Archive for the 'Environment' Category

Are We Genetic Cogs in a Growing Malignancy?

admin July 20th, 2010

Yes it has been some time since I last posted to this blog. Still suffering from a bit of the “I’m not a good enough person to write this” miasma. But there are issues of simple living that deserve to be discussed and written about so I’m back in the game.

Several people have posted replies lately suggesting that what is most valuable to them is to hear how other people are struggling with living simply on a day-to-day basis, so I’ll share a dilemma I’ve just been through.

You might have guessed, if you read very many posts on this blog, that I’m a bit of a Luddite. Actually I do believe that part of our current environmental, economic, and spiritual crisis is that humanity has grown and behaved like a cancer over the past few centuries (some writers say far longer). It began as a virtually unnoticeable spot on the earth’s lungs, but over the years grew faster and faster until it has metastasized to every corner of the earth putting the earth and humanity in peril.

I believe that our cancerous behavior is driven both by of our inflated egos and our over-developed technology working in tandem. This dynamic has propelled us to exponentially use up much of the earth’s bounty and pollute what we haven’t already used up. This process has dramatically accelerated with the digital revolution, geometrically enlarging our blighting footprint.

Many, if not most, Americans would say that this process has been a very good thing because it has made us a great country, given us comfort, good health, longer lives, easier work, and much wealth. How could you argue with that?

Easy… when you look beyond these shallow benefits (shallow, compared to the health of the rest of the world) and look at all of the effects of this industrialzing-digitizing process.

BUT, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, even I, the great Luddite critic, love technological toys: computers, phones, cameras, etc. On the other hand, recognizing the ecological and human moral dilemma they create, I have tried to limit my use of these gadgets as much as I can and I encourage others to do likewise.

We were about the last people on the block to have a cell phone (got one because my wife’s old car was in constant danger of breaking down), then kept the first one so long that people were laughing at our big clunky fossil. I keep desktop computers for many years, patching and swapping out components. Don’t have a PDA, GPS, or book reader – which sometimes leaves my friends and family shaking their heads.

We do the same thing with old fashioned technologies like air conditioning which we run only in a couple of rooms when the temp is above 95 degrees, then shut them off.

These greenish practices certainly do not make us subsistence farmers with kerosene lanterns and a mule. We still have an urban/suburban lifestyle here in the close-in D.C. suburbs. But we try to slow down enough and live responsibly enough to make a difference and still be able to live in an urban setting.

So it’s a moral dilemma every time I have to decide whether or not to buy another gadget. I have avoided buying a laptop/notebook computer for years – really didn’t need one even if it would have been handy on occasion. But (there’s always a ‘but’) I decided that we needed one for our puppet theater business in order to run our audio and back stage cueing.

When I was close to making this decision several things began happening in rapid sequence.

    1. The adrenalin started pumping: “A new Toy! Oh boy! It’ll be sooo cool. We’ll be just like everyone else! Oh my God… we’ll be just like everyone else. Oh NO!”

    In fact there is recent research that shows this adrenalin rush is a real physiological change that occurs when we are making a buying decision. It is what energizes compulsive shopping, but it happens to all of us, even ME! Oh please God, don’t let it happen to me! But it does.

    2. And then the guilt and bargaining set in. “But we really need it. My memory is fading fast (aging) so I need the cue support during shows, and with worsening cataracts I need a big display so I can see where we are in the script; we need it to run a digital projector; Ok, OK, we’ll buy a cheap refurb; we have held off buying one for years, so it’s OK now; you can’t do business in today’s world without one; we’ll be able to work on scripts while on the road…”

Endless BS.

But could we really get along without one?

Yep – sure could! We could continue to be a traditional, old fashioned puppet show instead of one that’s more state-of-the-art, and I could suck it up and just deal with my infirmities – no one has thrown us out of their school or church yet because of them.

Of course I bought one!

The chemistry of seduction got me, and it probably will be useful from time to time.

Here’s my question: how can I continue wearing my Luddite T-shirt while warning about a technologically driven “end of the world” while ‘buying-in’ to the cancer I know is eating away at God’s world?

Sure, I don’t buy electronics very often, but every bit matters.

Almost everyone I’ve explained this to says “Oh it’s just fine – it’s for the business.” But is it really? Should ‘doing businesses justify everything we do whether it’s destructive or not? Business is part of the cancer along with our individual egocentric wants.

And is all this simply over-reasoning and creating a smoke screen to cover up the fact that my ego caved-in to the adrenaline rush? Am I just a genetic cog in the wheel of an ecological cancer? Is there no hope for us as a species?

Please let us all know how you handle these things by posting a reply.

Tags:

Is There A Technological Fix For Our Environmental Problems?

admin April 25th, 2010

I’ve previously written in this blog and on my web site that there is a major misconception about “the fix” for our environmental problems. Actually I believe it is a misconception of mythical proportions that will do us a lot of damage in the years to come.

The myth is this:

We will be able to solve our environmental problems such as global warming with judicious use of new technologies such as solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars, more efficient appliances, and so forth. This, then, will relieve us of the necessity of having to use less energy and buy less stuff, i.e., we will be able to go on living as we always have lo these many years, without having to give up anything.

“Oh I can buy all the toys I want and not worry about the power problem… they’ll think of something! We’ll be just fine!

My response to this has always been that there is no way that technology can dig us out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves for several basic reasons:

  1. The technologies we will need in order to make a substantial difference require, in and of themselves, even more non-renewable and renewable resources and power to design, test, manufacture, distribute, and maintain them. These costs are considerable, especially when most of these technologies use rare and expensive metals such as the rare earths, the mining of which are highly polluting, often mined in the third world under unjust working conditions, and many of which are only available through unfriendly governments. Even though these technologies may operate more efficiently than conventional technologies, their environmental and fiscal costs are in addition to the existing, huge infrastructure that will have to support our old stuff for many years into the future.We might use less oil and coal as a result of new technologies while freeing ourselves somewhat from our Mexican knife fight with the oil producing nations, but we will only have become much more dependent on other untrustworthy governments for these exotic new materials.
  2. New technologies take a very long time to develop and get into mainstream usage. Some of them are twenty or more years into the future before they come on line as practical applications, and when they do, adoption by a majority of people will take even more years. Given the scope and severity of our problem, this is a day late and a dollar short.
  3. Even if the new technologies were wildly successful in every way, we have to contend with human psychology which is perversely designed to defeat such efficiencies as we always have in the past. We are all like the dieter who eats twice as much because he/she is eating a special low calorie food. “Oh I can have another order of fries because I’m drinking Diet Coke!” And as soon as we have the electric, hybrid, or hydrogen car, we will immediately begin driving even more miles because we think we think it’s free. We will then not have reduced our energy consumption even after years of effort and billions of dollars in sunk costs. There is also the issue of broad-scale acceptance of the technologies by the public. A significant number will not be accepted as has also been the case in the past. For instance there has already been a large public outcry against wind farms at a number of locations across the country.

Adoption of many technologies will not be fast or certain, and we are running out of time.
The real solution, of course, is that we do in fact have to give up some things – actually a lot of things. There is no free lunch. We cannot have it all at no cost to ourselves. And having done so much damage already, we now have to pay the piper and we simply cannot escape him by hiding behind technology.

Our situation demands simple living of all of us.

I’m not naïve enough to believe that in our overheated consumer society there will be a sudden, massive switch to simple living, but I think it is entirely possible that a shift will occur incrementally over time as more and more of us get the message and make the commitment to make a real difference in the world.

But it could also be that the shift to simplicity will come suddenly and massively as our society hits the ecological/resource wall at some point in the not-too-distant future, and we are forced to live simply as we did during the great depression and WWII (if we’re very lucky).

I saw a glimmer of hope that the incremental version may be gathering steam even now, from a very unlikely source.

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote a piece in the 4/25/10 Washington Post entitled 5 Myths About Green Energy. Of course he was probably trying to make the case that many of our green energy strategies are bound to be much less successful than predicted and we should therefore abandon such tree-hugging strategies and just let businesses do their jobs using whatever methods they see fit to use (my interpretation, not his words). But in doing so he made an excellent case for living simply as I outlined above.

His (condensed) points:

  1. Solar and wind power have serious drawbacks. They “require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, [while] disrupting natural habitats.” This land demand led to the Nature conservancy, an extremely green organization, criticizing “energy sprawl” in its paper last year. He went on to provide even more statistics to bolster his point that these technologies aren’t going to give us the bang for the buck that we assume.
  2. Green energy technologies will not reduce our dependence on foreign imports and erratic foreign governments to sustain our power needs. We have a choice among about 20 countries for obtaining our oil and natural gas supplies, but the rare earth necessary to build and maintain new power technologies are only available from… China, not the most reliable of partners in any weather. This will only make us more dependent on a country we desperately wish not to be dependent upon.
  3. We talk a great deal about the new green jobs that will be created to support green technologies, however Bryce points out that we have the same problem here as we have had with shoe manufacturing – high American labor costs compared to many other Third World or emerging countries like, again, China. We simply will not be able to compete with them and we will therefore create far fewer green jobs than has been advertised.
  4. Electric cars will not substantially reduce demand for oil because of the physics involved. Gasoline has about 80 times the energy as the best lithium-ion batteries which are famously finicky, short-lived, and which take hours to recharge. Although the electric motor is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, the process of getting power to the electric motor is not, and there is little on the horizon to make us more optimistic along these lines.
  5. America has actually been a leader in moving toward green technologies and has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than, all other developed countries except Switzerland and Denmark. Bryce’s point here is that since American industry is already doing such a terrific job, we should just let them continue doing it.

    However I would apply another interpretation to this data: if we have done such a terrific job and we have hardly moved the needle after all these years of trying, then at best, it will be a very long time before our technology will even come close to solving our problem, if it ever does.

So I thank Robert Bryce and the Manhattan Institute for so brilliantly and so publically making my point for me even though they wouldn’t ordinarily cozy up to advocates of simple living like me!

Tags: ,

Simple Living Easter Resurrection

admin April 4th, 2010

Resurrection Sunday, 2010

Wonderful revelation this Easter morning in, of all places, The Washington Post business section!

Michelle Singletary, in The Color of Money column, reviewed a new book by Gail Blanke entitled Throw Out Fifty Things: Clear the Clutter, Find Your Life, (Springboard Press, $13.99) which of course I haven’t read yet, but will shortly.

The point of the book is that much of the stuff we have (junk and clutter, savings in the bank and mental junk as well), not only doesn’t make us more secure, as we have been taught, but rather when we lose these things as we inevitably will at some point, it causes us to feel very insecure, sometimes to the point of crumbling if what we lose is important enough.

All the while we are collecting and maintaining this stuff we are not free. We are prisoners to it because of the debt it creates in order to buy and maintain it, the pressure to make money to support it, striving to make more money to get out of our increasing debt or, worse, buying even more security blankies (my term) to bolster our sagging egos.  Then of course there is the need for either more space to keep it in, or suffer a loss of living space as we give it over to storage, not to mention having to live with our irritation, stress, and possible depression around having to live in the midst of it all. It gets in our way and slows us down.

On the flip side, you probably won’t be surprised to learn, when, as Gail tells us, we get rid of all those useless security blankies we miraculously find that we not only feel just as secure without them, we actually feel more secure because we are free of it and the burdens it creates for us. Getting rid of it frees us to begin finding out who we are or who we want to be, since we may not know who we or God wants us to be because we’ve been hiding behind our stuff, lo these many years.

Gail says we should throw away 50 things because throwing away our blankies is a cumulative experience in which success at throwing things away breeds still more success and leads to more and even joyful throwing away – our power over our stuff grows while our self-esteem and freedom grows along with it. We also begin to realize the real value of things, not the value we fantasize it will give us before buying it.

I won’t go into the details Michelle Singletary lays out in her review about how this all works because I want to get to the part about my Easter simple living revelation.

Simple Living Easter Resurrection

Easter is about resurrection and new life for all of us, and Lent is about sacrifice or “giving up.” Christian simple livers understand that living simply with less stuff opens a door to new life that is not contingent on physical stuff, and that new life becomes fuller as we deepen our commitment to living a life as much for others as ourselves.

Giving things up for Lent should not be an exercise in self-flagellation just for the sake of experiencing pain or loss. Instead it is intended to be a time of growth in which we re-discover ourselves by getting rid of the things in our lives that separate us from God and from others. For most of us that would mean our stuff and our irrational emotional attachment to it.

So, here’s my revelation, and I wish I had had it a couple months ago: The throwing out of 50 things would be an excellent Lenten discipline which would not only teach us something important about who we are, our relationship to God and to others, but would do something concrete and necessary for our neighbors everywhere by decreasing the size of our ecological footprints, and would allow us to give our stuff to those who need it much more than we do.

Then, Easter morning, we can wildly celebrate Jesus’ resurrection right along with our own. We will have completed our own Lenten hard work and will emerge from the tomb right along with Jesus.

There could hardly be a better Easter than that!

Tags: ,

A Carbon Fast for Lent

admin February 20th, 2010

Lent ought to amount to more than a casual “What am I going to give up for Lent? Oh yeah, I’ll give up eating chocolate” annual exercise. These commitments sometimes have as much meaning and depth to them as New Year’s resolutions which we usually don’t keep anyway.

For people invested in Christian simple living, however, Lent is the best time of the church year to not only make the point about living simply, but to actually have a real impact on those around us who have not yet made the switch.

Why?

Historically Lent is a time of penitence, or in a more modern mindset, a spiritual spring house cleaning. It’s a self-examination in which we look at the mistakes we have made in our relationships with God and those around us (‘sins,’ in Bible-speak), and in making reparations for them.

But there are a lot of mistakes we make on a daily basis that most people would never consider to be sins, but in fact they are not only sins, but major sins. We’re just so used to doing them that we think they’re a normal part of life rather than sins.

Jesus asked us to give up the accumulation of money and possessions so that we can concentrate on the truly important things in life, but instead we have spent the last 2,000 years not giving up much of anything, leaving us in quite a mess. Our incessant and increasing demands for more dish washers, computers, iPhones, cars, clothes, and the power to make it all go, have impoverished or treated many in the Third World unjustly, used up huge amounts of non-renewable resources, and polluted the earth, not to mention having increased global warming.

I would say that every time we buy or use anything we don’t genuinely need, or when we waste water, fuel, or power, or buy anything made with ‘blood materials’ (any resource procured through unjust, inhumane, or immoral means like those practiced in obtaining ‘blood diamonds,’ oil in the Third World, or coltan mining) we are committing serious moral errors. Our daily and excessive consumer practices are sinful because they are destructive to God’s people and his world in very concrete, visible, and painful ways.

So we have a lot of mistakes to make reparations for during Lent. What a great time to show folks why we believe that living simply as Christians is so critical to our world and to our faith – and why we should all be living more simply.

Our small congregation has decided to have a congregational “carbon fast” for Lent this year. It’s an attempt, in a small way, to revive our historic Church of the Brethren tradition of simple living as a way of redressing our mistakes (our penance).

A bit of context: The Church of the Brethren is an Anabaptist denomination which historically practiced simple living much the same way the Mennonites and Amish have up through the beginning of the 20th Century. As the Century passed however, the denomination slowly gave up many of its simple practices such as not using motorized vehicles or electricity, and became increasingly acculturated so that now there is much less to distinguish them from other protestant denominations. In some ways we may have thrown the baby out with the bath water, for although there certainly were some very rigid and dysfunctional rules that were applied in less than loving ways from time to time, those earlier generations were quite faithful to Jesus’ teachings, had a very light footprint in the world, and  they were well respected by their “English” neighbors for their compassion.

But much more than attempting to retrieve a bit of history, the carbon fast is designed to make us aware of our failings, and to make what is sometimes a painful effort to redress them. In asking the entire congregation to participate in the fast, we are using the power of the passion of Christ to make everyone aware of the depth of our error – what we have done to God’s world and His people in the name of our own self-centeredness – and to offer all of us a way to begin to repent – to get our relationship with God and all his people on the right track again.

The fast requires us to first measure the amount of carbon we are using and pumping into the atmosphere and how that compares to the rest of the world (a very unfavorable comparison by a long stretch). Then we will each make a plan of action to reduce our purchases and use of those things that contribute to global warming, resource depletion, pollution, and social and economic injustice. To do this we will be using a number of online and hard copy tools that measure our footprints and suggest actions that will help reduce them. We found the Tread Lightly on Lent calendar produced by the Presbyterian Church USA to be very helpful along with the Federal EPA calculator.

We will then meet in small groups several times between now and Maundy Thursday to talk about our efforts, problems encountered, and successes over a meal.

It is our hope that this experience will make giving up or fasting for Lent a far more concrete, meaningful and helpful process compared to just giving up chocolate.

Tags: , ,

Simple Living Issues on the Front Page

admin January 4th, 2010

Well here it is: three different articles related directly to simple living and the environment – all in the same edition of The Sunday Washington Post (1/3/10). The stars must be aligning just right!

When our simple living concerns serendipitously show up all at once in the headlines of one of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers, then maybe our time has come… or not. I always get overly excited when things like this happen, as though our world is really, finally about to change for the better. I can’t help but think that it has to be more than just a coincidence. Maybe our collective consumer desperation over our deteriorating financial and economic situation has finally culminated in a rush to sanity!

Then my memory kicks in and I recall that in the past such rushes to sanity have quickly pooped-out when the heat of the crisis abates and most of us revert to type.

But there is always a glimmer of hope that even if the sanity doesn’t last long, that at least a few people will have learned a little about a better way of living and a few more people may actually have tried living a little better – a baby step toward lasting sanity. And I really do think that happens often enough that it’s worth writing and talking about.

At any rate, I commend these articles to you along with a brief summary of each.

Sink Your Teeth into a Fast, Michelle Singletary

Michelle, who writes the Color of Money column in The Post, recommends a 21 day financial fast in which we buy only necessities by curbing our need to consume. Several families took her up on the fast and the article reports on their experiences.

She advocates the fast for people for whom the stress of money causes pain with a spouse, friends or family, or for people who are worried about their retirement or college savings, or if they just don’t have enough to get to the end of the month, i.e., it’s for most of us.

The fast instructs us not to ‘shop’ (or window shop, which she says, is merely shopping for entertainment – a definite no-no) not to use credit cards (cash only), and not to buy anything that is not an absolute necessity like food. No going out to restaurants or fast food emporiums, not even a coffee on the way to work, and no buying gifts or gift cards.

On the gift-giving issue, Michelle tells us that, like most simple livers already know, we can give ourselves or hand made things instead.

And on using plastic: it makes buying too thoughtless and easy. Even if we pay off the card every month, the ease of it causes all of us to buy more than we need.

Michelle also advises folks to make a budget and stick to it, explaining that budgeting is not about you, it is about good stewardship, using well what God has given you.

There are many more very thoughtful items in the financial fast guidelines, so click on the link above and take a look at the entire article.

Happy Talk, Carol Graham

Carol Graham is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. Her book, Happiness around the World: the Paradox of Happy Peasants and Miserable Millionaires, will be on book shelves this month, and her article in The Post hits a few of her book’s key points, including:

There is a pattern for those who are happy:

    A stable marriage, good health, and enough (but not too much) income.
    Not surprisingly, events such as divorce, unemployment, or economic instability are terrible for it.

But strangely, we tend to adapt to both prosperity and adversity, i.e. we can have virtually everything and be miserable as well as being cheerful during tremendous adversity. Where our adaptive ability often fails us is around uncertainty. This is difficult for most of us to adapt to and it is under these conditions that many of us feel the least happy.

Carol’s team’s studies in Russia and Peru showed that those who made the greatest income gains were, ironically, the most critical of their economic situation while those with the least income gains were, on average, more satisfied. Of course, she explains, the frustrated achievers may have made gains precisely because they were discontent in the first place.

But the bottom line here is that, as a number of recent studies have shown, our western, First World assumptions about wealth and possessions making us happy are simply bogus.

Beyond recycling and light bulbs, Juliet Eilperin

Finally, a story that once again not only demonstrates how far behind the rest of the industrialized world the U.S. is with regard to the environment and climate change, but also shows how those who are way ahead of us are becoming missionaries to us, the former (how embarrassing) leaders of the technological world.

A Swedish experiment aimed at helping U.S. citizens understand that a lifestyle that curbs greenhouse-gas emissions is not necessarily oppressive, just different, has selected a number of American families to be “Climate Pilots”.

Under the coaching of Swedish volunteers, several Virginia families are installing high-tech greenhouse gas saving devices and changing their daily routines to greatly reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. In addition to installing such technologies as geothermal heat pumps, these families are also using a number of low-tech strategies such as eating much less meat to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by farm animals.

The author reports that Americans each emit 23.5 metric tons (that’s nearly 26 tons U.S.) of greenhouse gases per year, 4 times the world average! The average for the European Union countries is 10.3 tons per capita while Sweden is now at about 7.4 tons. Sweden has made climate change a central pillar of their domestic and foreign policy for over 10 years. The city of Kalmar for instance will be fossil fuel-free by 2030. Several Kalmar families visited VA to coach the climate pilots there how to do it themselves.

Sweden has accomplished this by making climate change a national priority such that every community has a climate and energy adviser, and the government has launched “study circles” on climate across the nation during the ‘90’s. The article also makes the point that Sweden, along with other European countries, has not succumbed to the American pathology of believing that individual’s rights and freedoms must always trump the common good, no matter how many people may be hurt by that kind of ego-centric living.

Post Script

Perhaps Christians who live simply may be able to reach other Americans with the message that it is our community, whether it is our local neighborhoods, or the nation as a whole, that is at stake here. It is no longer about ‘me’, but care for all of us and all of God’s creation that is paramount, not my right to have a Hummer!

Tags: ,

Little Things Matter

admin December 14th, 2009

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post (12/6/09, To Really Save the Planet, Stop Going Green) in which he advocated paying much less attention to the our light bulbs and more attention to changing national and worldwide policy on climate change and the environment in general – if we really want to make a difference. He suggests that much more activism on the scale of the civil rights movement would force wide scale change quicker than each of us buying CFL’s or buying local organics.

There is indeed well researched evidence that state and national policy change results in more, positive systemic outcomes than almost any other type of action we can take because it changes the behavior of entire populations very quickly (because if it’s a law, we don’t want to have to pay the fine or do the time!). This was true for civil rights as well as smoking cessation and it could well be true for the environment as well. So it would be worth our while to get more organized and push congress and the White House to do more faster, and include specific policy actions that should be taken.

There are also those bad days when I wonder if all my efforts are wasted as the rest of the world continues on in its destructive, self-serving way. Am I merely a tiny drop of fresh water in an ocean of salt water?

On the other hand… a couple of contrarian thoughts:

1. I believe we need to both push for large scale policy change and do the little personal things like buying CFL’s: one without the other isn’t likely to get us where we want to go quickly enough. It isn’t simply a matter of “think globally, act locally” although that is important. More to the point, each one of us needs to keep the issue of conservation, global warming, and non-participation in consumer culture in front of us 24/7 if we are to change our way of living, which I believe we must.

One way humans have done this throughout history is to think of each of these tiny personal, but world-saving actions as both functional and symbolic. They are symbols of our values, our commitment, and our faith – symbols that remind us each day of who we have become as Christians, and that we are sons of God who are here to care for each other and the creation we have been entrusted with.

These symbolic acts are extremely valuable for our children and grandchildren, as well as for our neighbors. Each action not only helps the physical world a little, but helps those around us think about what they are doing, or not doing, as well. We are educating our kids and shaping behavior that may last for a lifetime.

2. If we are going to up our ante on pushing policy change, we ought to start at home – by thinking of our churches as our first targets for systemic change. In our own congregations we can have direct policy change impacts more easily and more quickly than we can on Federal or State governments – while helping many people rediscover how to actually live their faith.

  • We can push to change the purchasing, recycling, investing, giving, and energy use policies and activities of our congregations.
  • We can push our pastors and Christian education programs to speak more loudly and more often on the need for all members to change their ways of living in response to the Gospel, the Law, and the Prophets.
  • We can make it an article of faith that each member take concrete steps to reduce their participation in the consumer rat race, and then hold each other’s feet to that fire in walking the talk.

Then we can call our Congressmen about the environment!

Tags:

Next »