environmentalism, I would probably not be here in London procrastinating my dissertation. I became individually involved and then became part of a political movement LATER. So I think the real question is, how do we motivate more people to take individual environmentalism one step further? How do we harness the energy from the individual environmentalist movement and use that to change institutions? Those are the real questions that need to be addressed, and it would be great if a few journalists put their thinking caps on and started working on that instead of trying to just shit on personal environmentalists.

Speaking of sh*tting on environmentalists, Elizabeth Kolbert goes after a few in her recent New Yorker article, specifically Colin Beavan and Vanessa Farquharson. Basically, she accuses them both of participating in one-year eco-stunts in order to gain publicity.

To which my response is, "Yeah ... so?"

Did Colin and Vanessa engage in eco-stunts? Sure. But what's wrong with engaging in stunts? Participating in stunts is valid political behavior to attract public attention. Again, speaking from personal experience, I was motivated to change my lifestyle because of people like Colin and Vanessa. And as someone who has arguably participated in her own stunt (though I never wrote a book about it), I can testify that you don't come out the other end an unchanged person. Although my year of strict non-consumerism is over, I shop much, much less than I used to and my entire life philosophy has changed greatly. And knowing Colin and Vanessa as I do, I know they have been transformed as well.

The most ridiculous part of the article is where Kolbert talks about how Colin needs to engage in more political behavior instead of personal environmentalism. I ... kind of don't understand how Kolbert completely missed that Colin is ALL political environmentalism ALL the time these days, what with his new organization, and his protesting, and his meetings with politicians. In fact, Colin has had his ass handed to him by his readers several times because they MISS the personal stories. So if his book, which I haven't read yet, is heavy on the personal anecdotes, that's probably just because Colin knows his audience.

In the end, Kolbert accuses Colin and Vanessa for missing the forest for the trees, but really it's Kolbert who misses the personal transformation because she's too busy criticizing Vanessa for flying places and getting laid.

While I'm On Hiatus....

Read this.

Posting Hiatus

I guess you all are used to this by now, since it is basically the bajillionth time I've had to take a posting hiatus in the past year. Sorry folks!

But I have to finish my dissertation (due Tuesday), pack (moving out Wednesday), spend time with my family in India (flying there Wednesday), and then move to New York (going there in two and a half weeks.)

Needless to say, the next two and a half weeks are looking kind of hectic.

But there are posts that I have in my head that I want to write, so ... we'll see. But if you don't hear from me for a little bit, you know why.

Your Opinion

Seattle recently failed to enact a fee for plastic bags. What does it mean for the larger climate change debate? This is what I think. What about you?

Re-quitting soda

About a year and a half ago, I began the difficult process of quitting soda. I was fairly successful. Fewer chemicals in my body, fewer costs to the environment. Everyone is happy.

Then I went back to university, and all hell broke loose. I now have a bad, bad soda habit.

So today when my friend B said that she was quitting soda September 1st, and I should too, I readily agreed.

Me: Yeah, I'll quit all soda. Oh wait, except for mixers. I'm not quitting soda in mixers.
B: Okay that's fine. Wait. We might need to define this further. You can't be like, drinking a rum and Coke just for the Diet Coke.
Me: I wouldn't do that!
B: Yeah, I know you. No drinking a mixed drink at 3pm just for the soda.

Hmph.

So anyway, re-quitting soda September 1st. Let's see how I do.

Clearing up some confusion

I leave London in two weeks. This sucks, dude. Even though I am really, and I mean REALLY excited to move to New York, I am really sad to leave London. And also to leave Britain's NHS which is, let me tell you, pretty damn awesome. I don't necessarily want to spark yet ANOTHER healthcare debate, because that's what my Facebook status is for, apparently. But I have to tell you, it is just a little bit odd that I have had wonderful health coverage for absolutely free here in Britain (I guess I do pay VAT, but it's only 5% more than the sales tax in LA) and now I have to buy stupidly expensive health insurance when I move back to my native land.

One of the worst parts of this whole debate has been the scare-mongering that has occurred wherein people who have never ever lived abroad invoke Canada or Britain's health care system and are like, "OMG IN BRITAIN EVERYONE DIES BEFORE THEY ARE 40 BECAUSE GORDON BROWN KILLS THEM ALL WITH HIS DEATH GAVEL TO SAVE ON HEALTH CARE COSTS!!!"

It's irritating to me as an American, and it's even more irritating to Brits, who ... okay. Here's the thing about Brits, and I don't claim to be an expert, but after living here for a year, I have learned a little about the people.

They aren't a very patriotic people. Not like Americans. Once when I told a group of Brits about the Pledge of Allegiance they kind of freaked out about how all Americans are obviously brainwashed. Brits don't natter on about how they're proud to be British. There isn't a Union Jack flying from every corner. They aren't obsessed with being number one. In fact, the Brits are charmingly self-deprecating about how they lost the empire.

Brits save their patriotism for football and tennis when Andy Murray is winning. (When he is losing, Murray mysteriously goes from being "British" to "that Scot.") Outside of sport, the Brits are pretty mild-mannered.

Until you attack the NHS.

Let me try and explain this in American terms. Britain doesn't have a constitution. But the NHS does. To attack the NHS, is in a sense, to attack Britain at its core. It's like attacking the Bill of Rights. And the NHS continues to be one of the most popular institutions in Britain. One of the studies I read for my exams rated its popularity at 80%.

I can't think of anything with an 80% popularity rate in the United States.

Institutions are not so beloved if they are crap. The NHS has its faults, no doubt, but many of the charges being levied against the NHS in America are beyond ludicrous. Which makes the Brits angry, which makes them attack us, and it becomes a vicious trans-Atlantic cycle that is REALLY, REALLY annoying for those of us Americans living in the UK who might want to do something that doesn't involve arguing about healthcare in the pub and whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance has turned Americans into zombies.

So, please. I implore everyone. Stop the madness. Nye Bevan did not kill Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking, is, by the way, BRITISH, not American. The Queen does not preside over a death panel. Even waiting times have been greatly reduced.

I don't think, ultimately, the NHS is the right system for America for various reasons. But just because it's not the right system for the United States doesn't mean we need to hurl unnecessarily invectives at a system that has done a damn good job in Britain for the past 50 years.

God Bless the Queen, the NHS, and the inventor of Pimms. I'm gonna miss you all.

On Being Neighborly

I've been pondering this post for over a week now. I almost decided not to write it, but in the end, the oh-so-arduous part of me won out. So here goes.

About a week ago, there was a really thought-provoking and incredibly interesting guest post at the Green Phone Booth. The writer's family owns a local restaurant, which happens to be a franchise. She argues that though their restaurant may be seen as a "chain," they still support the local economy by buying local food and supporting local vendors. She implores us all to open our minds and to not simply assume chain=bad.

I was happy to read this post, because I happen to agree with the woman. In fact, I've written about this issue before. While yes, there are some evil chains out there, there are also chains out there that are using their clout to improve environmental, health and labor conditions out there for many, many people. Just as there are small businesses out there that are exploitative. Hell, I've worked for a couple exploitative small businesses in the past!

My feeling is that it's silly to label small as good and big as bad. Most big chains started out small, and grew because they were successful. Why should we penalize success? Sometimes, buying a franchise instead of striking it out on your own is just more business savvy. Considering the rate at which new restaurants close, what new business owner wouldn't want some help with marketing?

So, like I said. I really appreciated the post and the perspective. And most of the comments were fairly sympathetic to this woman. But one comment, fairly cut me to the core.

This commenter argued, "I will also point out that, here in [redacted], most franchises are owned by foreign interests. I do not want to send my money overseas or support foreign business any more than I can help. I mean, would you want to support Indian businesses by choice, when US-owned businesses are doing it hard? Or Chinese? Most people would support their own first."

I can't really express the range of emotions I felt after reading this. Sadness, a lot of sadness. Frustration, anger, more sadness.

I've always been sort of reluctant about the locavore movement. On the one hand, I completely agree that local food usually tastes better and is often better for the environment. I love shopping at farmer's markets, I love supporting local farmers, I love finding the abundant variety of English apples.

But I've always been nagged by the idea of what happens when you take the local movement to its logical extreme ... protectionism, nativism, xenophobia.

It seems odd to me, that in this digital age, we still insist on placing such importance on geographical closeness. I mean, why? I recently went to a lecture given by Amartya Sen. And he was talking about this issue of neighborliness. He said that some people say that you should only help your neighbor. But what does that mean, really? Let's say you were in a car accident and some stranger from far away helped you? Well, he argued, that person would BECOME your neighbor.

For what are our neighbors but those willing to lend a helping hand when we are in need? In that case, I have neighbors in California, in New York, in Illinois, in Turkey, India, all across the world. I also have neighbors right next door to me. But just because some are geographically closer to me doesn't make them BETTER.

Yes, by all means, support local food. Buy from the farmers' market. Strike up conversations with the local farmer. Patronize restaurants that use local produce and local vendors. But if that restaurant is owned by someone in China, well, so much the better I say! Because then, you'll not only be supporting your local community, but your global community.

In this era of increased globalization, migration, and inter-ethnic, faith, and race marriage, it's meaningless to talk as if there are some people who are our own, and some people who are other. At the end of the day, we are all humans. And if we are to build a better world, well, we can't just focus on our local communities. We need to make the world better for all people, everywhere.

As some of you may know, my dissertation spends a lot of time examining the conflicts between Northern (i.e. industrialized) and Southern (i.e. third world) countries as it pertains to climate change negotiations. Anyone who has followed the coverage of the pre-Copenhagen summits knows that this is a thorny issue. The sad thing is, these issues have existed in much the same form for over 15 years.

I believe that we will never, ever solve our current climate crisis as long as we maintain an attitude that places greater importance on our geographically local community. We are right now caught in a cycle of selfishness and blaming others. The global North bemoans China and India for their large populations and their new coal plants. The global South demands reparations from the North for the North's past carbon emissions. Each side refuses to bend, insisting on protecting "their own."

Meanwhile carbon emissions continue to ratchet up.

Consequently, when applied to global warming, the slogan "Think Global, Act Local," has gone from stupid to downright dangerous. As we all try to deal with a global phenomenon by focusing on our own geographical back yard, we have produced stalemate after stalemate after stalemate.

What we need is more dialogue. More willingness to help others. Even those far away. Especially those far away. More empathy and less blame. We need to be just as furious about a starving child in Africa as we would be about a starving child in our back yard.

Because, as Van Jones pointed out, climate change is going to affect those already vulnerable countries most. Land locked African countries, small island nations, those are the ones that will feel the greatest suffering. We need to be charging to their aid, not dragging our heels.

I still remember after Hurricane Katrina, how countries around the world big and small offered to help the United States. Even Sri Lanka, which was still recovering from the great tsunami, offered aid. Sure, the US didn't really need Sri Lanka's aid, but the point is, they were happy to give it to us. They were willing to come to America's side when disaster befell us.

In other words, they were our neighbors.