Sign up for a free e-letter from Wendy's company Life Media

Blog Archives Highlights - Environment The Ramifications of Cheap and Free – August 21, 2009 I often have two or more books on the go simultaneously (I’m a short attention span Gemini). And right now, I’m reading Cheap by Ellen Ruppel Shell and Free by Chris Anderson. I picked up a copy of the latter at a local bookstore and paid $34.95 (even though it’s available for free online) because I would rather support the book publishing industry as opposed to free info online. (Ironically, Anderson apparently picked up some of the sentences in the book for free from the Internet.) Both books deal with the psychology of pricing but argue from different ends of the topic. Cheap’s thesis, with which I agree, is that rather than encouraging good old fashioned frugality, our appetite for cheap products has led to an explosion of “shoddy clothes, unreliable electronics, wobbly furniture and questionable food” and that the wastefulness contributes to our current environmental problems. Free, on the other hand, demonstrates how some companies are giving away stuff (or information), sometimes in order to sell other stuff, which is hardly a new idea, but in other cases simply because technology allows it. The trouble is, somebody always ends up paying – my purchase of Free contributes to Anderson’s presumably hefty royalty fees. And if nobody pays, then the quality suffers (perhaps because people take shortcuts!). And I’m not the only one to think that is a problem. Fortunately, Free and its assertion that, as Whole Earth Catalog creator Stewart Brand famously said, information wants to be free, is already out of date; Anderson’s trumpeting about how newspapers tried to charge for online content but stopped has been negated by the same newspapers recently reinstating fees for content. Aside from the quality issue, the bottom line for me is that just because something is cheap or, yes, even free, does not mean it has to be consumed. Mindless acquisition is always problematic. Posted: 2009/08/21 6:26PM Recycling Frugality – May 16, 2009 My mother tried to teach me how to knit when I was a kid. She wasn’t successful. Her mother also tried unsuccessfully to teach me how to knit. I probably didn’t try very hard, because knitting seemed so, uh, uncool. Old ladyish. My mother tried to teach my daughters how to knit when they were kids. Again, not much ability or enthusiasm resulted, probably because they didn’t initiate the activity and didn’t see the point in it. I did learn how to sew during home economics classes at school under the strict tutelage of dour Mrs. Reid, but turned my nose up at that too because my mother made all my clothes as I was growing up, while I coveted the blue jeans and latest fashions worn by my friends. Fortunately, I saw the light by the time my daughters were born and, refusing to dress them in the pink, frilly dresses that were available in stores, made most of their baby clothes. Later, they sewed doll clothes and eventually developed the ability to fashion vintage finds into fabulous wardrobes. And then, a few Christmases ago, my 30-something daughter gave me a wonderful scarf that she’d knit and I found myself answering rug hooking and felting questions as she turned unraveled thrift store sweaters into household items. Like so many trends, activities and fashions that get recycled if you wait long enough, crafting became hip. Enter the new eco awareness…and recycling the old into the new and useful – known as “upcycling” – has put a coat of fresh pain on the trend. Then the recession got even more people began sewing, knitting and gluing as a way of saving money…and that became hip too. Even the official poet of President Obama’s inauguration, Elizabeth Alexander, invoked images of the old thrifty ways, describing “[Someone] stitching up a hem, darning / a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, / repairing the things in need of repair.” Apparently, craft supply stores, knitting cafés and craft courses are doing a booming business these days. And that brings me to Natural Life magazine, which will be launching a new column in the July/August issue called Crafting for a Greener World. I’m very excited about it, especially since it’s written by Robyn Coburn, a professional artist and environmentalist who is also an unschooling mom (and contributor to our Life Learning book). You can read all about it here. Posted: 2009/05/16 5:27 PM Still Cynical – March 27, 2009 I have had some response to my Earth Hour post, below. The score at the moment is four five people praising me for my courage in writing it, one person thanking me for food for thought, and two people saying I should be ashamed of myself. Thanks for weighing in. But I am still cynical. Aside from the results of a gazillion companies sending out press releases to say they will be turning out their lights and therefore are green, today’s papers feature articles about glow-in-the-dark bedspreads so you can find the bed after you turn off the lights, Earth Hour Survival Kits (“at romantic prices”), the perfect perfume to wear to an Earth Hour celebration (I am not making this up), petroleum-based scented candles galore and postcards, buttons, ties, aprons, bumper stickers (how ironic), posters, stamps, bags, mugs, greeting cards (non-electronic), keychains,  pens.....  Oh, and did I mention the Official Earth Hour products that are for sale? Buying them supposedly helps us show support for Earth Hour “without compromising modern day living.” Now there is a loaded phrase! Does it mean that someone in Toronto can continue to drive their SUV to the corner store for a plastic container of imported strawberries in January? Does it mean that someone in New York can fly to Arizona to play golf on a course kept lush with imported water and numerous pesticides? Will buying a hoodie with Earth Hour silkscreened on the front or a squeezable plastic panda flashlight lower carbon emissions?  Shopping might get us out  of a recession but it will not cure climate change. And that is my problem with Earth Hour 2009. Anyway, if you are going to participate, please burn soy or beeswax candles with a few friends and family...or just go outside for a walk and enjoy the darkness. Just don’t create a traffic jam in the process. Posted: 2009/03/27 3:01 PM Symbolism is Powerful…But – March 25, 2009 Earth Hour, which coming up this Saturday evening, is symbolism. And symbolism can be powerful. But it only works if it turns into action. And action on climate change is past due. Pardon me if I’m skeptical – some who’ve been listening to me rant this week would say “cynical” – but I’m, well, skeptical and maybe cynical. The hype is hyper. And it’s driving me nuts. The talk in some places is about “celebrating” Earth Hour. Pardon me, but there’s precious little to celebrate. Here in Canada, our political “leaders” are moving in the opposite direction from solving the climate change problem, gutting what environmental laws we do have. So I don’t think they’ll be paying any attention to the symbolism of people turning out their lights for an hour, even if WWF’s target of one billion participants worldwide is met. WWF admits that Earth Hour is a symbolic event and is publicizing it as a vote for climate change action. It says, “Turning off our lights for an hour won’t stop climate change but it does demonstrate that our individual action is important and adds up to make a big difference. More importantly, it sends a very powerful message to government and world leaders that people want policies and regulations put in place that can achieve meaningful emission reduction to help fight climate change.” I very much hope those leaders are listening. Action is urgent: In December, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen to try to establish an international agreement for controlling greenhouse gasses. This meeting must result in a commitment to a fair and ambitious climate deal. However, it’s not as simple as watching people turn out their lights for an hour in March, then saying, “Oh, yes, we must regulate industry and we’re all in agreement!” The first Earth Hour, three years ago in Australia, was a brilliant (so to speak) idea. The second one was a wonderful community-building expansion worldwide. But this year’s Earth Hour might be one too many. It has degenerated into a meaningless Earth Day-type of feel-good exercise that has taken on a life of its own. As such, I fear that it’s paradoxically in danger of losing its focus on individual action (which has been a hallmark of my work and of Natural Life’s editorial for 30 years) and attracting a lot of greenwash. And if that continues, my cynicism could be catching, which would make the event backfire big time. The PR firms are working overtime as usual, but what is particularly disturbing to me is the way ordinary people seem to have gone so far off-track. Last year, I wrote about people driving downtown in their SUVs to “celebrate” Earth Hour. But this year, there was the newspaper article describing how one high profile environmentalist will be drinking wine and relaxing with friends in front of the gas fireplace…hope the electric fan is turned off. Or how about the Toronto VIPs who are dining by candlelight at the top of a downtown office tower…hope they plan to walk up. But they have to go, because they’d be Earth Hour Grinches – seen as unconcerned about the environment – if they sent regrets. Then there’s Earth Hour Canada, which is offering one lucky participant a trip to visit the polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba…courtesy corporate sponsors Frontiers North Adventures and Sears Travel, which is donating airfare (there’s a frivolous use of carbon if I’ve ever seen one). Not sure what corporate sponsor Coca Cola is donating. Cynical, maybe. Turning off my lights on Saturday evening, sure. Neither will change the course of events much. We need to turn the symbolism into action. Quickly. And I can’t help but wonder if the time, energy, community and money could be better spent to that end. Posted: 2009/03/25 6:48 PM We Need a New Way of Tracking the Costs – December 1, 2008 The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis, according to a recently released EU-funded study. The report puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion (or about seven percent of global GDP), as opposed to the estimated $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion lost on Wall Street during the current economic “crisis.” Speaking to BBC News at the recent World Conservation Congress, study leader and Deutsche Bank economist Pavan Sukhdev emphasized that the cost of natural declining natural capital dwarfs losses on the financial markets and has been happening every year. (Watch Sukhdev on YouTube talk about the WWF’s Living Planet Report.) This calculation of the financial cost of environmental degradation is a new way of looking at things, at least among the guys at the top. And it might be too new to be on the radar of most of the 8,000 delegates from 180 countries who attending the international climate talks beginning today in Poznan, Poland. If it’s not front-of-mind, the current economic worries will make it hard for them to keep fighting global warming. Lower oil prices mean less of an incentive to invest in renewables. Already, wind and solar power companies are slashing spending and the value of their stocks is plummeting. That’s crazy, given the urgent need for renewable energy! However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that it would cost less than 0.12 per cent of global gross domestic (GDP) product every year until 2030 to avert the worst of climate change. So what are we waiting for? I think we need a paradigm shift, a whole new way of looking at quality of life that goes far beyond the GDP and the stock market, and that questions the value of growth at any cost. We’re fixated on the GDP’s rise or fall as an indicator of how well things are progressing or not. But the problem is that the GDP just measures spending and makes no distinctions between transactions that add to well-being and those that diminish it; as long as money changes hands, the GDP increases. For instance, under the GDP, environmental pollution ends up being a positive because it creates economic activity – and is even counted positively twice: once when it’s created and again when it’s cleaned up. And the result of that pollution, which is often illness such as cancer, also ends up on the plus side of the ledger because it, too, creates economic activity. This mindset also affects families because, for instance, it doesn’t account for things like the value of household and volunteer work, which are invisible in the GDP because no money changes hands. And it values schooling – no matter how awful the quality – because, once again, it creates economic activity. There is a rising awareness of this problem and there are some solutions being proposed. I’ve been writing about them for decades. Here is a simple article explaining the issues, that will appear in Natural Life in March/April 2009 but is now on the website because it’s too important to wait. Posted: 2008/12/01 9:30 PM Be Careful What You Ask For – November 21, 2008 Maybe we’re finally getting it! A piece in today’s Wall Street Journal seems to indicate that. And if it’s true, corporations are worried. What I’m talking about is household energy usage, which, it seems, is down significantly in a number of U.S. states. And power company executives are scratching their heads to explain why. They don’t think it has to do with housing foreclosures or other aspects of the economic downturn. They are speculating that the message some utilities have been sending to consumers to conserve energy just might be taking hold. My, my. Growth is going to be challenged, say the execs. Says the newspaper, “If the trend persists, it could ripple through companies’ earnings and compel major changes in the way utilities run their businesses.” Renewable energy, anyone? Posted: 2008/11/21 12:48 PM Green, Frugal and Within Our Means – October 24, 2008 New fears of a global recession are again creating panic on the stock markets today, apparently at least partly fuelled by an announcement that Britain is teetering on a recession. And Alistair Darling, the U.K.’s Treasury head guy said, “Every business, every individual – we have to live within our means.” Now there’s an idea. Thirty-two years ago this week, Rolf and I mailed out the first issue of Natural Life magazine from our rural kitchen. Since then, our family and our business have weathered a couple of major recessions and a couple more smaller economic downturns. The focus of that first issue and a large part of each one since then has been to provide information and inspiration for families to live within our means – both economically and environmentally. We used to call it “self-reliance” then, for awhile, “frugality” was the word of choice, and then “green” became hip. Unfortunately, what’s now called “green living” has gone off the tracks in the same way that our economy and environment have…and has become about buying things labelled “green,” “natural” and “organic,” rather than about making thoughtful and prudent choices, and refusing, re-using and recycling. And that has some commentators wondering if the recent trend toward environmental responsibility will be stalled by the economic downturn. So I’m back to talking about frugality, self-reliance and living without our means. I hope that I won’t be a voice in the wilderness. I hope that the convergence of economic and environmental problems will make people think  what “responsibility” means. I hope that it will create a broad awareness that short-term gratification without thinking about long-term survival is irresponsible, even – especially – in times of economic chaos. Sigh. I think I’m sounding more and more like my mother – a woman who was the only person in a family of 11 who worked during the Depression in the 1920s and who knew what living within one’s means truly meant. Posted: 2008/10/24 11:23 PM The Most Important Topic – July 19, 2008 There is a useful article in the new edition of Columbia Journalism Review about how we in the media must refine and expand our coverage of climate change. Aside from giving journalists tips about how to sort out the political and economic interests associated with their coverage of global warming, the piece highlights how the topic is moving from being the sole purview of the science pages of newspapers and magazines and into every section – everything from local and national politics, to foreign affairs, business, technology, health, agriculture, transportation, law, architecture, religion, gardening, travel and sports. Um, they forgot education! Thoroughly educating ourselves and our children about global warming is not a choice anymore. It is the most important issue of our day – more important than terrorism (although they are related in some ways), more important than the economy (although, again, there are strong links). Our children are the ones who will pay for what the previous few generations have done wrong. An awareness of the problem and what each of us can do to try and fix it is crucial. So learning about the problem and seeking solutions must be a part of the everyday life of each individual and each family. We affect the world by the way we consume, travel, work and play. Lessening our environmental impact is the central challenge to humankind today – the most important topic we can think, write and talk about, no matter whether we learn at home, at school or on the street corner. Having said that, I do believe that young people who have been given the freedom to be self-directed learners are the ones most able to create solutions to the problem. And, as I wrote in my editorial for the July/August issue of Natural Life, in order to create the circumstances that will nurture a large enough number of these self-directed learners, we need to examine our attitudes towards children and re-evaluate not only how we educate them, but how we birth them. We need to nurture their ability to think creatively and independently, to respect their rights, to shape their values, and to learn from their instinctive kinship with the natural world and with each other. The need is urgent and it is immediate. Posted: 2008/07/19 3:48 PM Mothers and Daughters – June 14, 2008 I am just back from visiting my daughter in her wonderful little house by the ocean. My reading material on the trip home was Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women, Save the World by Jean Shinoda Bolen (2005, Conari Press). She writes about the iconic photo of the earth in space that was taken by the crew of the Apollo space mission in the late 1960s: “The photograph of Mother Earth could only be taken by astronauts who were able to get far enough away to see the home planet from a distance. This is analogous to growing psychologically until we are mature enough to see our mothers as they are. Until we grow up, we have a self-centered relationship to our own mother. She is there to do for us, she is seen as it pleases us to see her, and not as separate from  our needs and assumptions. When we finally are able to see our mother as a person and can love her as she is, we usually are mature enough to also realize that she may need us.” Posted: 2008/06/14 12:05 PM Will it be the Economy or the Environment? – April 27, 2008 As the world economy slows, I wonder if the current focus on the environment will suffer. Will an economic downturn tempt companies to phase out their sustainability initiatives and individuals to return to their old ways? There is certainly that risk. I remember back in the late 1970s, just after Rolf and I launched Natural Life, there was a so-called “energy crisis” provoked by the revolution in Iran. U.S. President Jimmy Carter encouraged energy conservation and installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, and we enjoyed increased advertising revenues from a booming woodstove industry. However, those woodstoves didn’t do much for the environment, nor did all those drivers idling their cars for hours in gas station line-ups. Ronald Regan removed the solar panels in 1986. And by the time the recession of 1981-82 was in full swing, it seemed like everybody was back to their old non-conserving ways. But I think this time around things may be different, given the urgency of the consensus about climate change. In fact, a full-blown recession – in spite of its short-term pain – might be the best thing that could happen right now. Almost two years ago, in his review of the economics of climate change, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern warned that international action needed to be taken immediately if we are to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. His message was clear: We must act promptly or pay a far higher economic price later. So I’m hoping that the issues currently in the news, which range from melting glaciers and declining fish stocks to the hoarding of rice and the escalating price of wheat and oil, might be converging in a way that will motivate individuals, companies and governments to maintain and extend this embryonic focus on living within our means – both economic and ecological. If we pay close enough attention, one of the lessons to be learned is that there are limits to growth and that the growth-at-all-costs economic mentality is a sure path to destruction. Pursuing energy efficiency is one of the best ways to deal with an economic downturn…and, obviously, has environmental benefits too. Continuing their pursuit of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies would also help companies create and maintain their green reputations in front a public that I don’t think is going to stop paying attention. There is plenty of work to be done on the technologies necessary to create and maintain a low-carbon economy, so the dinosaur-like high-carbon oil economy companies might be motivated to shift their focus in a way that would help both their bottom lines and the Earth. And that should mean that we reach the end of the decade with both the economy and environment in better shape than going in. Posted: 2000/04/27 1:25 PM When the Green is Just Veneer – April 12, 2008 The cover story for the upcoming May/June issue of Natural Life magazine is about greenwashing, which has become an epidemic as concern for the Planet has grown. The term refers to the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental benefits of a product or service. And there are some pretty nasty tales in the article (which I wrote). One of them involves a number of leading so-called “natural” and “organic” personal care and cleaning products. The watchdog group Organic Consumers Association commissioned a study of these products and found that many of them contained the carcinogen 1,4-Dioxane, which is a byproduct of a process known as ethoxylation, a cheap short-cut companies us to provide mildness to harsh ingredients and requires the petrochemical Ethylene Oxide. The fallout is still underway, but it’s messy. However, the fact that there are increasing numbers of businesses trying to present themselves as green when they’re not is, I think, an inevitable growing pain in the move towards real sustainability. Yes, these greenwashers are exploiting people’s honest desire to be responsible consumers and environmental friendliness is often little more than the sales angle du jour. But if there is an upside to this, it’s that companies are competing for customers based on their perceived greenness! And that can be seen as both a sign of and a precursor to progress. Until we live in a perfectly green world, the answer to this conundrum lies partly in balance and in understanding that toxicity is a tricky issue and that ridding our lives of all toxins and pollutants is almost impossible. A huge part of the solution is for governments to create better standards and labeling regulations…and to enforce them. Furthermore, as author and green business guru Joel Makower points out, we all need to be as hard on ourselves as we are on the companies we criticize. In his blog, Two Steps Forward, he writes, “While it’s good that we maintain high standards for companies seeking to claim environmental leadership, I can’t help but ponder the hypocrisy of it all: how much more we expect of companies than of ourselves.” So while we’re on the lookout for greenwash, let’s all examine our own lives to be sure we are doing all that we can to address environmental problems…without holding others to a higher standard than we have set for ourselves. Posted: 2000/04/12 2:20 PM Bleached Green – January 15, 2008 Yesterday I received a press release from the Sierra Club announcing a new line of “natural” cleaning products produced by Clorox, the chlorine bleach manufacturer. (Although you’d never know it to hear Clorox executives talk, chlorine is a highly poisonous gas used in wars and a devastatingly toxic pollutant that is implicated in a bunch of nasty environmental problems like depletion of the ozone layer, global warming and acid rain.) Now, I have been wondering if this environmentally unfriendly company was trying to wrap itself in a stylish cloak of green ever since it bought out uber-eco body care manufacturer Burt’s Bees a few months ago. And, sure enough, it’s just come out with a line of “natural cleaning products” called Green Works. But why is Sierra Club – which has, in the past, joined lawsuits seeking to clean up chlorine – telling me about Clorox’s new product line? “The Green Works line will make it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy eco-friendly products,” according to Carl Pope, the Sierra Club’s Executive Director. “The Sierra Club is excited to help influence the buying behavior of millions of Americans [it will be available in Canada too] who want to do the right thing by purchasing safer products. People are out there looking for solutions, and we’re eager to give a giant kick-start to the market for green, affordable household cleaning products.” Up until now, says the Sierra Club, “a big stumbling block for families who want to live a greener lifestyle has been the high cost of ‘green’ products and the fact that they are not always easy to find.” Well, I’ve been cleaning quite effectively with lemon juice, baking soda and vinegar for 35 years and have found them to be neither expensive nor difficult to find. According to Sierra Club/Clorox, Green Works is “99 percent natural and made from ingredients derived from coconuts and lemon oil, and contains no phosphorus or bleach. The products are formulated to be biodegradable, non-allergenic, packaged in bottles that can be recycled [which is no different than any other cleaning product] and not tested on animals.” There is no word as to whether or not Clorox is going to stop animal testing its bleach and other toxic cleaning products, or stop making bleach or remove toxic ingredients from its other products. But to its credit, the company uses the relative term “environmentally-preferable” in addition to the over-used and unregulated “natural” (chlorine is “natural”) and it does list its ingredients (including the one percent non-natural ones) on its labels. I’m happy that one of the major manufacturers is seriously recognizing the growing market for responsible products (sales of natural cleaning products rose by 23 percent between 2006 and 2007, according to SPINS, a market research and consulting firm for the natural products industry).…and I am even willing to consider the possibility that this could be an indication of a permanently raised consciousness on the part of Clorox (although I see no evidence yet). But – aside from Clorox’s other non-green products, its current motives and whether or not Green Works is a quality product – I’m very unhappy that a major environmental organization has compromised its independence and integrity by entering into this branding partnership: In exchange for Sierra Club’s endorsement (name and logo on the label!), Clorox will be providing “support for Sierra Club’s efforts to preserve and protect the environment,” which translates into an undisclosed fee based on sales. Now, Sierra Club has always been pragmatic, encouraging companies that do the right thing, like when they issued a press release in 2005 congratulating Ford for creating a hybrid SUV. But unless they’re setting themselves up as a certification agency with clearly published standards (and I see no evidence of that either), accepting royalties on sales in exchange for their logo on the label is selling out big time in the name of greenwash. As a journalist, I will now be wondering what’s behind every new Sierra Club press release that I receive. Or maybe I should tell them to stop bothering to clog up my in box. Posted: 2000/01/15 11:36 AM Shopping to Save the Planet – November 21, 2007 Shopping is a complicated issue. Some people do it to combat boredom or stress; some people are addicted to it; some people don’t have the money to do it. (I recently read about a woman who took her kids to the local second-hand store every Saturday morning to “shop” – they wander the store, put a bunch of stuff they’d like into a cart, then put it all back because they can’t afford it…) Some people think they can shop to save the planet from global warming. And at least one person thinks that those shoppers are women. Simon Fanshawe, writing in the UK-based magazine Green Futures suggests that male-dominated governments have been destroying the planet for too long, and now women need to clean up the mess. And, since we already control the majority of the shopping decisions, all we need to do is buy the right foods, shoes and handbags. Fanshawe is referencing a serious initiative on the part of two British organizations – the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and the Women’s Environmental Network – which have launched the Women’s Manifesto on Climate Change. And, yes, women may be more inclined than men to initiate and value small, personal and family-based changes, which is an approach I’ve long championed in the pages of Natural Life Magazine. But Fanshawe’s article highlights something I’ve also been saying since the latest wave of environmental concern surfaced awhile back: While ethical consumerism is important, we can’t shop our way out of the problem. Writing in the Guardian newspaper last summer, British writer George Monbiot cynically derided ethical shopping as “just another way of showing how rich you are.” For the record, I may be the only person on the planet who dislikes that highly opinionated man and his best selling book Heat…well, actually I couldn’t stomach his attitude enough to finish reading the darn thing. But I do agree with him on that point. If I receive one more cute little miniature recycling box or one more supposedly biodegradable plastic pen from a PR firm, I’ll have to move out of my house to make room for all the “eco-junk.” That has been defined as the Sixth Sin of Greenwashing in a just released study by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing. They’re the company that administers the EcoLogo marketing program begun in 1988 by the Canadian government. They say that the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils, illustrated as organic cigarettes or a hybrid-yet-inefficient SUV, occurred in one percent of the 1,000 products they tested. Unfortunately, 99 percent of the products were, they say, guilty of greenwashing or stretching the eco-truth. The study and details about the other “sins” can be found on their website. So shopping ethically ain’t easy, folks, even if it might do some good. Fanshawe says that we will probably have to define ourselves less by what we buy, and more by how we behave, to make a real change. So the solution is to buy less stuff, not just substitute green junk for non-green junk. Perhaps the best immediate choice is to celebrate Buy Nothing Day this Friday! Posted: 2007/11/21 2:03 PM Organic Industry Shoots Itself in the Foot – June 22, 2007 There is a huge trend afoot to “eat local” – with individuals computing their “food miles” and embarking on 100-Mile Diet challenges, and, as I wrote in an article for the July/August issue of Natural Life, countries like Sweden and the U.K. creating standards and even labels for climate-friendly foods. For instance the U.K.’s largest organic certification agency, the Soil Association, says it is considering refusing to certify produce that has been imported by air. Not only is locally grown food fresher and tastier, it lowers the environmental impact of transportation, supports small farmers and encourages a sense of community. Not all locally grown food is organic, of course, but in the best of both worlds, it would be. In the same issue of Natural Life, we report on new Nielsen survey results showing that in spite of huge growth in the Canadian organic industry, consumption outpaces production. So then why am I reading in my local media that organic growers across Canada are busy filling out applications for “Canada Organic” certification so their products can be exported to supermarkets in France and Japan? It looks like Europe is outpacing North America on the food front, in the same way they are years ahead of us in terms of reduced packaging, cradle-to-grave stewardship of consumer products and renewable energy production. Posted: 2007/06/22 3:49 PM A World-Changing Legacy – May 27, 2007 Today, I’ve been thinking about Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, the bestselling book credited with launching the modern environment movement – she is sometimes called “the mother of environmentalism.” Today (three days before my birthday) would have been her 100th birthday. Silent Spring was the first book I read on environmental issues, somewhere around 1972 or 73. It warned of the dangers to ecosystems from the overuse of pesticides. When the book was published in 1962, Carson, who was a scientist as well the writer of lyrical prose, was viciously and personally attacked (as not knowing what she was talking about and for being a woman and therefore not a real scientist, among other things) by pesticide manufacturers, including Monsanto. But her words were eventually given a great deal of credence and the book is credited with leading to the ban on DDT. Unfortunately, she is once again being attacked by the conservatives, who are arguing that the banning of DDT led to unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Here’s an interview posted today with her biographer Linda Lear, which addresses that backlash. Ironically, Carson was fighting breast cancer while fighting the critics of her book…and she died on April 14, 1964 at the age of 56 – just one year younger than I am now. Her other books are perhaps not as well known, but are terrific reads: My favorite is The Sea Around Us, which won a National Book Award in 1951. Her science and nature writing was also serialized in magazines. In her book A Sense of Wonder, she wrote: “Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties of the earth are never alone or weary in life…Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.” Posted: 2007/05/27 8:04 PM Not a Movement – May 26, 2007 For over two years now, I have been engaged in a dialogue with Natalie Zur Nedden, a PhD student whose dissertation topic is my life history, focusing on my 30+ years as an advocate for homeschooling within the perspective of progressive social change. To some people, that sounds like an oxymoron; to others, it may be the definition of what has come to be called “radical unschooling.” Many people call this thing that I publicized and kickstarted in Canada in the mid 1970s a “movement.” And I think that has been one of the assumptions of the life history. However, I’ve never been totally comfortable with that word and its connotation. (Sorry, Natalie, to quibble about semantics one more time!) Movements, it seems to me, are headed up by ambitious and outspoken  men, rather than by women who just want to create change. By joining a movement, you identify with a manifesto or other sort of well-defined rhetoric that defines the purpose of that movement. I’ve always resisted and rejected that model of homeschooling (or any other alternative to the mainstream) and have felt awkward claiming to be part of its hierarchy. And today, I read an article that brought my discomfort into focus. It was written by Paul Hawken, a writer and green entrepreneur whose work I’ve admired for many years. (Back in 1995, we published an interview with him in Natural Life magazine.) Writing about what he estimates are hundreds of thousands of groups and individuals around the world fighting climate change, war, poverty and other social problems, Paul describes a phenomenon that is “dispersed, inchoate and fiercely independent.” And, he says, there is no authority to check with (she notes, gleefully.) The organic and collective desire among disparate people to provide a better educational experience for their children fits Hawken’s model. And that model feels good to me because it allows homeschooling (or unschooling, or radical unschooling, or home-based learning, or life learning, or whatever label we give it to facilitate conversation) to fit into what is a massive convergence of citizens who are putting aside constrictive ideologies in the name of creating a better world. And what’s more, says Hawken, “This is the first time in history that a large social movement is not bound together by an ‘ism’.” Yes! I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve rejected being labeled with an “ist” or an “ism”…and Natalie and I have had many a conversation about that as she has tried to understand where I am coming from and where I am going. I prefer to discuss – and identify with other people on the basis of – ideas, processes and goals rather than ideologies. Maybe that sets me apart from some in the homeschooling “movement.” So be it. Hawken ends his article (which, by the way, is an excerpt from a newly published book called Blessed Unrest) by noting that change is rooted in our willingness to re-imagine and reconsider. That’s what life learners are doing in terms of education. And I’m proud to be part of that, however we label it...or not. Posted: 2007/05/26 8:15 PM Green and Growing – February 21, 2007 The fear factor is at work again and I, for one, am very tired of it. So, apparently is British climate change economist Sir Nicholas Stern, who told the media yesterday in Toronto that governments are wrong to argue that combating climate change will create economic hardship. “You can be green and grow,” Stern said. “I do not think it’s a horse race between growth and being responsible on climate change. Good policy can give us both.” In fact, he said, the costs of action to correct global warming are far less than the costs of inaction. But politicians are busy telling us that we can’t make greenhouse gas emission reduction targets without risking economic collapse. Canada’s new Environment Minister John Baird said just two weeks ago that the country “should brace itself for an economic hit when limits are imposed on emissions from industrial polluters.” Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, admitted cutting global greenhouse emissions by 30 percent by 2050 would cost about one percent of the world’s economic output. However, he said, the cost of failing to act could be as much as 20 times higher. Meanwhile, Canada’s emissions continue to rise and are currently about 34 percent higher than the goal. I’m hopeful that the recent rise in public interest in fixing our environmental errors will force governments to get moving. But the auto and oil industries (and their respective unions,) to name just two sources of greenhouse gas emissions, aren’t going to appreciate being forced to redefine themselves. So it will take bold and unwavering action backed up by a strong conviction – not things most politicians are known for. However, I think that we may be reaching a tipping point and that many people are ready to accept much greater change than the politicians give us credit for. So get on the phone to your elected representative today and tell him or her you want them to put away the green paintbrush and start to take real action on climate change. Fast, while there is still a future for our children and grandchildren. Posted: 2007/02/21 3:50 PM It May Not Be Too Late – February 4, 2007 Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has appeared startled by the depth of Canadians’ concern about the environment. He has done a complete turnabout, suddenly painting his relatively new, right wing minority government green in a cynical response to negative reactions to the slashing it had done to environmental programs just months earlier. I am skeptical about the depth of his commitment to the climate change problem, given that his base of power is in the oil country of Alberta. And he’s already muddying up that new green paint by saying emission cuts are unrealistic and emission stabilization is more practical. But what is really astounding is how guys like Harper, his buddy George W. Bush and Tony Blair have underestimated the problem and misread voters’ serious level of concern about the precarious state of our Planet’s health. Perhaps they’re to be excused, since the tipping point has come about in a remarkably short time. I am seeing a huge and sudden increase in the number of people wanting to learn to live sustainably, as demonstrated by the rising sales of subscriptions to Natural Life magazine. Sales of everything organic, energy-efficient and otherwise green are skyrocketing. Corporations are realizing that sustainable business can be profitable. I’m hoping the momentum can be continued, making 2007 the year that citizens, governments and the business sector alike mobilize to save the Planet. Never have the opportunities been greater, but never have the stakes been higher. And for that reason, look for the conservative naysayers – funded by the fossil fuel industries – to rev up their activities. With the release of the UN’s latest climate change report, they have begun creating a cloud of PR pollution, trying to convince voters to convince the bandwagon-jumping politicians that climate change is just part of a normal cycle and isn’t caused by human activity…and therefore the lucrative activities of big commerce shouldn’t be obstructed in its name. Be wary of groups with obfuscating names like Natural Resources Stewardship Project and Friends of Science trying to convince you that you won’t like the economic fall-out from sustainability. Dinosaurs can make a loud noise as they fall. One of the places to monitor the activities of the dinosaurs is DeSmogBlog. Posted: 2007/02/04 12:04 PM No Straw Bales or Birkenstocks Here – November 28, 2006 Just when I thought I’d gained a sense of humor about those irritatingly condescending Birkenstock and burlap comments from the light-greeners (as in, we, the chic 20-somethings, have finally liberated environmental sensibility from the ugly shoes and itchy shirts of our ancestors), I have discovered that this bizarre brand of eco-snobbery is growing rather than shrinking. Here is an example: There’s a magazine out of San Francisco called Dwell. A six-year-old architectural and design magazine that is going increasingly green (but without Birks and sackcloth), it is one of those gorgeous publications chock full of ads for expensive products and artful photos of expensive houses. And there, on page 96 of the current issue, in a piece about a California condo loft project, is this comment: “It’s a testament to how mainstream green living has become that GreenCity doesn’t ‘wear its green on its sleeve,” says Swatt (the architect who says he didn’t have a clue about green building when he began the project). “You won’t find any straw bales here.” Huh? Has straw bale become the new Birkenstock? I’ve never been able to figure out what there was in the early days of the environment movement that causes certain people’s noses to twitch and elevate…unless it was our earnest belief that there was a problem needing to be fixed. Nor do I think it’s productive, now that the problem still hasn’t been fixed, to further separate into snotty factions within a movement whose work has never been more urgent. C’mon folks: If we don’t start serious problem-solving and lifestyle changing, in 2050 it won’t matter whether, in 2006, we sat on a $5,000 haute-design organic faux leather couch with FSC-certified trim or some hand-me-down pine chairs. Meanwhile, feel free to search the Natural Life magazine website for a bunch of straw bale articles…and look for an interview in the January/February issue with a Canadian woman straw bale builder. She seems pretty chic to me, and she’s built some houses that could easily be featured in Dwell and its ilk. I didn’t ask if she wears Birkenstocks. It’s irrelevant. Posted: 2006/11/28 7:05 PM The Clichés Have It Right There are two sayings making the rounds these days: green is the new black and ___ is the new tobacco. Green being the new black means environmental awareness has become hip. Rachel Sanderson wrote in a Reuters news story that a market research firm in the U.K. has found that sales of organic, free range or Fairtrade foods are surging because “Green is the new black in ethical Britain.” Fashion writer Suzy Menkes told her International Herald Tribune readers “Why Green is the New Black.” Why? Well, according to Bono of U2, supporting his wife’s Edun line of clothing, “We have got to find ways of making our activism sexy, and fashion is it.” Apparently the venerable Sierra Club agrees, because its magazine portrayed fashion designer Katharine Hamnett as “making green the new black.” Wouldn’t want to go back to wearing “hairy sacks” said Hamnett. Gee, I must have missed that fad. Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter proclaimed that (guess what?) “Green is the new black” when he introduced the magazine’s green issue last Spring, complete with a star-studded cover by celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz. I’ve seen the phrase used as a headline in the magazines Time and Inc., in the Guardian and Sunday Times newspapers, on many websites and blogs, and in materials published by the UK Environment Agency, the Australian City of Sydney, among many others. Somewhere along the line, that phrase gained the status of a cliché. Then there’s that business about the new tobacco. Unlike the color metaphor, there doesn’t yet seem to be a consensus about what exactly is the new tobacco. Writer Matthew Lynn wrote in Bloomberg News last fall, “There is a very real possibility that aviation is about to become the new tobacco – a product once universally popular that is now socially unacceptable.” Or maybe it’s junk food. In an effort to fight the rise in childhood obesity, five of the largest snack food producers have said they will start providing more nutritious foods to schools. Responding to the move, Dr. Thomas Robinson, associate professor of pediatrics at the Stanford School of Medicine, likened the problem as “similar to what happened to tobacco over the last several decades.” Along the same lines, the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has warned that “fat is the new tobacco.” A British shareholder activist group argues that “oil is the new tobacco”. Oil companies could find themselves facing large legal suits – similar to those launched against tobacco firms - if they ignore the potential consequences of global warming. Meanwhile, an Australian blogger feels that cell phones could be “the new tobacco.” Then there’s Printing World magazine, which asked “Is offset litho the new tobacco?” (It had something to do with environmental regulations that apparently weren’t being met.) Aside from an obvious need for creative headline writers and as irritating as clichés are, they herald some strong steps in the right direction. Public opinion polls show that the health and the environment are at the top of people’s list of priorities right now. And although I don’t think this concern involves merely having the right to buy eco bubble bath, I do believe it means that most of us – while we want our governments to stop embarrassing us and get serious about the environment – are willing to make fundamental changes in our lives in order to ensure a future for our children. If it takes clichés to make people trade in their Hummers, eat locally and organically, stop smoking and begin to question how their children are being educated, I’m all for them. Posted: 2006/11/27 5:36 PM Buying While the World Melts – November 22, 2006 A new review of hundreds of research studies has just concluded that animal and plant species have begun dying off or changing sooner than predicted because of global warming. These changes have come as a surprise even to biologists and ecologists because they are occurring so rapidly. The fact that species are going extinct quickly should be a wake-up call. Global warming is happening now; it’s not a prediction for the future. One scientist, Douglas Futuyma, professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York in Stony Brook, told the media, “I feel as though we are staring crisis in the face. It's not just down the road somewhere. It is just hurtling toward us. Anyone who is 10 years old right now is going to be facing a very different and frightening world by the time that they are 50 or 60.” Whew. I’ve never been a hand-wringer, but I find that pretty alarming. You’d think this report would galvanize people to action. But what’s coming across my desk these days? The Ideal Bite is advertising its Green Gift Guide, where these self-appointed “trusted advice-givers” and introducers of “light green living” share their personal recommendations about green bath and body products, eco gadgets, eco fashion and online movie rentals. The Vancouver-based GLOBE Foundation announces its EPIC sustainability expo, which “isn’t about being ultra-environmental, it isn’t about abandoning your car, eating only food grown in your backyard, or leading a life you wouldn’t want only because its better for the environment.” (The press release also claimed it was the first ever sustainability expo, which, of course, is a stupid comment because there have been hundreds in the past…including some that my company Life Media produced a decade ago…) Oh and Greenlight, a new “digital magazine,” is touting a “moveable and sexy fireplace.” Also in my in-box is a public opinion poll that has announced that the environment is the second most important issue for Canadians. I don’t think their concern involves having the right to buy eco bubble bath. I believe it means that most of us – while we want our governments to stop embarrassing us and get serious on this issue – are willing to make fundamental changes in our lives in order to insure a future for our children. Sorry, GLOBE Foundation, I’m hoping that by the time your event happens next Spring you’re even more out of tune with everyday people than you are today. There are serious changes to make. Before it’s too late. Posted: 2006/11/22 2:15 PM Scary Stuff – October 31, 2006 Global warming is getting more serious by the week and, finally, some countries are paying attention to the threat – possibly because they are beginning to understand it will hurt them economically. According to a recent report from Britain, unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression. Report author Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, said that acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of global GDP each year. Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would eventually cost the world between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman, will advise the British government on climate change. The government is reportedly considering new “green taxes” on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles and intends to become a world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in Bonn, Germany, the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just released new data showing an upward trend in emissions of industrialized countries in the period 2000–2004. This is not new information, but the report ‘Greenhouse Gas Data, 2006’ constitutes the first complete set of data submitted by all 41 industrialized Parties of the Convention to the Bonn-based secretariat. According to the secretariat, in the period 1990–2004, the overall emissions of industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 per cent. However, this was mostly due to a 36.8 per cent decrease in emissions on the part of economies in transition of eastern and central Europe. Within the same time-period, the greenhouse gas emissions of the other industrialized Parties of the Convention grew by 11.0 per cent. The UN’s chief climate change official pointed out that despite the emission growth in some countries in the period 2000-2004, Parties of the Kyoto Protocol stand a good chance of meeting their individual emissions reduction commitments if they speedily apply the additional domestic mitigation measures they are planning and use the Kyoto Protocol’s market-based flexibility mechanisms. Trouble is, both the U.S. and Canada have turned their backs on Kyoto. For instance, Canada’s proposed Clean Air Act will wait until 2050 to cut emissions by 45 to 65 percent. For further information on climate change and what is being done about it, visit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website. Posted: 2006/10/31 2:10 PM Buying Our (Hip) Way to Salvation? – May 13, 2006 I don’t know about you, but I’m up to here with solicitations from light green websites and ezines that know that I would just love to “do the right thing” for myself and the planet…that is, if it were convenient, fun, inexpensive and made me feel good. And that if I subscribe (so their advertisers can count eyeballs focused on their ads), they will be the first and the best and the only to help me in my quest to buy my way to saving the planet from environmental degradation. So what’s with this apparent need to make eco-consciousness hip? Is there a new generation of people who won’t do the right thing if it’s not easy? And what does “hip” mean anyway? Does it mean having not to exert oneself, change one’s lifestyle an iota, endanger one’s manicured (“naturally”, of course) fingernails by stirring a pile of smelly compost or – horrors – sweat by disembarking from one’s hybrid SUV and actually walking to the grocery store, cloth bag in hand? Obviously, it doesn’t involve wearing “Birkenstocks or burlap” as one of these self-styled eco-hustlers told me recently. Or eating granola. Who knew? Now, I’m all for creating a sustainable economy. Matter of fact, I’ve been running a business for 30 years now that helps do just that. (Why do new converts so often think they’ve invented whatever they’ve just converted to?) But this apparently “growing market of light green consumers” better wake up and smell the organic, free-trade coffee. Call me old, square or cynical, but I don't think buying our way to salvation will work, in spite of the oh so earnest laziness of this new genre. But I guess some of them will be laughing their way to the bank as Rome burns. Posted: 2006/05/13 7:05 PM On Being Effective – February 1, 2006 In both magazines that I edit – Natural Life and Life Learning – the focus is on positive ways to do things differently. And generally, we receive a lot of praise from readers about how refreshing and useful that approach is. But recently, a Natural Life reader sent me a letter criticizing our “Pollyanna approach” and then switched metaphors to accuse us of “fiddling while Rome burns” because we seldom publish articles describing the environmental disasters that are occurring around the world. I responded that it takes only a bit of exposure to the mainstream media to develop an awareness of the fact that many aspects of society, including the environment and the public education system, have big problems. The time has long passed when, instead of wringing our hands and launching another academic study about the problems, we should focus on creating and demonstrating solutions. In his EcoLetter, author Guy Dauncey quotes from an interview with Amory Lovins, co-founder of The Rocky Mountain Institute where he said, “When I give talks about energy, the audience already knows about the problems. So I don't talk about problems, only solutions. But after a while, during the question period, someone in the back will get up and give a long riff about all the bad things that are happening – most of which are basically true. There’s only one way I've found to deal with that. After this person calms down, I gently ask whether feeling that way makes him more effective.” Posted: 2006/02/01 12:40 PM Unnatural Disaster – September 5, 2005 Like most people, I’ve been watching events around the U.S. Gulf Coast unfold with horror. There is so much wrong with this picture, which provides, to my mind, overwhelming evidence of poor political, social and economic decisions – not just in the United States but around the world. A number of commentators (although not many in the mainstream media, who mostly seem content to share the results of the epidemic of photo ops that has broken out) have been making the connection between our alteration of the natural world – and increasing fossil fuel consumption – and the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. According to many scientists, the early results of global warming may have exacerbated the destructive power of Katrina. Unfortunately, watching the U.S. administration’s casual handling of the human and physical damage does not reassure me that it understands that the world’s richest and most powerful country needs to respect natural systems. If the escalating human cost doesn’t convince the powers-that-be (and I do not intend to even get started on a rant about the cavalier treatment of New Orleans’ poor and black residents), perhaps the economic toll will. Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin has pointed out that indiscriminate economic development and ecologically destructive policies have left many communities more vulnerable to disasters than they realize. “This,“ he says “together with rapid population growth in vulnerable areas, has contributed to worldwide economic losses from weather-related catastrophes totaling $567 billion over the last 10 years, exceeding the combined losses from 1950 through 1989. Losses in 2004 exceeded $100 billion for the second time ever, and a new record will almost certainly be set this year once Katrina’s damages are totaled.” But it is hard to be optimistic. As author Ross Gelbspan wrote in the New York Times last week, “Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina [Global Warming] because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.” And, he points out, the reason is simple. “To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.” Maybe that’s why the mainstream media is so quiet on that score: they rake in a lot of money from advertisers in that industry. At any rate, something has to stop the short-term thinking that has allowed the government to divert funding from infrastructure repair and disaster preparedness to help finance the Iraq War. The Americans aren’t alone in this; failure to protect ecosystems contributed to the massive loss of life when the tsunamis swept across the Indian Ocean last year and when Hurricane Mitch killed 10,000 people in Central America in 1998. When will we learn? And when will we begin to invest meaningfully in alternative energy options that would both address the climate change issue and leave us less reliant on fossil fuels? If not now, when? Write your local politicians and ask that question. And keep writing. Posted: 2005/09/05 9:50 PM School is Poison – August 1, 2005 Here is another reason for kids to learn without schooling. Last week, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association that students and school employees are being poisoned by pesticide use at schools and by drift from neighboring farmlands. The study, Acute Illnesses Associated With Pesticide Exposure at Schools, which analyzed 2593 poisonings from 1998 to 2002, found incident rates overall of 7.4 cases per million children and 27.3 cases per million employees. The authors conclude that the results “should be considered low estimates of the magnitude of the problem because many cases of pesticide poisoning are likely not reported to surveillance systems or poisoning control centers.” Insecticides caused 35 percent of the illnesses, while disinfectants containing antimicrobial properties caused 32 percent. Thirteen percent of the illnesses were associated with repellants, and 11 percent with herbicides. The remaining nine percent were attributed to other causes, such as rodenticides or fungicides. Children are more susceptible to pesticide exposure because they breathe more air pound for pound than adults, they play on the floor and they live closer to the floor, where pesticides linger, than adults do. The study found that the incidence rates among children increased significantly from 1998 to 2002. While the study looked at acute, or short-term, effects, the study authors note that, “Repeated pesticide applications on school grounds raise concerns about persistent low level exposures to pesticides at schools.” Continuing, the authors state, “The chronic long-term impacts of pesticide exposures have not been comprehensively evaluated; therefore, the potential for chronic health effects from pesticide exposures at schools should not be dismissed. Unfortunately, the surveillance methods used in our report are inadequate for assessing chronic effects.” In addition, the authors note that pesticides on school grounds can be tracked inside school buildings. The researchers advise schools to use integrated pest management techniques and try to reduce or eliminate pesticide drift from nearby farms, to reduce the amount of pesticide-related illnesses. The public health advocacy organization Beyond Pesticides called on Congress to respond by passing the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA). On the other hand, the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) issued a press release suggesting that West Nile Virus is a bigger problem than pesticide use., and saying that “the public must be careful not to fall for the hype” of “anti-chemical activists”. “For decades, environmentalists have been trying to scare the public about pesticides, when in fact pesticides pose little risk when used properly and are a critical part of controlling disease outbreaks and pest-related risks at schools,” said Angela Logomasini, CEI’s Director of Risk and Environmental Policy. The CEI declares itself as dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. But it clearly puts corporate rights far ahead of those of children. Posted: 2005/08/01 2:40 PM Creating Social Epidemics - May 28, 2005 In his best-selling book The Tipping Point, journalist Malcolm Gladwell explains why social change often happens quickly and unexpectedly, rather than slowly and incrementally as conventional wisdom would have it. He believes that ideas and behavior sometimes behave just like outbreaks of infectious disease and can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is. In fact, the phrase “tipping point” comes from the world of epidemiology. It’s the name given to that moment in an epidemic when a virus reaches critical mass and starts spreading very quickly through a population. I’m beginning to think we have reached or are approaching the tipping point for many of the ideas I have written about since 1976. Yesterday on my morning walk, I encountered a group of self-described “unschoolers” taking in a children’s festival. On a visit this morning to my local farmers’ market, I noted that almost all the vendors were advertising something “organic”. On the twelve-block walk home, a Starbucks I passed had a display promoting shade-grown, organic, Fair Trade coffee. On the newsstand next door, a glossy city magazine boasted a hefty environmental feature, which was printed on post-consumer recycled paper. And I counted eight hybrid cars, a biodiesel bus and two gas-saving three-cylinder Smart cars. Dan Becker, Washington Director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming Program recently said he believes that the auto industry is nearing the tipping point on clean cars. Canada and the state of Washington both recently adopted stringent clean car rules (sometimes called “The California Standard”), and the state of Oregon announced it would follow that lead. That will result in over 35 percent of new cars sold in the U.S. and Canada having to meet tailpipe pollution standards that are stronger that U.S. Clean Air Act. And that, says Becker, will tip the auto industry to make all of cars clean vehicles. “The automakers will find it financially impossible to make one clean set of cars for ten states and Canada, and a dirty set for the rest,” he noted. North American auto makers are losing market share to companies like Toyota and Honda, which have a huge lead in alternative fuel technologies, so the new laws could force the Big Three to abandon their gas guzzling ways. That’s how the tipping point works. Gladwell describes such changes as “social epidemics”. Epidemics begin with just a little input, but spread very quickly once they take hold. By embracing new ideas in our everyday lives, each one of us is contributing to reaching the tipping point for a thousand “positive” epidemics. Posted: 2005/05/28 3:55 PM Doom-Mongering or Wake-Up Call? – March 31, 2005 A new United Nations report says we are using up our natural resources too fast and are in danger of destroying about two-thirds of the Earth’s ecosystems. It hasn’t taken long for the right wing think thanks, in their typical knee-jerk reaction fashion, to churn out press releases likening the UN to Chicken Little. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released yesterday, warns that 15 of 24 global ecosystems are in decline and that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow much worse in the next 50 years. Hardly a lightweight assessment, the 2,500-page UN report is a synthesis of the work of about 1,300 researchers from 95 countries. It is being hailed as the most comprehensive survey ever into the natural systems that sustain life on Earth. UN Undersecretary Hans van Ginkel says the assessment reveals a consensus among the world’s social and natural scientists. Dr. Walter Reid, one of the report’s authors told reporters yesterday, “Clearly, the dual trends of continuing degradation of most ecosystem services and continuing growth in demand for these same services cannot continue...The assessment shows that over the next 50 years, the risk is not of some global environmental collapse, but rather a risk of many local and regional collapses in particular ecosystem services. We already see those collapses occurring – fisheries stocks collapsing, dead zones in the sea, land degradation undermining crop production, species extinctions.” Nevertheless, the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute – which describes itself as being “dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government” – calls the report “Malthusian alarmism”. Claims CEI Senior Fellow Iain Murray in a written statement, “They’re at it again. This is simply the latest in a series of doom-mongering underestimates of resources coupled with a stubborn refusal to recognize the role of human ingenuity in solving such problems. The public has grown tired of these Malthusian malcontents constantly crying wolf, which is probably why the public no longer ranks the environment in the top ten issues it is concerned about.” CEI founder Fred L. Smith, Jr. once worked as a policy analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, so he should know better. Or maybe that’s why he doesn’t. As the report clearly laid out, ignoring those warning signs because they might harm the economy won’t make them go away…but it will surely damage the very economy the CEI so worries about. Posted: 2005/03/31 12:04 PM Suburban Angst – March 13, 2005 I’ve just screened a video entitled The End of Suburbia, for an article I’m working on for the May/June issue of Natural Life. It poses some serious questions about the viability of what has, for the past 50 years or so, been seen as a promise of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. The film argues that suburbia may be doomed due to the decline of fossil fuels and the escalating cost of transportation. It also suggests that today’s suburbs are destined to become the slums of tomorrow unless we take action now. Unfortunately, the daily news seems to present more negative than positive action. Our provincial government has adopted a greenbelt plan in an attempt to promote better land use, but the development industry is working hard to overturn the initiative, trying to persuade us that sprawl is good, that commuting is fun and that global warming isn’t happening. Even farmers’ groups are upset because they won’t be able to sell off their land for development when they retire! In a neighborhood on the edge of the city, the fire department recently called off a meeting when more than 1,000 people tried to cram into a room with a capacity of 450. The purpose of this meeting? To protest the expansion of a commuter rail line. Even though the threat of major lifestyle change turns many people into ostriches, it is becoming harder and harder to escape the news about the problems with suburban living. Research worldwide is showing that fleeing to the edge of the city is not as good for one’s health as originally thought, due to the lack of exercise created by the sprawling design of suburbs, the stress of commuting on jammed highways, and the air pollution created by those commuters. A major shift is underway, notwithstanding the number of heads in the sand. In North American cities like mine (and yes, we just moved here from the country three years ago), downtown condo and infill residential construction is booming. Planners are changing their minds about density ratios, which are still much lower here than in Europe and Asia. For those who don’t want to move back downtown, there is a phenomenon called The New Urbanism. This is the idea that suburbs can be built (or retrofitted) as walkable, compact, complete mixed-use communities, which include housing, workplaces, shops, entertainment, schools, etc., all within easy walking distance of each other. These initiatives and many more need to be encouraged. As author and commentator on the suburban fiasco James Howard Kunstler says in The End of Suburbia, “We’re literally stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up.” So no matter how loud suburbanites cry about the bill of goods they’ve been sold, we’d better all do something about it fast. Posted: 2005/03/13 1:02 PM Learning in Nature – February 16, 2005 I’m reading an advance proof of a book slated entitled Last Child in the Woods – Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder. The author is journalist Richard Louv and the book  is scheduled for May publication by Algonquin Books. While I dislike the idea of labeling kids as having “disorders”, Louv uses the term as an apt description for a worrisome phenomenon. His premise is that for the first time in history, our children’s direct experience in Nature is disappearing – with disastrous results for the future of our children and the future of our planet. I will likely choose a piece from it for excerption in Natural Life magazine. But for now, it has reminded me of my own early direct experience in Nature, in a tiny corner of the inner city neighborhood where I grew up. There was a piece at the back of our backyard that was bordered on one side by the green wooden wall of a ramshackle garage and on the opposite side and back by a high (or so it seemed to me at the time) unpainted wooden fence. Dense foliage from a big, old elm tree located just beyond the fence in the neighbor’s yard created a summertime roof. It also meant that the corner was dark and a bit damp, making it useless for growing grass, roses or petunias, which constituted my parents’ definition of gardening. So they dumped grass and hedge clippings there, along with end-of-season annuals, dead roses and petunias. There were also a couple of fairly large rocks. Going there was forbidden due to mosquitoes, thorns and lots of other potential dangers...and some imagined ones too. When I was young, I obeyed the rule. I am not sure whether the hype convinced me of the danger or I just hadn’t learned to question authority. But I remember standing on the grass looking longingly – or perhaps just curiously – into its shady depths and inhaling the dank smell of composting greenery. I also remember the day when I ventured in and sat down on one of the rocks. It felt wonderful. That feeling was, I suppose, a combination of rebellious adrenaline and enjoyment of the space. It seemed protected and cozy, yet retained a hint of danger due to its “wildness” and forbidden status. Having crossed the barrier, I subsequently went there often on hot summer days, taking a book and my day dreams. Sometimes my feelings of anger or frustration also accompanied me, to be left buried under the decaying grass. It was a deliciously private place, and a healing one too. Eventually, as I got too big to sit comfortably on the rock, I dragged a lawn chair there. But I never felt that the chair belonged; it was too much civilization in my wilderness. My mother must have noticed the chair but, oddly, I don’t recall if she put an end to my visits or not. Perhaps I outgrew that private place, replacing solitude with boys and broader horizons. But as my first taste of Nature amid asphalt and stucco, it was the beginning of a life-long reverence for that which is wild, green and living...and of an understanding of the healing powers of Nature. Posted: 2005/02/16 11:57 AM Finding Nature – September 28, 2004 Every morning I take a long walk before settling in at the computer. We live at the edge of a large city, right along the waterfront. I could walk on sidewalks between office towers and beside not-yet-opened storefronts. And some days I do that, in search of a jolt of urban energy (and perhaps a latte from one of the numerous cafés). But, more often than not, I choose to walk a path by the water, which changes from boardwalk to wharf, to marina edge and grassy garden, then back to boardwalk. There is something about the water that calms and centers me, no matter how busy the day ahead promises to be. And I cherish the early morning smells and sounds as I wind my way through the spectacular little jewel of a garden that’s just down the street. This morning, I returned to my tiny office to find an email from a friend quoting Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring. Carson perfectly captured the benefits of spending time in nature – even if you find it between the cracks of a city sidewalk: “Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. There is a symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of the birds, the ebb and flow of the tides, the folded bud ready for the spring. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature – the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after the winter. The lasting pleasures of contact with the natural world...are available to anyone who will place himself under the influence of earth, sea and sky and their amazing life.” Posted: 2004/09/28 10:30 AM The Safe Herbicide That Isn’t – August 28, 2004 The Nova Scotia government is planning to aerial spray the controversial Monsanto herbicide Vision on Crown land in late September. The Atlantic Canada chapter of the Sierra Club wants to stop the spraying and has organized an email protest. Three years ago, protesters stopped the same spraying by camping out on the area to be sprayed. Glyphosate, the active ingredient of Vision (and of Monsanto’s agricultural herbicide Roundup, to which its equally controversial genetically engineered seeds are immune) is used to control grass, brush and other unwanted vegetation like hardwood trees in clear-cut forests or, as Monsanto puts it, on “areas where foresters wish to protect their regeneration investment”. Monsanto claims that the risk to humans is extremely small, noting in a technical bulletin that “a review...by Health Canada found no evidence that glyphosate caused mutations, birth defects or cancer.” It also claims that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified glyphosate as non-carcinogenic, a conclusion that has been endorsed by the World Health Organization. However, there is evidence that contradicts those opinions. And, in fact, in 1997 Monsanto was sued by the New York State Attorney General for misrepresenting Roundup’s toxicity through advertising. The most recent data (1998) from California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation found that glyphosate ranks first among herbicides as the highest cause of pesticide-induced illness or injury to people in California. Symptoms of exposure chronicled by the group Beyond Pesticides include swollen eyes, face and joints; facial numbness; burning skin; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains; congestion and coughing; headache; and nausea. Worse, a 1999 study by two Swedish oncologists at Orebro Hospital published in the Journal of the American Cancer Society links exposure to glyphosate with increased (three times greater) risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Professor Lennart Hardell says his group has conducted two studies, and the difference between them and other studies that have found no or less risk is that for the first time his group looked at herbicides and cancer in real life rather than the laboratory. Recent American research has also found that glyphosate negatively affects a variety of non-human creatures, including earthworms, insects and fish, and that it persists in soil and wetlands for up to three years. That is quite a litany of problems, I’d say, for a substance that, according to the EPA, is the seventh most used active ingredient in agriculture and that is widely thought to be harmless...a myth that Monsanto appears to have fought hard to spread. Posted: 2004/08/28 3:13 PM A Weed by Any Other Name – August 2, 2004 When a colleague saw that we were featuring an article in the fall issue of Natural Life magazine about growing Goldenrod, she hit the roof. “Why, for heaven’s sake?” she sputtered. “It’s a weed, not a garden plant! Besides, it causes hay fever....” Well, yes and no, I responded, and no. One of the things that I learned editing the article is that insect-pollinated goldenrod is not the sneeze creator that many people assume it to be; wind-pollinated ragweed is the culprit, and it blooms at the same time as goldenrod. And, I continued, what is a weed anyway? And is that label on a plant enough to justify us shunning it? Philosopher and author Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that a weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered. Perhaps, as some have suggested, defining a plant as a weed is an act of cultural valuation, a judgment of what the definer (often a gardener) deems to be a useless and destructive presence, by comparison to others that are approved of as desirable, productive and valuable. Under this definition, a weed becomes “anything growing where it isn’t wanted”. But that would include many wildflowers like chicory and herbs – not to mention goldenrod – which are otherwise valued. “Wildflowers,” wrote one apparently anonymous gardener, “are weeds with a press agent.” So how many wildflowers did you dig out of your garden this summer?! Given that my gardening is currently done in a few weedless pots in my sunny kitchen window, I decided to poll friends and relatives about their relationship with weeds. From those discussions, I began to think that “weed problems” are really “people problems”, resulting from poor management and a lack of imagination. Until one woman put it this way: “Weeds,” she said, “take valuable space, water, sunlight and nutrients that may otherwise be accessible to important food crops. And some noxious weeds compromise the biodiversity of ecosystems.” In my more active gardening days, I’d always assumed that “noxious” weeds were just ones that some people hated more than others and tried to ignore those I couldn’t conquer. But what my friend was talking about are those truly invasive plants – often introduced by humans from other areas, either purposely because they are pretty or inadvertently – that can dominate and often cause permanent damage to natural plant communities. Goldenrod doesn’t, as far as I can see, fit that description, although some types can become too much of a good thing. But here’s a thought – if weeds have survived the disapproval and eradication attempts of humans for generations, maybe we have something to learn from them! Posted: 2004/08/02 10:38 AM