Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media, Waste + Recycling | Tags: Earth Day, editors, magazines, New York City, plastic packaging, publishing
NOTE: This is a makeup post from one of the weeks when I was gone. Please comment! —Kim
I am a magazine fanatic. I subscribe to seven (7!) lucky magazines that live in neat, organized stacks in my bedroom, bathroom, coffee table and other places around my apartment.
Each month, I squeal with delight when I find my mailbox stuffed with glossy pages of fashion, beauty and other photographic delights. It’s like getting a present each month, even though the present is basically re-gifted (does that count as green?) ideas from the previous month/season/year.
To make this monthly present really seem like a present (that you paid for in advance or keep getting $12 collection notices about, grrr), some publishing houses are taking it upon their marketing genius to encase their glossies in a fine cloud of….plastic packaging.
photo by kim wallace
Yay! So I get see-through wrapping paper, at no additional cost, to put all those annoying blow-in cards (you know, the millions of rectangular subscription cards that magazines pepper themselves with each month) inside.
Wrong. The additional cost is huge. Of the seven magazines I subscribe to, five of them are delivered to me in plastic each month. That’s 60 pieces of plastic packaging that ends up in the landfill from me, via these publishing companies, each year.
The publishing company’s only legitimate reason to send shrinkwrapped magazines, I think, is to save on postage. Most times, there’s always something extra in that packaging—a bill (ahem), a renewal notice (which leads to another bill), a solicitation from a sister magazine, or some other little “bonus” booklet from the magazine. (FYI, my “little bonuses” this month were renewal notices.)
In an effort to combat this waste that overtakes my bathroom trash can, I have devised a greening plan for the magazine industry that includes other areas of the publishing process.
Don’t use plastic packaging! If you really want me to feel like I’m getting a present each month, pay for a subscription for me (and offer me a job when I move to New York in a couple of years.)
Quit sending me renewal notices (and bills!). Switch to an all electronic system for notices, or if you must, offer switch incentives to people who receive paper notices.
Stop going crazy green only for your March/April issues just because Earth Day is April 22. Incorporate green, even if it’s just a column, every month, because face it: every day is Earth Day. Challenge your readers to try new green things, even if they are of the light green shade.
Consider soy or vegetable ink for your printing needs. Soy ink has low VOC (volatile organic compound) levels, which keep your book from smelling like death. And, soy ink produces just as rich and vibrant colors as conventional, toxic ink produces.
Promote the reuse and recycle aspect of the 3R’s with your publication. Encourage pass-along to your subscribers (this increases readership and will likely gain you Web traffic from curious newbies) and be more courageous with your recycling campaign than the “Please Recycle This Magazine” symbol on your masthead. Realize your power.
Incorporate that slogan at the end of each editor’s note (some readers idolize particular editors—if you can convince me to *buy $300 shoes, you can convince me to recycle a magazine!).
And, of course, do all the necessary office revisions (things us readers usually don’t see, unless of course, you’re in the magazine world): Use CFLs, stock your vending machines/kitchens with local/organic food, dim the lights (it makes for easier vision when your glamorous editors are hunched over their Macs) or try to use natural/New York City streetlights when possible.
Let us know what you’re doing to be green! We love hearing this positive stuff, and it encourages us, the readers, to be more like you—trend or no trend, light or dark green. Your power is ENORMOUS and what you do influences us all. Make sound, thoroughly researched choices.
—Kim
*I have never actually been swayed into buying $300 shoes, though I’m sure millions of women, with the power of Visa, have!
Filed under: Food + Health, Waste + Recycling | Tags: diets, food fights, food waste, slapstick comedy, starvation
A man at an Easter dinner table, no doubt emboldened by quaffing copious amounts of Napa Valley cabernet, proceeded to start a food fight. He must have had his fill and thought what better way to cap celebrations than by tossing his leftovers at someone sitting opposite him. I can’t say I blame him. After being fed a Hollywood diet of warped humor where food fight scenes have become the staple in slapstick comedy routines, it’s no wonder he thought a bit of flying celery and carrots would go down well. It would be spoken of for months to come, the pièce de résistance that outshone the au gratin potato bake. It was just like going to the movies and clutching our popcorn-filled bellies in the aisles as we laugh at new meanings given to having spaghetti braids.
Thankfully this kind of scene wasn’t played out. But what it did bring into sharp focus how wasteful people have become – that images of a family in Chad living off $1.23 a week are a far cry from the relative comforts of families here in the United States and elsewhere where more leads to excesses like food fights and obesity. So the study of families around the planet and their one week dietary habits made for some interesting visual comparisons and reaffirmed the gap between rich and poor nations. Reading some of the comments that followed, it seems that some people are uncomfortable addressing such global inequalities and in shouldering guilt, and responsibility even for helping to raise the standard of living of the indigent. How and what people to choose to eat is their concern, just so long as it’s sustainable. But the next time they toss a half empty plate of food away or think it funny watching or having a food fight, I hope they at least spare a thought for poverty-stricken kids so desperate they’d happily be rolling alongside on the floor, not in fits of mirth, but grasping at every precious morsel thrown about with reckless abandon.
-Denzyl
Filed under: Food + Health | Tags: eat locally, economy, globalization, local food, localism, trade
Eating and consuming locally has significant impact on reducing consumption of fossil fuel and pollution. I love local organic food. They are fresh and healthy!
Now, I became a little skeptical about localism, such as buying local products and avoiding flight or driving. Here’s Bill McKibben’s comment, which I consider fanatic. His solution to the climate crisis:
“Either we build real community, of the kind that lets us embrace mass transit and local food and co-housing and you name it, or we will go down clinging to the wreckage of our privatized society. Which leaves us with the one piece of undeniably good news: we were built for community. Everything we know about human beings, from the state of our immune systems to the state of our psyches, testifies to our desire for real connection of just the kind that an advanced consumer society makes so difficult.”
Actually, his comment is nothing so new. Advocating pure localism will eventually reach to his idea of the “real community.” My concern is what if the whole community, country or even world turn into a totally self-sufficient life? Basically, you would only consume what your community produces. In that case, I’d move to the West coast. I like seafood, but I’d have to ask my Kansas friend to smuggle beef. I’m not sure if I can ever stay awake without coffee.
“One Week’s Worth of Food Around Our Planet” says:
“Here’s something that I came across which I thought was very poignant. One week’s worth of food from around the world. The pictures say it all.”
What did you interpret from the pictures? First, I didn’t feel either “poignant” nor guilty. Instead, I appreciated what I have. Second, the pictures reflect their own culture and make me feel like trying all those different food. (I like exotic food.) Third, I was wondering which one is the most idealistic diet for the environment.
I realize how fortunate I am. It might be my Japanese arrogance, but people in Chad are missing out a lot of good food. Trade makes us possible to access those food. How can I help the country develop strong economy, produce goods, export and be successful in the global market? Although shipping is bad for the environment, they should try the world’s different ingredients and food, which enriches our lives.
Photo Credit: Grunabi
Sacrifice is not my kind of environmentalism. We have to find a balance between our consumers’ life and the environment. Consuming locally is an important idea, but it also comes down to the balance.
The New York Times discusses pros and cons of local food in terms of environmentalism. Eating locally can reducing consumption of fossil fuel. But we cannot measure carbon footprint only by food miles alone, considering:
“factor inputs and externalities” – like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs.
Sachiko Miyakawa
Filed under: Food + Health, Waste + Recycling | Tags: Consumption, food, material world, Mexico, waste, water bottles, worldmapper
I got picked up in Mexico City by a driver-certified-body-guard named Nacho. He was a short man who was talkative and was really excited to meet me and my travel friend, Jacob.
The second we get in his little Volkswagon, he starts blasting Madonna’s song Material Girl, singing along and encouraging us to do the same, driving down the road ignoring all traffic rules.
Welcome to Mexico City, or maybe , welcome to the same globalized world.
This bienvenido set the tone for my little trip south of the border and made me question how does consumption and waste rates differ between countries? According to Worldmapper the U.S has a relatively large amount of waste compared to the population, and more so than Mexico.
I’ve always figured that since consumption and expendable income is so high in the US, that most developing countries had less waste, but from what I saw in Mexico, I couldn’t believe that to be entirely true.
Everyone knows to stay away from the drinking water in Mexico, drink bottled water instead. This, was painful for me, in 3 days of being in Mexico, Jacob and I had drank 5 2 liter bottles of water and half a 10 liter jug of water.
In America, we have a generous choice to drink either bottle or tap, but for people in developing countries or rural areas, many have no other choice, and have to spend the little money they have on privatized, bottled water. How come clean water can’t be a natural right and resource available for everyone?
Now, what do other countries do with the ridiculous amount of waste thrown out? In Kathmandu Nepal, they burn all of their trash on the streets, and in Mexico, as I saw, they throw their garbage off cliffs into valleys.
With environmentalism, it seems as though there is a big emphasis on America, and it’s consumption, it’s energy use, it’s waste and degradation to the environment. Maybe it seems this way because I am immersed only in the American life. But what about developing countries and the way their social, political and cultural structures have them stuck in a position that they can’t even start to worry about their relationship and degradations to the environment?
Is environmentalism only for the wealthy? Can environmentalism actually become global?
Upon looking One Week’s Worth of Food Around Our Planet, I was reminded of a book I used to look at called Material World: A Global Family Portrait, which shows the material possessions of family’s across the world. Both show pictures that are powerful and show the differences between economic opportunities and material possessions across the world.
It seems as though environmentalism can be linked to consumption , reduce your consumption, and reduce your impact on earth. But how do we bring up all the people in the world to have a positive relationship with their environment that isn’t costly?
A photo I took of a water bottle in Mexico, to what I think roughly translates to something like ” It is necessary to drink 2 liters of clean water every day for good health. “
I can’t help but think, are these companies actually thinking about YOUR health, or is this greenwashing or marketing strategies to have you continue buying and wasting?
What about the ones who can’t ?
-Juliana Tran
Filed under: Nature + Travel, Society + Media | Tags: ansel adams, environmental, green, king's river, photography, Sierra Club
Who is the greatest environmental photographer in this history of the environment and photography?
Funny you should ask—considering I just spent my morning researching that exact topic.
Ansel Adams would be your man. I know, I never thought of it before now, either. Until now, I just thought he made pretty outdoor pictures that people put in their offices when they didn’t know much about art.
Now, I know you instantly scanned through your mental environmental photographer Rolodex and picked out your favorite modern environmental photog but I seriously doubt they hold a CFL to Adams’ efforts.
After years of photographing nature, Adams became so inspired that he became a full-blown environmental advocate, according to this essay by Peter Barr. He joined the Sierra Club board of directors, he lobbied congress for environmental aid in King’s River Canyon, and he was assigned to photograph national parks by the Department of Interior (however, this project quickly ended because of WWII). Adams personally met with LBJ, Johnson, Ford, and Carter to discuss environmental policy. He was also awarded the Conservation Service Award by the Interior Department and recieved a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his environmental efforts. Thats what I call a hard-working advocate.
And just look at the man’s stuff:
Ansel Adams. Bridveil Fall. Yosemite, 1967
Waterfall: “I am nature. Hear me roar. RAAGH!”
Ansel Adams. Snake River, Grand Tetons, 1942
Mountain: “I see you eyeing me. I will destroy you. Do not screw with me.
“The photographer showed Americans the beauty of nature. But he also put alot of American problems in perspective.
Ansel Adams. Freeway Interchange, Los Angeles, 1967
This photograph was taken in 1967—an era when a lot of people (aka hippies) were complaining about what was wrong with the world, while driving around in psychadelic buses powered by fossil fuels and love.
It is as if Adams was telling us “Hey guys, take a step back and look at all this progress. Maybe we need to slow down and meditate on this for a while. I mean, check this other picture. Goodness, are those some pretty trees or what?”
You know, come to think of it, I’m going to have to get me an Ansel Adams for my office. Maybe it’ll make me feel like I’m working amidst nature
-Travis Brown
Filed under: Science + Tech | Tags: argo, argo system, cooling, global warming, Josh Willis, morning edition, oceans
Riddle me this: If, in theory, global warming should affect temperatures in the ocean even more drastically than in the atmosphere, why does recent data show that the oceans have cooled in the last five years?
Be not misled, you will not find the answer to this riddle in this post, nor any Highlights magazine. Scientists are asking the same question after Josh Willis, of NASA’s jet propulsion laboratory, distributed a fleet of 3,000 temperature-tracking devices into the oceans, only to record a slight decrease in temperatures over the last four or five years, according to NPR’s Morning Edition.
I bet a scientist who has studied climate change could pick out the flaw in this fairly easily (and please accept this as a personal invitation to do so), but the drop in temperatures fits right into how global warming goes in my head. If enough glaciers are melting to cause a rise in sea level, then wouldn’t there be enough freshly melted ice in the ocean to cool them a touch?
We’ve discussed the need to fight people’s (journalists and consumers of news alike) natural tendency to seek out an endpoint. Scientists are full of maybes, while we look to journalists to deliver conclusive facts. NPR’s update on the Argo system (the fleet’s functioning name) is just one more step in trying to understand our Earth.
However, I was not surprised to find an article or two that took NPR’s reporting and ran with it. I was surprised that the headline wasn’t, “See? Global warming’s not real!”
The only thing these numbers prove is that is that real “proof” is hard to come by. I like reading about the latest findings, but it’s a shame that public perception often equates new information with radical new truths.
Science is a work in progress. It’s an easy thing to know, but it’s difficult to believe.
-Sonya English
Last night, I returned home late from squeezing in hours at the farm I’m moving to with my partner in June. We spent all day helping her father move new goat kids and their mothers from pen to stall, stall to nursery, nursery to pen. They look like this when they are about five days old:
It’s hectic, exhausting, mucky, work. About a dozen kids were born yesterday, and another eight today. That means a lot of running around as we help coordinate the many births with the few stalls available for mothers and kids to bond together during their first 24 hours. We learn the new ways of this work via fresh straw, buckets of water, screamin’ baby goats (man they can wail!), and lots of bodily fluids.
We are juggling this farming life with our day jobs as best we can. We are remodeling and renting out our city house while remodeling and buying a farmhouse. It’s never-ending chores, and we’ve only just begun. So I asked myself last night as we drove home, why do this? Why work so hard, when it would be so much easier to get up, go to an office job, go home, watch tv, eat take-out, drink a beer, stay numb and go to bed?
We talked it over, and it comes down to living a conscious life, one where we are aware of the impact of the choices we make. It means having a passion for for that life. For me, that comes from a belief so strong in a human right to have food security, that I am willing to change my life to make it happen – even on the smallest scale, one that is now but a glimmer of a vision for a tiny organic, sustainable farm.
Providing accessible, healthy food for ourselves and others takes on greater significance with every article I read about food security. Right now, there are global food shortages and increasing prices worldwide for the foods many cultures hold dear, let alone need to survive. In Egypt, the cost of bread is up 35 percent and cooking oil 26 percent. The price of pasta in Haiti has doubled. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization expects prices to continue to increase for another 10 years, and the poorest of the world will suffer the most. Already, the U.N.’s World Food Program says it’s facing a $500 million shortfall in funding.
I’m not so naïve that I think I’m solving world hunger or anything like that. But I do think that working this hard for good, local food options is what helps me sleep at night. (Being wiped out from double-duty and all that conscious living helps, too!)
Sometimes I feel like I’m giving up a lot to change my life this much. Members of this blog have discussed several times that sacrifice won’t convince others to join you in going green. But I ask you — what would you be willing to change to reach for a greener goal close to your soul?
- Jen Humphrey
Filed under: Business + Politics, Food + Health | Tags: chipotle, fast food, McDonalds, organic, panera bread, starbucks
I think One Week’s Worth of Food Around Our Planet just reaffirms that we are on the right track when it comes to starting to eat in a “greener” way. Did you notice that in every picture of these families that the ones who have the majority of natural foods also have the lowest costs per week? I think it would also be safe to assume that they are also the ones that spend the least on transportation of these foods and save the most energy.
Now as far as the United States versus the other countries in consumption level, I’m not sure these pictures tell us anything we don’t already know. We consume too much unhealthy food, we use way too much packaging, we don’t recycle enough and we spend the most money. Go figure. But on a more positive note, America is changing. Maybe it’s not noticeable to some yet, but slowly but surely, America is changing the way we eat. Organic food is one of the most rapidly growing trends in America today, and this is for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is the health and wellness benefits associated with natural grown food, they are healthier, safer, better tasting, and more sustainable.
Photo: lindvall, Flickr
In America, we are known for our high consumption of fast food. But now companies are taking their own steps to make their food healthier and more environmentally friendly. Panera Bread now offers a large selection of natural and organic foods, McDonalds sells organic milk at their locations, Starbucks now offers Fair Trade coffee beans as well as organic milk, and Chipotle has pork-free carnitas!
Photo: -clb-, Flickr
Many environmentalists will argue that this is simply not enough. I agree. If McDonalds wants to be considered environmentally friendly it needs to come up with it’s own organic Big Mac that tastes exactly like the real one and find some way to make all their wrappers biodegradable. But until that day comes, I will commend them for making the effort and hopping on the bandwagon to becoming eco-friendly. Soon many will follow!
-Sarah Nelson
Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: crayon, dallas mavericks, going green, light and dark green, mark cuban, maverickblog.com, michael jackson, musical theater, musical theatre, toyota prius
Photo courtesy of Dean W. Armstrong, University of Chicago
Mark Cuban, owner of maverickblog.com (one of Technorati’s top 1,000 blogs), said: “Blog about your passions. Don’t blog about what you think your audience wants. Post because you have something you are dying to write about.”
Assignments for class can get redundant, chore-like, and menial compared to our “passions,” as Mark said. Want to know my passion, or “strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept”? Musical theatre. Now, I’m not talking about when you were in middle school and no one could participate in sports yet, so you were made to try out for the school’s production of Oliver! just so you could have a social hour. I’m talking about that breath of fresh air right after you move in perfect rhythm and motion for 2.5 minutes straight while singing the alto part as loud as you can (even if you may be a soprano). I’m talking about that one chance you have to make an impression, to move the audience, to melt someone’s heart. That practice and belief that you really could be someone else, embody their mannerisms that you’ve created in your mind, and let everyone else in on the secret life of this character. That unforgettable sound of laughter, tears and above all – applause.
I just had the strangest experience. When you indulge in something you love, or something you have a passion for, all trivial things diminish away and the action flows freely (in this case) through my fingertips. That last paragraph suddenly appeared, and I had no recollection of what I had written – because, it had just happened, naturally, without thought.
Our passions may not always come easy, but they do and should grow easy through practice. Yet, this ease comes with a scale, such as how familiar you are with the topic or how long you’ve been passionate for it. The longer you’ve been participating in a love of something, the more likely you are to experience the natural outcome of practicing it. You may still have a passion for something, but if it’s new and rusty, it may take awhile to get into the swing of things.
I often compare this idea to my journey with the green movement. Most people can classify their ‘green’ involvement in an array of color shades from lime, light, forest, hunter, dark and just plain old green. This idea of classification becomes muddied because who can really say how ‘green’ someone or something is? An Oil Drum article said, “‘Light greens’ are people who live within the realm of today’s society but try to cut down where they can… Then what is a true environmentalist in this country? Do you have to live in a log cabin with no running water and no electricity?”
By my actions, I’d be considered a very ugly yellow-green, you know the color in the crayon box that you couldn’t quite figure out if it was yellow or green… and if you were coloring something that was supposed to be yellow, it always looked green, and if it was supposed to be green, it always looked to yellow.
Maybe Michael Jackson should do a remake of his song “Black or White” to “Light Green or Dark Green”? If you’re thinking about my baby, it don’t matter if you’re [insert new lyrics here].
Speaking of, apparently Michael Jackson is “going green” because he bought a Toyota Prius. But, does one effort and one decision make you an environmentalist? Does buying local or organic foods make you dark green? What is the secret recipe for my life as a greenie?
DARK GREEN ECO-PERSON (serving size, 1)
2 cups reusuable shopping bag
1 tbsp sustainable water bottle
4 1/4 cups Hybrid car (a bicycle or carpool would work better)
2 tsp local produce
1/3 cup Compost pile and Recycling bin
1 large vegetable and herb garden
1/2 cup CFL
1 handful energy-efficient appliances
2 pinches organic clothing
a dash of fair-trade chocolate
Mix furiously together in a bowl. Let the concoction set for nine months (approximately). Enjoy!
I have a “strong interest,” or a growing passion, in environmentalism, but I’m just not quite sure about the logistics. Maybe we all have our own recipes, depending on what we can do in our lives. The problem with climate change is a collective problem, but what’s the make-up of our involvement?
–Danae DeShazer
Filed under: Business + Politics, Society + Media | Tags: baby, global, Lauren Keith, Malthusian catastrophe, population, population explosion, sustainability, sustainable growth, Thomas Malthus, world, world population
photo by Sean McNamar, flickr.com
Oh, baby. Too cute, right? The planet’s newest little bundle of greenhouse gas joy appears so innocent, but the weight of the world will soon fall on her shoulders.
In the midst of discovering everything we’ve been doing to keep Kansas on track for becoming beachfront property, we have forgotten the root of the problem: this graph.
Graph from Approaching the Limits
Researchers have long being trying to mathematically determine the carrying capacity of the planet, or how many members of a species an ecosystem can support before the system collapses, which is determined by available food and water and ecological footprint quizzes.
Just feeling guilty about “permanently borrowing” Mother Nature’s resources may not be an effective way to deal with the problem, but we need to start feeling something besides being in the mood to add to the population.
Researchers have found that Earth’s carrying capacity may be only 2-4 billion people. And whoops, we forgot to put our pants back on and got our numbers up to 6.7 billion.
Human population numbers are soaring off a cliff, driven by a pair of Wile E. Coyote’s ACME rocket-powered skates. Unfortunately, I think we are going to cause a little more damage when we land than he did with a puff of cartoon smoke.
Thomas Malthus, a British economist who lived in the 1700s, saw the future problems with the population growing at a geometric rate (1, 2, 4, 8, 16) when food production only increased at an arithmetic rate (1, 2, 3, 4). He argued that population would be kept in check by natural causes (death from old age), misery (war, plagues, famine) and vice (murder, contraception).
He also may have just been sad that no one wanted to increase the population with him. Yikes, check that mug.
Neo-Malthusians think the population has passed the point where everyone can live with an iPod and a Hummer. Instead, people now and in future generations will be trapped in the misery caused by war and famine, as is now occurring in developing countries where people are dying from preventable diseases, malnutrition and political unrest.
However, humans keep outbidding Mother Nature. We build (or re-build) better levy systems. We progress through technological and medicinal advances. But can we keep growing and improving? How in the world can we even start to grow “sustainably”? And isn’t “sustainable growth” an oxymoron because we’ve exceeded carrying capacity?
Oh well, who needs Earth anyway if men are from Mars and women are from Venus? Let the countdown begin.
—Lauren Keith
Submit to:
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
