Archived Blog Entries

April 20, 2008

Yesterday I received our weekly package of junk mail. I really have to get on this and hang a note on my house door to declare that we do not want this stack of paper. It is so ridiculous. There is only two of three flyers we even look at. 80% goes right in the recycling bin and the two I look at I could live without easily. I don`t buy much anymore since I decided that I will focus on buying only what I need.

There was a great example of green-washing in this junk mail. A large home improvement center (it could be any; this one is Canadian) advertised that their flyers are printed on 100% recycled paper. Better than the shiny stuff it used to be. It actually used to be just regular flat (not shiny) paper, then they switched to glossy paper (and I got annoyed), now they proudly announce that they print on recycled paper. My paranoid mind is wondering if they did this on purpose. Switching from glossy to 100% recycled looks like a dramatic switch while switching from regular flat paper to recycled paper is hardly noticable. In any case, here is the green-washing: You open this supposedly environmentally friendly flyer and on two pages this company promotes yard and deck building materials from pressure treated wood. Every single item on those two pages is hazardous to people and environment while it is manufactured and after it needs to be discarded! Nice green surface, same old evil, short-sighted, conservative selling practices. Pressure treating involves toxins and creates materials that may cause cancer, cannot be discarded regularly, should NEVER be burned, and will cost you some money when you want to bring it to the hazardous waste dump. So, instead of printing on recycled paper, this company could choose to not sell this cancer-soaked wood any longer. That would really make a difference. I am afraid that is too much change though. Better stick with tiny (popular) steps forward while continuing to make huge steps backwards.

I started reading "Humanure". Great book. Too bad I do not live rural enough to try this out. Composting human feces that is. It is most likely completely illegal in my village. But what we usually do is such a dumb concept: We defecate and urinate in our drinking water to transport this mix long distance to treatment plants where it is mixed with industrial waste and storm water run-off and turned into something that should not be used for agriculture any longer. Then we clean the water and repeat the process. This concept allows large cities to exist while its citizens stay healthy but it sure is not smart.

It will begin selling stickers here soon. I am working on this page and the credit card set-up. The environmental education game I developed also takes up a huge amount of time. Needs a website and I want it all to be in four languages. More than this website. I cannot maintain polluteless.com in four languages. Not even two. Not enough time and it really is only for North Americans. The game is for the world and those four languages make sense. Chinese would be great.

________________________________________

March 23, 2008

Recently my girlfriends's youngest, a boy age 11, pointed out that in all his friends houses water is wasted by letting it run while they are brushing their teeth. Even though this is just a small thing, we were pleased. It is not easy to raise children to deveolp a sense for environmental issues, especially if they are exposed to a completely different (and much more convenient) life-style every other week (as it is in our case since they live with their father half the time). Nevertheless, Adam noticed that he is less wasteful than his friends in this situation. I began thinking that this is a great step in the right direction but that it will take more to change other people. I asked myself: How can we get young people to be less respectful and more outspoken toward people who pollute the environment or waste resources without creating anger or spiteful reactions?

Most, if not all, eco-negative behaviors are a result of wanting something more comfortable right now. The only way eco-negative behavior will become less widespread is if it becomes more unpopular than it is convenient. Few humans will do what is less comfortable for a long time. There are several ways of doing this. Making it illegal and tracking down and charging people is one way. I do not like it a whole lot. What needs to come first is the insight that certain actions are damaging. It is easier to follow laws if they make sense and if they apply to all equally. What I think can and should be done much more is peer pressure. All too often we are bystanders when it comes to environmental damage. We look, we notice, we say nothing.

I have tried the peer-pressure in the past. Decades ago, while still living in Germany, I used to get really mad if someone had their car running while just sitting in it to warm it up (this is illegal in Germany for a long time). I even opened car doors and turned engines off if the car was not occupied or I would pound on the roof if I got no response. I was an angry young man then. After some incidents turned almost into fist-fights I decided that this was not the right way and stopped.

There should be a way to inform people what they are doing is wrong and not appreciated without getting into physical fights.

How about saying something like: "Excuse me, I noticed you .... Did you know that this is using more energy/ wasting resources/ polluting the environment? I would like you to think a bit more about what you are doing. As a person living on this planet this is my business and I do not appreciate you thinking only of yourself ". You could also give them a note. But a note cannot be customized as easily.

How about ten $1,000 prizes given each week to people who were recommended by others as a persons who changed their habits significantly for the better. That could be a nation-wide contest. Live on TV. The $1,000 should be not cash but come in form of something the people need and has a value of $1000, such as organic food, new windows, contribution to wall insulation, etc.

Damaging the environment needs to be made UNPOPULAR. It needs to be so bad that people will yell at you, tell you to get lost, stare at you as if you are completely out of your mind, make people give you the finger, and make you feel you need to stop what you are doing rather than stop what the people are doing to you. I do not know if I want to live in a place like that though. I rather live in a place where people feel guilty without having to be told and where doing the right thing is popular and honored.

________________________________________

March 9, 2008

I began working on finishing a game I developed for increasing the awareness about the environment. I have played it so far with a few groups of students and adults and had been using clipart images for the playing cards. To put it online and to possibly sell it I need original art work. So that is what I did the last week: I created and scanned my own artwork and put together the new playing cards and logo. When that is done and the game rules are complete, it will be available online as a free download in .pdf format or for purchase if less assembly is desired. Based on the feed-back I receive from the players the game is probably my best invention so far. It will find a prominent place on this website. Until this happens I will not talk much about the details.

Recently the Pentagon decided to give a military contract for building refueling aircraft to a French company. And you should have heard the uproar! What is all the fuss about I wonder? Since when do US-Americans have a problem with purchasing foreign goods? Since when do US-Americans have a problem with purchasing less expensive goods? Are those people who are upset seriously suggesting that we should purchase an inferior product at a higher price to be used by our military just because it is made in the USA? I cannot understand this attitude. I understand well to try to purchase American products. I check where anything comes from and if I buy it try really hard to make sure it is from here. It is generally more expensive and that makes it often difficult for me. Nevertheless, if I feel I need the item and it is well made, I prefer to buy locally. Mostly because I do not want products that are made in countries where the environmental regulations are weaker than in North America and where human rights are considered less important and terrible wages and work conditions are the result for the workers. This does not apply in this case. The environment and working conditions for the workers are most likely better in France, but that does not matter to those who are upset. They are upset that a decision was made that showed that the US-American competitor offered a more expensive product that did not match the requirements as well as the French product. Tough. Complain that we are not able to come up with a better product, not that our Defense Department decides to buy the best at a lower price. American jobs can only be saved if Americans do it better than others. So do it better and make sure that we train a workforce that does it better.

________________________________________

March 4, 2008

I am basically almost-vegetarian. Not voluntarily but because I do not want to eat meat from animals that were treated cruelly and know that meat is a rather inefficient food. Although I would eat meat only rarely, I have not found a source for cruelty free meat and where I live it is not possible for even organic farmers/ranchers to avoid the slaughter factories. I object to this treatment of animals. As a result I eat almost no factory or farm meat. In my romantic view of the world, animals should live well, there should be no suffering, and death should come as a total surprise. Occasionally I eat deer or moose or whatever wild animal. I do like meat and I do not object to killing animals for food. For environmental reasons it should happen only occasionally (say once per week), it should be expensive, and it should be done with respect. So, I decided to get my hunting license. First of all, I am interested in the knowledge for a long time now, and secondly I would like to have the option to go get my own food. One day I may have the place to go hunt and one day I may actually do it. There is way too much deer here.

The course was rather interesting, especially the parts about commercial hunting of the past. The way it was described by the instructors and the way it was perceived by the attendants reminded me of our current situation and the way we use energy and my hopes for the future. Old-time commercial hunting was portrayed as primitive, short-sighted, selfish, barbaric and the audience agreed completely that the way it was done then was unsustainable, uncivilized, and dumb. There was a lot of head shaking and wondering how we could have ever thought this is right. Will we look back in 50 years at today's times and think the same?

Other language was interesting as well. To quote from the manual about a habitat's carrying capacity: "A habitat cannot meet the needs or an unlimited number of animals. Indeed the number of animals that the habitat (...) can support is determined by the quality and distribution of food, shelter and water, as well as the availability of space for each species' mobility needs." Humans need to control the number of animals in a habitat so the animals do not destroy their own habitat and then die slowly. Replace the words "habitat" and "animals" with "Earth" and "humans" and you got a statement that says pretty much what has been said by many all along: In regard to pollution and waste of resources, humans need to control what we do in our given habitat otherwise we will destroy our own habitat and die slowly afterwards. Since there is no one controlling us (and we fight all attempts to be controlled), we have to do it ourselves voluntarily. I hope we will reach this attitude soon.

Now, why hunters in my area feed deer to control the number of animals in a given habitat does not make sense to me. Unless you are more interested in trophies rather than controlling the species. If there are too many, hunt and eat them. If there are not enough, feed them and let them be. But both at the same time AND talk about controlling the number of animals?

________________________________________

February 17, 2008

I want to talk briefly about the "few simple steps" it takes to "save the planet". What sort of nonsense is this? We are addicted to doing what we do. We can relatively easily modify our behavior to create a tiny bit less damage (which does not make any difference), but reducing our impact significantly is wicked hard. Not only do we like to live while using as much energy and resources as we do, many of us also just would not survive if we had to reduce our consumption levels by 80% (which seems to be the appropriate amount based on current world population). Most of us would loose their jobs if we could not use cars anymore. Many of us would die without fossil fuels to heat our houses in the winter. Many of us would be extremely miserable without air-conditioning (thousands may even die as it happened during a heat wave in Europe a few years ago). Our health system relies on plenty of energy to be available. Many women would not know how to give birth the old-fashioned natural way without C-section or hospitals. Our food supply would collapse without fossil fuels. Our drinking water supply would be endangered without fossil fuels. In short, at the moment we NEED most of the energy we use to survive because we have forgotten how it can be differently.

Telling each other that just a few easy steps are all it takes is doing fellow humans a big disfavor. Sure, we have to begin somewhere. Announcing to a smoker that it is easy to quit results in frustration because it is not easy and success comes only after a period of suffering. People who need to break a strong habit or an addiction need to be mentally prepared. We need to encourage each other much more than we do. We need to begin looking honestly at the dramatic levels of change that will be necessary instead of constantly padding us on the shoulder for the insignificant changes we made. To use the smoking metaphor: We need to admit that we are addicted, are killing ourselves, and need to stop smoking instead of thinking we can stop anytime, the future is still bright, and cutting cigarettes 1/4" shorter is enough.

Other: I still would like to make a few interesting videos about the environment and put them on YouTube. I know how to do it but I cannot think of anything that interesting yet. Damaging the environment less is not very flashy. It's got to be funny, or bizarre, or at least different. Putting the advice on this website into moving pictures does not strike me as something anyone would care to watch.

I am working on a line of stickers to be put on, well, whatever. They are the shape and size of bumper stickers. I do not know if I want to get into selling stuff. I like the non-commercial aspects of this site. I may make them available for no profit. You order one by calling the company that makes them. If there are enough orders, I can buy some in larger numbers. Maybe travel to sell stickers. I cannot imagine that this can be a profitable business and I am rather reluctant in shelling out a large amount of money to buy hundreds of stickers. I am not a risk taker that way. If I ever do this, there will be a link the the top menu bar. Right now I have 17 designs and am asking friends what they think of them.

________________________________________

February 10, 2008

A few days ago I was listening to one of the Republican contestants to run for president. I believe it was Mitch Romney. He has suspended his race in the meantime. He said something along the lines that Global Warming is called "global" warming because it is a global issue, otherwise it would be called "America Warming". Of course, global climate change is a global issue (hence the name), it made me realize though that it is being used as a pretty lame excuse for doing nothing radical, or nothing at all to prevent it in the USA. If we want to wait for the whole planet to agree that something has to be done, we might as well wait for world-wide peace. Please do understand, I am not against working for world-wide peace. I actually believe that eco-positive attitudes can only appear and exist long-term after a society has achieved peace and justice. What bothers me is that we (North Americans), the biggest polluters and energy and resource hogs for decades, are looking for world-wide unity before we begin implementing radical steps to end the plundering of our planet. We had no qualms getting us into the mess without anyone helping, but now we are crying for all countries to pull together. How pathetic! What sort of world power is this? Enough leadership to get all into trouble, but not enough guts to lead the way out.

I say, we change away from the ways that have resulted in the mess even if not all participate. We may not have started the abuse of our environment, but we have pushed it to record levels, sustained it for decades, and still are in the Top 2 regarding pollution, waste, and carbon emission levels. It may cost us the global economic leadership to stop damaging the environment as much as we do, but at least it will be honest and credible. Maybe others will follow. They have followed in many ways in the past.

________________________________________

February 3, 2008

I found this awsome video and website (see below). It is a fast-pace video that makes some global connections very clear. It will change your perception of consumption. This is a great video for teachers. Some of my students actually thought it was interesting and that is something worth mentioning about an educational video.Go to http://www.storyofstuff.com.

Recently updated on this site: Additional link on left menu bar to "Feeling Guilty?"

Removed "Printer Friendly Version" link. It was intended as a joke and no one was looking at it. I replaced it with the "Green Videos" link. It makes more sense that way.

I really would like to tell the people who really do not care where to go and what to do. But I am torn. This site is designed to inform people. At the same time I feel that I am not the only one who is angry and I would like to express my discontent. However, I do not want to offened those who sit on the fence in these times of urgent need for action. We need those millions of people. Just make up your mind, would you! Dante once said "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." I do not believe there is a place like hell, but you get the point.

I will not link the _angry page_ in a prominent place or in the menu. If you want to read it, you will have to look for it. If you find and read it, don`t complain if you get offended.

The other day I listened to an interview with a MIT professor. I did not pay attention to his name. He said that while at MIT you will find friends, work, and sleep, but you may choose only two. I reworked it a bit and came up with this: Living on Earth: Sufficient resources - Wasteful existence - 6.5 Billion humans; Select two and abandon the third. I presented this dilemma to my students. I had the feeling it made them think.

________________________________________

January 27, 2008

I have no time. I am working on creating YouTube videos to distribute the message better. And by now I hate looking at the computer screen.

So, more some other time.

________________________________________

January 12, 2008

The other day a colleague asked me an interesting question. "What do you do to benefit the environment?" I initially did not understand. I thought she was wondering what I do NOT DO. But she wanted to know what I actively do to benefit the environment. Still confused, all I could say was taking showers less than 5 minutes and using the wood stove to heat water for doing dishes. I began asking myself why I had such a difficult time with this question yet know so many good examples to pollute less.

In my opinion though her question approaches the problem from the wrong side. An organism without forsight and without genetic programming takes advantage of its environment as long as this environment can support the organism. Anything you do as a "modern living" human being most likely causes damage. Generally speaking, consciously benefitting the environment can only revolve around damage reduction. What an individual can do to benefit the environment pales in comparison to the number of things one can STOP DOING. At the current situation and with this many North Americans having such a huge impact on the environment, the question should be: What did you decide to NOT DO any longer to damage the environment less?

Occasionally I wonder whether humans as a group are blessed with forsight. We are getting to the point where our life-style and number of individuals cannot be supported any longer by our environment (the only one we have) and it does not seem to bother us a whole lot. To survive as a large group of relatively civilized and comfortably living humans we have to learn to decrease our current environmental requirements. Especially North Americans. Soon and significantly.

________________________________________

January 6, 2008

I have shown videos here that point out that global warming (or global climate destabilization as it now seems to be appropriate to be called) is happening. Although I trust what the majority of scientists are saying about this (meaning: it is happening and human activities are causing or at the very least are accelerating it), I do not believe that it should be the decisive reason to alter your habits if it comes to pollution of the use of energy. Global climate destabilization is something one can still deny. It may be going on - it may not be.

One of the real problems is that too many are ignoring the possibility that it MAY be true. Most of us seem to believe that it is wise to continue as if nothing CAN go wrong. Even if you choose to listen only to certain scientists, there are DEFINITELY signs that there MAY be a problem with our climate. To me it seems wise to prepare ourselves as if those who say global climate change is human caused could be right. It is a matter of intelligent risk management.

The other, and in my opinion, more severe problem is that we (North Americans) are living at levels that cannot be sustained. Humans inhabit one planet and North Americans (7% of the world's human population) consume about 25% of the resources on it. China and other nations are catching up, to a large extend because they manufacture what we order and purchase from them, and because they would like to live the desirable life-style we have modeled for decades in many aspects, especially the parts that require energy. The Earth is our home, our space ship. Very little material comes from the outside. Meteorites, asteroids, and some dust. What we get in large amounts is sun light. And we will receive that for millions of years to come. Nothing to worry about there. Fact is we are traveling on a ship with LIMITED RESOURCES. If we cannot replace what we use up (= consume) it is gone. And North Americans have developed a life style that consumes resources at a dramatic rate. We are like a cloud of locusts descending on a field and starting to chow away. When all is eaten we leave to go to the next field. Unfortunately there are no other fields.

This is what needs to change in my mind: We have to reduce our rate of consumption. A lot. Otherwise there will be not enough left for 6 billion humans to live and life will turn pretty darn serious and sad.

On another topic:

Recycling has become such a fad! It is portrayed as if it is THE solution to our consumption problems. Of course it looks great on the surface: Any material we use for whatever we want to can be perfectly recycled and reprocessed to become anything else in the future. Conveniently forgotten or ignored are energy requirements for those processes, that toxic wastes accompany recycling processes, and the fact that materials get mixed with other materials and "perfect" recycling is not possible. Recycling should be a emergency solution AFTER reducing and re-using. In my ideal world people even refuse to participate in the consumption of unnecessary products and reduce waste that way. However, little profit can be made if people consume less or use products over and over rather than buy them again. From an industry point of view the only profitable solution is to use advertising and marketing tools to create guilt-free and eternal consumption followed by recycling. It has happened.

Labeling products as "recyclable" is as useful as labeling foods as "edible". Just because it can be done does not mean it should be done, is good for you, or should be considered smart.