Recently in Sustainability Category

I was thinking about when the government was telling us to spend more to help the economy. Then I saw a piece about some people starting to spend more again, buying stuff. And today I saw how retail has been hit hard and doesn’t expect a good holiday season.

So I’m wondering, has anyone learned any lessons from the economic problems?

There are many lessons to be learned: Corporate corruption, government corruption & incompetence, etc, but I’m talking about a more personal level. I wrote about this a few months ago. Here’s the gist of it:

Spending on "things" and "stuff" people really don’t need and don’t really make them happier are at the root of our economic problems. Do you really need to keep up with your neighbor? Do you really want to send hundreds of dollars a year to a cable company so you can sit in your living room staring at a wall?

Isn’t there better ways to spend your money? The slowdown of retail is not surprising - and dare I say it’s a good thing? So many identical stores and vendors grew exponentially to meet unnatural levels of consumerism. We needed to shed some off. We need more to go away. No, I don’t want people to lose their jobs, but as a society we need to realize that we have created a monster.

Next time an advertisement tries to convince you that you need something, realize they are hoping you will be clueless enough to believe them. Think about where you could spend that money: Save it for your kids, give it to a charity, buy someone food who really needs it, turn off the tv and buy a book to read to the kids.

Also realize that our materialistic mind set often encourages bad health and hence higher medical costs. Spend time outside. Kids need it. And even babies who spend their early years in front of a tv don’t advance as well intellectually. So that’s another problem.

So the next time someone tells you need what they are selling - whether it's a product, service or activity - tell them no by putting your money towards something else. -D

Tracey Bianchi:

You see, at our church, all our coffee equipment is owned by our current coffee vendor. We don't own it. The only reason we are allowed to have it is because we buy coffee from said vendor. Stop brewing their non-Fair Trade brew and say adios to the coffee equipment. Which means 2000+ people with caffeine withdrawal on a Sunday morning.

So to do something as simple as swap out the coffee for a morning cup with integrity will run our church about $35K in equipment (remember, big church, lots of people, multiple coffee stations etc). Which means, guess what, more meetings.

Which is frustrating for more than just the added levels of bureaucracy. It is frustrating because we've put ourselves at the mercy of an outside organization who could give a rip about our do-gooder intentions. They are less interested in God's economics and more interested in their bottom line. I cannot fault them for this, it's business. But when God's business is thwarted not only by business meetings but also this sort of business arrangement, I start to lose hope.

Read the whole thing. And consider answering her bleg for help.

In "Everything He Wants to Do is Illegal " farmer Joel Salatin talks about the issues facing small farmers, who Big Corporate Farms and their Big Government pals want to regulate out of existence:

I think it's amazing that in a country that promotes freedom to own firearms, freedom to worship and freedom of speech, we don't have the freedom to choose our own food.

He discusses how it has become harder, in some states, for small farms to sell or process their products. Are home gardens next? Sure, Big Corporate Farms help feed the world,  but in a time where much of what we buy in grocery stores could be considered hazardous, should governments be targeting smaller farms? I don't know how much this is an issue, but Salatin also discusses the problems related to the rise of Big Organic and the health benefits of non-industrialized animals. He also notes that the profession of farming is looked down upon:

The problem is that our culture tells bright, bushy-tailed young people that farming is for backward, D-student, tobacco-chewing, trip-over-the-transmission-in-the-front-yard, redneck Bubbas.

When was the last time you heard a group of parents bragging? Ever hear one say, “Well, you can have your doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers. My kid is going to grow up and be a farmer.” Ever hear that? Not on your life. The biggest obstacle is emotional — overcoming the cultural prejudice against splinters and blisters. That is why I talk about economics and marketing, along with the mystical, artistic elements of the farm. Yes, it’s a lot of work. But what a great office. What a noble life. What a sacred calling.

I guess people must think all food is conjured up in a factory. -D

The convergence of a number of things - the new eco-movement, a slow economy and a Big Government growing bigger and more oppressive by the minute - all at the same time has made many stop and think about the rat race they find themselves in. How much of how we live is excessive? Where have we gone so far forward that we are actually going backwards? And where does this fit in our worldviews? How does this all fit together?

People have begun to looking again at conservation and energy saving techniques as a way to save money - and if it helps nature while they’re at it, that’s good too. But some may also be asking "Do I need all this stuff?" or "Why am I spending all this money?" Charles W. Sasser writes in The Backwoodsman (Jan/Feb 2009):

I looked around and observed how many of my friends held eight-to-five jobs they could barely tolerate. The average American owned two cars, a house with a 30-year mortgage, a color TV set and a stack of bills on luxuries and ‘necessities’ long worn out and discarded. It seemed to me that he did not work to enrich his life. Instead, he worked to support his possessions, all the while feeling compelled to continue to buy and buy in hopes of ever new and more wonderful possessions making him happy.  

Think about that. How much of your work pay goes to things you don’t need? Or things just to get you to work? I remember a colleague complaining about money, but also bragging about all of the cable channels he had. Who’s forcing you to pay all that money just so you can sit in your living room? How much is the electric bill? Look at the recession as an opportunity to reasses your priorities and habits. 

Technology is great and important. But how much is too much? We complain our kids are obese, but buy them the technologies that make them that way.

Eric Brende writes in his book Better Off: 

Technology undoubtedly has, and will always have, some role in making life easier or better, so one shouldn’t exclude it. But the role is supplemental. Technology serves us, not we technology.

Brende and his wife spent a year living with an Amish sect trying to figure out why or how they live they way they do. They found that these "primitives" have technology, just not what we are used to. And they are happy. Why? In spite of instant 24/7 communications, and unlimited goods and services, we are still separated from our families, don’t interact with our communities, have no sense of purpose in our jobs. Yet we often see ourselves as better off than "simpler" or "poorer" folk.

From an eco-sense, how much consumerism is waste? From a Christian sense, how does God want you to spend money and resources? Churches talk often about tithing. I’m not aware of any tithing verses that say "Give your money to your church!" It’s more like, "Give some of it back to God." So in a more accurate sense, we should be supporting our church and other God-centered groups or causes. In a much broader sense, God is telling us to use all of our money (and in turn our resources) wisely. When buying something, ask yourself, "Would God spend this on this?" or "Does this improve my relationship with Him?" or "Is buying this going to make me a better or happier person?" Start thinking like this and you start to see how much money you could be saving. He doesn’t expect us to be perfect, but how many of us are even looking at perfect?

Does living simpler, which often includes being a bit more ecoaware, mean selling your home, becoming a farmer or living in a hut? No, of course not. Jenna Woginrich has combined her life with some old-fashioned homesteading. The Dervaes turned their urban home into a urban oasis. No, we don’t all need to start rasing animals or growing all our own food - but if you want to, go ahead.

We all could support our local food suppliers better. Saves money, conserves resources and builds the economy. Economy and community start locally. Start by supporting local churches and farms, then work your way out to your region, state and country. Corporations and governments try the "one size fits all approach." Living simpler means doing what actually works for people.

The starting local approach and living a bit simpler and a bit more ecoware means better health. We’ve seen how health is impacted on the quality of our foods and environment. Improve these things and improve your quality of life.

There’s a lot of implications here. Better health. Better lives. Stronger neighborhoods. Less reliance on government. Self-reliance. Stronger churches.

Bottom line is a life more in sync with what the Creator wanted. -D

Think you have to live in the country to get that garden up and going? Check out Urban Farms coming August 25:

Urban Farm™ magazine’s mission is to promote the benefits of self sustainability and to provide the tools with which to do it on any size property. Urban Farm™ reaches out to those in the city and suburbs, those who are inspired by the local food movement and who want to start raising chickens and growing food for themselves, supporting local agriculture and living more sustainably.

-D

Obama senior science advisor John Holdren: "We need a Planetary Regime."

Perhaps those agencies, combined with [the United Nations Environmental Program] and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.

The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

[Photo info here.]

Welcome to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's home page, featuring such FAQs as:

Does VHEMT favor abortion? (Answer: Only when someone is pregnant)

Does VHEMT support China's one-child policy? (Answer: The policy is less than voluntary, and even one child is too many.)

Are religions to blame for human over population? (Answer: Extinction is in accordance with God's plan for us. Jesus Christ lived His life as a lesson to us all, and begat naught.* Let us follow His example and concentrate on the spiritual journey to God, rather than on human endeavors such as producing more humans. We have been fruitful and multiplied, now it is time to mature and nurture.)

At least they took a stab (sorry) at an answer to the why-do-these-people-never-volunteer-to-go-first question. And bits like this that quote Luke 23:29, while completely out of context, are pretty thought-provoking.

*(um, not quite)

Patterico on Yale graduate student Elizabeth Turnbull, the sustainable house lady:

[R]egardless of what she calls it, she’s living in the equivalent of a small mobile home.

Wow - We're further along in this whole sustainability thing than I thought.

Recycle an old truck, some recycled building materials, an au naturale outdoor privy, git totally off the grid - sweeeeeet.

Foxnews:

Instead of paying rent in a traditional apartment month in and month out, Turnbull calculated how much it would cost for her to live in New Haven for the two years she is working on her degree. She then took that money, about $14,000, and invested in her sustainable house. "I wanted to see, well, could I build this thing, a comparable thing, for about what it would cost" to live in a traditional house, she said. It didn't take long, either. She started building last summer and finished in October. The key to keeping costs low was reusing and recycling materials. The floor, the windows, even the ceilings were all donated by contractors and others looking to lend a hand. "It was incredible, I couldn't have built it by myself," Turnbull said. "I kind of put feelers out and was like, 'Hey, I'm building this thing, and if you have cast-off stuff I'd love to use it.' "I ended up having building parties, where we would say, 'Hey! If you want to come and pick up a hammer or paintbrush, awesome, great. We'll have burgers,'" she said. The house is powered by three solar cells that Turnbull adjusts throughout the year to maximize the collection of sunlight. The cells connect to a couple of batteries inside the house, where they provide enough energy for a handful of lights and a heater. She cooks on a small propane stove. The tiny house is missing a bathroom, but just as during the construction of the house, she's still able to rely on the kindness of others. She uses the bathroom of a neighbor who has also allowed her to keep the micro-dwelling based in the backyard.

What's wrong with this picture? OpinionJournal says it better than I ever could:

So it's totally "sustainable" except for the building materials, land and use of a bathroom, for all of which she depends on people who are living normal, environmentally unfriendly lives. She might as well move back in with her parents.

From The Maker's Diet:

Myth: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the earth's natural resources...The fact is, two-thirds of the earth's landmass is unsuitable for farming, but easily provides food for grazing animals.

...two-thirds of the plants and plant products fed to animals are unsuited for human consumption. Both the animals and the plants are renewable resources, in no danger of depletion.

People do need to eat an abundance of plant products for good health, but the problem has never been a shortage of these foods, rather their equitable distribution as well as widespread poverty. Even the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not eating meat, and did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution to world hunger.

-D