No Impact Man

Why I'm fond of saying wisdom trumps science

When one group of scientists first said smoking was bad for you, the tobacco industry funded another group of researchers to say the science was inconclusive. When dietitians began saying saturated animal fats hurt your heart, the beef and dairy industry rolled out their own group of gurus saying "not so bad."

And now that we have a a whole heard of scientists saying that human activity is causing global warming, everyone from the oil industry to the libertarian think tanks are rolling out thinkers who say humans aren't causing climate change.

In other words, science gets manipulated. You'll hear one thing one day and another thing the next. Fighting it is a bit like fighting a tornado.

And to my mind, the debate over the science is pointless. All over the world, countries are going to be increasingly buying renewable energy. The question is, does the United States want to be at the forefront of the renewable energy sector or not? Do we want to be exporters of the new green tech, and create green jobs in doing so, or not?

Do we want to get caught up in a ridiculous scientific argument or do we want to just get something done? Since wisdom provides us with the capacity to make the right decisions, we might as well use it. The current scientific debate, despite its ridiculous legitimization by mainstream journalists, is designed to cause "stasis through obfuscation," as my wife Michelle calls it.

We don't have to wait until "science" clears things up. We don't have to be too confused to do anything. We already have enough wisdom to know what to do. Because even if some people think the science isn't clear, as I'm fond of saying, wisdom sometimes trumps science.

PS It's my birthday today. If you feel like giving me a present, you could make a donation to the No Impact Project (which helps people to find happier, more eco-friendly lives and is described here) by clicking the button below.

Your green lifestyle helps convince people of global warming

According to Rodale.com, "the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change studied decades of research on environmental issues and human behavior, and came up with the factors that are preventing people from taking immediate action" on global warming.

The study discusses six factors, but the two that are most interesting to me are the ones that illustrate why a commitment to meaningful and deep lifestyle change (by which I mean giving up the car or committing to eating locally as opposed to just changing your lightbulbs) actually helps the people around you believe that global warming exists and that they can do something about it.

#5: Lack of Control.
“People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.”

In fact, according to the study, for some people, the fact that they don't believe they can personally do something about global warming causes them to deny that it exists at all. Thus, when large numbers of us commit to meaningfully making our lives more environmental, we demonstrate our power to effect change and help other people to accept that global warming exists and is something they have power to change too.

#6: Habit.
“Ingrained behaviors are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly.” Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, according to the report. A study at Baylor College of Medicine found that when people tackled two bad habits at once, they were more successful in achieving permanent change than people who attempted to change the habits one at a time.

What interests me about this, is the idea that getting someone to commit to more radical lifestyle change is more likely to be successful than just getting them to make "little changes."

Crucially, it is important to remember that little changes aren't going to save the planet from cataclysmic climate change, anyway. Only a wholesale change in our systems--agricultural, transportation, and energy production--combined with cultural lifestyle change will do the trick.

My feeling is this: the systemic change is not exactly speeding its way down the pike. So while we work for that systemic change through actions like 350.org's, we can kick start the cultural change right now by changing our own lives.

The new standard on climate change

For a long time now, James Hansen, chief NASA climatologist has been something of a voice in the dark, saying that, to avoid cataclysmic climate change, we must stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at no more than 350 parts per million (ppm). That is to say, essentially, that for every one million pounds of atmosphere, no more than 350 of them can be made up of carbon dioxide.

Hansen's analysis, by the way, is the basis for 350.org's worldwide day of action on October 24, when they hope millions of us around the world will turn out and let our leaders know that we believe in the 350 ppm standard.

There has been something of an uphill battle on the 350 thing up until now, because: 1. It requires huge amount of change, and 2. The International Panel on Climate Change (whose science was out of date) had called for a standard of only 450. (I, by the way, have been supporting the 350 standard for a long time and have both lobbied my local congressman for it and wrote my own piece of citizen's climate legislation in support of it.)

Anyway, today represents and important step forward. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, basically came out in support of the 350 standard. He said:

"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).

"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he told Agence France Presse in an interview.

The trick now is to make sure politicians around the world hear the message. More than ever, Dr Pachauri's announcement reminds us that we must all turn out on October 24 to make sure they do. Click here to find your local action. I'll be there. Will you?

PS You can follow me on Twitter here and Facebook here.

To change the world I have to change myself

A little snippet from my book:

I've had this hammered home to me lately--that if I want to manifest peace in the world, I have to find peace in my own mind.

They say a peaceful mind makes a peaceful man. A peaceful man makes a peaceful family. A peaceful family makes a peaceful village. A peaceful village makes a peaceful country. A peaceful country makes a peaceful world.

What does this mean? That I want to change the world, I have to change myself.

PS Don't forget that I'm still looking for people to do the Climate Ride with me in September!

Treating anxiety and depression could save the planet

Something a regular reader of this blog may have been able to guess about me: I suffer, at times, from anxiety and depression. I'm not talking about the worst kind of anxiety and depression. I'm talking about the kind that takes the edge off the gratitude I should be feeling for a good life.

Not, in other words, "major depressive syndrome." Not I-can't-get-out-of-bed-or-go-to-work depression. Not the I-need-to-swallow-some-medicine-if-I-hope-to-drag-this-body-from-place-to-place depression.

At least, that is, not yet.

What's going on is that I've been working my tail off for a couple of years now. The No Impact project. This blog. The book. The documentary. It's added up to a lot of work. You know, like working nights. Working weekends. Working like a dog. Working like, well, an American.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average employed American works more hours a year than citizens of any other Western European member country. At 1798 annual hours clocked per American worker in 2007, we worked about three and a half 40-hour work weeks more than the Brits, six more than the Irish and a whopping eleven and a half weeks more than the West Germans.

That makes the Europeans lazy, right? Or, on the other hand, does it just make Americans literally sad?

Let's return, first, to my own experience. What I've found, over the years, is that my predisposition to the blues can be managed if I rest enough, if I take care of myself. I've found that if I take time to meditate, exercise, sleep sufficiently, joke around with friends, then my tendency to over-think and get down about life actually can transform into an asset: with space, digested worry can become some kind of worthwhile introspection.

Lately, though, I haven't taken the time to decompress, and my worry has gnawed at my happiness. This led me to thinking about the connection between my recent, more-stressful-than-usual way of life and my anxiety and, in turn, Americans' long working hours (and associated planetary resource use) and the fact that we have the highest rate of depression in the world.

(Nearly 10 percent of Americans suffer from bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder or chronic minor depression over the course of a year, according to a World Health Organization study reported in Forbes Magazine. Compare that, for example, with the less than one percent of Nigerians reporting these problems.)

I asked a psychiatrist friend if the high rates of depression in the United States (not to mention, by the way, obsessive-compulsive or panic disorders, which together affect another 18 percent of Americans) is related to problems with Americans' individual brains or problems with our way of life. My friend said that individuals--like me, for example--may have a tendency towards anxiety and depression. But this tendency can be exacerbated by the stresses a culture foists on its members.

On a personal level, in other words, if I want to feel better, I better take it a little easier. Or I could just keep barreling through and let my brain start sending me bigger signals in the form of major depression. Hint enough for me to finally resolve to stop working nights and weekends (which is why, by the way, there was no blog post yesterday).

But to the larger point, which is the high rate of unhappiness of my fellow Americans, I can't help worrying that I am in the incredibly luxurious position of being able to decide--as a quality of life decision--to work fewer hours. My guess is that most Americans can't make such a decision.

Our economy and our culture doesn't offer that flexibility. Here in the United States, our policies are not about making sure we can take care of ourselves in any other way than economically. In some ways, I wonder if that puts us in the ludicrous position of having to take a pill--like Prozac--in order to tolerate the way we live.

And the thing is, at least one study, published in the June edition of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, confirms my friend the psychiatrist's suggestion that our way of life and, indeed, our high number of work hours is contributing to our national anxiety and depression. The study concluded that those who work overtime are more prone to these problems than those who work less than 40 hours a week (long work hours, by the way, may also contribute to America's obesity epidemic, according to a study published in the International Journal of Obesity).

What does this tell us? Maybe that we should all, as individuals and as a culture, consider working less if we want to be happier.

Yes, you might say, but how does this relate to saving the planet, as the title of the post suggests?

Well, since we are among the hardest workers in the world, we are among the highest earners in the world, which means we are among the biggest spenders in the world, and, therefore, we are among the largest users of planetary resources.

We tend to think of using fewer resources for the sake of the environment as some sort of horsehair shirt or belt tightening, a sort of deprivation. But what if using fewer resources meant needing less money meant having to work less hard meant less depression and anxiety?

What does that tell us about how we should live our lives? What does that tell us about the possibility that living environmentally might be better for us as well as for the planet?

Of course, this begs the question of what our priorities should be on a personal level. I, for one, am going to try to let go of my attachment to achievement and take time to take care of myself. But it also begs big policy questions, too.

The overarching economic policy has always been to increase economic throughput--and therefore planet-destroying resource throughput--in order to bring greater happiness to the greatest number of people.

Now, in these times of such economic distress, we can't be cavalier about the importance of economic throughput. But at the same time, the question becomes, should it be the be all and end all of Government policy? Perhaps--again, with the exception of those who are in economic distress--our policy should not be about getting more money into everyone's pockets but more time into their lives.

That could be one way to help deal our epidemic of anxiety and depression. It might also help us use fewer resources and save the planet.

Get a happier life!!!

One of the things I did not expect when I lived as environmentally as possible for a year was that I would end up, in many ways, happier.

It makes sense:

More sustainably produced food is healthier. People who get around by leg power instead of car power are more physically fit, and on and on.

This discovery prompted the beginnings of a non-profit project called the No Impact Project. The goal is to help people figure out what elements of environmental living might actually bring more happiness to their lives.

And the center piece of the No Impact Project is a week-long experience which will guide people through a bunch of the adaptations we made in the No Impact year and help participants figure out which environmental adaptations actually improve their lives.

In other words, there is nothing about environmental deprivation here. It is all about how we can be happier people by helping to make a happier planet.

The No Impact Project website will be up shortly. Click here and we'll let you know when it goes up and also tell you how you can attempt the one-week No Impact challenge yourself.

PS If you missed the NY Times article that correctly pegs my wife Michelle as the real No Impact hero, click here. ;)

Colbert Report presents primer on climate change

So Bill McKibben of 350.org went on Colbert the other night and explained how we can save our planet. Watch Bill below and join 350's October 24 day of action here.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill McKibben
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Biking as assertiveness training

Still anticipating the release of the No Impact Man book and film, I'm continuing my series of reposts of what I wrote way back in 2007 at the beginning of the No Impact Man year.

By the way, the our little non-profit project is looking for musicians who might be willing to donate some music to a little video we're making. If you're interested, please drop a line by clicking here.

I’m learning something about life from biking everywhere (an element of the no carbon-producing transportation part of the No Impact Man project). It used to be that when I rode around Manhattan, I would chastise myself for getting mad or shouting at drivers or pedestrians. I would think I was becoming one of those rude bikers who thought they were entitled to run red lights and have the waves of pedestrians in the crosswalk part like the Red Sea before Moses.

And I am still not rude in that way. In my view, if the pedestrians—or vehicles—have the right of way, they have the right of way. I try to be polite. On the other hand, I seem to have subconsciously decided, since getting hit from behind by a car, that getting mad and shouting is, at times, appropriate. It has the effect of keeping me, and other people, safe.

Pedestrians sometimes cross against the light without looking (there is no auditory cue from a bike to tell them to). I shout, “Watch out!” I brake. They look. Together—at least so far—we avoid colliding.

Drivers have the habit of honking in order to get in front of bicycles, only to get past and stop dead to make a turn, leaving the biker with nowhere to go. When I see that situation emerging, I shout, “Hey! Hey! Don’t turn in front of me.” Often, they don’t (but I still use my brakes, just in case).

A few times, I’ve been riding in the bike lane, and a driver, not looking, began veering toward me to avoid some obstacle in the middle of the road. I’ve banged on their window to let them know I’m there.

It’s not like me. I always want to be polite and charming. Being overly accommodating is actually a fault of mine (I want everyone to like me). But riding bikes in traffic, I’m learning that sometimes the best thing for everyone is for me to be aggressive. It’s a paradox—to be kind sometimes means to be rude and abrasive. Isn’t that funny?

Cartoon courtesy of Switzerland's North Board of Health.

A message from Frankie, my dog

As we approach the launch of the No Impact Man book and the film, I thought it would be fun to repost some of what I wrote way back in 2007 at the beginning of the No Impact Man year, back when I was just a newly dubbed No Impact Man. I wrote the below after I received a number of critical emails from people who thought you could not say you lived environmentally if you had a dog.

Frankie, our dog, pictured here, has released the following statement:

"It has come to my attention that Colin has recieved a number of emails that say things like, 'You have a dog but you call yourself No Impact. Ha!'

"Ha? I just want to say that I only eat food made from the scraps of meat that no people would eat, and not only do I not flush when I pee, but I don't flush when I poo either.

"Besides that, I am the nature representative on the project, and it's my job to remind Colin, Michelle, Isabella and others that animals are people too. Also, when Isabella spills milk and crumbs on the floor, I make sure they don't go to waste.

"Once, when Isabella saw sea lions, she shouted "Frankie!" She automatically loved them because she loves me (even though I killed her stuffed monkey). Isabella will probably always think twice before doing things that hurt animals. I take credit for that. Pets like me do the job of helping to connect people, especially city slickers, to animals and nature and the planet that supports them.

When what you have beats what you want

I thought I'd repost some of the thoughts I had during the No Impact year itself, so here's one that suits the season...

Lest I get too heady with all my talk of radical political acts and trusting wisdom before science, I thought you might like to know where No Impact Man goes body surfing while the rest of NYC wrestles their cars out the Long Island Expressway to the Hamptons.

Fort Tilden, a former military base that is now a state park.

I’ve been to beaches all over the world and this was one of the nicest. Swear to God! An abandoned white sandy beach right in New York City. The water was clean, the surf was up, and we saw a grand total of five people in two hours.

We went because I couldn’t stand another day away from the ocean and because Michelle had some time off work. Since we use no carbon-producing transportation, we rode bikes—it took two and half hours.

For lunch, we enjoyed a farmers market special: a bread, cheese and tomato picnic. To drink, we rinsed our palates with NYC's wonderful tap water carried in ultra-cool reusable water bottles, filled from Fort Tilden's public drinking fountains.

The thing is, we never would have enjoyed this gem of a picnic on this gem of a beach if it weren't for the "deprivation" of the No Impact Man project. No Impact teaches us to enjoy what we have instead of wasting our time up trying to figure out how to get what we want.

Photo of Fort Tilden beach by Kyoko Hamada and courtesy of New York Magazine.