I'm Dreaming of A Green Christmas

Probably my biggest problem with Christmas, and why I tend to dislike the whole season in general, is because everywhere I look, this holiday is used as justification for senseless over-consumption and irresponsible spending.  Oftentimes people spend large amounts of money that they don't have on things that they don't even need.  In fact, this has become so much of an accepted form of behavior that people can (and do) take out "Christmas loans" in order to afford their glut of spending during the holidays.  Sometimes employers will offer these loans directly to their employees which I suppose is a little bit better than getting one of them from the loan-shark-esque "no credit check" cash advance folks.  But it still boils down to more debt for people who can't really afford it, which is just another form of not living sustainably.

But let's assume that you have plenty of money to spend on Christmas, and can do whatever level of spending that you want without actually increasing your level of debt in the process.  Well what's wrong with that?  At least you're being fiscally responsible right?  Sure, if money is no issue then spending large amounts of it on Christmas is going to be less of an issue as well.  But lots of gifts and decorations still turns into a lot of "things" that one way or the other are going to get thrown away someday and (based on how the world currently works) will likely end up occupying space in a landfill.  I know that my views on this sound very Scrooge-like, but then again, that's exactly how sellers of Christmas kitsch and retailers in general want people to view my perspective. According to them, the "holiday spirit" is all that matters: "Get into the spirit of the season, spread your Christmas joy; and for the next 3 weeks, get a collectors-edition talking plush candy cane with the purchase of $399 or more."

A More Sustainable Christmas

So what can we do to keep the "spirit of Christmas" without being so wasteful with our money and resources?

I'm trying very hard to not discuss the religious underpinnings and meanings of Christmas, because that is not really within the scope of this blog, so lets just say that a relatively general point of Christmas is to come together with family and friends and remind ourselves of our bond with them and with our community (a very noble goal, from a sustainability perspective.)  With this in mind, here are a few suggestions on things we can do to have a more sustainable Christmas and maybe give a gift back to our planet, which has already given us more than we deserve:

1. Christmas Tree:  My friend Megan wrote an excellent piece on deciding between artificial and real Christmas trees, so instead of borrowing from her points and rehashing them, I'll just link you to her blog entry.  Take a look, it's worth a read.
2. Lighting: Buying lights specifically for Christmas decoration has questionable utility in the first place, but if you must string lights inside and outside of where you live, you can at least try to do so more responsibly.  Try to use only LED lights as they use much less power and will last many years longer than lights with tiny bulbs (that seem destined to burn out randomly anyway).  Also look for light strands that utilize few bulbs per linear foot of lighting.  This saves money and electricity in two ways: you can buy fewer strands to suit your needs and less electricity will ultimately be needed to light them.  Finally, turn your light displays off when you go to bed.  That's 6 to 8 hours of electricity that you don't need to be paying for, given the small number of people who might pass by where you live during those hours anyway.
3. Gift wrapping and Cards: This is where everyone has a chance to imbue more meaning on their gifts and Christmas cards.  If you use reused materials to create unique gift-wrapping and personalized cards, I'd say that most people will notice and appreciate that you're giving them something that you made and put your own time and thought into and, as a result, the gift will have greater meaning and significance to them.   And finally, if you have no creative spark, are lazy or just don't have the time to put much thought into wrapping gifts, you can still look for wrapping paper and cards that use post-consumer recycled materials.
• As an interesting side note, I grew up in a household where you NEVER threw away a Christmas bow.  On Christmas morning, there was always a bag for trash (torn up wrapping paper and other packaging) and a smaller one to hold all of the bows that came off of packages.  These would be put away and brought out in later years to be reused on newly wrapped gifts.
4. Gift Giving: This is a topic where there is a lot of room for changing behavior to create a more sustainable Christmas.  There should be no reason to pile tons of expensive gifts onto everyone we know for Christmas.  The more gifts that a person gets, the more difficult it is for them to assign special value to any one of them.  This results in a lot of gifts that have no particular importance and are easier (emotionally) to discard.  This is even more valid for children, whose interests can be fairly fleeting and fickle at times anyway.   So basically what I'm saying is to give fewer gifts, but give gifts with greater meaning.  Quality over quantity.  Here are a few ways to do that:
• Have an understanding between people exchanging gifts that there will be only one gift given.  This puts the onus on the giver to put more thought into what that one gift will be instead of just buying every little thing that pops into their head, while at the same time giving the receiving person the opportunity to focus on and appreciate that single gift.
• Gift exchanges or secret Santa exchanges are another way to cut down on the volume of gifts that are exchanged within a set group of people, as it's understood that you will only be giving and receiving a gift from one other person in the group.  Oftentimes there is a value limit imposed as well, which subtly encourages adding personal touches that don't have a quantifiable monetary value but that can add sentimental value.
• Altruistic gifts are probably one of my favorite forms of gift giving.  This just what it sounds like:  Instead of giving a gift to someone, you donate the money you would have spent to a charitable cause that they care about.  This is an especially powerful gift because your money is going to someone or some issue that needs it more and can make a more valuable use of it than if you'd have just bought and wrapped another "thing" to give someone.  Christmas is about being selfless and giving, and I honestly can't think of a better example of that than doing this.
5. Food: Besides the normal recommendations of trying to buy organic and locally-sources ingredients, I like food a bit too much (especially Christmas cookies, and desserts of all kinds) to advise not making as many of these as you can get away with.  I'm not one to advocate over-eating, but I'll gladly help dispose of excess Christmas cookies, so that they aren't wasted.  (Post in the comments if you need my address to send excess holiday cookies to.)

There are likely hundreds  more ways to have a "green" Christmas and I've only highlighted a few of them (none of them revolutionary).  So I'll leave you with this:

Christmas is only a consumer holiday if you actively let it be one.  If you keep it simple and distill more meaning of the holiday into simple and elegant gestures your memories of it will ultimately be more vivid, nostalgic, and heart-warming as will those of everyone around you.  And your planet will be a better place for it.

Final Thoughts

At the beginning of the Fall 2011 semester in Sustainable Communities, I chose to focus my attention, for my individual project, on learning about and beginning to compost.  That has had it's own interesting set backs and refinements throughout the semester and will no doubt continue to evolve.  However, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight some final developments and thoughts on this project.


A Change In Scope

My initial plan was to build a composting system from scratch in order to process compostable waste that was generated by my roommate and me.  Originally this even included using red wigglers do develop a full blown vermicomposting system.  This was a nice and ambitious idea that proved to actually not be the best and most sustainable one for my situation, for the following reasons:

1. Living in a small apartment with another roommate where space is at a premium, there was really no good place within our apartments for a vermicomposting system to go, where it wouldn't be a huge inconvenience to live around while at the same time being convenient enough to remember to use all of the time.
2. I personally have no use for compost, being that I live in a third floor apartment and have no plants/gardens to speak of.  Thus if I were to start generating nice nutrient rich compost, it would still be necessary to take it somewhere where it could be useful to someone else.
3. Given the consideration of item 2 (above) and that it would require extra money and resources to do that in a manner that would be durable and last a long time, it made more sense to use containers I already have and store compostable items until such time as I have the time and inclination to transport them to a place with a more robust composting system already in place.  After careful consideration and thought, this seemed like the most sustainable option to me, and is what I ended up doing.

Hiccups Along the Way

So there were a couple issues I hadn't thought of when setting my revised plan into action, that make for interesting stories now, but weren't so much fun to deal with at the time:

1. The containers I originally planned on using for this and the location I stored them in did not lend themselves well to the job of storing organic matter in a way that would remain unmolested.  I know now that we have a squirrel who likes to make his rounds over the roof of our building and down onto our porch to check things out, such as our sliding glass door and what's on the other side of it, and exploration of "random" containers that are left on our porch.  (It's unfortunate that I wasn't more on the ball with my camera, when seeing it outside playing around, but the only picture I managed to take was just of my flash reflected off of the glass of the door; no squirrel to be seen.)  Anyway, said squirrel liked to help himself to the toy box of messy things that was now available for him.
2. The containers I used were not water-tight, and over the course of a few rains, filled up with water, creating an unpleasant "soup" of coffee grinds, banana peals, apple cores, and cardboard sludge that was not in the least bit funny or cute to have to deal with disposing off or trying to drain water off of without turning our porch into one big soggy compost heap.

So, in order to deal with both of these issues, I found a 5 gallon bucket (The kind that large quantities of paint come in) with an airtight lid and have begun re-storing appropriate materials in that.  This seems like a much more logical solution, which makes me feel kind of silly that I hadn't started out with that in the first place.  Live and learn, i suppose.

Adoption and Buy-In

The final hurdle that I was initially concerned with was gaining the participation of my roommate in this endeavor.  This actually turned out to be not such a big deal.  As long as I was responsible for removing the slow build-up of refuse, he seems more than happy to expend the tiny extra effort to separate recyclables and compostables into the appropriate places.

Final Thoughts

So while this had originally started out as an experiment in vermicomposting, it eventually evolved into a more general education excercise (teaching my roommate about how things should be done) and behavior experiment.  If I had to distill down what I've learned from this into just a couple sentences it would be something like this:

There are many solutions for most problems, in all different magnitudes.  The most sustainable ones aren't always those that are the most glorious, fun to look at, or ambitious (sometimes they are), but are sometimes the ones that are most efficient and easiest to incorporate into existing behavior patterns.

Sustainability Related Events

Throughout my 1st semester in Sustainable Communities, I had many unique opportunities to attend, participate and even help out with several events related to sustainability.  They were all different and consequently exposed me to different sustainability focused issues and perspectives.  So, without further adieu, here are some of the events I participated in:


Bloomington Commission On Sustainability monthly meeting - August 2011 

Shortly after the beginning of my first semester at SPEA, I had the opportunity to attend the August meeting of the City of Bloomington Commission On Sustainability at Bloomington City Hall.  This provided me a unique perspective on how Bloomington is attempting to incorporate sustainable practices and ideas into how the city is run.  What I remember most about this meeting was that BCOS was discussing two proposed roundabouts that had been approved by the city and were scheduled to begin construction shortly.  

A few people on the Commission were very strongly opposed to these roundabouts, claiming that they would contribute to growth of high speed traffic and suburban sprawl in the areas that they were being built in.  Within the confines of civil discussion, there was pretty vehement opinions expressed from BCOS and from the city engineer that had come to answer questions about the plans for the roundabout.  My read on the situation was that the BCOS member that expressed the most opposition to was concerned for actual issues of sustainability, while the city engineer's main argument for going forward with it was because the federal government was funding a large portion of it, and so it was necessary to do it so that we wouldn't "miss out" on those funds.  The problem I see with the engineer's perspective was that Bloomington still has to spend a significant portion of its budget on this project in order to get the federal funds.


This particular agenda item brought to light another issue regarding BCOS and its role with the greater city government.  Even though BCOS was concerned about whether the roundabouts are a good idea at all, the roundabouts had already been approved by the city and slated for construction prior to BCOS having even heard about the proposed construction.  So while it seems like a progressive move for Bloomington to have a whole department devoted to sustainability issues, it is also pretty clear that the new department has yet to be fully integrated into the structure of the city to the point that they have a chance to do much that is actually useful towards moving Bloomington in a more sustainable direction.  Until BCOS can pull more weight with big decisions regarding the Bloomington community, it will unfortunately only serve as so much green-washing for the city.


Big Red Eats Green

I volunteered to help out with the Big Red Eats Green event that was held in the fall as well.  The idea behind this event was to have local farmers and restaurants that try to use food from local sources in their dishes come together and showcase their menus with small sample that cost between $1 and $3.  

Due to the potential for rain it was moved at the last minute from Dunn Meadow to the Alumni Hall of the Indiana Memorial Union.  I helped the various organizations set up their tables and then walked around and checked everything out after I was finished setting up. 

I heard many comments from people attending the event as to how cool of an event it was and how they should have it as a monthly event.  It was really cool to see such a positive reactions by the student body in general.  By all accounts it was a great success with a lot of student traffic, even though the location had been moved.
 

Green Drinks - Bloomington


Throughout my semester, I'd heard about and wanted to attend one of the Green Drinks events at Upland Brewery, but always seemed to have a schedule conflict or something else going on.  Luckily I was able to attend the last one of the year on October 26th.  The speaker for this event was none other my esteemed profession Bill Brown; Director of Indiana University's Office of Sustainability.  He spoke on what the various sustainability interns were accomplishing at IU.


The biggest personal benefit that came of attending this event was that I meat Jami Scholl a food policy blogger and author, and got to have an enlightening conversation with her about food, sustainability and many things that fall between the two.  From what I've read of it (admitted not much, yet) My Edible Eden (Jami Scholl's blog) is interesting and has a lot of good information on it.  I would recommend checking it out and contacting her directly if you have more detailed questions for her.  She is a very amiable and smart person.  

I'd been slowly learning more about food policy and it's effect on sustainability throughout the semester due to a couple of my classmates being particularly interested in it.  When you talk to someone about something they care deeply about, you can't help but learn more about it and become more interested yourself.  After meeting Jami, I made sure to put those friends in contact with her, since they would definitely benefit with talking to her about what she does and writes about.


Cider Fest


The last event that I attended was Cider Fest at the Bloomington Community Orchard.  It was a brisk Halloween morning, which turned out to be a perfect day to enjoy hot, freshly made apple cider and all sorts of delicious homemade goodies that were brought by various people.  The Orchard was started in large part due to the devotion and work of Amy Countryman, a fellow classmate of mine.  While the orchard is still in its infancy, it's a cool idea that I hope continues to get support from the community.  The whole idea of the Community Orchard ("Free Fruit For All") is intriguing and completely worthy of it's own post, but what I found most interesting about this event was the sense of community that was present among those in attendance.  There was face painting and apple bobbing available (although I didn't really see anyone taking advantage of the bobbing) and was just generally a neat event.  Wassailing took place as well but I abstained due to earplugs not being available for everyone in attendance.

Here are a few of the pictures that I took at the event.  I'm in the center picture with Megan.   Thanks to Megan and Mary for being so photogenic.  The face painting seemed to be a hit with everyone.

Science Fiction as Critical Thinking

It should be obvious from a quick glance at the style and mood of my blog that there is a good chance that my personal thoughts and views on sustainability and the environment have been influenced in some part by science fiction.  Well if there was any doubt before let me put that doubt to rest:

It is.

In fact, I would say that having grown up being an avid reader of science fiction has contributed greatly to my love of our planet and my adoption of a relatively long term and big picture perspective towards Earth and the human race that populates it.  Good science fiction (the kind that tries to have scientific explanations for why thing are the way they are in the book's universe) is well thought out and researched.  Often times it is even written by well respected scientists (Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Baxter, and Arthur C. Clarke to name a few) so a reader can't help but absorb some of the ideas put forth by authors of "hard science fiction," because they often make a lot of sense.

Now science fiction writers cover pretty much every topic, philosophy and idea under the sun (or whatever other star applies), but for this blog entry I wanted to highlight a couple books that explore ideas of closed system environments (such as the "spaceship" that I reference in the introduction to my blog) and the impact of being aware of that closed system and acting to take care of it, or not.

The first book I'd like to recommend is Ark by Stephen Baxter.  This is actually the second book of a two part (so far) series and tells the story of a large spaceship (the Ark) that is sent in search of what is believed to be a habitable planet very far away.  This is done in response to the continued catastrophic rise of the oceans of Earth to the point that no dry land remains.

While the response of the people remaining on Earth to the flooding is interesting in itself, it's the story of those chosen to take the Ark on its long (many generations long) trip to the newly discovered planet that really lends itself to considerations of sustainability.  In the closed, and fairly close, quarters of the Ark a society develops where eventually there is no actual memory of Earth.  Generations are born, grow up and die, all on the ship.  This is one of the simplest and most direct examples of how everyone must ultimately act in the best interest of their ship and themselves.  When even a small contingent of people stop believing in the importance of the ship as what is ensuring their survival, it has major ramifications on everyone on the ship.  In this scenario, those ramifications happen much more quickly than they do on our real life Earth, but the analogy is appropriate and provokes the reader to thinks about how we must ultimately view our environment.

Stephen King is a fairly prolific writer; to the point that most people are at least familiar with his name even if they have never read one of his books.  King generally doesn't write science fiction and the science fiction that he does write doesn't generally use a great deal of "hard science" because he is not as intimately familiar with science and scientific thinking as the other authors I've mentioned.  But his recent book Under The Dome still paints an interesting, and unfortunately bleak, picture of how wanton destruction and disregard of a closed system environment can make that environment far worse and essentially poisonous for those within it.

The focus of this story is more about the people involved, as that is King's specialty, but it is played out on a backdrop of a town that suddenly becomes encased in an essentially impermeable dome.  The dome effectively cuts the town off from the rest of the world, creating a tiny microcosm made up of just the town.  It is interesting to see how the environment within this bubble, of unknown origins, changes over time, given that it's no longer capable of having new resources, air or water available. 

I am glad that some science fiction excerpts were used as readings in the Sustainable Urban Development Reader and I think that they provide another useful tool for providing perspective on these issues.  Some science fiction, especially those stories that emphasize the application of science, do an excellent job of distilling specific ideas regarding issues that are facing humanity now.  They provide unique and important "what if" scenarios that can often leave a strong impression on the minds of readers about how we should be treating our world and each other.

At least they have for me.

Behind the Mask of Sustainability

Whenever I hear about a city that's moving forward with some large "green" or "sustainable" initiative, it is inevitably about some new "green" technology: solar installations, or xeriscaping,  or some innovative recycling or composting service in a particular neighborhood.  Most of the time, the stories that seem to get the most attention are about greening efforts within relatively upper-middle class or high-income neighborhood areas or corporate spaces.  And if you think about this it sort of makes sense that the nicer areas seem to be the ones getting this attention.  From a "come visit our city" perspective, it makes a lot more sense to advertise your city's green efforts by showing pictures of neighborhoods and homes that use the latest and greatest high tech sustainability solutions.

 

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs (click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

The other side of the same coin is that people who live in these more well off areas typically have more money to invest in green solutions and, as a result of their socioeconomic position, have generally made it to a higher point on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  As a result I would suggest that they have more freedom to concern themselves with bigger picture issues like sustainability and protecting the environment, if they are so inclined, because their more basic needs are easier to obtain and sustain.  So it follows that they would have more opportunity and a higher likelihood to lie more toward the upper right area of the Human Perspectives chart (as detailed in Limits to Growth), where they can see a bigger picture perspective, because they are more secure and stable when it comes to more immediate closer to home concerns.

Based on this, it's not really much of a leap of logic to see the path towards environmental injustice.  Those who are less well off, don't have the luxury of caring about "the greater good" and "future generations" when they don't even have the security of knowing that the basic needs of them and their family will be met from day to day.  For the same reason the less fortunate end up living in cancer cluster or highly polluted areas because it is cheaper and affords them the ability to spend more of their money on a greater number of other life necessities than if they lived in more sustainable, green, and often more expensive communities.

Now I'm not saying that new, innovative and expensive technology is bad; far from it.  But if we only "green" areas of our global community that can afford to pay for the latest and greatest technological innovations, all we're going to end up with is a few model communities that look great and try to adhere to an ideal philosophy but are just small islands of environmental and sustainable progressiveness in a huge sea of rising temperatures, pollution and environmental injustice.

Phoenix, AZ is a great example of a community that is suffering from this.  While there is plenty of public talk on it becoming a green community, it still suffers from this problem of environmental injustice for lower-income areas of the the city.  "The Dark Side of The 'Green' City," an Op-ed piece by the New York Times is an interesting read and speaks to the situation in Phoenix a bit more.

So what's my point?  Well I guess it is that obviously all socioeconomic strata needs to begin a move towards sustainability, and that it needs to happen in a way that doesn't push disproportionate hardship down to lower-income levels where the population is least resilient to it.  Grassroots movements that push for this are great, but as Robert Bullard talked about in "People-of-Color Environmentalism" from Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality, everyone doesn't have the time, money or interest to participate in grassroots initiatives.  This change needs to be policed and promoted by the powers that be: those people who are in a position to see the big picture, have the power and influence to do something about it, and are frequently tasked, as part of their professional position, to be the ones who create the policies that further that goal.  Referring again the above charts, those at the top of both charts are relatively few, but in a lot of cases they are the same people with the best means to make the largest difference for the multitudes still at the lower areas of the chart.

People and companies with money seldom have difficulty being heard.  An effective government is one that should represent the interests of all of its peoples, in all issues, sustainability and environmental justice included.  We have one world and all breath the same air, eventually.  It's unfortunate that doing what's best for the entire world and everyone in it isn't just a foregone conclusion.  If it were, we'd be much further down the road to a sustainable (in every way) Earth.

A Post on Compost

So it's time for a quick update on my foray into composting.  As I have previously mentioned, I was coming to discover that collecting compost materials and delivering it to another location, that can actually make use of the compost, may be a more sustainable and efficient use of my resources and time than actually re-inventing the wheel and creating my own composting system.  I'm still collecting composting materials and am still in the process of educating my roommate, and myself, about what can and cannot be composted but ultimately I plan on not doing the actual composting process and will instead be opting for taking full bins of "compost materials" to a local public place that already has an established compost system.  I've yet to fill up the bins that I have chosen to use for this process, so I haven't yet determined where the best place to compost the materials are but I'm leaning towards one of the public gardens that are around Bloomington and have been given some suggestions by those more in the know than myself.

A picture of the Butler Organic Community Garden, a possible recipient for my compost materials.

Although this project has taken a 90 degree turn from the direction I had originally envisioned, I'm pretty happy with what I've ended up with and feel like I'm still getting the opportunity to learn about composting and its benefits, even if I'm not actually the one gaining those benefits.

Traffic Calming

Speed Humps at First Street

At the beginning of this semester one of the first activities that I participated in as a result of my Sustainable Communities class was that I attended a monthly meeting of the Bloomington Commision On Sustainability at Bloomington's City Hall.  One of the items on the agenda that evening, and the one that seemed to have the most contention and discussion, was regarding two large round-abouts that had been proposed over a year ago and were about to begin being built.  Part of the issue that some in attendance had with these proposed updates to the roads was that these round-abouts would likely have the opposite effect that one might normally associate with them; they would actually increase traffic volume and speed through the areas that they would be installed in. (If you'd like to take a look at the minutes from this meeting they can be found here.)  As a result, it was suggested that these areas would become more dangerous for other alternative forms of transportation, such as biking and walking, and would have a deleterious effect on traffic calming attributes that seem to be valued in a community such as Bloomington.

Traffic Circle at 6th and Oak Streets

Given that Bloomington holds itself out as a model community, it seems to me, that Bloomington would pride itself on creating traffic calming neighborhoods and strategies in order to keep its neighborhoods more desirable and friendly to community-building forms of transportation besides single owner/rider cars.  This can easily be seen in how much of a bike friendly town Bloomington is (there are bike racks everywhere) and from what a solid bus system it has as well.  So it struck me  (and no doubt others at the BCOS meeting) as a bit odd, that so much of the city's budget was being spent on measures that increase the flow and speed of car traffic.

Bloomington does seem to have implemented some form of a traffic calming strategy and I was even able to find a pretty cool google map that details some of the various traffic calming aspects that can be found around Bloomington.  My best guess is that most of the traffic calming measures shown on the map are found

Traffic Island: Azalea Lane

in and between neighborhoods where most residents are citizens of Bloomington (vs. seasonal students) who live in nicer neighborhoods and would appreciate measures that lend to a greater community feel and prosperous appearance of their neighborhoods.  However, as is mentions in Sustainability and Cities, sustainability can't be accomplished by only implementing traffic calming in certain areas of a community, because all that tends to do is push traffic to outlying areas.  By implementing traffic calming measures in some neighborhoods but still budgeting for large scale road upgrades that provide for more and faster traffic in others, there seems to be a mixed message about where the city's values lie and whether it is concerned with the sustainability of the entire community, or only certain parts of it; or whether sustainability, in regards to car traffic reduction, is a focus at all.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

While reading "Waste as a Resource" from Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development (1994) by John Tillman Lyle, I came across what appeared to be a most surprising statistic.  I will reproduce it here verbatim:

"In the United States each person produces 50,000 pounds of waste each year and almost 20,000 gallons of sewage."

Now, given the amount of water that people use on a daily basis for toilets, showers, sinks and so on, the sewage number didn't really set off any alarms of skepticism in my brain.  However, it seemed very ludicrous to me that your average American produces that much solid waste.  So based on the assumption that this factoid is referring to 50,000 pounds of solid waste (since sewage basically covers most liquid waste, and pounds are generally the units used in measuring solids) I set out to verify that my hunch about the ridiculousness of this number was correct.

Buried within a 2009 EPA report on municipal solid waste I found a table which details the amount of solid waste (in pounds) generated per person per day in America, shown below:

The nice thing about this table is that it shows a decent amount of historical data as well, which I will get to in a moment.  4.34 pounds of solid (non-sewage) waste per day still seems pretty high (at least for myself) but it rings true in my head as a number that could at least be feasible.  When we adjust this to show yearly amounts (per day x 365.25) and graph the three different levels of waste shown in the table, we get this:

This data shows that the amount of waste that a person produced in 2009 was just below 1,600 pounds. After various recovery methods (recycling and composting) were taken into account and after some amount of combustion with energy recovery was used the actual amount of waste that remains (red line) was approximately 860 pound per person in 2009.  This is still a lot but is a great improvement over the nearly 1,200 pounds that remained after recovery efforts in 1980.

But nowhere on this graph does the data ever approach anything resembling 50,000 pounds per person per year.  So how does one go about trying to reconcile such a disparity in 2 alleged "facts"?  The first thing that comes to mind is that John Tillman Lyle's book was written prior to 2009 and thus the data might have changed since then.  But the EPA data goes back to 1960 so that hypothesis is out.

Another possibility is that the 50,000 number includes "raw material processing."  This, I assume, would be due to attributing a portion of manufacturing and industry waste to each individual person.  Mathematically this may play itself out, but it is not what someone would understand when reading the quote that I originally took issue with.  The quote reads as though each person personally produces 50,000 pounds of waste.

At worst this quote is a lie, and at best it is a misleading statistic, either intentionally (to make a point) or erroneously.  But either way it demonstrates an important point:  When reading anything purporting to be truth it is important to be skeptical about what you are being told.  If a claim is outlandish or hard to believe or seems to defy common sense, it's worth investigating further.  This is the essence of science.

Using statistics that may not be an accurate accounting of what we claim they are does nothing to bolster the integrity of the science underlying the need for sustainability.  There are enough simple direct facts that easily support the need for sustainability and it only ultimately hurts the cause of attempting to create a sustainable planet when we try to play twister with the numbers.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

In the process of researching my potential transition from a non-composting person to one who does, I've run across the possibility that building and using a personal composting system might not actually be the most sustainable solution for my particular situation.   It would be fun to try, but doing something because it seems

Some particularly elegant and relevant art.

 

neat or cool is not the appropriate reason to do it, when it comes to sustainability.  It needs to make sense and be the most sustainable option for the situation.

I have little doubt that composting is more sustainable than non composting, but what I'm still evaluating is the method by which I ultimately end up doing that.  My current living situation is not one that doesn't really foster having the opportunity to use the end products of composting.  By this, I mean that I live on the 3rd floor of an apartment building and don't own enough plants to make use of the volume of compost that would result from my own personal compost bin.  Essentially, I would have to somehow transport my compost to a place where it could be put to use.  So if I'm going to have to drive somewhere to drop something off anyway, it seems more sustainable to not buy all of the supplies that I need to create a proper composting system and instead just use a simply container to gather compostable materials and then eventually drop it off to be composted at a community garden or something similar that already has a composting system set up.

Sometimes making efficient use of already existing resources and processes is more sustainable than going through the expense and resources to replicate those processes.

I haven't fully decided which way I will go yet.  Stay tuned.

Model Building With Water

When it comes to sustainable practices, strategies and encouraging sustainable behaviors, I think a lot can be learned from water resource management.  As I've read through Chapter 5 of Roseland one thing I've noticed is that instead of it describing strategies that could be put into place to improve the water resources or resource management of a community, it mostly talks about a myriad of examples of solutions that have been implemented.  So since I'm prone to ask "why" when I notice something that deviates successfully from the norm, I of course began to wonder why it is that there seems to be so much more involvement, especially in the form of municipal and government incentives (both positive and negative), in improving the sustainability of how we use, treat, and conserve water.


My best guess is that water is more tangible.  There are far fewer steps that most people need to see in order to understand how unsustainable water resource management can adversely affect them and their families and communities than for other sustainability issues.  Everyone wants clean water and they aren't afraid to make sure that their elected representatives know it.  This results in more actual and immediate action by the (US) government at large for improving water systems.  Unfortunately, while this might be getting more done for improving water systems for those of us lucky enough to have governments that can and want to do something about it, what it doesn't help with is the issue of poor water quality and rampant water pollution in developing countries.  So it's nice to see that many of the larger humitarian organizations such as the World Bank and UNICEF (See the UNICEF video about water issues in Africa below.) have specific water resource strategies and focuses, but certainly more can be done.

But I digress. Besides the fact that I think developing countries should be first in line for new innovations in water treatment and management, I think that maybe we should try to model other strategies regarding sustainable practices on how water resource and treatment has been approached, especially concerning adoption and getting buy-in from the general public.   Because it seems like things are actually getting done with water resource management, and any sustainable strategy that we can look to as a model of success seems like a good model to pick apart and use in other areas.

So, how do we bring other sustainability issues out into the light so that they are viewed as more direct and immediate concerns by the population and governments of the world?  People don't like to be brow-beaten; even if it is for a good cause.  Someone out there has got to have some new and brilliant ideas.  Let's hear 'em.

Worm Food

As part of my Sustainable Communities class this semester, I've been tasked with coming up with a personal sustainability project.  My plan for this is to explore the options available to me for setting up a composting/vermi-composting system.  From the research that I've done thusfar, I'm leaning towards doing the vermi-composting as that will give me a continuing compost throughout the year that will be independent of weather constraints.  There are others in my class who currently already have this kind of system so I am hoping to gain the crucial element (worms) from one of them versus having to try to find my own via some form of sketchy back alley worm salesman.

I face a few barriers in being able to do this successfully:
1.)  Convincing my roommate to participate in or at least tolerate my doing this.
2.)  I don't want to build a quick and easy system only to want to replace it with something nicer and better in 6 months.  So I need to research and determine the best, most durable, and most effective system to use the first time around.
3.)  I must resign myself to being responsible (even if it's just to a tiny degree) for keeping something else alive and fed.  (Hopefully this one won't be too hard.)

Alternative Sources... of Motivation

Chapter 3 of Roseland talks about various ways to use community policy, as determined by the government, to help encourage development of sustainable practices amongst citizens and businesses within a community.  I also recently commented in response to Jennifer G's post, in which I suggested that getting everyone in the world to hold hands and sing the praises of sustainability isn't the most realistic or viable approach to actually accomplishing a sustainable planet and society.  Let's assume (which seems pretty reasonable) that we can't convince the people of the world, en masse, to live sustainably by appealing to their morality and getting them to actually CARE (please see my comment for more detail as to my thoughts on this) about sustainability.  So if an epoch of enlightenment isn't anywhere in humanity's immediate future, what can be done to at least start pushing us towards a sustainable existence?

We trick people.

Part of why people/businesses choose not to act or spend money in a way that is sustainable or environmentally responsible is because there is generally a premium that must be paid in order to do so.  That premium can be financial or convenience-related or both.  Recycling is a common example of this. 

My suggestion is that we make the cost of not acting in a sustainable manner so high that people "voluntarily" choose to do so because it is easier, cheaper and less hassle than the alternative.  To a degree, this is already being done in some places.  There are cities (Bloomington, IN is among them) that don't charge for recycling but instead, charge for trash pickup based on the amount of trash to be hauled away.  So you separate out your recycling, buy things that don't come with excess packaging and as a result have much less trash.  Less trash means less that you have to pay to have that trash removed.  This solution also gives people the ability to be less thoughtful about how to deal with their waste (See, all freedom of choice is still intact) but they will be the ones who bear a larger burden of dealing with that waste as well.  For this to work most effectively, revenue gained from these programs should be only used to improve trash processing and recycling programs within a community and not just thrown into the general community pot to be split up and parceled out based on some politician or bureaucrat's whim.

One strategy that would likely make this type of program more successful as far as the number of people who choose to participate would be to make the cost of non-participation even higher than it already is.  If the government were to turn all highways into toll roads and increase the tax on gasoline to the point that a gallon costs $10, people are going to be much more careful about when they choose to drive and what activities they choose to utilize motor vehicles for.  I would personally love to see the price of gas at closer to $10/gallon for this very reason.  Nothing spawns innovation and new technology like trying to find alternatives for what we have decided is too costly.

"But wait a second, Scott," you might say as you tentatively raise your hand, "There's a hole in your logic."

That's true, there is:  If we can't assume an ideal world of everyone agreeing that sustainability is one of the most important goals and acting to accomplish that goal, we can't assume that a government has the best interest of its people or world in mind either.  But as has been shown many times throughout our species' sordid history, governments are much more pliant in being steered towards whatever the specific purpose of the day is than is the entire world population.

So call your representatives and elected officials (two or three times) and make yourself heard.  It's amazing the small number of squeaky wheels it takes to get things moving.  It's definitely not the only or best method for working towards saving the world, but it IS a method and it couldn't hurt.  And if you have a best friend who happens to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, call her up and ask her to swing her weight around a little.