Suggested Books:

• Anything by John Muir
• Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
• Woods Woman by Anne LaBastille
• Anything by John Burroughs
• A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold
• The Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey
• The Future of Nature by Barry Lopez

Thoughts on Silent Spring:

First published in 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring has since been hailed as the wake-up call that sparked the first environmental movement.  Carson lived in the midst of the Green Revolution, when science was geared towards increasing agricultural production by means of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.  In Silent Spring, she weaves a provocative account of the horrific and lasting impact chemicals like DDT have upon the various segments of the ecosystem—soil, water, vegetation, animals, etc.  The story is one of accidental death brought about by the hastily executed desire to control nature.  Attempts to kill the cadis flies in a stream destroyed the salmon population; efforts to protect the elm trees unleashed a deathblow to the bird species of the area.  Evidence abounds that biological magnification amplified the chemicals all the way up to the human level, riddling victims with cancer and death.  Carson captures all of this.  With the eye of a natural historian, she observes the dramatic effects these chemicals have upon the environment and human health; with a scientist’s intellect she reports these observations; with a poet’s tongue she eloquently describes the situation in a language both comprehensible and stimulating to the public; with an activist’s fire she calls for increased testing and tighter regulations for the chemical industry. Her lasting question echoes on, “How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind?” (Pp. eight)

This question and the theme of control of nature by humans resonate throughout the book and into the present.  I saw in Silent Spring many parallels to the conditions of today; it is this enduring quality that most impressed me about Carson’s work.  She describes very specific issues, yet her overall message still has pertinence today.  Humans are still opportunists.  We identify a “problem” with nature and applaud the first individual to make headway towards “improving” the human condition.  In fact, Paul Hermann Müller—the man who discovered the insecticidal properties of DDT—won the Nobel Peace Prize!  While we have improved the regulatory structure since Carson’s day, we still excite at the possibility of advancement and profit and cloud out the risks.  For example, when reading, I could not help but make connections between Carson’s situation and the present-day threat of hydraulic fracturing.  In both cases, chemical corporations resist regulation and deny their activities are a threat to the environment.  The difference is that now the evidence that there is a risk exists before the activity has been carried out on a grand scale, yet it is still an uphill battle to prevent it.  To echo Carson, how could intelligent beings risk forever the quality of our own water supply in exchange for five years worth of natural gas?  The fact that I could draw this connection despite the nearly 50 years that have passed is testament to Carson’s brilliance.  No wonder her words still resonate with environmentalists.
Reading Silent Spring also heightened my appreciation of nature’s system.  Carson made a point of describing the insecticidal effects not on a portion of the environment, but on the system as a whole.  “The soil in such areas becomes poisoned.  Rains then carry part of the (arsenic) into streams, rivers, and reservoirs, as well as into the vast subterranean seas of groundwater.” (Pp. 51)  Carson illuminates the big picture where chemical corporations see only pestilent insects.  She sees cascading effects and the connections between them where the companies see only their target species and its abundance.  She makes the point that humans frequently over-simplify nature; we expect it to function as we would design it.  “Nature has introduced great variety into the landscape, but man has displayed a passion for simplifying it.  Thus he un-does the built-in checks and balances by which nature holds the species within bounds.” (Pp.10) Man cannot ever hope to fully understand a system as complex as that utilized by nature.  Botanists, ecologists, herbalists, natural historians, entomologists, etc can dedicate their entire lifetimes to the study of their respective sub-sections, let alone to the system as a whole.  Silent Spring helped me understand the respect such a system must be given, and appreciate the magnitude of the ramifications should the system be over-simplified.  Humans are arrogant to think we can change aspects of the system at our whim without causing chaos throughout.
Another impressive aspect of Carson’s work is its functionality as a catalyst for social change.  Her ability to discuss science with a poet’s words makes her ideas accessible to a public that could not be bothered to read a scientific journal on the topic.  For example, where a scientist might pain-stakingly elaborate on the specific mechanisms by which genetics play a role in evolution, Carson eloquently summarizes, “For mankind as a whole, a possession infinitely more valuable than individual life is our genetic heritage, our link with past and future.” (Pp. 208)  Her word choice conveys the message in a more suggestible fashion than cold scientific lingo could.  She plays on the natural human instinct to protect our belongings by painting our genes as a personal gift.  Thus, she transmits both the facts and the message in a compelling manner that subtly calls for public action.  She uses this technique successfully throughout the book.  It is this powerful combination of science and eloquence that makes her such a great advocate and vehicle for social change.
For reasons of its lasting relevance, its eloquence despite highly scientific content, and its effect on the reader of compulsion to act, Silent Spring comes highly recommended from this reader.

On recycling bureaucracy: I found this in the National Geographic’s Green Guide, “The numbers in the recycling triangles are only there to indicate which type of plastic resin the containers are made of.  Not all resins are recycled, mainly due to economics.  Recycling facilities are paid by weight and therefore prefer heavier plastics.  Plastics like lightweight #6 polystyrene foam and #3 PVC must be recycled in large quantities to reap a high profit, so most programs exclude them.”  My conclusion: recycling centers are not the equivalent of an orphanage, taking in all abandoned bottles and seeing that they are taken care of.  They’re more like sex slavery (OK, that’s a crude metaphor, sorry… but it follows the orphanage metaphor so well) taking only the bottles that will fetch a high price.  My suggestion: if it can’t be recycled cost-effectively, stop making it!

On obsessing over the wrong thing: There’s really no need for me to elaborate on the plethora of diets out there extolling the benefits of watching carbs, fats, calories, sugars, etc in your food.  Whole magazines, TV shows, and careers are dedicated to the selection of foods with the right number of the right components.  So how can we obsess so much over what’s in our food and still be so ignorant about the real story?  GMOs, feedlots, organics, additives, preservatives, pesticides… all of these are very real factors affecting our food supplies in ways that have lasting ramifications on our personal health and the health of our environment.  Why isn’t this information as commonplace as the woes of a diet with too many carbs?  People don’t fully understand their food decisions.  A girl the other day told me that she was a vegetarian because she knew the rainforest was being cleared to put in grazing fields for cattle to supply our beef demand.  Kudos to her for being proactive and trying to make a positive impact, but what she doesn’t realize is that often, the rainforests are chopped in order to grow soy beans.  Her vegetarian tofu may be contributing to the destruction of the rainforest just as dramatically as a Whopper.  Sorry, kid.  Next time do your homework.

On OOPS that’s not what we meant to do: 27 bears were hit by cars in Yosemite National Park in 2009.  While Yosemite is a protected area, the very fact that it is so beautiful draws tourists like a natural Disney World.  Tourists, by their very nature, are loud, disruptive, camera-wielding idiots.  I could make the case that humans can’t fully appreciate nature until they’ve experienced it, so bringing tourists to these places increases respect for the area.  I could also argue that humans can’t get avoid messing nature up, so we should just barricade ourselves in enclosed cities and minimize our disruption.  I wouldn’t want to live in the latter world, but it’s sadly ironic that bringing people to these parks so they will appreciate the world results in the deaths of 27 bears (and no doubt numerous other creatures) every year.

But behind the mask of bright colors and eye-catching designs, some school supplies are hiding a toxic secret: PVC plastic.  Known as “the poison plastic”, PVC has invaded many common items and poses a real threat to all, but especially to the developing child. For children, exposure to chemicals released by the PVC lifecycle has been linked to cancer, autism spectrum disorder, asthma, and harm to the immune and reproductive systems. 

Therefore, it is imperative to avoid PVC to keep your children healthy.  But how do you steer clear of something invisible that’s harmful to our health at every stage of its lifecycle?  By learning its common hiding places!  The Center for Health, Environment, & Justice’s brand new 2010 Back-to-School Guide to PVC-Free School Supplies will help you chose the safe alternatives for your children and family.

Here’s some quick tips to get you started ridding the toxic plastic this back-to-school shopping season:

1.    Give your binder the once-over. The colorful material on the binder is often a plastic containing PVC.  Instead, chose binders that are cardboard, fabric-covered, or polypropylene. Check out the new Wilson Jones PVC-free polypropylene binder or Earth Binder’s cardboard version.

2.    Take note of your notebook materials. There are typically two areas to watch for on the standard notebook: the binding and the cover.  Be careful when buying spiral notebooks if the metal spiral is coated in a colorful plastic.  This plastic is usually PVC.  Choose uncoated metal spirals, or composition notebooks without spiral binding.  Also keep an eye on the cover of the notebook.  Covers that are vinyl-y in appearance and texture may contain PVC.  Instead, choose cardboard or fabric-covered notebooks.  A cool source of PVC-free notebooks is Carolina Pad, a brand fortuitously popular among young girls and widely available across the country.

3.   Don’t let paperclips exert a toxic grasp on your papers. Did you know that most colored paperclips are coated in PVC?  Choose plain metal paperclips to be safe.

You can find these and many more tips for avoiding PVC in CHEJ’s 2010 Back-to-School Guide to PVC-Free School Supplies.  The guide features a listing of the most common back-to-school products made out of PVC and safer alternatives in over 30 product categories.  Also, check out the convenient wallet-size version of the guide: just print, fold, and tuck it into your wallet to keep yourself informed on safe alternatives wherever you are!

Remember, PVC is dangerous throughout its lifecycle, not just as a product in your family’s hands or homes.  Manufacturing and disposing of PVC is also highly toxic because it releases dioxin, the most toxic chemical known to man.  Communities around PVC plants or disposal sites have suffered serious health consequences because dioxin has invaded their food and water supplies.  Learn how PVC plants are contaminating Delaware’s drinking water and find out how dioxin has worked its way into the food supply.

Do your part to protect these communities.  Stay clear of the poison plastic this back-to-school shopping season!

I don’t endorse these products or companies, but I give them props for their non-toxic products.  Apparently, that’s become an accomplishment, not the norm.

Through the city of Buffalo, where I found a Botanical Garden!

Alright, so it’s a pathetic rhyme.  You’ll have to excuse my urge for poetry… I was just watching the Flight of the Conchords “Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymenoceros”.  It’s hilarious and it inspired me to channel my inner Rhymenoceros.  After a day of researching the dark side of hydrofracking, I needed to be cheered and this video wasn’t… lacking.  OK, I’ll stop!

Moving on to the enigma of the botanical garden.  It was a beautiful–albeit hot and humid–excursion and I learned a lot of interesting stuff, like how the carnivorous pitcher plant digests its prey.

Besides a host of stunning flowers and plants I had never seen before, there were a number of familiar items.  Bananas, lemons, black pepper, cinnamon, dates, chocolate, starfruit and more flourished inside the shelter of the greenhouse… remember, this was in the notoriously frigid city of Buffalo.  The science of climate control has allowed these tropical foods to grow in an environment that would normally choke them off.

Bananas growing locally in Buffalo, NY

And I can’t help but wonder, in the midst of the push to eat local foods to limit the carbon footprint created by transporting us our cravings, why we don’t have more greenhouses?  Why fly or drive a thousand pounds of bananas from South America to our supermarkets, when we could grow them here?

As with any venture, there are obstacles involved.  Where would we put these greenhouses?  How would we run them to make sure they don’t use more energy/create more carbon than we would save by limiting our dependence on foreign foods?  Honestly, I don’t know the answer to the first question.  That would be a battle for the zoning boards to fight.  But with solar energy becoming more and more affordable and efficient, the answer to the second question seems clear.  The glass in greenhouses is designed to absorb sunlight, and then trap the heat inside.  Therefore, only a minimal amount of energy would be needed to provide what little additional heat the plants might require.  A carbon-neutral alternative energy like solar could easily cover this deficit.

Obviously, when plants grow in their natural habitats, they need only the sun and water and nutritious soil.  It is a naturally climate-friendly process–the plants even absorb some carbon dioxide.  But when we harvest them and load them onto dirty-fuel consuming vehicles and haul them halfway across the world, the negative impact grows greater with every mile traveled.  Hence, the push for local foods.  But we humans get very set in our ways, and we have a hard time giving up foods we’ve grown accustomed to.  So why try to fight the stubborn human desire?  I can already envision the picketers chanting, “Give us back our mangos!” if we ceased to allow foods to travel farther than their consumers.

In this short trip to the botanical garden, I have effectively convinced myself that the way to keep both the planet and the humans happy is to build greenhouses.  Think about it: our produce wouldn’t need to be coated in preservatives if it were just going around the corner, rather than across the ocean.  It seems like a win-win to me.  I know there’s a bright engineer out there who can figure out how to create a carbon-neutral greenhouse system, if one does not presently exist.

Perhaps I’m being naive in thinking this is a simple, obvious solution.  So obvious, in fact, that I can’t believe no one else has thought of it.  Maybe the giant food corporations have exercised their disapproval of such a profit-limiting idea….

Here’s some need to know information about hydrofracking and what it could mean for our state:
What it is
•    The Marcellus Shale Play is a reservoir of natural gas that spans New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  It is a mile underground and bound by rock.
•    Its exploitation could potentially yield 400 trillion gallons of natural gas.
•    However, accessing this reserve would necessitate use of a controversial drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or “hydrofracking”.
•    Hydrofracking involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand, and toxic chemicals into the ground.  This fractures the shale and releases the natural gas.  The sand and chemicals are collectively called the “proppant,” which functions to prevent the fracture from closing after injection ceases.

Why it’s harmful
•    Just the initial set-up of the well is an intensive process requiring the construction of roads into the well site, causing habitat destruction and fragmentation.  Local municipalities have to pay to construct/maintain these roads, not the gas companies.
•    Destroying the surface land in the Marcellus Shale region is economically unsound.  In these regions, agriculture and tourism are the number 1 and 2 economic engines.  Therefore, disrupting the long-term benefit of the land for the short-term “benefit” of 1- 1 ½ years of gas is foolish.
•    For the actual drilling process, each well requires between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water, the procurement of which drains local bodies of water.  Water is as precious a resource as gas.  This from a drilling company: “The Hydro-Fracking process consists of two stages, the “break” stage and the “development” stage. The pressure is needed to “break” the well. Once the well has “broken” then it needs to be developed.  This requires a large amount of flow. The more water you feed it, the greater the result.”  Therefore, we can conclude they are planning to use massive amounts of our precious water.
•    This water is then polluted with sand and chemicals, and pumped into the ground where it could potentially contaminate aquifers.
•    About 40% of the water pumped in is pumped back out, and must be treated before it can be returned to our public waterways.  The infrastructure for water treatment on this scale does not presently exist.
•    The water treatment plants are the best solution regarding what to do with the processed water, but since the infrastructure is lacking, two other techniques are often used.  The first is dumping it in open pits.  These pits are supposed to be lined, but if they leak, the contaminated water absorbs into the ground and enters the water supply.  Additionally, as the natural process of evaporation occurs over the pit, chemicals are released into the atmosphere and cause air pollution.
•    The second alternative technique involves the re-injection of the contaminated water back into the well it helped to fracture.  This is dangerous because it could leak and poison the groundwater.  Remember, the purpose of the chemical proppant is to keep the fracture open, thus allowing the water to travel and potentially migrate into an aquifer.
•    The exact chemical composition of the frack fluid is unknown to the public; the drilling companies have refused to disclose the contents.  In the documentary film Gasland, the director says the chemicals include toxins, carcinogens, and heavy metals.  Many experts believe the carcinogens benzene and formaldehyde are part of this toxic recipe.
•    The manipulation of subsurface geological structures affects the normal equilibrium of these faults/fractures and may cause earthquakes.
•    There have been incidents of above-ground explosions caused by well blowouts.  These explosions release harmful frack fluid and gas into the air, land, and water.  Reports of water wells exploding have been linked to combustible gas from fracking sites escaping into the public groundwater supply.  Some residents near fracking sites can even light their tap water on fire due to the high methane content.
Legislative Issues
•    In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal oversight.  The FRAC Act (introduced in 2009) would repeal this exemption and require disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process.
•    The NY DEC has been examining the collective impact of hydrofracking in a “generic environmental impact statement”, rather than the usual well-by-well basis.  This may not be comprehensive or detailed enough.
•    A controversial EPA study in 2004 concluded that there are no adverse environmental impacts associated with hydrofracking, but the legitimacy of the study has been called into question.  Another study has been launched but is not due for completion until 2012.  The DEC does not want to wait for the study to begin fracking.

An inundation of kid-targeted commercials during Saturday morning cartoons, combined with middle-class parents striving to do better for their children than they had, no doubt fueled these tirades.

See. Want. Beg. Beg. Beg. Beg. Acquire. Play. Forget. Upgrade.

During the yearly deep-cleaning of my room mandated by my mother, I would find these coveted items.  But by that point, they were old news.  I had newer. Bigger.  Cooler.  Better.  The debate was what to do with them.  Keep them?  It was unlikely they had enough sentimental value to be saved.  Salvation Army?  Yard Sale?  Landfill?  Too often, the latter was the final destination.

Why must this be the culture?  It hardly seems ethical for advertisers to cultivate such intense feelings of need among our nation’s children.  Sure, the purchases drive our economy, but at what cost?  Think of all the resources that go into producing those toys, just so they can amuse us for a week or two before rotting away in a landfill.

What does “need” really mean?  You don’t need earrings.  They’re not vital for existence in any way.  Yet, nearly everyday, I put on a pair.  Why?  At this point, maybe habit.  But I started because the culture told me I would look prettier, more mature, and more sophisticated if I wore them.  I have at least 20 pairs.  Does that sound like a good use of resources?  I say no.  Still, they’re sitting in my room.

HYPOCRITE!  Guilty.

But I am aware, and I want to make a change.  I plan to contemplate necessity when I go shopping.  Which isn’t often.  But still.  My own self-conscious guilt will make me walk away from that 21st pair of earrings.

If you liked this/learned something, please support me by subscribing to my blog!  See the link to the right.

Perhaps the two biggest buzz words right now are “organic” and “all-natural”.  Head’s up people: you may be buying an illusion.  When you waltz down the aisle and choose a hand lotion that boasts “all-natural” ingredients, you are probably envisioning a small home business that grows and chops their own fresh herbs for inclusion in the family recipe.  This is what you want to believe, and this is what the company wants you to believe.  In reality, those “all-natural” ingredients are more likely derived from petrochemicals.

After all, what is “natural”?  Petroleum IS natural.  It is decomposed, compressed organic matter.  But petroleum is certainly not the first thing that comes to mind when we think “natural.”  Neither is mercury, lead, or E. coli, but those are all natural things.  You see, consumers have to come to associate “natural” with “good,” and marketing strategists have learned how to exploit this ignorance.

To all the so-called “armchair activists” out there (who quietly and barely assist the cause) who think you are doing the movement a favor by loading your shopping cart with “all-natural” products, please pause.  Do the research.  Are the ingredients really “natural” in the sense that you are hoping they are?  Or have you just fallen into an advertising trap?  Because the truth is, there is absolutely NO legal meaning behind the claim that a product is “natural”.  It means whatever the company wants it to mean.  And too often, it isn’t what you think it means.

Happy investigating!

If you liked this/learned something, please support me by subscribing to my blog!  See the link to the right.

The Yes Men work to expose corporations that place profits before public health and safety.  Uniquely, they work from the inside.  Yes Men impersonate representatives of their targets; they strive to humiliate the corporations.  They assimilate into the corporate environment, then work to meet all of the right people and go to all of the right meetings so that they can learn and share dirty, behind-the-scenes business practices.  I don’t know if they have a slogan, but I would suggest, “Exposing by Posing”.

Some of their best schemes use satire to propose a new product or practice that is just one step further into the realm of the absurd than the corporation would be expected to go on their own.  For example, a Yes Man posing as a Halliburton representative at an international meeting touched on the numerous environmental catastrophes scientists predict as likely should climate change continue, then said, “In order to head off such catastrophic scenarios, scientists agree we must reduce our carbon emissions by 70% within the next few years. Doing that would seriously undermine corporate profits, however, and so a more forward-thinking solution is needed.”  This solution was presented in the form of the “SurvivaBall” for corporate managers.  The self-sustaining balls would shield the fortunate few from the changing climate, with all of the comforts of modern technology!  These protective orbs, he noted, would allow the corporate vision of profit to go unshattered even while the rest of the world perished.

These globes and the message with which they were delivered were clearly absurd, but they were actually well-received and a murmur of excitement was detected in the room.  It is scary how many people in the corporate world act as sheep.  The ideas presented by the leaders may be unethical, but it is rare that anyone in the audience is alarmed.  Therefore, the genius of the Yes Men is two-fold: they publicly embarrass unethical corporations (often hurting their stocks) and they also expose the public tendency to be blind and accepting.

The SurvivaBall is just one of many great schemes the Yes Men have pulled off.  One of my favorites is their target of Dow Chemical Co. via the release of the new “Acceptable Risk” calculator.  This device allows profiteering companies to plug in a number of factors to determine whether the skeletons their new venture will accumulate in their closets will be “golden” or not.  In other words: does the product generate enough profit to outweigh the costs of any lawsuits it will cause?  Read the script from its presentation here: http://www.dowethics.com/risk/launch.html The way the Yes Men present it is brilliant.  When you read it, the thickly laden satire seems just a little far-fetched, but then you realize that you wouldn’t be too surprised if Dow actually did release such a device.

The Yes Men are doing a great job revealing corporate irresponsibility, and they should be applauded for their unique methods.  Creative non-violent practices are just the breath of fresh air activism needs.

If you like this post, please subscribe to my blog using the widget on the right!

We pollute more than just our external environment.  We also contaminate (on a regular basis) our internal mental environment. The toxic by-products of commercialism are inhaled as quickly as they are produced.  Businesses hurl slogans, products, and “innovation” at the public with such ferocity that the average American is hit 3,000-5,000 times per day.  These ads are designed by people who are paid to make them as effective as possible; we are suckered into once-in-a-lifetime deals with far greater frequency than that purported quota of “once”.

This, some may say, is how our economy runs.  This, I say, is how our society runs blindly into a wall.  I guarantee you that the average American could tell you more about the latest special at McDonald’s than they could the situation with the BP oil spill.  This is a particularly malicious brand of pollution because the advertisers plant such pretty, idealistic visions of utopia in the minds of the consumers that they are blinded to the harsh realities of over-consumption.  Commercialism is ecologically damning because it levies a materialistic outlook that is completely unsustainable.  To learn more about this vicious cycle, I highly recommend: http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Media needs to work to inform the public, not to sell to us.  Ignorance brings only temporary bliss… and that temporality was spent a couple of decades ago.

Last weekend I went to Art Omi- a field sculpture park in Ghent, NY.  www.artomi.org Starting from the Visitor’s Center, one may make a loop–starting in either direction–and view a series of sculptures and installations placed amongst the grasses.  Art so often times attempts to define man’s place within Nature; it was refreshing for a perspective shift in which Art was integrated with Nature.  Sometimes the pieces were subtle to the point that we nearly didn’t notice them; these works were in harmony with nature and complementary to it.  For example, there was a view of a pond that was somewhat obscured by a canvas photograph of that same view of the pond strung up between the trees:

Other times the pieces were strikingly obvious and drew all attention away from the surrounding flora and fauna:

Still, the interplay between Nature and Art was intellectually stimulating.  It was also so nice to interact with art beyond the confines of a white-walled gallery.  Once you experience art outside, you feel somewhat foolish for having ever experienced it inside.  What I mean is, indoor art isolates us from the world.  We pretend to be so segregated from Nature, when in reality, everything is connected.  To bring art outside, or to bring ourselves outside, is to reconcile a natural (no pun intended) relationship.  Integration is the way of the future!