Us or Them: Spinning Environmental Cuts

(frogworld.net)

In an April 15th New York Times article on proposed cuts to environmental regulation in Maine and Florida, the governor of Maine is quoted as saying, "Maine's working families and small businesses are endangered. It is time to we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx." His words made me really angry, and I also worried that his message would be persuasive. It's clear that he spent some time crafting his misleading message to suggest that we have to choose: animals or people. He is not only equating jobless people to endangered species, but he is suggesting that protecting animals has a direct negative impact on humans.

There are so many ways in which the statement is illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with pointing out that the proposed cuts would be to opening up parts of the North Woods to development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals found in children's products (according to the NY Times). So when he says protect tree frogs, he means tree frogs, trees, many other animals, and children from toxic chemicals, to name a few. Does he mean that we should protect the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine above children's health and exposure to toxic chemicals? Also, he seems to be implying that we protect tree frogs and lynx with a lot of vigor, and that we never protect the interest of businesses or investment. Right. I think its also ironic that he states that working families and businesses are endangered. Actually, he's right- just not in the way he means. All of our jobs and businesses that depend on finite natural resources absolutely are endangered. And as scary as it is to think, we as a species are endangered. Even if his statement were true, and we were only choosing between tree frogs and jobs, I wonder if I would even agree with it then? Should we protect jobs with the same vigor as protecting the lives of other animals? Do we have to have jobs that destroy other creatures? I would protect a human life with much more vigor than a tree frog's life, but I don't know that I think we have a right to destroy the homes of other creatures for our work. Even if one considered jobs to be more important than tree frogs, there's a slight problem with that logic: tree frogs do not exist in a vacuum and never do we. We are unavoidably linked to the other creatures in our world and we cannot destroy them without consequences to our own health and prosperity. So even if you doesn't value the lives of other animals, surely you value your own life, and the lives of children that are hopelessly bound to everything else in our environment.

I think it will be interesting to see whether this "jobs are an endangered species" logic is one we will see more of to justify cuts to environmental protection. So much of the struggle to get support for protecting the environmental seems to be about the way we conceptualize these problems and a lot of that has to do with how we talk about them.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

A CSA is a network of consumers who support a local farm by buying a "share" of their produce. This usually means that they pay up front directly to the farmers to receive a regularly-occurring share of food. The type of share can range from just fruits and vegetables to include meat, dairy, and other food. The shares are sometimes delivered, and other times you pick up your share from a pick-up location.

A good source for more information on CSAs is local harvest (http://www.localharvest.org/csa/). On their website you can search for CSAs available in your area. This summer will be my first time trying out a CSA; we are getting a half-share, which means pick-up is biweekly, and it will be just fruits and vegetables.

From an environmental perspective, buying local has been emphasized as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Most food travels quite a distance to arrive at your grocery store (I think I've heard the average is 1500 miles). Even though I have very limited experience with them, so far I think joining a CSA seems like a good idea. However, I think a focus on local food should be combined with reducing the impact of an even bigger polluter in food consumption: meat. I've heard that reducing meat consumption can actually have a bigger impact and may be easier in some cases. For example, reducing meat may take less work on the part of the consumer; it may be easier to just avoid meat here and there rather than take the time to make sure all produce is local or enroll in a CSA. I do still think buying local is a good idea and still beneficial. The best case scenario would be to try to buy local AND cut down on meat consumption. In the case of joining a CSA, these may go hand in hand because one is likely to need a steady supply of vegetables for all those new vegetarian dishes! This is why I like the concept so much- its like committing up front to eating a lot of vegetables or else you waste your money. I should also mention that there are other benefits to a CSA such as supporting local farmers, rather than industrial agriculture, supporting farming that might be more likely to use organic, sustainable practice, and being better connected to where your food comes from and how it is produced. Plus you buy direct and get to meet the people that actually grow the food!

*Updated with pictures of actual CSA produce. These are little turnips. I love seeing all the irregularities of vegetables that haven't been mass-produced.

Environmental Psychology: Individual change

How effective is change on an individual level as far as addressing climate change? This is a topic that has come up a lot in my course so far that I'd like to explore. Oftentimes sources of information on climate change include sections on "what you can do" and include many suggestions for changes that you can make to your daily life to improve your carbon footprint. I also remember going to the "Inconvenient Truth" movie awhile back and the last part the movie lists a lot of ideas for things to change such as buying fluorescent light bulbs. I think there were many other wider-reaching ideas too, I just remember that there was a long list of possible things you could do and some of them were individual behavior changes. I also fully admit that I have been one to embrace individual changes. Maybe its just because I'm always attracted to self-improvement projects and also enjoy the "do-it-yourself" nature (hence, this blog) of some of these changes. I find it empowering to find ways that I can make small changes in my lifestyle and I am also attracted to the idea of exercising power through consumer choices. Another side to this is that when I'm feeling concerned about the environment (which is a lot of the time these days), I appreciate that there are simple tasks that I can do, that I have control over, that can make me feel somewhat better. Plus, admittedly, these changes are much easier to undertake then trying to enact changes on a more large scale level.

However, as I'm learning more about human behavior and climate change, I'm realizing that focusing on individual level changes is short-sighted. The reality is that without an organized approach supported by some over-arching framework or reinforcement, individual level changes are not going to be enough. Of course part of this is that some people refuse to make any changes, particularly people who do not believe in climate change, but another part of it is that even if you do want to live a "greener" existence, this can be an incredible up-hill battle when everything around you is set-up for you to live in an unsustainable manner. And, according to what I've learned in class, whining to people to change their lifestyle is probably more likely to make them not want to talk to you anymore, rather than make changes (which is a hard pill for me to swallow, given that I'm prone to want to do this). Basically, when all the momentum is for people to maintain their current lifestyle, some people will go against the current, but greater incentive is needed to create a large scale lifestyle change. For example, creating economic incentive for curbing energy use is likely to be more effective than a public service message telling people to care about the environment and take shorter showers.

Another piece of this is that some "green" products and lifestyle changes are out of reach for some people. Products that have less chemicals and may be safer are usually more expensive. It also takes time and resources to research products and make lifestyle changes. This means that richer people have the luxury of buying products that might be safer, whereas people with less means bare more of the burden (and this goes for all sorts of environmental pollutants). Also, people with more means may feel somewhat superior for their green lifestyle when in reality, they probably have a much larger carbon footprint than people with less money. They are more likely to have a large home with less people living in it and more appliances and cars. In addition, focusing on making change through buying can be counterproductive and lead to buying more stuff just to try new "green" products. So feeling too comfortable just because of personal lifestyle changes can be dangerous. This is not to say that making these changes or trying to improve one's carbon footprint is inherently bad or not helpful. I think that it falls on those who do have the means to create change to do so. However, it is also important to consider the effects of environmental justice and include other efforts such as working through government or other organizations to bring about changes. Even the most saintly person can indulge in a long hot shower or a nice Sunday joy ride; right now, its too hard for us to police our own behavior because these tempting choices have no immediate negative consequences. All we see is positive reinforcement. We need changes that make the greener lifestyle the more tempting, reinforcing one and that's not something we can do on an individual level.

One last piece to consider is the role that individual changes may have in fostering empowerment and a sense of control. I don't think these qualities should be over-looked as they could be important for empowering people to make the jump from individual changes to larger scale efforts. Also, I think a part of becoming more aware of the situation with climate change is realizing how our daily behaviors have far-reaching effects. Once you are aware of this, it would seem discordant to not make changes that try to minimize the negative ramifications. In conclusion, my hope is that individual changes can be the first step at becoming more environmentally conscious, but they can't be the only step that we take if we want to make meaningful changes.

Environmental Psychology: Separation of people and nature

Or the myth of the separation between people and nature, rather. According to Koger and Winter (2010) our culture (Western culture, that is) tends to be one that embraces the idea of the duality between people and nature. Interestingly enough, this is not so in other cultures, such as Native American culture. Our current collective mind-frame when it comes to viewing nature or "the environment" as this totally separate entity can be traced back to writings by philosophers who encouraged the use of natural resources to make progress (Koger & Winter, 2010). The Bible may have even influenced this way of thinking by way of passages that proclaim that man has dominion over nature (Koger & Winter, 2010). Importantly, it is thought that this passage has been misinterpreted to mean that nature is here for human benefit, rather than that we are supposed to be responsible stewards of the environment (which may have been the original intention of the passage)... Oops! I guess we got that one wrong!

Another idea that stems out of the concept that nature is separate from humans is the idea that nature exists solely to meet human needs. And I can see how this would seem to be the case, especially after the discovery of fossil fuels; I mean, how convenient is that, a rich, efficient energy source hiding in "our" ground and mountains. I can see how that would seem to be put their for our purposes. Another human characterization of nature that can't be ignored is that nature is thought of as female or a woman (Mother nature) (as noted by Koger & Winter, 2010). Given mankind's track record in treatment of women this can't be a good sign. And once you start to think about it, the analogies are endless. Take what you want, discard the rest; use; abuse; disrespect. The things that we say about "Mother nature" often mirror things we say about the treatment of women.

And where has this conceptualization of nature gotten us? We've behaved exactly in accordance with this viewpoint, taking everything we want without a second thought to the consequences. We've taken for granted that nature is an endless bounty that will always be there is give us what we want. That is why this view of nature is so dangerous. It's completely wrong.

It's interesting the way we talk about the "environment" these days. It makes it sound like this completely separate thing that exists out in some state park and maybe we would care about it more if we had the time or we didn't have bigger problems such as the economy. And it's only something that granola-hippie types get upset over. But when you really think about it, this word doesn't even really make sense because it doesn't distinguish between anything. Everything is the environment. We are all the environment and everything around us and everything we have made is the environment. I think when we talk about "environmental" problems in this way, given that we already have the duality mindframe, it allows people to attach these problems to an outside disconnected entity. Oh, that's just a problem for the environment, and I'm not a part of the environment so that doesn't matter for me. I don't how else to talk about these things, what label would be better, but I think the way we are talking about it now is making it too easy for people to disengage. Perhaps we just need to call them "problems" and refer to the "environment" as the earth or people. I think when people hear "environmental problems" they associate it with a certain type of person that would care about that and if they don't identify, they say "that doesn't relate to me."

Unfortunately, we live in a very inter-connected world with finite resource in which everything affects everything. Once something enters the "environment," it can be very good at persisting. And because we are forever tied to the water we drink and the air we breath (where do those come from again? Oh, right.. nature), it's impossible to escape the pesticides we spray or the plastics we make. These chemicals exist inside each and everyone one of our bodies now, making a fool out of our idea that we are separate from nature.

Environmental Psychology: Denial

This semester I am lucky enough to be the teaching assistant for Environmental Psychology, a class I would have wanted to take anyway, were I an undergrad. I plan to pass on some of the things I learn, because I think they are very valuable in understanding human behavior towards the environment.

One of the first topics we covered in class was defense mechanisms. Though many of Freud's theories are no longer accepted in modern psychology, his conception of defense mechanisms remains relevant and particularly useful in conceptualizing attitudes towards the environment. According to the theory of defense mechanisms, these are strategies that we all employ when we want to be able to simultaneously acknowledge reality while reducing our anxiety.

Not surprisingly, the most relevant defense mechanism to environmental issues is denial. Because our situation is so frightening, it's too troubling to acknowledge, so we deny that the problem even exists. Since the implications of the problems are so devastating, the strength of our denial tends to be quite powerful. And it makes sense; if all of this could somehow just not be true, I think we would all want to live in that world.

In thinking about denial, I realized that even though I believe in climate change and fully acknowledge the severity of our situation, I still like to enter denial-land sometimes. I think it happens in subtle ways; I start to let the comfort of denial distance me from the anxiety of thinking about the state of the environment. Maybe its just too anxiety-provoking to fully acknowledge it at all times and incorporate it into our perspectives in day to day life.

Another thing that makes denial easier is that most of the people around us seem to be in denial as well. If we really are on the brink of collapse, shouldn't all the people around us be in a state of panic? But they're not; they are walking around, going about their daily lives, and worrying not about environmental problems, but interpersonal problems. I think we take our cues from the people around us to interpret what we should and should not be afraid of, and if everyone seems to be fine, then everything is fine, right?

I think its difficult to know how to reconcile what we know about our planet's precarious state with our daily lives. We can all make small changes in our behavior or join a "green" organization, but none of it seems proportional to the size or urgency of the problem. I think if there were some concrete thing we could all do together to "fight" global warming, maybe get together and beat some styrofoam cups with a bat, we would all do it. And I think we would feel much more productive.

In a way, denial is a neat trick that we play for ourselves, to protect our egos or reduce our anxiety. But here's the thing about denial- denying something doesn't make it any less true. Climate change doesn't care if we believe in it or not. And living in a state of denial can be adaptive in the short-term for some problems, but in this situation, it could be our downfall.

DIY Cleaner Bonanza!

Welcome to the DIY cleaner bonanza where all your DIY cleaning dreams come true!

The following is an assortment of DIY cleaner recipes that I either found online or have gathered over the last few years. I’ll add comments under the ones I’ve tried before- others would be for more experimental use. I think the toughest areas for DIY cleaners to be on par with store-bought options are dishwashing and laundry. I think it’s still beneficial to make your own, but I think you may need a bit more trial and error and patience. If you make something that doesn’t quite cut it, don’t throw it out- try mixing equal parts home-made with store-bought. You’ll still save money and you may be able to perfect your recipe over time. Also- many of the ingredients are the same across recipes- this means that you may have more cost up front; but, luckily, you will be able to use the same ingredients to make many household cleaners. Over time you can save a LOT of money! And you get to feel empowered by doing it yourself! One last note- you really can’t go wrong with mixing together simple solutions such as baking soda and vinegar for cleaning most things, so don’t worry if you don’t have all the listed ingredients.

All purpose cleaning spray #1:

Makes 32 oz.

2 C water

½ C distilled white vinegar

1 teaspoon castile soap

¾ C hydrogen peroxide

20 drops tea tree oil

20 drops lavender or lemongrass essential oil

*I really like this recipe and have made it numerous times. I don’t worry about getting the proportions exactly right or if I’m missing one of the ingredients. You can always leave out the hydrogen peroxide and you would still have an effective cleaner.

All purpose cleaning spray #2:

½ C baking soda

1 C vinegar per gallon water

optional- dash of castile soap

drop or two of essential oils such as lavendar

*I like this one because its so simple and you’re likely to have all the ingredients already!

Laundry Detergent (http://diynatural.com/simple-easy-fast-effective-jabs-homemade-laundry-detergent/):

1 bar of shaved bar soap

1 C borax

1 C of washing soda

*Caveat: I haven’t tried this one yet. I have, however, been adding borax and baking soda to my laundry loads and then just using a little bit of detergent. Natural detergents can be really expensive so I’m trying to get the most mileage out of them. Relatedly, I read in the newspaper that most people add too much detergent to their laundry and they end up with clothes that still have detergent in them even once the cycle is over. If you have a front-load washer, you can see if you’re clothes are still soapy by running them through the wash without soap. If you see suds, you’re using too much detergent. I’m sure you could also do this with a regular machine by opening the lid mid-way through the cycle to take a peek.

Toilet Bowl Cleaner #1 (http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-garden/homemade-natural-toilet-cleaner.html):

2 T baking soda

1 T olive oil

1 teaspoon of lemon or other scent

Toilet Bowl Cleaner #2 (http://www.marthastewart.com/goodthings/diy-toilet-bowl-cleaner):

Let ½ C vinegar sit in toilet for a few minutes (or ½ hr for hard water), brush and flush

Add ½ C borax to remove stains, let sit overnight if needed

Toilet Bowl Cleaner #3 (http://www.bukisa.com/articles/158363_how-to-make-toilet-bowl-cleaner):

2 C water

2 C white vinegar

1 C hydrogen peroxide (sold at Walgreens in first aid aisle)

2 ½ C baking soda

optional: 20-30 drops naturally antiseptic oil such as lemon, lavender, orange or grapefruit

Mix everything together besides the baking soda. When ready to use, add ½ to ¾ C of the solution first and let sit for a few minutes. Use toilet brush to scrub, the add ½ C of baking soda (be sure to sprinkle on parts not covered by water).

*I haven’t tried any of the toilet bowl cleaners yet but I’m weirdly excited to try them.

Dishwasher detergent (http://diynatural.com/simple-effective-jabs-homemade-dishwasher-detergent-rinse-agent/):

½ C borax

½ C washing soda

¼ C citric acid (can be bought online or at a specialty beer store. If unavailable can use 10-15 unsweetened lemon Kool-aid packs instead but don’t use any other flavor)

¼ C kosher salt

mix together. When ready to use add white vinegar to rinse compartment. Add 1 T of the detergent mix per load

*I tried a similar recipe (minus the salt, I believe) and had to mix with regular detergent to get the job done. Hopefully the salt is the key ingredient!

Shower cleaner:

I just tried this today after getting a tip from my friend: sprinkle borax on the floor of your shower and scrub with a sponge or brush. Most effective when dry or it’ll just dissolve. This works wonders for getting rid of soap scum. I would recommend wearing gloves, though; borax is less toxic than other cleaners, but it can still irritate your skin and eyes.

See this webpage for many more DIY cleaning recipes (including natural air freshener!): http://eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm

*They include information on the cleaning properties of many natural ingredients.

*The air freshener ideas are great (did you know that commercial air fresheners coat your nasal passages to reduce sense of smell??). I find the idea of simmering water with cinnamon and other spices on the stove particularly appealing, especially this time of year! My friend was actually just telling me about this great natural present she received: spices such as cinnamon and cloves combined with an orange in a jar with instructions to heat in water for a great home fragance! What a great DIY gift idea!

Happy cleaning!

Soap Sachets

Last night my friend gave me a deliciously fragrant soap sachet made by the Zum soap company. If you’re not familiar with Zum, they make wonderful natural soap from goat’s milk. They use pure essential oils and offer a variety of amazing scents. I couldn’t stop smelling it and wanted to buy more. Unfortunately they were sold out at Whole Foods, but the nice sales lady showed me how to make my own. It was really easy and fun and made an equally delicious-smelling sachet. These are nice because you can make a small size and decorate as you want. They would also make great gifts.

I just bought three Zum bars, picking Cinnamon, Lavender-Mint and Eucalyptus as my scents. Then, per the sales lady’s instructions, bought these cloth tea bags to use as the sachet pouch.

Using a carrot-peeler, I peeled little curls off the soaps, mixing the different kinds together.

Then you just fill the bags with the peels and you’re done!

To add some flair, you can sew on buttons or add a ribbon.