———————– ** Fresh Green Beans ** ———————– Grown in Kansas. Eaten Worldwide.

Photo courtesy of bencourtney23

So, what did I learn this semester. Hmm…let’s see, what did I learn…What. Did. I. Learn.

Oh, I know. I learned that a certain local politician contibutes to the cause by not always flushing on “the deuce.”

I learned a lot about my classmates, namely that Lauren doesn’t want you to procreate, and that if I visit Jennifer, I’ll probably just “hold it.” I also learned what to do if I ever somehow get my first period.

I learned that I’m a bad person. No matter how hard I try to live an eco-conscious life, I’m still buying way too much “un-green” stuff (and stuff in general), I’m still putting too much trash in the landfill, I’m still not reducing my carbon footprint enough.

Through the artwork of Chris Jordan, I learned that I’m not alone in my wasteful ways…and that we’ll soon be surrounded by skyscrapers of Dixie Cups.

I learned about Environmental Justice, which says there’s no environmental safety for any of us unless it’s available to all of us.

I learned that I don’t agree with Adam Werbach. I learned I feel strongly that market reform is necessary, but it shouldn’t be the primary motivation for saving our planet–or ourselves. I learned I could go on about my difference with Werbach, but I learned to let things go, too… (I learned to take a deep breath).

What else…let’s see…I learned that we have a remarkably strong Governor–and a courageous Secretary of Health and Environment. I learned we’re fortunate to live in a state where some of our leaders are willing to see the bigger picture of global climate change.

I learned that corn is the devil’s fruit, that the ethanol craze (environmentalism unchecked) can lead to a food crisis, and that none of the presidential candidates are doing a good job of addressing pressing environmental issues.

I learned that a month of blogging doesn’t earn you enough money to buy a CD…unless it’s something in the discount bin. I learned that there were other rewards to blogging (and other hidden costs).

I learned that I was surrounded by a class of amazing people–some were silent in person but raged through their writing, most were funny, all were genuinely searching. It’s been amazing to read these perspectives. I learned that we had an incredible teacher who made it possible for us to talk directly to each other–and with people on the cutting-edge of environmentalism.

Finally, I learned that I can’t keep a post under 250 words.

So, good luck, everyone. It’s been an enlightening class, to say the least. I’ll be interested to hear how all of you apply the knowledge we gained from this semester.

And, of course, I’m grateful I had the opportunity to learn from you.

–Ranjit

Photo courtesy of Vineus

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

What better way is there to celebrate than with song? Here are some of my favorite environmental songs…I hope enjoy the “concert”!

First, no discussion of music and modern environmentalism would be complete without mentioning the great folk troubadour Woody Guthrie and his timeless anthem, “This Land is Your Land.” It raised issues of Environmental Justice long before the movement had a name; it reclaimed our connection to our land–and empowered us with the knowledge that we’re all equal stakeholders when it comes to the future of our planet:

Our next act is the incomparable Joni Mitchell. To me, no single line sums up the importance of the environmental movement than her angelic falsetto: Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone……so here she is to perform, “Big Yellow Taxi“:

There were several artists throughout the 1970s who addressed environmental issues, Jackson Browne’s, “Doctor My Eyes,” immediately comes to mind…but since to me the 70s is always about the birth of punk, what better song to showcase than “London Calling” by The Clash? Always the prophet, Joe Strummer painted a clear picture of nuclear holocaust and subsequent climate change: “The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in, engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin, a nuclear error, but I have no fear, London is drowning and I live by the river…”

I came of age in the 1980s, and so that’s pretty much my frame of reference. During that otherwise forgettable decade known for parachute pants and acid-washed jeans, R.E.M, more than any other band carried the environmental banner. My favorite environmentally-themed song of theirs is a tune called, “Cuyahoga,” which recounts the horrors of a polluted river that once served as the playground for childhood memories. Cant’ beat an opening like: “Let’s put our heads together and start a new country up…” Can I get a whoot-whoot?:

I had intended to include a video of hip-hop artists Public Enemy, but, alas, the song I wanted to showcase, “Bedlam 13:13“ is not available on YouTube. Still, check out the lyrics: “No more, no more/Mother earth gets treated like a whore…” Preach, Chuck D! Of course, I should also mention the great work of KRS-One, too.

So there you have it, the first half of our Earth Day concert…want an encore? Just add your favorite clips to this discussion!

–Ranjit

Photo courtesy of found_drama

Fellow classmates, the next time we meet for class on Thursday, take a good look at the person sitting to either side of you–chances are one of them is a corporate mole!

At least, that might have been the case if we had held this class between 8 to 10 years ago.

A recent Mother Jones article revealed that several major corporations (among them Wal-Mart and Taco Bell) hired security firms to spy on environmental groups:

A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies.

The story goes into great detail about the methods these firms used to spy on groups like Greenpeace, and the ominous-sounding Center for Food Safety, methods which mostly consisted of infiltrating groups with undercover agents, leaking information about their efforts to the corporate enemies they were battling, and digging through their trash for financial records and office memos (silly corporate spies, don’t they know environmental groups have minimal waste).

True, this happened years ago (back when we were still searching for the answer to, “Who let the dogs out” Who? Who? Who? I still don’t know…), but that doesn’t mean we should simply forget it.

I mean, we always knew that Wal-Mart liked to spy on its own employees, but is it somehow okay that they were spying on environmentalists, too?

It all makes me think of Adam Werbach’s efforts to green the retail giant. I understand why he would try to “change the system from within,” but at what point do we acknowledge that the “system” is far too nefarious to fix?

That is, I took great offense to Werbach comparing his consumer-friendly revolution to that of previous anti-imperialistic struggles, most notably that of Gandhi in India. As he states:

Gandhi rallied a nation against imperial British rule with the simple and radical call for a march to the sea to make salt.

Gandhi’s call for a salt march was more about sustainability than economics. His purpose was not to alter the marketing patterns of the British Empire, but to show that, through sustainable practices such as creating their own salt or spinning their own cotton they could eventually circumvent–and remove–a powerful empire. Big difference. It’s not like Gandhi was trying to get the British to create a more “colony-friendly” empire–he wanted them gone. So, unless Werbach is secretly trying to bring down Wal-Mart from within, I’m really not too interested in their latest “Green” efforts.

Don’t get me wrong, everyone should be attempting to live a green lifestyle–but I won’t suddenly jump up and down because one of the giant retailers decides to get on board. I’m glad changes are being made, but I think the bigger issue is teaching Americans that they simply don’t have to consume as much as they think they do–and that we can’t “buy” our way out of our environmental problems, no matter how eco-friendly the products are.

–Ranjit

Editor’s note: The following is part of the Tangled Up In Green series put together by yours truly and Adam. This piece was originally published last week. Our current topic addresses the environmental concerns linked to rising corn prices. Rather than post the entire piece here, I thought I’d provide a snippet and allow you to continue reading it at RedGreenandBlue.org if you’re interested. Feel free to leave a comment at either site if you feel so moved.

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

Okay, so maybe the above David Bowie lyric was about alien invasion and the impending end of humankind as we know it, but it’s been playing on a loop inside my head ever since last Wednesday, when we “celebrated” the fifth anniversary of our war in Iraq.

Five years. My brain definitely hurts a lot.

While the current administration will have us believe that the surge is working and that stability has returned to once volatile regions, the truth is probably closer to a “whack-a-mole” strategy that shows no signs of leading to a peaceful resolution for this ongoing nightmare. A majority of Americans now say this war was a mistake, and we continue to hear reports—be it from the peripheries—of civilian lives lost, soldiers’ lives lost, soldiers injured, vets suffering from PTSD, tax dollars spent, etc. Still, perhaps one of the greatest casualties of this war gets very little mention.

I’m speaking, of course, of the environment. Read the rest of this entry

So, while the rest of my classmates were spending their Spring Break partying like rock stars (okay, maybe washed-up, homeless rock stars…), I was busy here in town holding down the fort, keeping track of all the gloom-and-doom news, making sure the world didn’t explode. (Not on my watch, dammit!)

It turns out that while we were on break, several major environment-related stories unfolded. In an effort to get everyone back up to speed, here’s a convenient recap of some of the top stories.

Gov. Sebelius vetoes Holcomb plan

The biggest news, for Kansans, at least, happened on Friday, when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the Holcomb coal plant initiative. Three cheers for the Gov!!! The veto is seen as a major victory by environmental protection groups. Just look at how Sierra Club spokesperson Stephanie Cole put it:

“It sends a message that Kansas is willing to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem,” Cole said of the governor’s veto. “Kansas is sort of ground zero right now for the global warming debate.”

Ground zero for the global warming debate. Trot that one out the next time some nattering nabob of negativism asks, “So what is the matter with Kansas?”

Actually, it turns out that the “matter” with Kansas is the same problem with most states–we have a majority in our state legislature that is more concerned with special interests (rich energy companies) than the public interest. Toward that end, the state House has already pushed through a new bill for the Holcomb plants:

The new bill would put restrictions on the plants’ carbon dioxide emissions–the first CO2 limits in state law. It also contains new provisions designed to encourage increased use of wind energy.

But it also has the same provisions Sebelius opposed, including ones stripping the secretary of health and environment of some power.

Sounds like a good compromise, no? No. Look closer and you’ll see that the new bill seeks to strip Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby from his ability to enforce standards for carbon emissions stricter than the current (pathetic) federal levels. Bremby, you’ll recall, saved the day when he stood up to the plants, denying them air permits on the basis of the damaging levels of greenhouse gases they would emit.

This new bill would strip him of his ability to make those judgments–and give that power to our legislators–and it wouldn’t require any new standards for plants already in existence. Moreover, this new deal makes no mention of sharing the burden of the pollution that would occur as a result of these plants. Although both Colorado and Texas will receive the power generated from the Holcomb plant, only Kansas will be left to deal with the polluted waters (namely high mercury levels) created by the plants’ output.

So, clearly, this battle is far from over. Still, Gov. Sebelius and Sec. Bremby scored another victory in this latest round. Stay tuned…

Celebs save the planet with lame entertainment

Meanwhile in the entertainment world…it appears that two more celebrities have taken up the cause of saving our planet. No, this time it’s not about the number of squares you can spare, but it’s almost as good.

If you happened to catch Britney Spears “acting” on “How I Met Your Mother” last night, you may already know that Brit-Brit is saving the environment by auctioning off her wardrobe from the episode to benefit an environmental organization.

Too bad the girl doesn’t wear panties–could have brought in a couple extra bucks, might’ve been able to save a rain forest in South America.

And, finally, Keanu “Whoa” Reeves is making an update of the Cold War classic, “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” However, instead of dealing with the threat of nuclear Armageddon (as if that weren’t enough of an environmental problem), the film is getting a sexy makeover, and now it will be about warding off global warming. Or as the star so eloquently put it:

“The version I was just working on, instead of being man against man, it’s more about man against nature. My [character] says that if the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth survives. I’m a friend to the earth.”

Huh?…er, I mean…Whoa!

Okay, so that’s your news recap for this week. Welcome back–now get back to work saving the planet!

–Ranjit

Can Britney’s outfit save the planet?!!

photo courtesy of cbc.ca

Editor’s note: The following is part of the Tangled Up In Green series put together by yours truly and Adam. This was originally published last week. Our current topic addresses the environmental concerns linked to the Iraq War.

I don’t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn’t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it’s about Canadian oil.

Think as far back as three weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Well, the dirty little secret is that without NAFTA America would no longer have a special deal with Canadian oil, which currently makes up roughly eight percent of annual U.S. oil consumption.

So — as sad as it is — breaking off the deal is itself a deal-breaker for both Democratic candidates, and, of course, for John McCain too. And, once again, our dependence on oil has led us into unsound policy.

Still, at least the Democratic candidates insist they will call for a restructuring of NAFTA—for both labor and environmental reasons.

We need to hold them to that promise.

It might provide a great opportunity to emphasize green practices. That means getting all three nations on board to create stricter—and enforceable—regulations; it means setting up a carbon-credit program between the three countries to help offset emissions of greenhouse gases; it means requiring all three nations to invest a substantial amount toward the development of renewable energy sources.

In other words use NAFTA to help put the three countries on the cutting-edge of the green movement. Make something positive out of a negative.

It looks like we’ll be stuck with NAFTA for the near future and that’s certainly bad news the way the agreement is currently structured. Any treaty that prolongs the short-sighted need to maintain our current levels of oil consumption, while neglecting to use the best alternative resources at the disposal of all three nations, is not just drinking our milkshake — it’s throwing it down the drain!

You get my point.

–Ranjit

Flag artwork courtesy of illegalillegals

Editor’s note: The following is part of the Tangled Up In Green series I’m co-authoring with Adam.

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

The evil spirit in the corn field has spoken…HE WANTS YOU, TOO, MALACHI. HE WANTS YOU, TOO!

Remember the corny (haha, get it?) 1980s Stephen King horror film, “Children of the Corn?” You know, that flick on TBS you sat through that one Sunday afternoon–when you ate an entire bag of Funyuns and stayed in your pajamas all day instead of writing the paper that was due on Monday…takes place in Nebraska…creepy Man-child preacher guided by the evil spirit in the corn fields; tells him to make the kids kill all of the adults…then, with the grown-ups out of the way, the cornfield spirit unleashes all hell on the little kids themselves.

You know, the one based on actual events.

See, what the Stephen King movie failed to tell viewers is that the Corn Monster survived that episode, relocated to Washington D.C., and took over a powerful lobbying firm that kept a tight grip on both the agricultural and energy industries. And now he wants you, too, MALACHI!

Because corn (in the form of ethanol) is being pushed on us as the answer to all of our oil woes, the demand for–and thus the price of–corn has more than doubled in the last two years, from roughly $2.28/bushel to $5.60/bushel.

Corn, of course, is the most popular feed delivered to cattle, so its price has a direct hand in dairy and meat prices; in the form of high fructose corn syrup, it’s also in practically every commercial food product on the market–from fruit punches to bread.

So, the meteoric rise in corn is great if you’re a corn farmer. Not so great if you’re a single mom with several mouths to feed.

In fact, just yesterday, the Boston Globe had a big story on the surging costs of groceries–fueled (literally) by rising corn and oil prices. Funny how corn, which was supposed to help reduce our dependence on oil, has shared such a similar trajectory with its supposed nemesis. In many ways, corn is the new oil. I guess that makes it “Yellow Gold”… but somehow that doesn’t sound very dramatic…

Those who argue that corn ethanol will reduce our dependence on oil are right to some extent, but they overlook the fact that it takes a great deal of energy and pollution to grow, harvest, refine, and distribute ethanol. So, while it might curb our dependence on foreign oil, it’s not the answer if we’re truly looking for eco-friendly energy sources. Moreover, current automobiles can only stomach blends of ethanol that contain no more than 20 percent corn, so it’s not going to replace oil-refined gasoline overnight–or anytime soon for that matter.

If there’s one good thing to come from all of this, it’s the hope that the super-inflated price of corn will make it less appealing for food manufacturers to pump high fructose corn syrup into practically every single product. Maybe it will mean that cheap junk food will soon become a luxury–a purchase that can’t be made on a daily basis without some pinch to the pocketbook.

Then again, a better solution might be that the strength of corn in the marketplace makes Congress realize that we no longer need to federally subsidize farmers who choose to grow corn for ethanol. It clearly isn’t an environmentally-friendly process, it’s only a supplemental energy source at best, and over-emphasis will only make food more expensive for all of us.

Oh, by the way, remember those Funyuns you were scarfing down? Mostly corn… He wants you, too, Malachi! bwahahahahaha……

–Ranjit

Isn’t it funny how our tastes change over time?

There was a time in high school when I thought Journey sang truth to power (yeah, dude, Don’t stop believin’, hold on to that dreee-aaa-mmm)…when I experienced the freedom of college, I thought Coca-Cola and Fruity Pebbles made the ideal breakfast…these days, I’m all about Leonard Cohen, unsweetened soy milk, and organic raisin bran cereal (I haven’t stopped believing, but now I just spell it properly…)

My point being that we are constantly evolving creatures, able to adapt to changing conditions, new ideas, different attitudes…sometimes out of convenience, sometimes out of necessity.

So when I hear others say that they’d love to eat organic and local but simply can’t afford it, I know they’re not seeing the entire picture. I mean, how many of us are willing to pay a little extra for, say, a sturdy pair of shoes or a nice suit (or dress)–or to get a little alligator emblem on our shirts in order to show others we care about the way we look? We’re more than willing to shell out the extra bucks for what we perceive as quality when it comes to the stuff we put on the outside of our bodies, so why should it be any different for what we put inside our bodies? And, if it came down to one over the other, wouldn’t you choose the latter?

To me, it’s a no-brainer.

Still, my introduction to environmentally-sound eating habits was, in many ways, by default: I was primarily interested in healthy eating, which in turn led me to organics, which in turn led to understanding that not all organics are created equal, which in turn led to me understanding that local organic foods were really “where it’s at.” The bottom line, though, is that my personal self-interest–better health–was always the driving force (I know, I’m a greedy bastard for wanting to live longer).

Nonetheless, I still have long way to go in terms of eating a completely environmentally-sound diet. You see, I’m a diehard foodie…I’ve loved food for as long as I can remember. I might even go so far as to say I can’t live without it!

So, while I do strive to buy organic and local, I also won’t let go of the amazing feta cheese I buy at the Mediterranean Market, which came all the way from Greece; I still buy spices from India, I still use olive oil from Spain…I try to buy local as much as possible, but, quite frankly, I refuse to give up some of my favorite foods.

In fact, giving up those foods seems almost contrary to our natural evolution. The world is quickly becoming a smaller place. For example, growing up, I remember just how difficult it was to place a call to relatives in India. You had to call during the wee hours of the night, get connected through an international operator, hope the neighbor was by his phone and that he’d pass on word to my grandmother–and then scream at the top of your lungs just to be heard. These days, I can issue an email free of charge to my cousin in Bangalore and it reaches him almost instantly. I’d hate for us to have to take a step backwards in terms of experiencing all the wonderful foods that different cultures have to offer.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way, but it will require some additional expense. As I mentioned before, the New Yorker magazine had an amazing piece on the attempts of British lawmakers to impose a carbon tax on foods. I’m all for this. I don’t mind if it means I’ll now have to pay twice as much for that Greek feta cheese. It’s a luxury and something I don’t need to have every single day…and I don’t mind paying extra if it’s for high quality–and if I know it’s being put toward environmentally-friendly practices.

So, once again, it all comes down to personal cost. Are you willing to pay more for foods that traverse the globe? Are you willing to pay more for healthier local organics? Or will you choose to pay less for crappy “food” laced with high-fructose corn syrup? Then again, are you really aware of the long-term costs associated with the junk that passes for food these days:

Because it is metabolized by the liver, fructose does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does. Fructose converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.

It can be overwhelming, no doubt, but if you truly are what you eat, would you rather be a raisin bran flake (nature’s candy) or a fruity pebble (from the town of Bedrock)? Just some food for thought, I suppose.

–Ranjit (the organic bran flake)

I realize we were assigned the task of photographing and weighing our trash as a way of shedding light on the amount of waste we generate on an average day. I did give this an honest attempt, but, quite frankly, it was a slow trash day (not that that’s a bad thing).

I could easily supply photos of my own garbage (although first I’d remove the bloody gloves and the chloroform bottles), but instead I thought I’d take this opportunity to put some of the focus back on the bigger picture.

That is, in my two-person household, my wife and I make a conscious effort to keep trash to a minimum. Like Jen mentioned in her post, we consistently are the house on our block with the least amount of trash come pick-up day. Every Thursday morning, I experience the same level of outrage as I drive by the houses that have placed stacks of reusable materials to be dumped in the landfill: old toys that kids have outgrown, ripped up carpets, old book cases, outdated clothing, old sofas…it’s all left out for the garbage men to retrieve and make magically disappear.

Of course, a big reason why we’re doing a better job with personal waste management is because we’re only a two-person household; another reason (as Jen can attest to) is that we work for the university and so we can’t afford to buy stuff worth wasting! But those points are moot (because I say so).

The purpose of mentioning my neighbors was not to provide a “holier than thou” attitude, but simply to point out just how commonplace wastefulness has become to the average American.

It all reminds me of the passage in one of my all-time favorite books, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Surely you were forced to read it at some point in your educational experience. If so, you’ll recall the scene where young children are being conditioned into the ways of a consumerist society:

“But old clothes are beastly,” continued the untiring whisper. “We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is better …

Every man, woman and child compelled to consume so much a year. In the interests of industry. The sole result …

Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches; the more stitches …”

As was the case with most of Huxley’s predictions, this one has definitely come true.

In fact, our transition from the Great Depression generation (waste not, want not) to our current state of disposable goods is really a troubling shift–but one that has been so subtle that most of us don’t even realize it. Take, for instance, this infomercial I saw on TV the other day for a product that helps us cut through all the plastic crap that covers practically every newly purchased household product:

Here’s an idea: Instead of creating more products to deal with our wastefulness (which eventually also end up in our landfills), why not stop coating everything in a layer of form-fitting plastic?!! Also, were you like me and did you screech when you saw them using the product to open the eco-friendly light bulbs? (Sorta cancels out the benefits, doesn’t it)…or how about the scene where they use the tool to open a package of bottled water! Arrrgh! I GIVE UP!

Actually, I don’t give up (I had my fingers crossed behind my back the whole time).

Instead, I think we need a little religion to set us back on course, and there’s no one better to supply that than Rev. Billy and His Church of Stop Shopping. If you’re unfamiliar with the Reverend, he’s part performance artist, part political activist, and part hilarious entertainment. I first caught wind of him in a documentary where he went through the Times Square Disney store preaching the evils of unnecessary consumption; I’ve been a disciple ever since. Check out this clip and pay close attention to the way host (*cough* dork *cough*) Glenn Beck tries to laugh off the Rev’s very important points. Sure, it’s easy to laugh at the Rev., but then again, we’ve been told to make our messages humorous and entertaining, and the good Reverend has certainly mastered that…can I get an AMEN (or at the very least a Woot-Woot)!

–Ranjit