The Green Suburbanite

 

It's almost summer, and that means for many eager parents and their children it's graduation time. A time for family and friends to shower that student with love, congratulations, and more importantly for the students, with gifts.

Many families have raised their children in homes where environmental values are instilled from an early age. In other cases, it's the child, now a feisty and optimistic young adult, who has tried to lead the green life despite the parents' traditional values. Either way, it's important to encourage these newly independent people to keep their environmental values at the forefront as they make their way to college and beyond. What better way to help keep them on the green living path than with some green graduation gifts? Here are some tips.

• Gift cards for green retailers. Your graduate will no doubt need some new threads. Online stores like Patagonia and Nau offer up everything from organic cotton pants and shirts to jackets made out of recycled soda bottles. Treehugger.com offers up a ton of suggestions for green clothes and retailers. Even stores like The Gap are getting in on the act with new organic cotton t-shirts.

• Gift cards for organic food. These days organic food stores are everywhere. A reloadable gift card for a nationwide grocery store like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's will keep your student in healthy, fresh food for a month or even a semester. You could even get a gift card for a local organic restaurant. (Trader Joe's also has a bounty of tasty, healthy microwaveable food, perfect for quick dorm dinners - you can buy online, but check the availability of a store near your student's college home). To go along with those green groceries, pick up some reuseable canvas bags to carry all that good food back to the dorm.

• Coffee. If there's one thing every student seems to need, it's coffee. Today most major coffee importers and chains (like Starbucks, Caribou, Seattle's Best) have Fair Trade brands, which ensure fair wages for workers. Look for other marks of environmental coffee practices - Shade Grown, Organic, Bird-Friendly. Peace Coffee (www.peacecoffee.com) roasts excellent coffee, and they'll deliver anywhere.

• Chocolate. Second only to coffee, chocolate is at the top of the college brain-food list. Chocolate comes in Fair Trade and Organic varieties, and chocolate bars that are high in dark chocolate content are full of healthy antioxidants, not to mention delicious.

• Compact fluorescent lightbulbs. While CFLs are more expensive initially, they are energy-efficient and long lasting. Replacing a single incandescent bulb with a CFL will save about 300 pounds of coal. And each bulb will probably last longer than your child's four years at school.

• Laundry detergent. Parents seem to always send their kids off to school with a lifetime supply of detergent. Go for detergents that are biodegradable and nontoxic. Brands like Seventh Generation and Shaklee are great and well-priced.

• Shampoos and soaps. More and more bath products are coming in green varieties. Aveda and The Body Shop are leaders in this movement, producing natural products that are good for the planet and good for the body.

• Online music and digital music players. Give your grad a digital music player, like the Apple iPod or Creative Zen, and a gift card for an online music store, like iTunes or eMusic. A lot of waste comes from making, shipping, and playing CDs. Digital music, on the other hand, transfers electronically from record company to music store to digital music player. As a bonus, your grad will think you're so cool.

• A green computer. A computer is essential for college living and working these days. Why not make it green? The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool is a certification program for computers and other electronics. Check our the EPEAT's standards and computers that make the grade at www.epeat.net. Pick up some recycled printer paper to go with that green computer.

• Give a gift in your grad's name to a charitable organization. Heifer International (www.heifer.org) is a fun one. The money donated is used to buy livestock and other needed goods for families and communities in developing nations. For example, a $20 gift gives a family a flock of chicks, $60 gives a trio of rabbits, $120 gives a goat or a sheep, and $500 gives a whole cow.

• Start a retirement account with eco-friendly mutual funds. To help you child prepare for his or her future, start up an IRA in their name with shares of socially responsible stocks and mutual funds. Learn more at www.socialfunds.com.

• Green travel. Many grads want to do some traveling before they get back to the grind in college. Instead of just shipping them off to Europe for a month, talk to them about eco-tourism. Eco-tourism takes many forms: traveling to a developing nation and helping build homes or a school for the summer; visiting a faraway nature preserve and learning about the species there and the people who manage it; hiking or biking instead of taking the train or a car to travel; interacting and even living with locals, as opposed to seeing only other travelers and living in big, Americanized hotels. Check out Sustainable Travel International (www.sustainabletravelinternational.org) for more ideas.

• Some parents can go all-out and get a new car for their grad. Consider a new or used hybrid, or a small car that gets very high mileage.

Over the last couple of weeks I've taken a welcome break from my usual duties and spent some time volunteering over at the Sustainable House. While I made myself open to help on any task, everyone insisted that I was needed most on landscape duty. For most of the summer a big portion of of our landscape work as been done by very few people: our own Jolly Green Gardener, who has been blogging about his experiences, Paula Westmoreland of Ecological Gardens, and a couple of her crew members. Now that it's Autumn, time is at a premium when it comes to the landscape, as everything needs to be in the ground and taking root before the frosts and snowfalls come. So I happily reported for duty in my messiest pair of clothes, gloves and knife at the ready.

Although I refuse to believe it, I'm told that some people actually enjoy working in offices. It's a good place to get the job done if that's where your job is, but really, who wouldn't shrug off a few days' work to play around in the dirt? Me, I jumped at the chance.

I grew up in a family of gardeners. Mom, grandma, aunts, cousins...every family reunion is awash in Latin as the ladies in my family rattle off plant names to one another. It seems inevitable that I too will spend future days agonizing about zones and shade. My folks' house sat on a nice piece of land, and since the day my parents moved in, my mom has set about converting as much grass into garden as possible. From the day I was able to hold a shovel I was put to work out there, growing everything from daffodils to green beans, all mostly organic. Each summer (as soon as I was strong enough), mom also employed me in that wholly un-American activity, sod busting. If the American Dream is a white picket fence surrounding a preternaturally green lawn, then ripping that grass up to make room for flowers and shrubs is positively Communist. You end up with some seriously sore arms, but it sure feels good in the end. And it looks great too. All that grass was just...sitting there. Obviously a patch of bluegrass has its charms - it's good for sitting and laying on, great for picnics, excellent for a game of bocce or croquet. But why plant a whole yard with it? It doesn't do anything for you. No flowers, no berries or fruit. It only comes in one color. Let it go unwatered and it shrivels up all too quickly. It's not very good as a plant. It has tiny roots (which make it all the easier to rip up), so it doesn't hold water or nutrients very well - thus the constant need for fertilizers and sprinklers. You also have to cut it constantly or the neighbors will mock you. Yes, I'd much rather have a patch of land filled with flowers than grass. Granted many of the flowers we love also need considerable watering, but at least they have something nice to show for it.

We are entering a water-wise era; that stuff coming out of the garden hose is in serious danger of disappearing in many places. Even here in Minnesota, a place known for its water, many cities are watching their well aquifers dry up. We are also entering a carbon-conscious era; gas lawn mowers and high-production fertilizers will soon run out of fuel. The suburban yard and the suburban garden need to change.

What we're doing out at the house represents a remarkable leap forward. The landscape is a combination of two major principles: permaculture and xeriscape. I'll explain them briefly here. (You can find in-depth explanations here on our site) Permaculture is the interrelationship of plant, animal, insect, microbe, and human. Plants in a permaculture take care of each other. Some bring nitrogen into the soil - natural fertilizer. Some attract bees - natural pollination. Some hold water in their roots and in the soil, enriching the earth and reducing erosion. Others act as insectories. Some ward off rabbits. Some produce food for people. With permaculture, the garden becomes a community. Xeriscape gardens use as little water as possible, sometimes only the water that falls as rain. This means using only plants that are native to the region - plants that thrive on the amount of rain that traditionally falls there. That means - for most places - no bluegrass. The Sustainable House's lawn has a little bit of grass, for the activities mentioned above, but for the most part, it's native prairie grasses, shrubs, fruit trees, and other perennials. And let me tell you, it's going to look beautiful. Today it looks a bit strange, covered in dirt, straw, wood mulch, and the season's plantings, but in a couple of years this yard will be incredible.

And it feels great to work out there. Many gardeners attest that gardening is incredibly therapeutic; as a non-gardener, I can tell you it's true. All the stress of my day-to-day life melted away. I felt tired at the end of they day, something that I rarely feel after a day sitting at a desk. The smell of the plants and the soil, the work you do, the sun on your body - it feels great. Everyone should take up gardening. Before planting that first bulb, though, look into permaculture and xeriscape. Learn not just how to garden, but how to garden properly in a world where less water and fuel are available to us. Then get tired and get dirty.

As Summer winds down into Fall I look forward to one last burst of August joy: The Minnesota State Fair. Usually when I visit The Great Minnesota Get Together my focus is quite single-minded: food. Sure, I walk around, I people-watch, and in my younger days I was known to take in a rollercoaster or two on the Midway. But all of these actions are attended by the gastronomical miracle/nightmare known as Fair Food. Corn dogs, fried pickles, cheese curds, turkey legs, and sweets galore.

But there were a couple things different about this year's fair. As I was walking and working down a week's worth of calories, I visited our friends WCCO-TV at their booth and noticed something unusual: people on bikes. What's this?! Exercise at the fair? I soon found it wasn't just some corn dog junkies working off some pounds. WCCO intends to use the power generated from bike pedaling to power their State Fair newscasts. The energy generated from biking is stored in batteries, which are in turn used to power the equipment needed to run a newscast. WCCO calls it "We Power." Details on how much energy was generated, how much power a newscast needs, and which newscasts received/will receive the people power, are hard to find on their We Power website. They admit that they don't even know if they'll make enough power for even one newscast. But you can't fault them for that - they're changing minds (there was a line to ride one of the bikes when I went by) and thinking way outside the box on this one. And meanwhile giving some of the good people of Minnesota a chance to work off those cheese curds.

But WCCO wasn't the only green booth at the fair. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency had their Eco Experience hall, complete with a green model home and other groups such as the Alliance for Sustainability on-hand for presentations and discussions. Outside the roasted corn booth, Eureka Recycling set up a compost site for people to throw away their corn cobs and napkins. Elsewhere, vendors tauted their carbon neutral and trans-fat free foods and services.

I'm excited to see the results of WCCO's experiments and, even though I'm still recovering from this year's visit, I'm already excited for next year. I hope the Fair, which has always had its basis in Earth and farming and natural living, continues to get greener and greener.

Reaction to the essay Leave No Child Inside: The growing movement to reconnect children and nature, and to battle “nature deficit disorder” by Richard Louv. As published in Orion magazine.

March/April 2007

“I like to play indoors better ‘cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.”

It’s hard to accept that the above statement has become the common attitude among young children and teenagers.  When I was a kid I used to spend the majority of my time outside biking, swimming, horseback riding, just bumming around with friends, but now it seems that television and video games have replaced the activities I, and most everyone over the age of about 23, remember as normal.  And I didn’t grow up in a rural area.  I grew up in a Minneapolis suburb.  

The question must be asked as to why we have retreated into our homes, locked the doors and windows and nestled in front of the warming glow of the television screen when there is still a natural world out there.  Or perhaps a big part of the problem is that there isn’t.  Urban sprawl has dominated the natural world to such an extent that children nowadays are not nearly as apt to step out of the back door of their suburban home to find a small forest as I did; and do not anymore.  Now it is a development of duplexes.  And I used to play in those woods, and walk through them to the lake.  Now it’s trespassing to get from my parents’ home to the water’s edge.  

It seems that a bit of paranoia has spread through our society as well.  Parents don’t feel that their kids will be safe if left to wander the great outdoors alone, or even with friends.  We see stories of kidnappings and murders on the news everyday and it makes us feel threatened.  Gone are the days when parents say ‘don’t talk to strangers’ and send their kids out to play.  As Louv points out in his essay, the dangers are no greater, it is our perception of those dangers that has changed:

"Urban, suburban, and even rural parents cite a number of everyday reasons why their children spend less time in nature than they themselves did, including disappearing access to natural areas, competition from television and computers, dangerous traffic, more homework, and other pressures. Most of all, parents cite fear of stranger-danger. Conditioned by round-the-clock news coverage, they believe in an epidemic of abductions by strangers, despite evidence that the number of child-snatchings (about a hundred a year) has remained roughly the same for two decades, and that the rates of violent crimes against young people have fallen to well below 1975 levels".

So, the natural world is disappearing, people have grown frightened of the dangers the outside world holds, and somehow youth (and an alarming number of adults) has been persuaded into believing that blinking screens are more fun than being outside.  The effect this shift away from outdoor play has on children is profound.  The most obvious is the epidemic of child obesity.  But it goes much deeper than that.  Studies have shown that nature has a calming effect on children with attention deficit disorder, that spending more time outside significantly enhances a child’s intellectual and creative capacities:

"…children in outdoor-education settings show increases in self-esteem, problem solving, and motivation to learn. “Natural spaces and materials stimulate children’s limitless imaginations,” says Robin Moore, an international authority on the design of environments for children’s play, learning, and education, “and serve as the medium of inventiveness and creativity.” Studies of children in schoolyards with both green areas and manufactured play areas have found that children engaged in more creative forms of play in the green areas, and they also played more cooperatively. Recent research also shows a positive correlation between the length of children’s attention spans and direct experience in nature. Studies at the University of Illinois show that time in natural settings significantly reduces symptoms of attention-deficit (hyperactivity) disorder in children as young as age five. The research also shows the experience helps reduce negative stress and protects psychological well being, especially in children undergoing the most stressful life events."

It’s intuitive really that children who spend most of their time inside, in front of some sort of electronic device would be less creative than those who spend their time outside, making up games, playing or relaxing undisturbed.  People turn on the TV for two reasons: entertainment, and to zone out and not have to think.  We’ve all done it but it becomes a problem when that is all that a person, in particular one whose mind is still developing, does with his/her time.  It would be good if schools would take the initiative to change as well.  Hold class outside for instance.  I had a few professors who would do just that every so often and there were definitely fewer naps taking place those days.  Teachers could incorporate environmental studies into the curriculum, or assign homework that involves outdoor activity such as collecting and identifying leaves, or birds or insects (identify only for the latter two of course).  Class field trips could be more outdoor-based, especially in areas where there are natural parks or nature trails around.  Louv noted that some teachers were absolutely appalled by children’s lack of experience with nature, “In suburban Fort Collins, Colorado, teachers shake their heads in dismay when they describe the many students who have never been to the mountains visible year-round on the western horizon.”  It’s hard to believe that there was never time to take these children to the mountains virtually in their backyards.  It gets worse:

"In a typical week, only 6 percent of children ages nine to thirteen play outside on their own. Studies by the National Sporting Goods Association and by American Sports Data, a research firm, show a dramatic decline in the past decade in such outdoor activities as swimming and fishing. Even bike riding is down 31 percent since 1995. In San Diego, according to a survey by the nonprofit Aquatic Adventures, 90 percent of inner-city kids do not know how to swim; 34 percent have never been to the beach."

The advocates of the No Child Inside movement point out that the benefits of changing schools to be more nature-friendly will enhance the educational system as well, making it a more positive experience, “we will help students realize that school isn’t supposed to be a polite form of incarceration, but a portal to the wider world.”

As Harvard Professor E. O. Wilson believes, “human beings are innately attracted to nature: biologically, we are all still hunters and gatherers, and there is something in us, which we do not fully understand, that needs an occasional immersion in nature.”  I happen to agree.  And I think it’s time to reinstate the ‘go outside and play’ attitude that parents used to have.  In fact I think it’s absolutely imperative for the healthy development of not only children, but society as well.  



Richard Louv is a veteran columnist with the San Diego Union-Tribune and the author of seven books, including, most recently, Last Child in the Woods. He is chairman of the Children & Nature Network.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/240/

What’s good for the land is what’s good for your health”

--Organic Valley

 
Organic farming is seeping into the mainstream and according to many, will need to become the new conventional way to farm.  It’s quite simple really--organic farming allows for sustainability.  Organic Valley, the nation’s largest farmer coop is working hard to bring the small family-owned farm back.  And it’s been quite successful in doing so.  Organic Valley started in 1988 with 7 family-owned farms and has grown to 1149 farmer families.  The cooperative was started in response to the 600,000 small farms lost to the industrialization of farming since 1960.  Their central mission is “to support rural communities by protecting the health of the family farm—working toward both economic and environmental sustainability.”  The Organic Valley solution to the woes of small farmers (that being the coop) seems to be a good one that is gaining public support. 

 But the question of economics still lingers over the farming industry.  However, it is no longer (and in my opinion should never have been) a question of quick payoff.  In the words of Organic Valley: “Chemical-intensive conventional farming creates high yields of cheap food in the short term, but the cost is our compromised ecosystems and squandered natural resources. It creates a debt that we and our children can ill afford to repay.”  Conventional, or factory farming, relies on methods that cause rapid loss of topsoil, sooner rather than later, rendering the land unusable; it requires massive amounts of antibiotics, pesticides, machinery, etc.  It is the large-scale equivalent to selling some old CDs to make a quick buck, you make a few dollars, yes, but the CDs run out fast with no means of producing more.  The Earth’s resources are being over-used and if factory farming continues to dominate the market, we will nearly be out of fertile land, and very soon.  The problem with pumping animals full of antibiotics and hormones is multi-fold.  The first and most obvious is a problem that humans are facing as well—overuse of antibiotics causes bacteria to mutate into strands that are immune to present medication.  The unhealthy conditions and synthetic injections endured by livestock are passed on to the humans that ingest them, or their milk or eggs.  Poor animal health equals poor human health. 

 In organic farming both the land and the animals are kept healthy and relatively happy.  If soil is built organically, it develops its own natural defense against insects, fungus, and disease, thus eliminating, or nearly eliminating the need for harmful chemicals.  The same goes for the animals on a farm.  If they are kept healthy from the beginning, there is no, or much less need for expensive and toxic chemicals or medication.  The overall effect of organic, small-scale farming is that the land is sustainable, animals can produce products such as milk and eggs for many more years than the unhealthy animals of factory farms, and the local market, as well as national economy benefits greatly. 

 The organic food industry, according to Organic Valley, is worth $14.5 billion this past year and is growing by 20% each year.  While this only accounts for a little more than 2% of American food sales, it’s a booming market with a lot of potential.  This is what companies like Organic Valley are trying to teach.  The small-farm market and organic foods market have a place in the economy and farmer coops are an effective solution to the dying family farm, which has been a factor of the ill health of the environment as a whole, and all the animals living in it (that includes, of course, humans).  Organic farming is a way to try to reverse the detrimental effects that factory farming has had on agriculture and community.  It also provides people a way to protect their own health and the health of generations to come while giving the public a choice of how their food is produced. 

 
Check out their website at: http://www.organicvalley.coop/index.html

 There is a unique and informative blog-style online magazine based out of India that I suggest everyone check out.  The authors of the blogs tend to be academic higher-ups, so the information presented is accurate and scientific.  Just now there is an article about a teacher who is leading her students, and the school campus itself, to an eco-conscious future.  There is also an article about the study of water pollution through aqua insects, and one about  how some engineering students are spreading awareness of local bird species and why it's important to ensure their survival.  As an added feature to the site, there are links to international environmental news sources as well. The site is easy to use and is filled with important and relevant information.

 I think it's important that we understand not only how our own culture is handling current environmental issues, but the ways in which other cultures deal with the current and up-coming eco-situation as well. 

So go to:
http://www.ecomagazineindia.blogspot.com/

I read the an article the other day in the online version of the June 2007 Rolling Stone magazine, “The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration to Deny Global Warming,” by Tim Dickinson.
 
While I am not an especially politically-minded person, nor politically savvy, I found myself disturbed by some questions with which each American should concern themselves.  However, I also want to point out the importance of remembering that while Rolling Stone is a very reputable source, I by no means believe that they or any other media source has all the facts.

The article begins with this quote:

“That’s a big no.  The president believes…that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life.  The American way of life is a blessed one.”
-Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary responding in May 2001 to whether Bush would ask Americans to curb their first-in-the-world energy consumption

The immediate problem with this statement for those people who do believe that the world is under environmental threat is that if we don’t change our way of life, there won’t be any remnants of the “American way of life” left.  Is a few extra years of excessive luxury worth leaving a planet in shambles to our successors?

After the world’s top climate scientists released a report on global warming concluding that the planet is indeed heating up and humans are in fact a direct cause, the developed nations of the world began to act, or at least take the report to heart – except for the government of the United States.  Dickinson writes:

 “It’s not every day, after all, that the leading scientists from 120 nations come together and agree that the entire planet is about to go to hell.  But the Bush administration has never felt bound by the reality-based nature of science—especially when it comes from international experts.”


It is important that some key players and events be introduced before continuing.  In the beginning there was Christine Todd Whitman, the administration’s first chief of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).  When Whitman sat down with President Bush shortly after his inauguration to discuss the independence of the EPA from the CEQ—the Council on Environmental Quality, ‘a policy arm of the government.’  Bush replied by asking, “What’s CEQ?”

Vice President *** Cheney assumed control of the CEQ shortly after.  Two weeks in, ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol sent Cheney a fax demanding a ‘housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming.’  And it was done.  Each and every scientist on Exxon’s list was replaced.  Cheney continued to revise the President’s energy policies with his oil buddies at his side.  Put very simply by Jeremy Symons, a representative of the EPA on Cheney’s energy task force:

The ideology is simple: You don’t put limits on greenhouse-gas pollution, because that might put limits on coal and oil--and that would hurt industry’s performance.  Everything flowed from that.

At one point, Dickinson reports, Vice President *** Cheney proceeded to tell ABC News that there was no definitive evidence that human beings are responsible and that we should not just throw a quick policy together to ‘solve’ the problem.


 Why have the ‘powers that be’ in America decided that they are above science?  The denial of the reports is concerning enough, but we have come to find (and this is no secret anymore) that the government not only denied the reports, but changed them in an attempt to create doubt among the public as to the seriousness and reality of the Earth’s state of being. 

Cheney has no personal incentive to place people in power who would work toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy.  It’s common knowledge that Cheney was Chief Executive Officer and Chairmen of the Board for the Halliburton Company from 1995-2000.  This puts Cheney’s alliance undeniably to the oil business.  As Cheney took climate policy into his own hands, he worked closely with the Global Climate Coalition, made up of anti-Kyoto oil and coal industry lobbyists.  These very people are said to be responsible for Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol.  They also wrote the “21st Century Climate Action Agenda” which became the President’s new environment and energy plan.  According to the article, the plan would actually cause greenhouse gas emissions to increase 34% by 2030 while “vaguely” promising to cut the “intensity” of carbon emissions by 18% over ten years.  Not only that, but Bush provided $700 million to fund technologies that may “someday reduce emissions.”  This exorbitant amount of money was untraceable by government auditors.   

How should the American public feel about environmental and energy policy being placed under the control of supporters of the oil and coal industries?  And what does it mean that our President is willing to do so?  Especially when it appears that Bush himself paid little if no attention to the policies set in front of him.

Apathy may be a running theme here, or rather morbid humor.  After a report came out, underwritten partly by the API (American Petroleum Institute), that denied that this century was unusually warm, one of the White House energy advisers, now a lobbyist for API, Matthew Koch, replied to an email from another energy policymaker connected to the oil industry: “What??!!  I want to grow oranges in the Arctic!”

But it makes you feel rather cozy to know that the future of the planet, and thus humankind, is a big joke to those in charge.  Then again it is not their future that they are apathetic about.  They care very much about their own, hence the do-nothing policy floating around the White House.  Perhaps it would have been a better idea to put someone in charge of energy and environmental policy who had something to gain by increasing the use of non-fossil fuel-based energy in the United States?  The problem with *** Cheney in charge is that he has everything to gain by ignoring reports on global warming.  And considering that he plans to retire from politics at the end of the term, he doesn’t even need to worry about popularity with the public. 

I recommend reading the article in Rolling Stone, it sheds some light onto the reasoning behind our absence in the global cooperation for a cleaner, cooler world.    

Read the full article at:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming

 

 

From the essay “Renewing Husbandry,” by Wendell Berry; as published in Orion magazine.  Read the article at: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/160/

 

“To rate the farm family merely as “labor” and its domestic plants and animals merely as “production” is thus an oversimplification, both radical and destructive.”

 

 

As I was scanning through essay titles in Orion magazine online a few jumped out at me.  This one in particular because of its author.  I encountered Berry’s writings in a Christian morality course in college and found them to be interesting and well-written, to be descriptively compact.  No worries, this essay, and really much of his writings have no specific mention of Christianity and any religious connotation comes only from subtext or the recognition of where perhaps some of his ideas stem.  The second thing that drew me to this essay was the context.  It is about husbandry, essentially, and our lost relation to the land as well as to the animals we raise for food.  As someone who cares deeply about the state and method of agriculture nowadays I was intrigued.  While the essay was published back in 2005, I feel it is even more applicable today. Berry's main point is simply that we cannot continue the agriculture business as is today.

 

      “It has become clear, in short, that we have been running our fundamental economic enterprise by the wrong rules. We were wrong to assume that agriculture could be adequately defined by reductionist science and determinist economics.”  What Mr. Berry hints at here and explains in depth later is that by turning agriculture into a mere science and means to an economic ends, we have destroyed the intrinsic value of farming and everything involved.  The change from “soil husbandry” to “soil science” and “animal husbandry” to “animal science” in universities was a symbol of the oversimplification that greedy economics had forced upon agriculture.  Berry discusses how at one time farmers and people in general really, understood the complex relationship between human beings and the land and animals that we rely on and which rely on us for survival.  With the industrialization of agriculture, or the arrival of agribusiness, came the mechanization of all involved—the animals, the crops, the harvest, and the workers and owners of the farm.

 

“Mechanical farming makes it easy to think mechanically about the land and its creatures. It makes it easy to think mechanically even about oneself, and the tirelessness of tractors brought a new depth of weariness into human experience, at a cost to health and family life that has not been fully accounted.”  In my opinion this is one of the truest statements about our society.  I don’t feel that the mechanization that Berry speaks of in the passage is meant to stay within the boundaries of agriculture.  If we go back and look at the Industrial Revolution and its social impacts we find not only thriving business, but disease and poverty, child labor and over-worked and underpaid laborers.  We find, arguably, the collapse of stable ecology as well.  I perhaps need not even say it and will not push forward with it, but: Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” 

 

I think it is terribly important that we stop and really analyze the implications of viewing the world and all its contents as machines.  Denial of the fact that our economy does so is simply lying, no matter if it’s for one’s own peace of mind, or for the interest of maintaining the ‘comfort’ that one has found within the system.  I am not attempting to stand on some moral high ground here, but is it not tragic when society views its fellow human beings, and the animals with which we share the Earth, and the Earth itself as a simple machine set to perform a task, not think, not act outside that set task, or to view our fellow creatures as mere means to a bloated stomach rather than living, feeling animals?  Egocentricism is a dangerous thing, especially when it is part of the collective behavioral model. 

 

““animal science” without husbandry forgets, almost as a requirement, the sympathy by which we recognize ourselves as fellow creatures of the animals. It forgets that animals are so called because we once believed them to be endowed with souls. Animal science has led us away from that belief or any such belief in the sanctity of animals. It has led us instead to the animal factory which, like the concentration camp, is a vision of Hell.”  While it may be risky to bring the subject of factory farming to light, I am willing to do it.  I will, however, keep it short and avoid dipping into the subject of animal rights.  The factory farm, like the polar bear, is a symbol of what has happened to our world.  Greed and over-consumption led to over-‘production’ and thus a gross exploitation of resources, labor, and the animals themselves. 

Can a person really be proud of being part of a society that is responsible for the destruction of the value of the worker, agriculture, ecology, and respect for the Earth’s other inhabitants?  Or do we want to work toward change and perhaps be able to sustain the planet for many generations of humans?   Wendell Berry’s final point is that it is, or we will find very soon that it is, necessary to return to a system of husbandry and leave the industrialization we have come to know so well behind in order for society to as we know it, or should know it rather, to be sustained.

 

 

During the multitude of conversations surrounding the environment that I have had with co-workers, friends, acquaintances, family, etc., the crisis of the polar bear has often arisen.  I for one think it is an absolute travesty that the species is facing the possibility of extinction.  And I am shocked each time someone counters this view.  The question ‘Does it matter?’ has been presented in some form a few times now and though my initial reaction is one of confused horror (how could anyone say that?  Of course it matters!), I, being a fairly rational person, have stopped to contemplate this query and have discovered that the answer is rather complicated.  Why does it matter if polar bears disappear?  Because they’re so cute?  While true, that answer is lacking obvious substance.  Because if the polar bears are gone then the seal, penguin and walrus populations will grow at such a rate that they will take over?  Hmm, not likely.  Does it matter because the demise of the polar bear will shake the food web so violently that all biological systems will fall apart?  I am not a biologist, but I feel that this too is unlikely; it will affect the food chain, yes, but probably not quite that drastically.  Or does it matter because of what the extinction of the polar bear symbolizes, rather than its place in the ecosystem?  If they die off, what does that mean for us?  Does it mean, in shorthand, that we have ruined everything? 

 

There are still naysayers out there who will argue that while human beings have contributed to global warming, we are not the major cause nor the major perpetuators, but rather that it is simply the cycle of the Earth.  I must say that I happen to think that that particular view is a bit of rubbish.  If we take a good look at everything humans touch, we must admit that it usually and eventually caves under the weight of our heavy hands.  And who is not to say that the polar bear may not die out on its own?  I’m sure it would, everything would, eventually.  But I feel that the reason we should care about the extinction of the polar bear is twofold.  One: it is a clear example of what we are doing to the world, and the outlook is bleak; two: because the polar bear is first and foremost a living, breathing creature sharing this world with us and that alone should be enough to arouse sympathy.  It should be compassion for compassion’s sake and nothing more nor less.  If this sounds a bit…fluffy that’s fine, I can be a bit a bit fluffy sometimes as a proud and idealistic animal rights advocate, though I have come not to expect my specific sentiments returned.  But I do still think that the question posed in the beginning is relevant.  If not in the practical sense, in the literary sense.  If you read the subtext of the potential polar bear extinction, what story does it really tell?        

 

I was on treehugger.com today (if you haven't been, do visit the site it's great) and they had a post about the top ten greenest cities in America.  I am proud to announce that Minneapolis was one of them.  In fact, The Earth Day Network voted it 2nd among the greenest midsize cities.  Minnesota is one of the first states to implement renewable energy standards, requiring that a minimum of 25% of the state's electricity come from renewable sources.  There are buildings popping up all over the city that are being constructed and maintained in accordance with LEED certification standards, including many of the new condos that seem to be taking over the city.  It's good to know that the city in which I live is striving toward a greener and more sustainable existence.  However, there was one thing in the post that I do not necessarily agree with and that would be a positive comment made about our light rail system.  I think it is a good idea in theory, but in order for a transit system to be effective it must actually take people somewhere.  Running between a giant mall and Downtown is hardly convenient for the majority of the population.  It does stop at the Metrodome though (where the Twins play--that's baseball for you non-sports fans), which is convenient for people in Downtown who are too lazy to endure the whopping 15 minute walk to the game (I've seen people do it, really).  I do understand that for financial reasons in particular that the limited travel area was just a starting off point, as there are talks of expansion.  I don't want to come off as completely negative about the light rail, I am a huge advocate of mass transit, I am merely pointing out what is already old news around here regarding the current shortcomings of the system. 

Green is fashionable, it looks good on everybody, and as of the beginning of this decade will never go out of style. For those people who were waiting until being green became mainstream and sexy, time’s up. Vanity Fair put out its second annual “Green Issue” this month and it doesn’t get much more mainstream and sexy than that. The cover dons an intense Leonardo DiCaprio on location at the Jokulsarlon glacier lagoon in Iceland (whether or not the picture was worth the carbon emissions from the flight is up to you), and a baby polar bear named Knut (brought in digitally from the Berlin Zoo). Vanity Fair notes boldly and rather cheekily: “Yes, we know, there are no polar bears in Iceland. If current trends continue, there won’t be any in Canada either.” The cover itself is a display of the new seriousness given to environmental issues (last year’s had an elegant serenity about it), but to so bluntly state what the end of our current lifestyle has in store, especially for an internationally recognized publication, is bold and frightening. I say frightening because the serene, ‘hey, we should help the planet’ cover and thus attitude of yesteryear is gone; it has been replaced by a ‘we need to help the planet now’ attitude. This year’s cover is striking, complete with sex appeal, sternness, an adorable polar bear, and a reminder of what will be gone if we don’t change. And I’m not talking about Leo. The cover equals the magazine’s contents. Inside there are articles about water shortage and quality, severe pollution in the Amazon due to oil drilling, an article about Prince Charles’ green efforts, a sneak preview into up-and-coming eco-friendly cars, and that’s just the tip of the melting iceberg. Even many of the ads have gone green. To name a few: Levi’s is promoting their 100% organic cotton jeans, there is an ad for organic fair trade coffee, one from the Abundant Forests Alliance, an ad for Finlandia vodka which boasts “Environmentally Friendly Production,” and my favorite, the ‘global warming ready’ ads by Diesel (one of which shows a couple on a Manhattan (?) rooftop that is eerily close to the water, which is pictured ¾ the way to the top of the city’s skyscrapers). It’s brilliantly bold with enough cynical humor to appeal to the masses. The reason I chose to showcase Vanity Fair, which sounds so trite, is to show that the issues facing our world today are anything but trivial. The push toward green has finally flooded the bandwagon and this is one of the few times I will encourage everyone to grab their floaties (for those of you on the coast you may need them soon anyway) and jump on!

This week I decided to do some gardening to make myself more green. Simple things though since I am limited to growing things on my balcony. I’ve planted some oregano, basil, parsley, and chives for herbs so far, and lettuce and mesculun (a sort of spring mix). The one I’m most excited about are the nasturtium (edible flowers) as I have never actually eaten flowers before. When the time comes I will also be planting tomatoes and peppers as I do each year. One concern of mine in this gardening adventure is that first I have nearly zero experience growing the afore mentioned goodies, and second is that I am rather terrible at remembering to water plants of any sort. Perhaps I should be wishing for a rainy summer…or better I should probably just write myself reminder notes. So what is so green about gardening? Well, for starters, home gardening is entirely sustainable, and healthy. As the number of people who grow their own food, or some of their own food rises, the need for more land and water for mass agriculture will decrease, as well as the carbon emissions caused by the need to transport food long distances. Seeing as there is a shortage of water and a growing shortage of agriculturally-friendly land, growing a few choice items at home makes a big difference. As an added bonus, it’s cheaper to grow your own food than to buy a bunch of organic produce, or produce in general. Well, let’s hope that all goes well with my mini garden. I have to say I am truly excited to test the end products, especially the fresh herbs. I hear there is great satisfaction in growing one’s own food and I look forward to the experience.

Being green is no longer synonymous with patchwork pants, a lack of hygiene, and churning your own butter.

Today, being green means choosing a fuel efficient car, perhaps installing solar panels or a solar water heater in your home, recycling your aluminum, glass, paper and toys – and being a more mindful consumer.

We at Live Green, Live Smart believe in practicing what we preach, so I am going to make myself greener. My goal is to demonstrate that being green can be done – and that it doesn’t have to interrupt your life, but can enhance it.  As a recent college graduate, I know green is the future.  Now it's my turn to take responsibility for that future.

I suppose first of all I should mention a few things that I already do on behalf of basic green-ness. I already walk or bike to work when weather permits, and I am already a vegetarian (for nearly 13 years now, in fact) who tries to eat locally and seasonally – and, since I live in wintery Minnesota, this is not as easy as it may sound to a Californian or Floridian.

But I still have to drive, since I live and work in a suburban area hemmed in by freeways.  And I still live indoors and like to be warm enough and cool enough, and I love great clothes and adore travel.  So I'm not going back to threadbare griminess and I'm not willing to never leave my suburban haven.  But I can add something more every week to my green attitude, and I am starting now.

I’m going to change three incandescent bulbs in my home to compact fluorescents.  These bulbs will cost three to four times what the cheap conventional bulbs cost when I take them through the check-out – but I will save in electrical rates, reduce the carbon my energy use tosses into the atmosphere, reduce waste because the bulbs last a year longer than the ones I’m replacing – and I will set a good example.

I feel greener already.  Now, for the real work (and fun) of getting greener.