Claudia, of Dragonfly Dreaming, sent me a link to The Story of Stuff, a riveting, 20-minute video that illustrates the chain of production/consumption and its worldwide impact. I learned from the video that 99% of the materials North Americans consume is discarded within six months…

That just won’t do.

I’ve touched on consumption several times before in this blog (here, for example). It’s an issue that haunts me more and more. Over the years, I’ve become increasingly conscious of just how unconsciously people buy stuff. Americans are the worst, as we all know. You have to have some pity on them, though; they were manipulated into becoming the consuming machines they are today. But they, and citizens of other wealthy nations need to wake up now. There’s no excuse for continuing their mindless consumption.

As they say in all of those 12-step programs, the first step is acknowledging that you have a problem. I’ve developed a simple two-step program for those with a stuff habit:

1. Acknowledge that you have been brainwashed into thinking you need all that stuff and that your consumption contributes to the planet’s destruction.
2. Get a hold of yourself.

Some people are becoming aware that need and want aren’t synonyms. Adbusters ran the Buy Nothing Day campaign in November of 2007. It’s a nice idea, but it probably served about as much purpose and got about as much attention as those worldwide “turn off your lights for 10 minutes” things. The powers that be basically say “Yeah, whatever.”

However, the Buy Nothing Day campaign inspired some very serious people to pledge to buy nothing that was not an absolute necessity for a whole year.

I’m a serious person too. My birthday was this month, and I’ve decided that I’m not going to buy a single new personal article until my next birthday unless it’s an absolute necessity. Just to be clear, I will have no problem buying used things. And I confess that at some point this year I’ll be getting a desk. For nearly two years, I’ve been working on a tiny café table that somebody left on the sidewalk. I need a little more space; the table’s barely bigger than my laptop and I keep banging my knees on the bar in the middle.

It won’t be hard for me to eschew shopping. Last year I bought a purse. I didn’t need it. I just coveted it and indulged myself. I got a few articles of clothing, more than half of them at thrift stores.

Maybe you’re thinking that it’s a good thing not everybody’s some kind of commie wack job who won’t shop because otherwise the economy would never grow… There you’ve been brainwashed again, I’m afraid. We’re at a place, in our world, where we need balance, not growth.

I admire the way Claudia is raising her daughter. In her post Wisdom in a child’s eyes, she talks about the monthly thrift store treasure hunts she goes on with her little girl. On these outings, they only allow themselves to come home with one thing:

Sometimes no matter how hard we look, there is nothing there, nothing meant to come home with us. Sometimes, we find more than one thing and we have to leave the store, take a walk, talk about the choices and come back, retrieving our prize, cherishing it even more, because it won out over all the other ‘treasures’.

Imagine how much more slowly our landfills would fill, how much longer our forests would last, how much more people would cherish the things they do have if everybody took a walk away from the cash register before deciding to walk towards it…

Claudia, of Dragonfly Dreaming, sent me a link to The Story of Stuff, a riveting, 20-minute video that illustrates the chain of production/consumption and its worldwide impact. I learned from the video that 99% of the materials North Americans consume is discarded within six months... That just won't do. I've touched on consumption several times before in this blog (here, for example). It's an issue that haunts me more and more. Over the years, I've become increasingly conscious of just how unconsciously people buy stuff. Americans are the worst, as we all know. You have to have some pity on them, though; they were manipulated into becoming the consuming machines they are today. But they, and citizens of other wealthy nations need to wake up now. There's no excuse for continuing their mindless consumption. As they say in all of those 12-step programs, the first step is acknowledging that you have a problem. I've developed a simple two-step program for those with a stuff habit: Acknowledge tha

Does it occur to you that there is any one article in which we can retrench?*

Retrenchment is what aristocrats did when they could no longer afford their decadent lifestyles, when they couldn’t squeeze another drop out of their tenants, when it was looking like the creditors would be coming for the heirloom silver. They’d rent out the mansion, complete with servants and coaches, and retreat with the family and minimal staff to the little country place, where they would take apart their old dresses and remake them with new patterns, adding a new ribbon or two here and there.

Austerity measures. That’s what we call it today. Governments, companies, and heads of households impose them all the time. The move is always motivated by money, because that’s where it hurts.

The problem is, the entire industrialized world is living way too large and it needs to retrench now—right now—not to save money, but to save the planet.

But nobody’s hurting enough yet to go austere.

From what I can tell, the “one article in which” Americans have decided they can retrench appears to be light bulbs. They are heavily into the light bulb thing. Light bulbs are the answer. Changing light bulbs is something they can grasp, something that doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort. There are those lists all over the Internet of the “10 things you can do for the environment right now” variety, and light bulbs are on every one of them. So Americans drive a block to the Home Depot in their SUVs to pick up energy-saving light bulbs so they can feel better about themselves.

I was discussing the environment with a friend of mine the other day, and he made this comment:

…there is a big push here to get people to use CFL bulbs instead of their “old-fashioned” incandescent bulbs, because they last longer and ultimately use less energy to provide the same light. This is all well and good, and I support efforts to save energy and money. However, each CFL contains a tiny amount of mercury, and requires recycling and special handling if broken. No one mentions this in the trumpeting and advertising–and if one looks at the CFL packaging, the only message about recycling is a small notice on the bottom where few will see it. People are going to be tossing CFLs into the trash anyway, but fewer would if they knew about the need for recycling. So, trading conservation of some energy for the strong probability of water supplies even more mercury-tainted than they are now doesn’t strike me as being very conscious or environmentally helpful…

He’s right. There’s nothing at all conscious about environmentalism in America. Americans want to be told what to do, so they let themselves be sold on light bulbs and put it out of their minds. Sheep are obedient. Sheep don’t read the fine print. Sheep don’t ask questions. Sheep are stupid. And the government is thrilled, of course, and grateful that the corporations can direct the masses with their dazzling sleight of hand because it spares them from having to take responsibility and it keeps the people from noticing that their government is doing nothing (at best).

How many Americans have spontaneously strung clotheslines in their back yards to avoid using the dryer? (There is nothing more delicious than the smell of bed linens that have dried outdoors on a line.) How many have traded in their Monster Trucks, even if it meant taking a financial loss? How many have started looking at where their produce comes from, passing on the kiwis to buy the food that leaves the smallest carbon footprint? How many have actually moved into a smaller place? How many have really, truly, scrutinized every aspect of their lives to try to find meaningful ways to curb their consumption? How many have spent any time trying to think of ways not only to change their own behavior but the behavior of all of society???

I don’t even want to know, because I’m certain the number of people doing things like this is too small to make a difference. Radical change, or even just thinking about it, would require way too much effort in America. Americans only put forth effort when there is a visible benefit, and that culture is too myopic and self-centered to see the benefit of retrenching for the sake of the planet. Americans, who produce the most pollution per capita on earth, have a moral obligation to do so, but you and I both know it won’t happen till they’re hurting. And by then it’ll be too late.

I’m generalizing, of course. I think of these things, so I know others do. But considering that only 1,000 people participated in the largest demonstration about climate change in the US I feel comfortable making that generalization.

You have to look past light bulbs. You have to look more closely at yourself and, at the same time, think much bigger. For example, one of the most obvious approaches to the problem of carbon emissions is one that has been utterly and totally ignored in any serious discussion of ways to address the issue. True, it would constitute a major shift in the way we function as a society. But it will happen of necessity, so you might as well start thinking about it now.

That option is telecommuting, plain and simple. There is no reason on gawd’s green (for the moment) earth why every white-collar worker in the world should not be doing this already. I’ll be talking about this in greater detail soon on Vincent’s new blog télétravail 2.0, which focuses on the practical aspects and benefits, environmental and otherwise, of working from home.

For now, my advice is to focus on becoming enlightened rather than on replacing your bulbs.

*Jane Austen, Persuasion

Does it occur to you that there is any one article in which we can retrench?* Retrenchment is what aristocrats did when they could no longer afford their decadent lifestyles, when they couldn't squeeze another drop out of their tenants, when it was looking like the creditors would be coming for the heirloom silver. They'd rent out the mansion, complete with servants and coaches, and retreat with the family and minimal staff to the little country place, where they would take apart their old dresses and remake them with new patterns, adding a new ribbon or two here and there. Austerity measures. That's what we call it today. Governments, companies, and heads of households impose them all the time. The move is always motivated by money, because that's where it hurts. The problem is, the entire industrialized world is living way too large and it needs to retrench now—right now—not to save money, but to save the planet. But nobody's hurting enough yet to go austere. From what I can tell, the

How many scientists, engineers, dollars, and hours of research do you think it would take to invent a soda that chills itself when you pop the top off?

I don’t know either. But whatever it took, Coke did it:

Drinks giant Coca-Cola has invented a bottle that chills on the inside when the top is twisted off.

Insiders have hinted that the technology will feature in a new drink called Sprite Super Chilled, which could reach the UK by next year.

The bottles do away with the need to add ice, which dilutes the liquid – but they must be put in a special vending machine to regulate temperature.

Bosses at the US firm hope to cash in on the “super chilled” drinks trend.

Coke and Diet Coke could be packaged in the new bottles if they prove to be successful. (Source)

There is something verrry wrong with this picture. There should be scientists, engineers, dollars, and hours of research devoted to cooling things down quickly.

But who decided it should be sodas?

Why, the Almighty Dollar, of course, assisted by his minion, Corporate Greed, and enabled by his slave, Joe Consumer.

Did you know it takes nine liters of water to make a liter of Coke? Stop the madness.

  How many scientists, engineers, dollars, and hours of research do you think it would take to invent a soda that chills itself when you pop the top off? I don't know either. But whatever it took, Coke did it: Drinks giant Coca-Cola has invented a bottle that chills on the inside when the top is twisted off. Insiders have hinted that the technology will feature in a new drink called Sprite Super Chilled, which could reach the UK by next year. The bottles do away with the need to add ice, which dilutes the liquid - but they must be put in a special vending machine to regulate temperature. Bosses at the US firm hope to cash in on the "super chilled" drinks trend. Coke and Diet Coke could be packaged in the new bottles if they prove to be successful. (Source) There is something verrry wrong with this picture. There should be scientists, engineers, dollars, and hours of research devoted to cooling things down quickly. But who decided it should be sodas? Why, the Almighty Dollar, of course