No Impact Man

One Life, One Cup

As you may know, Japan has lower per capita carbon emissions than any Western European country. For that reason, I asked my friend, Sean Saskamoto, who recently moved to Japan and who blogs at I'd Rather Be In Japan, to check in with us every so often. I thought we might be able to learn a little something about "happier planet, happlier people" lifestyles from Sean's experience there.

Here is Sean's latest dispatch:

Kawagishi-sensei is a Zen Buddhist monk, and he’s a teacher at the high school where I work. He teaches calligraphy, which is a traditional art in Japan. Like high schools in America, there are many clubs that students here can join.

In the calligraphy club, students practice the art of painting Japanese Kanji, the Chinese characters that make up part of the written language. Painting calligraphy is an old tradition in Japan, and the characters look lovely, even to my untrained eye.

Kawagishi-sensei has been teaching calligraphy for over 30 years. My Japanese isn’t good enough to speak much with him, but a couple of times a week we try to chat. I noticed that every day he drinks his tea in a special teacup on his desk. It’s a beautiful ceramic cup.  The rich, textured colors shine in the light, and I assumed it must be new because it’s so polished.

When I asked him about it, he told me that he’d bought it with his first paycheck as a teacher, thirty-five years ago. It was made in a famous Japanese style called Aritayaki. This cup of his has seen him through three and a half decades of his life. Every day he uses it, and it’s still a gorgeous cup.

What struck me was how much this cup must mean to him by now. It also seemed very kind to the environment to use just one cup in all that time. I know that if you took all the cups I’ve used over the past thirty years, they would probably need their own landfill. How many paper cups, Styrofoam coffees, coke bottles, water bottles...how much glass and plastic have I used and thrown away in the course of my days over the years? Too many to be sure.

Apart from the simplicity of using one cup is the fact that it’s made of clay. It was dug from the earth, molded by hand, glazed and fired in a kiln. It made me think that consumption itself isn’t necessarily bad. There are ways to own things that can be fun, and even meaningful, and also friendly to the environment. What if everything I owned was acquired to celebrate an occasion, and lasted a lifetime?

How to skip the work travel, have a more leisurely life and save the planet

Want to know how to climb out of the cramped airline seats and stay home? Below is a guest article by Lloyd Alter of Treehugger, but by way of introduction, here's a little excerpt from a New York Times piece by Joe Sharkey about his friend, Mr. Allen:

I spoke with [Mr. Allen] a few days ago by cellphone. He was with his two children, ages 5 and 10, at a playground. It was a Friday, which in the old days was when he would be stuck in some dreary airport, hoping to make a connection home for some time with the family before dragging himself back to the airport on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Allen is not retiring from his consulting job. He is merely retiring from the business travel grind...

Last year, Mr. Allen and a small group of other road-weary consultants he knows from all over the country formed an informal network linked mostly by videoconferencing technology. They were enabled by the proliferation of cheap (and sometimes even free) social networking tools — wikis, podcasts, and computer video and teleconferencing systems like Skype and ooV00.

But how does it all work? Here, by Lloyd Alter, is a a little about the practicalities of how online networking tools can be used to make a virtual water cooler:

In October, 2007, three of us from Brooklyn, Seattle and Toronto were working full time out of our home offices on content for Planet Green, then a new website. We had never actually met, so I thought we should have a better way of communicating among ourselves and started what I called a "water cooler" on Skype--a chat that was always open, where we could share ideas, whines and complaints. I didn't even tell our editor in Quebec--this was like a real water cooler, a no-holds-barred place to share gripes and ideas.

About a year ago we got a new editor for TreeHugger and Planet Green; I thought it might get her up to speed more quickly if we included her in the water cooler. Suddenly it was public; the President wanted in, the founder, the ad guy out west. Names that I never heard of appeared on the members list. I thought well, it was nice while it lasted, but the water cooler is over.

I could not have been more wrong. It is no longer a water cooler where we hang around and gripe; it has become an essential part of the operation. It isn't really a conference room either, but is more like a virtual cube farm, with us as virtual prairie dogs poking our heads up above the partitions when there is something to discuss. It isn't as freewheeling as it used to be; Essentially, we are at the office and have to act like people do at offices, constrained in our discussions by the fact that there is a record of what we are saying and a lot of eyes listening.

And we have been doing it continuously for over a year.

A virtual cube farm, like a real one, has its problems. With Skype you can leave the beepers on and not miss a message but go nuts from the distraction; you can turn them off and miss important messages and threads. Skype also has its own issues; there is what I call the Roach Motel or Hotel California problem- you can come in any time you like, but you can never leave. If we invite someone in and they do not voluntarily leave the chat, we cannot cut them off and have to start all over. Consequently we are really on water cooler 3.01 and are very circumspect about who we let into the virtual room.

But when it works, what a revolution. Here is a three minute sequence discussing a line in a post that we are trying to divine the provenance of a phrase:

chris tackett
9:54 AM
this turn of phrase, is odd- "Something fishy and confusing, this way comes."
yoda-speak?

Lloyd Alter
9:54 AM
it is from a famous phrase

chris tackett
9:54 AM
ah
or is that a line from an obscure movie i should
ya, i was just going to ask that/

Lloyd Alter
9:54 AM
something wicked this way comes

chris tackett
9:54 AM
ya, that's right

Lloyd Alter
9:55 AM
Something Wicked This Way Comes is a 1962 novel by Ray Bradbury

Ben Boyd
9:55 AM
Macbeth is the original source, I believe

Lloyd Alter
9:55 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Wicked_This_Way_Comes_(novel)

chris tackett
9:55 AM
ya, macbeth sounds right

Lloyd Alter
9:56 AM
The phrase "something wicked this way comes" originates in Act IV scene 1 of William Shakespeare's play Macbeth. The speaker is the second witch, whose full line is, "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." The wicked thing is Macbeth himself, by this point in the play a traitor and murderer.

chris tackett
9:56 AM
i love it when my blogs quote shakespeare in their bolded subheads.

Lloyd Alter
9:56 AM
shit, that would have taken how long before wikipedia and google?
and water coolers?

chris tackett
9:57 AM
a while

Lloyd Alter
9:57 AM
three minutes of people working together--that goes in my no impact man post this weekend

It wasn't a big issue and didn't amount to much, but in just three minutes, four people in San Francisco, Alabama, Brooklyn and Toronto use Wikipedia, Google and Skype to discuss an issue and come to a conclusion.

In fact, I find more communication and interaction via the water cooler than I ever did in conventional offices. In one minute recently three of us announced variously that we were going to get lunch, go to the doctor and to get our hair cut; none of us had to, but it just has become a habit to let each other know.

Editor Meg says "I don't think I could do my job without it at this point. It's become an essential tool in my work-from-home kit, to the point where I tell people in 'real life' stories about things we talk about in the water cooler as if it were a real meeting place. My husband frequently interjects to explain that I'm talking about a virtual place, but to me it's as concrete as anywhere i go, except i only have walk up the stairs of my house to get there."

I have never actually met many of the people I work with, but I know about their dogs and their surgery. Meg is right; when you have this level of communication it quickly becomes as real and concrete as any place you have ever worked. We are not web workers or home workers or telecommuters;  when the water cooler is on, I am at the office.

More on living the green life out loud

Yesterday, I posted on making a spectacle of living green as a way of bringing attention to our environmental emergency. It turns out I'm not the only one who uses the strategy. Lots of readers left behind comments on their lifestyle strategies for getting attention (see the end of the post). Among those readers is Beth Terry, who writes Fake Plastic Fish. This is a guest post by her.

These days, I find myself looking at life as a potential blog post, not unlike the Truman Show.  Whether I am publicly picking up loose plastic bags or bottle caps off the street, carrying my own reusable bags, utensils, containers, napkins, and even glass drinking straws, each interaction I have with a sales clerk or waiter or butcher (asking that the chicken for our cats be ground into our own stainless steel pot) is both an opportunity to educate those in front of me as well as the readers of my blog.

One of my funniest Truman Show days was when I strapped a huge box of Styrofoam peanuts (a gift from my dad) to the back of my bike and pedaled it through the streets of Oakland, returning it to the warehouse to ask that it be reused.  While the experience was wonderful in itself, I found myself rehearsing how I’d later write about it on Fake Plastic Fish.

Being so public can look like showing off.  Resentment or guilt may arise in others when I bring my own dishes to work or ask the host of a party (someone I know pretty well) for a glass instead of a plastic cup.  We’re all human.  And guilt is a human emotion.  I don’t take it personally.  As one of my favorite spiritual teachers, Byron Katie likes to say, “There are only three kinds of business in the universe: mine, yours, and God's.”  Other people’s guilt is none of mine.

But I do realize my no-plastic rules are extreme.   And I don’t expect anyone else to obsess about plastic the way I do.  By making my life and decisions public, I hope to simply show others what is possible.    And by sharing my failures as well as successes, by giving myself a break every now and then, I hope others will realize that perfection is not necessary or possible.  Simply trying every day is all that’s required.

And here is what some other readers had to say about living greenly out loud:

"I started giving extreme low-key kids' parties, and I have heard parents comment on how much fun they are having and what a relief to be at a relaxed event. This means - picnic in the park, maybe next to a public pool or lake; simple food; home-made cake (maybe from a box mix even - 2 boxes go in my 11x17 pan and feed a large crowd, with home-made icing). Few or no planned activities beyond - be at the park/swim/run around." --Leila Abu-Saba

"I keep a Rubbermaid collapsible container in my purse for restaurant leftovers which consistently draws comments. It folds flat to insert into my purse, and you pop it open to receive the leftovers. Great for the earth, and it serves as a good way to prevent me from eating too much without making me feel guilty that I'm using." --Peggy Brennan

"I have asked the sushi guy to stop putting that little green strip of plastic fake grass on my plate. It's a little thing, but I'm hoping eventually he gives up plastic grass for all his customers." --Darx

"I get into conversations all the time about not having a car (it's a very unusual choice in this area unless you are a student). Also about my knitting on the bus (conversations about why I make my own clothes)." --Deb G

"No one is more shocked at any idea we've put in place than life without a fridge - during the winter, natural refrigeration is provided by, well, winter, and the rest of the year, we rotate our little ice packs and do just fine. The sheer shock of someone not having a ubiquitous fridge really moves a lot of people." --Sharon

"Last earth day I decided to go to the woods beside the local high school to pick up trash and recycling. As I was working away a jogger stopped to ask about what I was doing. Turns out he was the civics instructor at the school and told me on the spot that he'd get the class out on Monday to work on the rest (it is a huge area, my afternoon's work barely made a dent). I went walking a few days later and couldn't believe my eyes.. the woods were trash-free. I was really, really happy about that."  --julie

"I can't even count the number of people who have either reduced their meat consumption or gone veg themselves after following my example of veganism. Even those who at first ridiculed me ("Wouldn't you like to eat a hamburger once in a while?") - can be counted among my 'converts.'" --Sara

"I use cloth diapers on my son (except when he's at day care, because my daycare provider insists on disposables, at least I do Seventh Generation ones) and that seems to make an impression in my moms groups." --Jessica

Sharing a limited planet

Yesterday, for the purposes of provoking conversation, I posed the question of whether the earth would be better off without people. I, of course, don't believe this at all. But I do think dealing with the question causes interesting conversation.

I was particularly intrigued by the response of Ruchi, who writes the blog Arduous. She wrote, with a couple of insertions in square brackets by me:

The point is not that all of humanity should lessen our impact, therefore it might be better if we all committed suicide. The point is that right now the distribution of resources is wholly inequitable.

A month ago, I went to the villages of India. We drove to villages far away, and as we came back to the village where I was staying it was dark. And almost none of the homes had electricity. The only light most of them had was that of a fire.

"How do the children study?" I asked. "They have to study in the day, or they can't study."

So, basically, what I'm saying is, we in the developed world need to limit our consumption [of limited planetary resources] so that a) people in the developing world can have access to some of these resources b) people in the future can have access to some of these resources.

This isn't about committing mass suicide, this is about redistribution of limited resources over time and space.

Now hopefully, we'll also develop new [renewable, less limted] resources, and I do believe in that. But I think that living lighter now allows us the luxury of more time to properly develop those resources.

So anyway, no, this is not about whether humanity is good or bad for the planet. We don't need to prove ourselves to the PLANET. We need to prove ourselves to each OTHER.

[I can't help from adding one comment. As Ruchi so elegantly frames it, in other words, limiting resource use is not life denying, but in so many ways, it is life affirming.]

Picture of two kids sharing an ice cream courtesy of Ayo's Web Design.

A good natured tiff with an environmental big wig

A few weeks back I was noodling around the internet and I came across The Breakthrough Institute, started by Michael Shellenberger (pictured here) and Ted Nordhaus, the authors of the controversial book Break Through: The Death of Environmentalism and the Politics of Possibility, which I admire and have discussed before. I zapped off an email, never expecting to hear, but bingo! Shellenberger wrote me back.

It turned out that, given that the first half of Break Through is a critique of the environmentalist "politics of  limits," Michael was a bit incredulous that I had either a) read the book or b) agreed with much of it. So he zapped me back--and I mean zapped--and pushed on this point and others. We got into a nice little debate (and you know, debating is something I usually avoid).

We decided we'd post the exchange on our respective web sites (Michael's blog is here), and then continue the conversation in person after he and Ted appear here in New York to deliver a Focus the Nation talk at NYU on January 31. Below is the beginning of our exchange. We will continue to publish the back and forth this coming Thursday, Monday and Wednesday (every other day, in other words).

Michael: It's great when we meet people who understand the very important point that action on global warming need not be about Nature or global warming, but could instead be about economic development, energy independence or something else.

I would also be interested in your take on a) our argument against the sacrifice framework in chapter 6, and b) our contention that we can't reduce our way to 80 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. (and 50 percent worldwide) by 2050, by reducing our carbon footprint.

Colin: Well thanks for saying nice blog! I'll get back to you on your questions, but to clarify, by question b) do you mean your contention that we need to institute new technologies and need massive federal funding to get them going?

Michael: Let me put it in a more pointed way. I don't think we can convince very many Americans or Chinese to do what you're doing. And I don't think we should try because we'll only alienate them. Instead I think we need to find ways to allow people to keep on consuming without generating emissions or depleting resources. Technically, renewable energy and infinite materials recycling should make this possible. Both, however, remain expensive. Hence, the need for breakthroughs in performance and price.

Also, to be even more pointed, I don't think you are a "no impact man," as you claim. I think you're probably a "lower impact man." But that's been made possible by living in a high impact society. You've been able to reduce your emissions drastically because a) your ancestors, grandparents, and parents prospered thanks to coal and oil; b) you received a good education (judged by your writing) that required fossil fuels consumption; c) you live in an astonishingly modern city built and sustained by fossil fuels so that even if you don't directly consume fossil fuels, the garbage men, police officers, and school teachers who make your life and the life of your family possible, do consume fossil fuels; d) you pay taxes, and the government takes a portion and subsidies fossil fuels with it; and on and on.

Don't get me wrong. I try to reduce my emissions as much as the next guy. But I believe my biggest contribution to overcoming eco crises will come neither from convincing others to do the same but rather from convincing Americans that a major investment in new technologies and infrastructures, here and abroad, will make their lives better and safer, and restore America's founding purpose: greatness. That's a fairly different project than asceticism, which I think can be creative and fulfilling but not a solution to the crises we face.

And that was Michael's shot across my bow! You can be sure I answered him and was even--I hate to admit--a little rude (don't worry, I apologized). Tune in Thursday for my reply to this email (rude bits expurgated). It turns out to be a great discussion.

Interview with Senator John Edwards

As you know, No Impact Man as a project asks the question, "What can I, as an individual, do to help the planet?" And I believe strongly that individual action is important, but I don't believe it replaces political action. I believe the two are complimentary and  strongest when they come together. For that reason, my colleagues Jessica Osserman, Devon Bertram and I have been reaching out to major presidential candidates of all parties to ask them to participate in a series of email interviews to do with environmentalism. For comparison purposes, each of the candidates will be asked to answer the same questions. Here is the first of candidate replies, from Senator John Edwards.

1. Do you support an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050? If so, do you agree that a 40 MPG fuel efficiency standard and a moratorium on building coal-fueled power plants are necessary, or do you have alternative plans? If not, what should our goals be and how do you intend to accomplish them?

Global warming is the most important environmental challenge of our lifetime. That’s why I am proud that I was the first presidential candidate to offer a detailed plan for halting global warming that includes an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  I am glad that some of the other candidates have followed me in adopting this call for change.
 
In order to achieve that level of emissions reduction, we are going to have to raise automotive fuel-efficiency standards significantly in this country.   I have called for increasing fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016.  That would single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day.   As president, I will invest one billion dollars into making sure that we make the most fuel efficient cars on the planet here in the United States, with union workers.  We can do it by investing in new technologies like hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars, ultra-light materials, and hydrogen fuel cells.   
 
I also support a national ban on the construction of all new coal-fired power plants that cannot capture their emissions.  America will rely on its coal resources for decades or longer, and we need to find a way to use them without heating the planet.  I am committed to investing $1 billion a year in research and testing to jumpstart the means to store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely underground.  New coal-fired plants should be built with the required technology so that plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow.   
 
2. A number of polls have suggested that American citizens may not be willing to make lifestyle sacrifices to support environmental improvements. Do you think significant lifestyle changes (like driving much less) may ultimately be necessary and if so how would you convince Americans to accept them?

I’ve seen with my own eyes what Americans can do when called to action. In January, my campaign asked supporters to join our One Corps National Day of Energy Action.  All across the country, members of One Corps – the community service arm of our campaign – took action and worked on community service activities including weatherizing homes and distributing energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs.
 
That is just the beginning. It’s time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war. Our generation must be the one that says ‘yes’ to alternative, renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil.  Our generation must be the one that accepts responsibility for conserving natural resources -- and both demands and develops the tool to do it.  Our generation must be the one that says, ‘we must halt global warming.’ If we don’t act now, if we don’t seize this moment, it will be too late. 
 
I have a plan to meet the demand for more electricity in the next decade through efficiency, instead of producing more power.  Americans can get more power out of the electricity now available, typically at half the cost of producing more supply.   
 
There are large energy savings possible today in energy generation, transmission, and use in homes, factories, and offices.  I have called for a national goal of meeting our expected rise in electricity demand by getting more power out of the electricity we use now for the next decade.   
 
To accomplish this ambitious goal, we need to make efficiency profitable for utilities.  Most utilities profit from selling electricity, even when it would be cheaper to help their customers use less energy.  As president, I will call on states to decouple utilities' energy profits from sales, as California and nine other states have done, so they can focus on serving customer needs. States can also reward utilities for meeting green energy targets.
 
I support expanding smart meters and smart grids to help consumers use energy more wisely.  By displaying energy use and its price as it is used, smart meters encourage consumers to use less energy and to use it when it can be generated less expensively. Utilities can also use information technology to monitor electricity demand, allowing them to plan their production more efficiently.
 
3. Some environmentalists are concerned that, with carbon emissions dominating dialogue on conservation, other issues may be ignored. What is your second environmental priority after global warming and what do you intend to do about it?

Stopping global warming is my highest environmental priority, but after eight years of the Bush Administration there will be a lot of work to do.  In my first year, I will work to reverse every harmful environmental executive order and regulation issued by the Bush administration.  I will submit legislation strengthening the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and restoring the “polluter pays” principle in the Superfund.  
 
4. A number of environmental thinkers have suggested that continued growth in GDP (and the implied growth in resources) and solving our environmental crisis are at odds with each other. Do you think growth in GDP and environmental sustainability are at odds with each other? Does there need to be a choice between economic growth and commitment to our environment? If so, how do you negotiate between these two priorities? If not, how do you see this inter-relationship?

Securing our environmental future will not require shortchanging our economic one. In fact, the opposite is true.  Right now, our economic progress is threatened by rising energy prices and our dependence on unstable regions for fuel.  Pursuing sound environmental and energy policy will actually drive the economy, rather than limiting it.
 
I have no doubt that with the right leadership, we will create a New Energy Economy right here in America. We’re going to create new jobs. We’re going to build the cars of the future here.  And I am convinced that it is going to create new opportunities for all kinds of Americans – bring the family farms back to life – create new high-paying “green collar” jobs making and installing clean energy technology – and new opportunities for innovators and entrepreneurs.   
 
I will create a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. The fund will support U.S. research and development in energy technology, help entrepreneurs start new businesses, and help Americans conserve energy. 
 
One of my concerns is that the economic benefits from transforming our economy be distributed fairly.   What’s happened in this country over the last generation over the entire economy is the growth has gone into the hands of a privileged few.  Over the last 20 years, about 40 percent of the economic growth has gone to the top 1 percent.   
 
If you care, the way I do, about the bringing the Two Americas that I’ve talked about together and building One America, then we have to make sure that doesn’t happen with the jobs and wealth I know we can create from clean energy.
 
I have a plan to open up how we provide electricity in America to create more competition and more options.  What we have now is we have centrality; big power companies that make more money, the more power we use. What we want to do is spread and create more competition. Decentralize these power grids, allow community groups, smaller communities, grassroots organizations to compete and drive down prices.   
 
I believe we have the ability to harness American ingenuity to stop global warming.  But if all we do is replace oil tycoons with green tycoons, we will have missed an opportunity to help build One America – where everyone has a chance to succeed.
 
5. What kind of car do you drive or travel in and how many MPG does it get?

My family drives two cars—a Ford Escape Hybrid that gets a combined 30 miles per gallon, and, for times when we need to transport more people, a Chrysler Pacifica, that gets 19 miles per gallon combined.

Photo by Rachel Feierman

PS If you enjoyed this post, please let more readers know about it by linking to it on your own blog or using the links below to email it around, favorite it on Technorati, Dig it, list it on del.icio.us or Stumble it. Thanks!

Giving and impact

Today's post is by Professor Arthur Brooks (pictured here), director of the non-profit studies program at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Arthur has been a fervent supporter of the No Impact experiment and a great personal morale booster since No Impact started. His ideas on the unnecessary cleft between individual and collective action have helped form the underlying philosophy of the No Impact experiment (see my New York Times OpEd). His thoughts on charitable giving have led to my tithing ten percent of my gross income, both to environmental and non-environmental charities, as an element of the No Impact experiment--part of the positive impact that will counteract what negative impact I can't eradicate.

Recently, Colin and I have had a series of great conversations about how the ideas of "no impact" tie collective action to personal responsibility.

I think that one fair way to describe the main worldview difference between conservatives and liberal is the “unit of analysis” at which action is necessary to make progress in society. Generalizing greatly (and with appropriate apologies for doing so), conservatives often view society as a big bunch of individuals, and thus individual action as the right focus for our attention. In contrast, liberals are much more focused on the collective, often expressed through the actions of the state. For many on the left, implicitly if not explicitly, individual action is a futile focus for real social change.

I wrote a book last year called Who Really Cares, where I argued  that conservatives tend to give more of their money to charity than liberals do. One major reason for this, I showed, was differing views on the role of the individual versus the collective: People who support government solutions to social problems tend to donate substantially less to charity than those who do not support government efforts. (For example, in 1996, people who believed the government should not take greater measures than at present to reduce income inequality gave, on average, about four times as much money to charity each year as those who believed the government should equalize incomes more.)

On the political right, my book has frequently been taken as evidence that conservatives, giving privately of their own resources, are more virtuous than liberals. On the left, I have heard over and over again that, despite my findings, liberals are actually far more caring because they are not content to assuage their own sense of duty with a private charity band-aid, but rather are looking for systemic solutions through laws, policies, and even by holding jobs that (they argue) are more socially-valuable than those usually held by conservatives. (Personally, I reject the claim that bankers are less socially valuable than teachers, but that's another matter.) Of course, these claims—right or wrong—reinforced the very patterns I had exposed in the book.

What does all this have to do with No Impact Man? At its root, the No Impact experiment examines how people with high collective ideals for the environment can bring their personal actions into harmony with those ideals. Giving to charity can do exactly the same thing. A belief in collective action (e.g. goverment income redistribution) doesn't have to displace private giving. On the contrary, private giving can make the private behavior of people committed to collective action -- even government action -- congruent with their political beliefs.