No Impact Man

What I'd say if I was wrong about climate change

Yesterday, a reader calling himself "Richard Miller" left behind a critical comment about my meeting with Congressman Nadler in which I will ask him to sponsor a "Sense of the House" resolution calling for climate change policy based on what is scientifically necessary rather than just politically possible.

Richard asked, "How are you going to feel in a few years when your pet causes are proven to be hoaxes and frauds?"

I thought it would be fun, in today's post, to answer that question:

First off, almost no one serious, except for oil industry spin doctors (and welcome, "Richard," even if you are one), discounts climate change anymore. Even the current Administration accepts that it exists.

Indeed, most political observers agree that the real attacks on science pointing to climate change come from people and organizations who don't like the regulatory implications. They find it easier to try to obfuscate the science than to fight the resulting legislation on its merits (though, "Richard," if you would like to actually discuss the merits here on the blog, you would be very welcome).

Only yesterday, in fact, New York's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, called attention to the anti-regulatory attempts to manipulate science. According to Andy Revkin of the New York Times blog DotEarth, Bloomberg compared climate-change naysayers to tobacco-industry spin-merchants:

[Bloomberg] focused on smoking, reviewing how the tobacco industry spent decades sprinkling doubt into discussions of science showing links between smoking (and secondhand smoke) and cancer and other illness. While many wealthy countries have moved to constrain and tax smoking, the world, Mr. Bloomberg said, is still on a path toward a billion smoking-related deaths in this century.

He then shifted to climate and energy, describing how science has been distorted not only by industries and anti-regulatory groups, but also political operatives working within government agencies. The latest example, Mr. Bloomberg said, was the ongoing politics-driven push to subsidize ethanol from corn. [Read the text of Bloomberg's speech here.]

But to return to your question, "Richard," since many of the measures needed to deal with climate change have a lot of positive benefits, if it turns out to not exist, I will first praise God in thanks and then I will think:

1. I am glad we created 5 million or more new jobs here in the United States in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable generation.
2. I am glad we created a culture that relies less on foreign oil, so that our children can live secure lives, knowing that the energy rug can't be pulled out from under them.
3. I am glad we have found a way to save people and industry billions upon billions of dollars by making the use of energy more efficient.
4. I am glad the millions of children who suffer from asthma can now breathe easier thanks to the fact that we aren't pumping the air full of toxins from our exhaust pipes and smokestacks.
5. I am glad that, by no longer burning oil and coal into our air, we've put an end to acid rain and the devastation of our aquatic life.
6. I am glad that we created good, reliable, fun-to-use public transportation system so that families no longer have to raid their budgets to pay for cars and gas.
7. I am glad we've stopped building suburbs, which make people unhappy and are designed for cars not people, and instead build villages where people can have strong community bonds that help make life fulfilling.
8. I am glad we now have fuel-efficient automobiles.
9. I am glad that we've learned as a culture to get off the work-more-to-spend-more treadmill which gobbles up resources and leaves us unfulfilled and instead turned to a way of live full of meaning and purpose.
10. I am glad we developed local, fresh food systems that care not just about filling bellies but what we put in those bellies.
11. I am glad that we have rejected the philosophies of survival of the fittest and competition for resources as driving philosophies and have instead embraced a philosophy of compassion and justice.
12. I am glad that we have understood that a sustainable society cannot work without supporting all of its people and that we looked for and found ways to improve the lives of everyone.
13. I'm glad that we've come to see people rather than things as our most valuable resource and that, in embracing the respectful and loving principles of not wasting, we have learned not to waste youth in prisons but instead to get them help for their drug addictions and alcoholism.
14. I am glad that, in realizing our resources are limited, we have come to use them to do what is important and to help each other rather than compete with each other.
15. I am glad that we have come to see education as the ultimate in sustainable industries.
16. I am glad that we have developed distributed, renewable energy technologies that allow kids in all parts of the world to have electric light so they can learn how to read.
17. The list goes on and on, but in short, I am glad that we have embraced the opportunities presented by the crisis of climate change in order to improve our society in ways we should have done anyway.

Now, a question for you, "Richard." Since I've answered your question honestly, I hope you'll do the same with mine.

What would you feel if we went your way and you turned out to be wrong? What would you feel if we all assumed, as you do, that we need not do anything about climate change, but then that it turns out that we should have? What would you feel if we buried our heads in the sand, ignored the problem, and then irreversibly damaged the planetary habitat that we depend upon for our health, happiness and security?

Image courtesy of WrongWay.org.

I wish I had an iPhone!

The deadline is fast approaching, but I'm still hoping for more emails of support for my meeting with Representative Nadler on Friday afternoon. As you know, I will be asking him to help steer the country towards meaningful climate policy. Click here for details and to see how you can help. Now, onwards...

I had an email today from someone calling himself a "hi-tech environmentalist." What he meant by this was that his work and lifestyle choices tug him in opposite directions. "I have one side of my life which pulls towards a consumerist, energy-intensive lifestyle," he wrote, "and my other side pulls me towards slowing down, doing everything from scratch, reduce, reuse, recycle, etc." 

He wanted know if I had "encountered similar issues or people who dealt with the same thing and had any words of wisdom."

Words of wisdom I'm not so sure, but experience in this realm I do have:

First off, welcome to being a human being! I want an iPhone, too, but don't yet have one (please just die, I tell my second-hand Treo, so I can move onto a second-hand iPhone). Oh, hell, who am I kidding. I'll never get an iPhone (read why here and here).

But what helps me about the psychic push-me-pull-you (I want, I don't want, I want, I don't want) is that I get to understand the rest of middle-class America and Europe--seeing as I am, after all, a member thereof--and it gives me insight into the challenges we face if our culture is to confront the challenge of consuming less.

Desire seems to be at root of the human condition--at least of my human condition. At first, you want food and water. Then, you want shelter. Then, you want toys. Then you want better food and better toys and better shelter and then you want better and then better and more and more.

Studying myself during No Impact, one thing that I discovered was my desire does not go away when the focus of the desire is achieved. It just focuses on something else. In other words, it isn't cured by getting what I want.

That means that my wanting is just a condition and that chasing after what I want is kind of foolish since it won't actually make the want go away. This is not a teaching for the hungry and the thirsty. But for someone like me, who has his basic needs met, it has the potential to provide freedom.

If I accept that want is just like an ache that rises and falls of its own accord and that it can't be fixed, I can stop trying to fix it. I can live my life according to the things I really care about instead of according to the changing winds of my capricious desires.

In other words, understanding the nature of desire allows me to pursue a life of meaning and purpose instead of a life of chasing things.

Well, at least some of the time. That's the theory. I mean, who am I kidding? I still want that iPhone. But I'm not getting it. But I'd still like it.

Whatev.

Everybody will now probably think I'm a kook. Well, they've got that right!

PS By the way, so many bloggers did me the kindness of transmitting my call of support for my visit to Congressman Nadler. Here is a random listing by blog post title of a few that I took from Google alerts. Go visit them and tell them thanks.

• No Impact Man Needs Your Help!
• Make a Difference on 350
• Help No Impact Man Save Us All
• Help No Impact Man Have an Impact
• Please
• Guest blogger: No Impact Man
• Sunday Collection: Stardust
• No Impact Man, Global Climate Change Policy Action
• Tao
• Getting The Word Out About 350 — Something Worth Doing
• Do you have time for a favor?
• Doing my (little) part
• Support for No Impact Man, Colin Beavan

LV GRN: Make your own household cleaners and avoid health risks

Not to go on and on, but I'm still hoping for more emails of support for my meeting with Representative Nadler on Friday. As you know, I will be asking him to help steer the country towards meaningful climate policy. Click here for details and to see how you can help. Now, onwards...

Here's a no-brainer: One way to stay healthy is to stay away from poison.

For years environmentalists worried about the effect on aquatic wildlife and our drinking water of the toxins that go down our drains in the form of household products. The funny thing is, no one spoke much about the fact that if it was poison to the fish who swam in the tainted water, it was probably poison to the people who used them, too--another no-brainer.

Well, there was a story in the New York Times on Thursday about how Women's Voices for the Earth is both publicizing the health concerns of using conventional cleaners and promoting a way around using them. Women's Voices is organizing house parties all over the country to teach people how to homemake cleaners from products like Borax, baking soda, Dr. Brommer's and vinegar.

You can read about how certain chemicals in common cleaning products have been associated with increased prevalence of asthma, exacerbations of asthma symptoms, and respiratory ailments here. You can also read about how chemicals used in common cleaning products have been associated with reproductive harm such as alterations in sexual behavior, decreases in fertility, menstrual changes, changes in the onset of puberty, cancers of reproductive organs, miscarriage, premature birth and other effects here.

There are, of course, "green" brands on the market but Women's Voices' rationale is: Why pay $5 for a bottle of cleaner from a "green" brand that won't tell you the ingredients when you can make your own for pennies and now exactly what's in it (if you're a business person trying to be eco, you now see why transparency is important).

As you may know, we began making our own household products during the No Impact project, both to avoid the toxicity to both people and the environment but also to avoid buying the same throwaway plastic bottles over and over again. You can find my recipes here and here, but I thought it would be fun to list Women's Voices' recipes.

But first, if you want to join in their countrywide house-party promotion of homemade household products, go here. I've cut and pasted their recipes from here.

All-Purpose Cleaner
suggested uses: hard surfaces like countertops and kitchen floors, windows and mirrors

2 cups white distilled vinegar
2 cups water
20-30 or more drops of essential oil (optional)

Tip: Warming in microwave until barely hot will boost cleaning power for tough jobs. Only microwave in a glass container.

Creamy Soft Scrub
suggested uses: Use this creamy soft scrub on kitchen counters, stoves, bathroom sinks, etc.

2 cups baking soda
½ cup liquid castile soap*
4 teaspoons vegetable glycerin (acts as a preservative)
5 drops antibacterial essential oil such as lavender, tea tree, rosemary or any scent you prefer (optional)

Mix together and store in a sealed glass jar, shelf life of 2 years.

Tips: For exceptionally tough jobs spray with vinegar first—full strength or diluted, scented—let sit and follow with scrub.

Dry soft scrubs can be made with baking soda or salt (or combination of both) with 10-15 drops essential oil to scent

Furniture Polish
1/4 cup olive oil
1/4 cup white distilled vinegar
20-30 drops lemon essential oil

Shake well before using
(2 teaspoons lemon juice may be substituted for lemon oil but then must be stored in refrigerator)

Dip a clean, dry cloth into the polish and rub wood in the direction of the grain.  Use a soft brush to work the polish into corners or tight places.

Tips: To remove water spots rub well with toothpaste.  To remove scratches use 1 part lemon juice and 1 part oil, rub with soft cloth.

Toilet Bowl Cleaner

Option 1

Sprinkle toilet bowl with baking soda, drizzle with vinegar, let soak for at least 30 minutes and scrub with toilet brush.

Option 2

Put ¼ cup borax in toilet bowl and let sit for at least 30 minutes. Swish with a toilet brush and then scrub. A few drops of pine oil can be added for increased disinfecting. (Note: some people are allergic to pine oil.)

Tip: Let ingredients soak for a while to make for easy scrubbing, especially on persistent stains like toilet bowl rings

Drain Opener

½ cup baking soda
½ cup vinegar

Pour baking soda down the drain and follow with vinegar. Cover and let sit for at least 30 minutes. Flush with boiling water.

Tip: Prevent your shower form clogging by using a drain trap to catch hairs.

Laundry Detergent

1 cup soap flakes
1/2 cup washing soda
1/2 cup Borax

Soap flakes can be made by grating your favorite pure vegetable soap with a cheese grater.  Mix ingredients together and store in a glass container.  Use 1 tablespoon per load (2 for heavily soiled laundry), wash in warm or cold water.

This standard recipe can be adjusted for soft water by using 1 cup soap flakes, 1/4 cup washing soda and 1/2 cup borax.  For hard water, use 1 cup soap flakes, 1 cup washing soda, and 1 cup borax.

Note: Borax should not be ingested.

Tips: Add 1/2 cup white distilled vinegar to rinse as a fabric softener.  For a whitener, use hydrogen peroxide rather than bleach. Soak your dingy white clothes for 30 minutes in the washer with 1/2 cup 20% peroxide. Launder as usual.

For more great recipes, visit care2.com

Some great recipes (pdf) from the Association of Vermont Recyclers

Do homemade cleaners work?  Learn more about the properties of these cleaners!

Image courtesy of the New York Times.

The No Impact Man global warming primer

In this post, I present a layman's primer on global warming. But before we begin, I'm so excited and full of thanks for the fact that I have received more than 2 x 350 = 700 emails of support for my coming visit to Congressman's Nadler (click here to help me reach my goal of 3 x 350 = 1050). Thank you to the many to bloggers who have spread the call, like May at 350.org, but more especially, those who are outside the green space like Ikea Hacker and Wise Bread (I plan to mention the rest of you generous bloggers in the coming days).

During my visit to the Congressman, I plan to ask him to sponsor a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives calling for a climate change mitigation policy based not on what seems politically possible but on what is scientific necessary (go here for details and to read how to send an email of support). I will ask him to support the climate platforms of 1sky and 350 and to take the plea to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But one thing I've realized is that many of us don't quite understand the complicated question of how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet in the first place and why the 350 goal is so important. For that reason, I've included this draft of an explanation that I'm working on for my book. I'm sure it's imperfect, and I'd love for people who know more than me to weigh in, but I think it's a good first stab at a layman's explanation.

For starters, greenhouse gases, for all the bad press they’ve been getting lately, keep us alive. Well, not so much keep us alive as allow us to be born in the first place. Because the greenhouse effect, as it’s called, is what keeps the earth at livable temperatures. The moon, for example, which has no atmosphere and therefore no greenhouse effect, bakes away at inhuman temperatures during the day and becomes an icicle's icicle at night. On earth, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep us cozy.

“We’d all be dead if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect,” the climate change naysayers like to say, “so what are you worried about?” But the problem is not the greenhouse effect, per se. The problem is that the greenhouse effect is getting, as the climate scientists say, “enhanced.”

As it goes, certain naturally occurring gases in the earth’s atmosphere have little or no effect when it comes to warming up the planet—like oxygen and nitrogen. The sun’s rays can pass through these gases, bounce off the earth’s surface, and be reflected unencumbered back out into space. Certain other natural gases in the atmosphere—like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and high-altitude ozone—have the effect of absorbing and trapping heat from the sun and warming the place up—the greenhouse effect.

It turns out, though, that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities—especially burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and raising cattle—have begun increasing levels of those naturally occurring greenhouse gases. We’ve also added to the atmosphere a cocktail of other greenhouse gases that would not normally be there—like low-altitude ozone, substances known as halocarbons and a bunch of others.

The more we fill our atmosphere with these gases, the more we “enhance” the greenhouse effect, the more of the sun’s radiation gets absorbed and trapped, the warmer the Earth’s surface becomes. Think of throwing on a heavier blanket or putting double-glazing on the greenhouse or putting insulation on a building. Except that in the case of a planet warming, things get a lot more complicated and difficult to understand and predict.

For one thing, there is a tipping point, the level of greenhouse gas beyond which the associated temperature rise will cause damage—such as massive species extinction and the complete melting of polar ice—that cannot be undone. For another, as we continue to produce greenhouse gasses, we’ll reach this tipping point much faster than simple analysis might predict, because it turns out that the more we warm the planet, the more the planet warms itself. The scientists call this “positive feedback.” The rest of us might call it a frighteningly vicious cycle that goes, for example, something like this:

Warm the planet by adding greenhouse gases, and next thing you know, you get water evaporating from the oceans and entering the atmosphere as water vapor—the strongest of the naturally occurring greenhouse gases—which warms the planet more. Warm the planet enough to melt some sea ice and what used to be a highly-reflective white surface that sent sunshine back into space is now the dark blue surface of ocean water which absorbs it. Again, more warming.

The bad news is that the list of positive feedback effects goes on and is more extensive and complicated than anyone understands. Suffice to say, warming causes a domino effect that begets a lot more warming. In fact, in a study of the earth’s geological history, the United States Government’s most senior climate scientist, James Hansen, discovered that feedback effects increase the warming potential of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, by a factor of three.

To put it another way, theoretically, when the warming contributions of feedback effects are left out, a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere from pre-industrial levels would cause a temperature rise of 2° C (3.6° F). But in real life, in the actual recorded geologic history of our planet, thanks to the contributions of the positive feedback effects, a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused temperature to actually rise by 6° C (10.8° F).

Which brings me back to this question of the tipping point. Climate scientist across the globe agree that there is atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide beyond which, if it stays at that level too long, the temperature will rise too much and the planet will irreversibly change.

According to Hansen’s analysis of climate history, that level is 350 parts per million (ppm) by weight. In other words, for every one million pounds of atmospheric gas, no more than 350 may be composed of carbon dioxide. This level must be achieved, Hansen believes, if, in his words, “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.”

And the problem is, we’re already at 387 ppm and it’s rising by 2 ppm a year.

To help support my visit to Representative Nadler and my calling for a meaningful climate policy that supports the platforms of 1sky and 350, click here.

We can really make a difference. TODAY. But I need your help. Plus I have some free Reverend Billy DVDs to give away.

I really, really need support from all of you today (and I'm unashamedly bribing you with the offer of free Reverend Billy DVDs). But first I have to give you some background. Just read the bits in bold if you're in hurry.

Next Friday, May 30, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York's Eight Congressional District has kindly agreed to meet with me in his New York office. As one of his constituents, I intend to ask Representative Nadler to support an effective global warming mitigation policy that is based not on what is politically possible but on what is scientifically necessary.

More specifically, I intend to ask him to:

• Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy with a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, the resolution should say that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
• Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills), and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
• Pass on to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter addressed jointly to her and Representative Nadler, in his position as Assistant Whip, asking them both to push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Now then, here's how I was hoping you could help. My dream is to present Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi with between 350 and 3,500 (10 x 350) emails of support for these policy objectives.

Can you help? All it requires is a cut and paste job (see below).

Fellow bloggers: would you be willing to pass this request onto your readers?

Everyone: would you email this around and get your friends to pitch in?

Two bits of good news:

1. Representative Nadler has been an ardent supporter of environmental issues ranging from the thorough cleanup of the World Trade Center site to securing federal funding for state conservation and wildlife grants. He received a score of 95% for his voting record in the 1st session of the 110th Congress from the League of Conservation Voters.
2. Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping have provided me with five copies of their new DVD, What Would Jesus Buy (watch the trailer here). I'm going to give the DVDs to people who send in their emails of support (the 1st, the 35th, 100th, the 350th and the 1000th).

Here's how to send in your email of support:

Simply cut and paste the below, making sure to substitute in your name, mailing address and email address, and send it to [email protected] (it looks like a weird email address but, don't worry, it will work).

Dear Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi--

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the people of the United States. It is indisputable that the health, happiness and security of the American people depends upon the well-being of our planetary habitat. It is also indisputable that the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is causing changes in our habitat that will adversely effect Americans on every level--from our health to our economy.

On May 30, Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man will visit Representative Nadler to express to him support for a number of climate change mitigation policies that are much stronger than those currently passing through Congress. Please consider this a letter of support for the measures Colin Beavan will be advocating.

Specifically, I support Colin Beavan in requesting that Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi both, together or separately:

• Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy that accords not with what is politically possible but what is scientifically necessary--a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, this resolution should assert that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
• Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills) and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
• Push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Yours sincerely,

<Your Name>
<Your Mailing Address>
<Your Email Address>

Sharing the love

I thought it might be fun to post links to the blogs of some of the people who regularly leave comments here at No Impact Man but who have never gotten any attention from me.

I don't endorse them, I don't not endorse them. I simply value their input here at No Impact Man. I put these blog up in case y'all would like to take a deeper look at some of the people who comprise our commenting community (please don't feel left out, I'm just choosing five from the regulars at pretty much random).

By the way, if you never comment here, you'd be very welcome. You could start by leaving a comment about what you found on one of these blogs.

• Dove's Eye View
• Arduous Blog
• All Natural, Single Mothering 101
• An Animal Friendly Life
• Carbon Nation

Sustainable living as practice rather than morality lesson

I had coffee today with a fabulous blogger from Melbourne, Australia named Gala Darling who is in town in hopes of eventually transferring her life here. I'd never met her before except by email. We connected some time ago because my blog software told me she had linked to No Impact Man and I wrote her to thank her.

Gala's is this popular and interesting blog that succeeds, first, because of her incredible personality (I mean, just look at her) but, second, because it acknowledges people's complex nature. One minute Gala will blog about how to be the world's hottest kisser, the next about how to make excellent raw hot chocolate, and the next she'll link here to a No Impact Man post about living in gratitude instead of desire or how eating less meat can help the planet.

Gala told me that her blog is ultimately about personal development but that she mixes it up because she believes people are mixed bags just like her. In other words, people want to find meaning in life, to treat the planet correctly, and to live causing more good than harm, but they also want the right lipstick and sunglasses.

Personally, I love that about people. We may be messing up royally when it comes to planetary stewardship, but what a wonderful lot of contradictions and quirks we are. Believe me, this view is hard won. Because when I started the No Impact project, I was as big a finger-wagger as you can find. And I'm sad to say I still still can be (ask Michelle!).

But what I discovered is that finger-wagging and setting myself up as though I'm somehow more moral or have a more stringent set of values is completely counterproductive. Saving the planet is not a conversation about morals and values. Most people have morals and values, but they may prioritize them differently than me. They may, indeed, consider that my priorities are somehow immoral.

So talking about morals is not the way forward. Talking about the merits of sustainability may be helpful. Talking about synergies between human happiness and planetary happiness may help. Talking about the opportunities for changing our culture for the better may help. But telling people they need to get some morality like me, well, probably not so good.

Anyway, I'm sitting drinking coffee out of my jar, and Gala is laughing at me and good-naturedly telling me I'm weird and she asks me, "So what is your practice these days?" By practice, she means what part of the No Impact lifestyle have I kept. I'm struck by her turn of phrase.

Normally, one might ask, "What is your meditation practice?" or "What is your spiritual practice?" To hear sustainable lifestyle measures referred to as "practice" made me really realize that it really is, for me, just that--a practice. If I've forgotten my jar and the only coffee available is in a throwaway cup, I forgo the coffee. Does that save the planet? Probably not, but on some level, it may save me.

This gets me thinking. I am just the sum of the experiences that have fashioned my personality into the type of person who has to make a big deal about being sustainable. A stockbroker is just the sum of the experiences that fashion his or her personality into the type of person who digs playing the market. There's no better or worse. No Impact just becomes the practice that works for me. Playing the market is the practice that works for someone else.

If I can maintain that attitude, if I can understand the human motivations and values that underpin everyone's actions, even if I don't necessarily agree with them, I have a chance of meeting people on common ground and talking to them, not as a person who is morally superior, but as a friend. And people listen more openly to their friends.

It's like Gala's blog. If I want to attract people and change their minds, I need to understand them and their foibles and appreciate them for the fact that they may be able to offer some great pointers on lipstick and sunglasses. Think what the people of the world would look like if they all dressed like environmentalists. Would that even be a world worth saving?

Besides who wants to take the moral high ground? It's such a shaky place. I'd rather be the No Impact blogger who hangs one day with Gala the sort of fashionista blogger, together looking for and finding their commonalities and joking around and building human bridges and, whether saving the world or not, at least make it a little better by simply being human.

Designers: If it isn't life-enhancing, can it really be sustainable?

Consider, first, that reduced resource use and sustainable lifestyles, on both the cultural and the individual level, need not mean deprivation.

As an individual-level example, studies show that bicycle commuters are happier than car and transit commuters. As a cultural-level example, people who live in pedestrian-friendly areas like villages, where cars are used less frequently, tend to have more friends, the research shows.

In both cases--how a  person chooses to travel and how a culture develops its land--the scenario that uses fewer resources results in better quality of life. The happiness of people, therefore, does not depend on energy and material use. It depends upon whether materials and energy are used effectively to improve well-being.

Perhaps the designer of truly sustainable products and systems must ask, therefore, not just whether the product or system has the lowest possible energy and materials input. Perhaps the designer must also ask whether use of those valuable ecological resources can be justified in terms of quality of life improvement.

In other words, as I'm defining it, the "environmental effectiveness" (E) of a product or system might be mathematically represented by an equation that looks something like:

E = life enhancement / ecological resource use.

The more life enhancement (pleasure, health, contentment, security, community, connectedness) delivered per unit of resource, the higher the environmental effectiveness, the more sustainable the product. In other words, even a conventionally-grown apple has a higher environmental effectiveness than organically-grown tobacco.

And if you think about it, products like sugary sodas, when they contribute to childhood obesity, wouldn't score so well either. Carrot juice, on the other hand, even in the same throwaway container, even using the same resources to produce, because it delivers important nutrients, would score better.

Why is life enhancement so important in evaluating sustainability? Because we have become so short on environmental resources that we can no longer afford to be wasting them on things that don't even improve our lives.

Not until I let go of "us" and "them"...

...will the violence ever stop.

Day off for me and a present for you

Click on the image to enlarge.

I'm too tired to write much, but the artist Pamela Talese today made me an email present of this painting by her colleague Valeri Larko. Pamela thought I would like it because we've been talking about when to turf out appliances this week, and I figured you'd like it for that reason, too. Makes you think twice about throwing all that steel away, right?

Here's what Valeri says on her web page: "I spent the better part of 1999 through the end of 2003 painting on location at an active salvage yard in Hackettstown, NJ. I am amazed at how much stuff winds up at the dump." You can see more of her salvage yard series here.

As for what I have to say, that's it. Tune back in on Monday for more. If you can't wait till then, feel free to take a look at my new(ish) Facebook page, and if you want, leave a note on my wall saying why 350 is the planet's most important number (or look at my wall if you don't know).