It takes a village...
I found myself flippantly spouting this phrase in the Costco parking lot the other day. I was trying to unload my giant packages of granola bars, cucumbers, (and the real reason for my visit) mini chocolate bars for "Halloween." The already onerous task was complicated by my two girls under two in tow. A nice lady came up and offered to take my cart back for me. I had already received a few other nice gestures on the shopping trip and as someone who doesn't accept help well I was feeling humbled yet grateful. "Thanks. I guess it really does take a village." I quipped as she walked away.
"It takes a village to raise a child."
I've heard the African proverb plenty of times before but it really rings true now. My mom and sister both live out of country and Josh and I find ourselves leaning on a myriad of people for help. In the weeks following the birth of our youngest on Labour Day I was overwhelmed by the support. People we only casually see, neighbours, friends from church, all bringing by gifts and food. It was such a blessing. Apart from the odd offer to return a cart, the outpouring of help after a new baby is maybe the closest thing I've seen to the African proverb ringing true in our western society. As our kids get older we draw further into our nuclear family homes. As a mom, I saddle myself with the burdens of household chores, and parenting responsibilities despite my exhaustion. It's almost like the more tired I am, the more I can martyr myself and feel like I'm doing a good job. Not to say spending time with your kids is a burden but it can feel like it sometimes when you're all alone, especially in the middle of a Saskatchewan winter.
How does any of that tie into our Eco-blog? The one I have neglected to write in since our second was born last month.... It's amazing how adding one more tiny person to a household can add so much to overall consumption. I am buying more, throwing away more, wasting more, driving more, taking the easy route. Basically I am shame spiralling about my environmental impact as a mother of two.
When our first daughter was born I used cloth diapers for about 9 months. Now I order fancy diapers online that claim to be ethically sourced and environmentally friendly but every time I look at the huge pile of them accumulating in our back alley bin I feel a pang of guilt.
I know some super moms who have way more than two kids who do nothing but cloth diaper. They say to achieve change, you have to want something more than what you already have. I want a cleaner world for my girls, but in the moment I guess my actions say....I really want more sleep and less laundry.
Then there's my trip to Costco. I have been trying to support local businesses in my area. It falls in line with my beliefs to prop up the little guy and try to build an economy with diverse options not run my a few massive players. But I woke up one day craving those giant cake muffins they have at the Costco bakery and next thing you know I've spent $100.
I guess what I'm trying to articulate is.... I haven't given up. I have just suffered a few setbacks. In the past we have ordered from Local and Fresh. They deliver locally sourced food right to your door. Also wouldn't it be great to bring back Happy Nappies? It was a cloth diaper service run in Regina by Sask Abilities. They would come pickup used diapers and bring clean ones. There are great people offering services that allow you to have it both ways, be a bit lazy and still less wasteful.
Underlying it all, there's the old proverb. The decisions we make for our families aren't in a vacuum. Choices about food and diapers seem trivial but they impact the world. Then there's the issue of how I model myself for my kids. That will help shape what kind of global citizens they become. Josh read this whole article about the environmental impacts of how many kids we choose to have. It's got us thinking about the whole.... "do we try for a third?" debate. That's a topic for another day. The arguments on both sides are really interesting. It is obviously also a sensitive and personal issue. That's the interesting thing about families though. It is a personal decision, and the whole village is waiting to see how it turns out.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Why I am Pro-life and NOT voting Conservative
In January 2007 I landed my first Canadian teaching job at my alma mater Notre Dame in Wilcox, SK. There I would live a dream of teaching Christian Ethics to young people. While I was preparing to teach a class dedicated to the subject of morality I remember reading a section of the text book called "A Seamless Garment: having a consistent pro-life ethic." While I don't remember the specifics of that section, I do remember its gist: being pro-life doesn't mean that you are just anti-abortion or against euthanasia. It means that from the womb to the tomb, you are a person who defends and advocates for life. This means that you would be equally against capital punishment, war and any economic policies that would seeks to exploit the poor and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few. And with Pope Francis' new encyclical on ecology, I would dare say that this brand of pro-life would also apply to defending and advocating for all of Creation.
Promoted by American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, inspiration for the "seamless garment" came from the Gospel crucifixion account where Roman soldiers decided to cast lots (ancient dice tossing) over Jesus' robe instead of tearing it into pieces. Bernardin took this story and applied it as a metaphor for having a consistent pro-life Christian morality. The idea was that, while certain things may be more important than others, all issues that threaten human life are interwoven and Christians must take them all seriously.
My concern is that, while abortion is a significant piece on that seamless garment of life, it has been ripped off of the robe to the exclusion to all other assaults on life. Christian Right wing organizations such as Canada Family Action exploit this garment shredding by telling voters to "Do [their] part to make sure [Canada] remains a nation that supports life" by voting Conservative. I find this really confusing when on their pamphlets they make it clear that the Conservative Party, "Will not initiate legislation on abortion." (See attached picture at the bottom for full table that Canada Family Action released; doesn't include Green party position which fully supports a woman's right to choose but allow individual MPs to make personal decision based upon their consciences and their constituents)
Personal story: In 1998 I marched down a Washington D.C. main street towards the Capitol. In my hands were small wooden sticks extending out from a miniature casket representing one of the 30 years that abortion was legal in the U.S. I said nothing during the march, just walked in humble reflection thinking about the great mass of lives lost through abortion. At one point I was yelled and screamed at by pro-choice mobs demonstrating on the sides of the streets. I was only 19 years old. A couple of years later I learned that abortion was not just an issue "out there" but something that had taken place within my own family. Believe me, abortion is not an issue that I have not thought about or have taken lightly.
Following the lead of both Catholic and Evangelical churches that I attended, I continued my zeal for pro-life activism. And then, in 2006, as part of my teaching degree, I decided to teach for a year in Kampala, Uganda. It would be a year where I would begin to learn how complicated and unjust the world's political and economic systems were. 2006 was also the last time that I would vote Conservative. Part of the reason I voted Blue was because I thought that the party would actually take some action on abortion.
It was during the brief reign of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004 that Stephen Harper made his position on abortion known: "I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum..."
Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes," and that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services, again asserting that this is a health matter and under provincial jurisdiction. (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-plans-to-change-abortion-laws-harper-1.466847 for full article)
These are clearly the words of a leader who has no desire to make abortion a high priority issue. And so it really frustrates me when Christians say that they are voting Conservative because it is a pro-life party. Individual Conservative MPs can say all they want about being pro-life, but at the end of the day Harper will not allow them to do anything to change abortion laws in Canada (see National Post story).
Now, I'm not saying that I have the same stance as I did in 2006 on abortion. In fact, I probably agree more now with Harper's stance and even more so with Elizabeth May, also a Christian (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/an-activist-an-anglican-a-political-leader), who believes that all life is sacred and that abortion needs to be an option for those women in difficult positions where there seems to be no other way out. May says that, instead of reactive solutions, we should be looking at the root causes: "What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place?"
I can get behind legislation that would help create these type of preventative strategies and programs. And I also appreciate a leader who is seeking to create dialogue on a difficult issue rather than muzzle the consciences of those within her party.
Weaving the abortion fabric back into the seamless garment as a whole will help us see that high abortion rates are a symptom, much like capital punishment, stricter jail sentences, tougher immigration laws, increased military campaigns, poverty, exploitation of both Aboriginal and Third World peoples, and environmental degradation. While they are unique, all of these issues are inextricably linked to the fundamental human vices of greed and selfishness. And without a doubt, the greatest feeder of these evils is an unfettered capitalist system which instructs us to compete and consume, no matter what the cost.
In a recent speech that he gave at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Bolivia, Pope Francis spoke to the evil of an unbridled market which, rather than serving humanity, make us servants of money:
In referring to the injustices that all people, and especially the poor, face Francis says: "These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?"
He continues:
"The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."
(full article at http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at-world-meeting-of-popular-mo)
And so, if Canadians continue to desire such an economic system where there are clear winners and losers then by all means, vote for Stephen Harper. But before you do, consider what the Pope is saying (and I'm not saying he is telling us who to vote for but what values to support): the most anti-life movement right now is the unfettered global capitalist system in which Harper, and some other parties, live, breath and move. And when it comes to abortion, I would ask this: Which party is going to effectively address the root causes of abortion, which include poverty, education access and domestic support (a recent study found that 69 % of abortions in the US are chosen by women who live below the poverty line)? This, my friends, is the most pro-life party.
In case you missed my main point here it is: when it comes to the specific issue of abortion, even though certain parties are pro-choice, their social and economic policies will create a Canada in which fewer abortions take place. And as a pro-life person, is not the point to save more humans? Given the choice of a government that cloaks anti-family policies in pro-life rhetoric or one that has a pro-choice stance and encourages social programs that help the struggling mothers who are more prone to choose abortion—the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of colour (see Abortion Demographics article)—I would take the party that is actually reducing the amount of abortions, not abortion access.
And when it comes to "seamless garment of life" that I referred to earlier which encompasses justice, war, poverty, and the environment, the Conservatives record is quite poor. In a recent article entitled "The Conservative Vision of Social Justice" former Conservative MP Monte Solberg admits that, when it comes to governing, the Cons have it "half-right."
"While almost any Conservative Member of Parliament could provide you with a credible argument for the Conservative Party’s approach to reducing taxes or getting tough on crime, I would wager that almost none could justify the current ambiguous approach the government takes to spending half its budget in addressing social problems," writes Solberg.
In other words, while they have thrown money at social programs, Solberg admits that the Conservatives, and other governing parties, have done a poor job in effectively addressing issues such as addiction and homelessness.
Solberg says he saw this first hand when, as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, he confessed to "having very little idea" of the effectiveness of government funding to the Salvation Army to get people off the streets.
Solberg identifies the financial costs of social breakdowns of things like families, educational underachievement and crime as issues that are never raised for serious discussion in Canada.
Tackling such issues preventatively, rather then consequentially (think Harper's 86% increased prison costs since he came to power), could save a lot of money, not to mention all of the social and emotional costs for Canadians.
Solberg concludes: "if the Conservative Party is serious about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and improving productivity, the most obvious place to begin is to address Canada’s social ills more effectively."
Well said Mr. Solberg. Thank you for your honest exposition of Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative party's biggest weakness: It's lack of compassion.
Promoted by American Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, inspiration for the "seamless garment" came from the Gospel crucifixion account where Roman soldiers decided to cast lots (ancient dice tossing) over Jesus' robe instead of tearing it into pieces. Bernardin took this story and applied it as a metaphor for having a consistent pro-life Christian morality. The idea was that, while certain things may be more important than others, all issues that threaten human life are interwoven and Christians must take them all seriously.
My concern is that, while abortion is a significant piece on that seamless garment of life, it has been ripped off of the robe to the exclusion to all other assaults on life. Christian Right wing organizations such as Canada Family Action exploit this garment shredding by telling voters to "Do [their] part to make sure [Canada] remains a nation that supports life" by voting Conservative. I find this really confusing when on their pamphlets they make it clear that the Conservative Party, "Will not initiate legislation on abortion." (See attached picture at the bottom for full table that Canada Family Action released; doesn't include Green party position which fully supports a woman's right to choose but allow individual MPs to make personal decision based upon their consciences and their constituents)
Personal story: In 1998 I marched down a Washington D.C. main street towards the Capitol. In my hands were small wooden sticks extending out from a miniature casket representing one of the 30 years that abortion was legal in the U.S. I said nothing during the march, just walked in humble reflection thinking about the great mass of lives lost through abortion. At one point I was yelled and screamed at by pro-choice mobs demonstrating on the sides of the streets. I was only 19 years old. A couple of years later I learned that abortion was not just an issue "out there" but something that had taken place within my own family. Believe me, abortion is not an issue that I have not thought about or have taken lightly.
Following the lead of both Catholic and Evangelical churches that I attended, I continued my zeal for pro-life activism. And then, in 2006, as part of my teaching degree, I decided to teach for a year in Kampala, Uganda. It would be a year where I would begin to learn how complicated and unjust the world's political and economic systems were. 2006 was also the last time that I would vote Conservative. Part of the reason I voted Blue was because I thought that the party would actually take some action on abortion.
It was during the brief reign of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2004 that Stephen Harper made his position on abortion known: "I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum..."
Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes," and that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services, again asserting that this is a health matter and under provincial jurisdiction. (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/no-plans-to-change-abortion-laws-harper-1.466847 for full article)
These are clearly the words of a leader who has no desire to make abortion a high priority issue. And so it really frustrates me when Christians say that they are voting Conservative because it is a pro-life party. Individual Conservative MPs can say all they want about being pro-life, but at the end of the day Harper will not allow them to do anything to change abortion laws in Canada (see National Post story).
Now, I'm not saying that I have the same stance as I did in 2006 on abortion. In fact, I probably agree more now with Harper's stance and even more so with Elizabeth May, also a Christian (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/articles/an-activist-an-anglican-a-political-leader), who believes that all life is sacred and that abortion needs to be an option for those women in difficult positions where there seems to be no other way out. May says that, instead of reactive solutions, we should be looking at the root causes: "What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place?"
I can get behind legislation that would help create these type of preventative strategies and programs. And I also appreciate a leader who is seeking to create dialogue on a difficult issue rather than muzzle the consciences of those within her party.
Weaving the abortion fabric back into the seamless garment as a whole will help us see that high abortion rates are a symptom, much like capital punishment, stricter jail sentences, tougher immigration laws, increased military campaigns, poverty, exploitation of both Aboriginal and Third World peoples, and environmental degradation. While they are unique, all of these issues are inextricably linked to the fundamental human vices of greed and selfishness. And without a doubt, the greatest feeder of these evils is an unfettered capitalist system which instructs us to compete and consume, no matter what the cost.
In a recent speech that he gave at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Bolivia, Pope Francis spoke to the evil of an unbridled market which, rather than serving humanity, make us servants of money:
In referring to the injustices that all people, and especially the poor, face Francis says: "These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?"
He continues:
"The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home."
(full article at http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-speech-at-world-meeting-of-popular-mo)
And so, if Canadians continue to desire such an economic system where there are clear winners and losers then by all means, vote for Stephen Harper. But before you do, consider what the Pope is saying (and I'm not saying he is telling us who to vote for but what values to support): the most anti-life movement right now is the unfettered global capitalist system in which Harper, and some other parties, live, breath and move. And when it comes to abortion, I would ask this: Which party is going to effectively address the root causes of abortion, which include poverty, education access and domestic support (a recent study found that 69 % of abortions in the US are chosen by women who live below the poverty line)? This, my friends, is the most pro-life party.
In case you missed my main point here it is: when it comes to the specific issue of abortion, even though certain parties are pro-choice, their social and economic policies will create a Canada in which fewer abortions take place. And as a pro-life person, is not the point to save more humans? Given the choice of a government that cloaks anti-family policies in pro-life rhetoric or one that has a pro-choice stance and encourages social programs that help the struggling mothers who are more prone to choose abortion—the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of colour (see Abortion Demographics article)—I would take the party that is actually reducing the amount of abortions, not abortion access.
And when it comes to "seamless garment of life" that I referred to earlier which encompasses justice, war, poverty, and the environment, the Conservatives record is quite poor. In a recent article entitled "The Conservative Vision of Social Justice" former Conservative MP Monte Solberg admits that, when it comes to governing, the Cons have it "half-right."
"While almost any Conservative Member of Parliament could provide you with a credible argument for the Conservative Party’s approach to reducing taxes or getting tough on crime, I would wager that almost none could justify the current ambiguous approach the government takes to spending half its budget in addressing social problems," writes Solberg.
In other words, while they have thrown money at social programs, Solberg admits that the Conservatives, and other governing parties, have done a poor job in effectively addressing issues such as addiction and homelessness.
Solberg says he saw this first hand when, as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, he confessed to "having very little idea" of the effectiveness of government funding to the Salvation Army to get people off the streets.
Solberg identifies the financial costs of social breakdowns of things like families, educational underachievement and crime as issues that are never raised for serious discussion in Canada.
Tackling such issues preventatively, rather then consequentially (think Harper's 86% increased prison costs since he came to power), could save a lot of money, not to mention all of the social and emotional costs for Canadians.
Solberg concludes: "if the Conservative Party is serious about reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and improving productivity, the most obvious place to begin is to address Canada’s social ills more effectively."
Well said Mr. Solberg. Thank you for your honest exposition of Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative party's biggest weakness: It's lack of compassion.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Perpetual Economic Adoration
"Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money."
-Alanis Obomsawin, Abenaki Canadian filmmaker (b. 1932)
You can’t worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you’ll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can’t worship God and Money both.
-Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 6:24 The Message
No doubt many of you recognize the above two quotes. I can remember seeing the above one on posters decorating elementary classroom walls when I was a kid. It wasn't until tonight that I did a bit of digging and discovered it originated with a First Nations filmmaker named Alanis Obomsawin. She is well known for producing Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, about the 1990 siege at Oka, Quebec. While that is true, I bet her above quote has reached thousands of more people than her films. What I currently find most interesting about the quote you find in classrooms is not what's in it, but what it leaves out—you know, the part about Canada being so rich in resources, yet so eager to consume itself.
Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency.
I wonder if this quote alone would describe the current economic lust which front running federal election candidates are now stirring up in voters. I say candidates because I don't think that pandering to our current obsession with the economy belongs to only one party. As evidenced in The Globe and Mail debate this evening, the economy is the NUMBER ONE political issue for Canadians. Call me crazy, call me late for lunch, but in-between the "He's not perfect, but he'll take care of the economy" TV ads I've been asking some dreadful questions: what the hell is the economy? and why is it so important?
At its most basic level the word economy comes from the Greek for household management, or as my old football coach would say, "taking care of your area." This is a cute definition if you're talking about a family taking care of its household affairs in ancient Greece, but, as with most loaded terms, the word has taken on a much different meaning today. One of the founders of market capitalism, John Maynard Keynes admitted that capitalist theory is based upon avarice (extreme greed) and usury (charging interest on loans), both vices that are condemned in all human wisdom traditions. His hope is that we could use human greed to kickstart our economies and then hopefully restrain ourselves so that we would not "sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance."
If this is confusing to you, think about how it would apply in our happy little household in ancient Greece. Everyone would be happy as long as they all were extremely greedy and took whatever they wanted without a care for other family members. Still not make sense? Good. Because it doesn't. And neither does the economic system that we are living under today. Within such a system, there is always winners and losers. The biggest winners in our current capitalist system? Western, White, straight, educated, middle to upper-class men (yes, I know I am guilty). Losers include any opposites to the above list AND, because this is an eco-blog, the bio-sphere with inhabitants of all life forms.
Not a very good system by which to manage our common household, is it? But the problem is, we are immersed in it. This economic system is like a religion to us. Like religious fundamentalists, many of us our very uncomfortable with any criticism of our current economic system. Jesus warned us: Money has indeed, become our God.
In Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, a book that is even more relevant today than it was in 1975, E.F. Schumacher writes
Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.
And what is our current definition of "uneconomic?" Schumacher continues:
something is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money... This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.
Similarly,
It would be "uneconomic" for a wealthy seller to reduce his prices to poor customers merely because they are in need, or for a wealthy buyer to pay an extra price merely because the supplier is poor. Equally, it would be "uneconomic" for a buyer to give preference to home-produced goods if imported goods are cheaper.
Again, who are the losers in these exchanges: poor people—both producers and consumers; local and small businesses (farms, trades, etc.) that can't compete with the lower prices of corporations that outsource labour and purchase cheaper raw materials; and finally, a planet which absorb copious amounts of CO2 because of all the global transportation of goods.
If I've lost you at this point, I don't blame you. This blog has kind of turned into a rant. That's okay. For the past week I've had this angst building up within me as I've heard more and more jargon about "the economy." I guess I knew I had to write it out after the debate this evening.
Some of you may be fairly criticizing me for my lack of solutions. I agree. I am hoping in a future blog to write about an economic/political theory that I have been learning about recently. It is called distributionism and, from what I've learned at this point, it provides kind of an economic "third-way" somewhere between global capitalism and stuffy socialism that seems to be much more democratic.
Cheers...
-Alanis Obomsawin, Abenaki Canadian filmmaker (b. 1932)
You can’t worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you’ll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other. You can’t worship God and Money both.
-Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 6:24 The Message
No doubt many of you recognize the above two quotes. I can remember seeing the above one on posters decorating elementary classroom walls when I was a kid. It wasn't until tonight that I did a bit of digging and discovered it originated with a First Nations filmmaker named Alanis Obomsawin. She is well known for producing Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, about the 1990 siege at Oka, Quebec. While that is true, I bet her above quote has reached thousands of more people than her films. What I currently find most interesting about the quote you find in classrooms is not what's in it, but what it leaves out—you know, the part about Canada being so rich in resources, yet so eager to consume itself.
Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency.
I wonder if this quote alone would describe the current economic lust which front running federal election candidates are now stirring up in voters. I say candidates because I don't think that pandering to our current obsession with the economy belongs to only one party. As evidenced in The Globe and Mail debate this evening, the economy is the NUMBER ONE political issue for Canadians. Call me crazy, call me late for lunch, but in-between the "He's not perfect, but he'll take care of the economy" TV ads I've been asking some dreadful questions: what the hell is the economy? and why is it so important?
At its most basic level the word economy comes from the Greek for household management, or as my old football coach would say, "taking care of your area." This is a cute definition if you're talking about a family taking care of its household affairs in ancient Greece, but, as with most loaded terms, the word has taken on a much different meaning today. One of the founders of market capitalism, John Maynard Keynes admitted that capitalist theory is based upon avarice (extreme greed) and usury (charging interest on loans), both vices that are condemned in all human wisdom traditions. His hope is that we could use human greed to kickstart our economies and then hopefully restrain ourselves so that we would not "sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance."
If this is confusing to you, think about how it would apply in our happy little household in ancient Greece. Everyone would be happy as long as they all were extremely greedy and took whatever they wanted without a care for other family members. Still not make sense? Good. Because it doesn't. And neither does the economic system that we are living under today. Within such a system, there is always winners and losers. The biggest winners in our current capitalist system? Western, White, straight, educated, middle to upper-class men (yes, I know I am guilty). Losers include any opposites to the above list AND, because this is an eco-blog, the bio-sphere with inhabitants of all life forms.
Not a very good system by which to manage our common household, is it? But the problem is, we are immersed in it. This economic system is like a religion to us. Like religious fundamentalists, many of us our very uncomfortable with any criticism of our current economic system. Jesus warned us: Money has indeed, become our God.
In Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, a book that is even more relevant today than it was in 1975, E.F. Schumacher writes
Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper.
And what is our current definition of "uneconomic?" Schumacher continues:
something is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money... This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.
Similarly,
It would be "uneconomic" for a wealthy seller to reduce his prices to poor customers merely because they are in need, or for a wealthy buyer to pay an extra price merely because the supplier is poor. Equally, it would be "uneconomic" for a buyer to give preference to home-produced goods if imported goods are cheaper.
Again, who are the losers in these exchanges: poor people—both producers and consumers; local and small businesses (farms, trades, etc.) that can't compete with the lower prices of corporations that outsource labour and purchase cheaper raw materials; and finally, a planet which absorb copious amounts of CO2 because of all the global transportation of goods.
If I've lost you at this point, I don't blame you. This blog has kind of turned into a rant. That's okay. For the past week I've had this angst building up within me as I've heard more and more jargon about "the economy." I guess I knew I had to write it out after the debate this evening.
Some of you may be fairly criticizing me for my lack of solutions. I agree. I am hoping in a future blog to write about an economic/political theory that I have been learning about recently. It is called distributionism and, from what I've learned at this point, it provides kind of an economic "third-way" somewhere between global capitalism and stuffy socialism that seems to be much more democratic.
Cheers...
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Luckily the grapes were delicious
The other day we were supposed to have some people over to play Settlers of Catan. It was our anniversary and Josh loves Settler so I figured I would be the best wife ever and host an epic game in honour of our three years together. Guests means snacks so Clare and I went to Safeway to buy treats. I had gathered a pretty awesome assortment when I made my way to the self checkout.
As I rang through items I was shocked by one purchase in particular.
Organic grapes= $12.89
Excuse me!?!? Assuming I had made some kind of rookie error as a non-professional checkout girl I inquired with staff.
"this can't be the right price."
"No that's right. Grapes are expensive when they're not on sale."
At Dairy Queen I could get two burgers, two orders of fries, two medium drinks and two ice cream sundaes for less that this measly bag of grapes. How is that possible? What does that say about our society and options available for low income families?
It's hard enough to make healthy eating choices without factoring in prohibitive food costs. Josh can probably add some figures about evil subsidies here that are the cause of the current food situation. I don't have the facts to back up my outrage right now. Still, what can we do to eat well and not go broke?
Maybe worrying about it is a bad idea. When we made a pretend budget (which we never consult) Josh and I allocated a large portion of our monthly income to food. We agreed it is worth it to invest in good quality food. For awhile last year I was riding my bike down to Wascana Lake to pick up bi-weekly vegetable bins from Heliotrope. That was really great. I think I will start up again once I'm on maternity leave. The bins obviously aren't available in the winter.
Does anyone know of other affordable, local, healthy food options?
Then there's the question about the impact of eating grapes in Canada in the winter. Is it realistic and sustainable to expect we can eat whatever we want, whenever we want?
It's weird that so much of my life, and blogs posts, revolve around the grocery store. I like eating.
Also our tomatoes are almost ripe!!! The last carrot we pulled was microscopic and the broccoli is long gone. The kale has been eaten by some kind of bug but the beets look promising. Has anyone had success with urban garden peas? Ours have been sad two years in a row.
I heard this quote that reminds me of the environmental movement and gives me some hope for the future.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
I think we're in the third stage.
Also, the expensive grapes were delicious.
As I rang through items I was shocked by one purchase in particular.
Organic grapes= $12.89
Excuse me!?!? Assuming I had made some kind of rookie error as a non-professional checkout girl I inquired with staff.
"this can't be the right price."
"No that's right. Grapes are expensive when they're not on sale."
At Dairy Queen I could get two burgers, two orders of fries, two medium drinks and two ice cream sundaes for less that this measly bag of grapes. How is that possible? What does that say about our society and options available for low income families?
It's hard enough to make healthy eating choices without factoring in prohibitive food costs. Josh can probably add some figures about evil subsidies here that are the cause of the current food situation. I don't have the facts to back up my outrage right now. Still, what can we do to eat well and not go broke?
Maybe worrying about it is a bad idea. When we made a pretend budget (which we never consult) Josh and I allocated a large portion of our monthly income to food. We agreed it is worth it to invest in good quality food. For awhile last year I was riding my bike down to Wascana Lake to pick up bi-weekly vegetable bins from Heliotrope. That was really great. I think I will start up again once I'm on maternity leave. The bins obviously aren't available in the winter.
Does anyone know of other affordable, local, healthy food options?
Then there's the question about the impact of eating grapes in Canada in the winter. Is it realistic and sustainable to expect we can eat whatever we want, whenever we want?
It's weird that so much of my life, and blogs posts, revolve around the grocery store. I like eating.
Also our tomatoes are almost ripe!!! The last carrot we pulled was microscopic and the broccoli is long gone. The kale has been eaten by some kind of bug but the beets look promising. Has anyone had success with urban garden peas? Ours have been sad two years in a row.
I heard this quote that reminds me of the environmental movement and gives me some hope for the future.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi
I think we're in the third stage.
Also, the expensive grapes were delicious.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Sweep it to... London Drugs??
Today while cleaning out my brother-in-law's garage I ran into a classic consumer conundrum: What to do with old stuff (electronics, wood, furniture, etc.)? Staring at all of the household items, the thought of putting them all in the large red LORAAS garbage can behind me just didn't sit well. Why? I guess it was just the thought of them sitting in a landfill that really bothered me. Or even worse, being shipped back to its birthplace in China where it can leach toxins into poor peoples waterways (for more on this watch the short doc Exporting Harm—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDSWGV3jGek). Some of the items in the garage that I really didn't want to see go to a landfill were an old bicycle, a microwave, three computers, two vacuums, and a fan. I immediately called Sarcan, Saskatchewan's recycling organization, which has the tag line, "Sweep it to Sarcan." I really appreciated the friendly service that I got over the phone from a guy named Dwayne. Unfortunately, they could only recycle the computers. When I asked him about some of the other items, he suggested that I go to London Drugs. London Drugs! Really! Since when did they take-in recycling?! I decided to look into it and here is what I found out:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Doing+good+good+business/8294264/story.html
This is a story entitled "London Drugs Emerald Award 2013: Doing good is good for business" that I found in the Edmonton Journal. It talks about an electronic recycling program that London Drugs got on board with that has the basic premise, "If we can sell it to you, then we should be able to recycle it for you." Makes sense. What impressed me was that one London Drugs store in Edmonton had a 93% diversion rate for waste which also included the organics from staff lunches! It makes me wonder what our product diversion rate for waste is here at our house and, most of all, why the City of Regina collects garbage once a week and recycling only once a fortnight (if you don't know what this term means ask a Brit).
London Drugs sends all of its recycling to GEEP (http://www.geepglobal.com/) which has six Canadian locations, two of which are in Alberta (I'm guessing this is where Sask recycling goes). GEEPs mission is to encourage consumers and businesses to reuse whenever possible, with a near zero landfill goal.
A couple of things come to mind as I mull over this: First of all, think of how ridiculous it is that most of our e-stuff comes from China, only so that through planned obsolescence (for more on this see this 3-min portion of a great short film called "The Story of Stuff" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0), we can export it back to Chinese e-graveyards?! Like, are we really that inert that we would transfer our waste to dumps thousands of miles away? What is wrong with us? Sorry... Back to my point: I am happy to see that companies like LD recognize how stupid this is and are looking to, at the very least, break the e-waste export cycle.
Secondly, think of all of the jobs that opening these kinds of facilities in Canada creates! I just don't understand how anybody can see that the green shift and the economy are enemies? But then again, these are likely the same people who believe in the carbon spewing merry go around of cheap goods from producer to consumer and back to producer. Alas... I am venting again.
To wrap up, I would like to say how encouraged I was with LD taking the microwave, fan and computers. I also want to give props to Western Cycle in Regina, who took a piece of junk bike in as part of program in which they fix them up and donate them to marginalized people. I also want to thank the Hillbilly Vac Shack for taking in the two vacuums. And lastly, I would like to thank Rodney Sidloski down at Help International outside of Weyburn (http://www.help-international.com/). Rodney taught me a lot about the concept of zero-sum waste and how even the word "waste" is often a misnomer for "resource".
P.S. The London Drugs recycling program is called the Green Deal (http://greendeal.ca/)
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Doing+good+good+business/8294264/story.html
This is a story entitled "London Drugs Emerald Award 2013: Doing good is good for business" that I found in the Edmonton Journal. It talks about an electronic recycling program that London Drugs got on board with that has the basic premise, "If we can sell it to you, then we should be able to recycle it for you." Makes sense. What impressed me was that one London Drugs store in Edmonton had a 93% diversion rate for waste which also included the organics from staff lunches! It makes me wonder what our product diversion rate for waste is here at our house and, most of all, why the City of Regina collects garbage once a week and recycling only once a fortnight (if you don't know what this term means ask a Brit).
London Drugs sends all of its recycling to GEEP (http://www.geepglobal.com/) which has six Canadian locations, two of which are in Alberta (I'm guessing this is where Sask recycling goes). GEEPs mission is to encourage consumers and businesses to reuse whenever possible, with a near zero landfill goal.
A couple of things come to mind as I mull over this: First of all, think of how ridiculous it is that most of our e-stuff comes from China, only so that through planned obsolescence (for more on this see this 3-min portion of a great short film called "The Story of Stuff" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0), we can export it back to Chinese e-graveyards?! Like, are we really that inert that we would transfer our waste to dumps thousands of miles away? What is wrong with us? Sorry... Back to my point: I am happy to see that companies like LD recognize how stupid this is and are looking to, at the very least, break the e-waste export cycle.
Secondly, think of all of the jobs that opening these kinds of facilities in Canada creates! I just don't understand how anybody can see that the green shift and the economy are enemies? But then again, these are likely the same people who believe in the carbon spewing merry go around of cheap goods from producer to consumer and back to producer. Alas... I am venting again.
To wrap up, I would like to say how encouraged I was with LD taking the microwave, fan and computers. I also want to give props to Western Cycle in Regina, who took a piece of junk bike in as part of program in which they fix them up and donate them to marginalized people. I also want to thank the Hillbilly Vac Shack for taking in the two vacuums. And lastly, I would like to thank Rodney Sidloski down at Help International outside of Weyburn (http://www.help-international.com/). Rodney taught me a lot about the concept of zero-sum waste and how even the word "waste" is often a misnomer for "resource".
P.S. The London Drugs recycling program is called the Green Deal (http://greendeal.ca/)
One of the vacuums that was Made in China
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Sorry ma'am
Last night I walked to the grocery store to buy late night snacks. I took a back alley route down south Albert St because I am slow and pregnant. On the way I was grossed out by how much garbage was lying on the ground. I found myself scanning the trash for things that could be recycled. On the way there I spotted a magazine and thought....I should pick that up and put it in that nearby recycling bin. Just as the idea crossed my mind a car drove by. I panicked not wanting to look weird and kept walking.
At the grocery store I came to the till and gave the cashier my reusable bag. She scanned my food items and placed them inside. I had also bought some conditioner.
Side bar... It took forever to decide on which one and I settled on a $7 bottle that says its sulphate free and 100% plant derived. Those labels are hard to understand sometimes.
Anyway, finally satisfied with my choice I went to the till and the cashier swiftly pulled out a plastic bag for the conditioner to put inside my reusable bag. I guess to stop possible contamination?
I yelled- "no! Please don't!"
It was much louder and more desperate sounding than intended but she was so quick. I wanted to stop her. I politely explained that I understood it was probably grocery protocol to have separate bags for meat or dairy or produce or soap but that I didn't care. "I'm only going a few blocks." I said. "I think I can manage with everything together."
She looked at me understandingly and said... "You really love the environment."
"It's just I already have a huge drawer of plastic bags I'm meaning to recycle and I keep forgetting." I tried to explains self further.
On my way back I picked up the magazine and put it in the blue bin.
I didn't even spill any conditioner on my food.
I swear I also have things that actually matter to talk about too. Josh and I have been talking a lot lately about investing in an electric car. That opens up a whole can of worms about where our power comes from and the need for solar panels. That brings up the talk about how we need an extra $50 thousand dollars....
For now though, josh is doing well with the well researched, "big idea" portion of the blog. I'm happy to fill in the gaps.
Friday, August 14, 2015
SOLASTALGIA
Have you ever felt an ache in your heart when a certain landscape has changed or been affected by ever-encroaching civilization?
Years ago, when I lived in Calgary, I would often escape to Mount St. Francis Retreat Centre just outside of Cochrane. It would usually be the odd Sunday when I would hop in my truck and make the 25-minute drive from NW Calgary. Driving along Highway 1A I could sometimes feel the muscles in my neck listen to gravity and fall down into my back. It was as if my body knew that the beautiful mountain views would lead me to a place where I could decompress from the "rat-race" of the city. Often, after arriving, I would walk a loop that took you around the large, near 500-acre property. Part of that walk included a path through some beautiful spruce trees that waved majestically in the Chinook winds, whatever the season. There were certain points along that path through the trees where you could sit down and admire a view that included the Rockies to the west and the rolling hills of the Bow River valley to the north. While the views were amazing, it was the way that those spots affected the other senses that I really remember. Peace whispered through the wind in the trees while vitality spoke within its fresh aromas. It would at once give me the feeling that, if only for a moment, I was Adam, the only person on earth.
Fast-forward a few years later when I returned to visit that same pathway. Cochrane is a bustling little city with more and more people eager to fill new subdivisions. As I am walking down the path, I hear the distant sounds of hammers, saws and advertisement laden radio stations coming from the hill on the nearest northern valley. Looking across, my heart sinks, feeling that in some way this place will not be the same for me anymore. Why does this bother me so much? Is it jealousy that other people are enjoying what I thought to be just for me (aka. I am not Adam anymore)? Is it disgust at the lack of variety in the new housing constructed? This past week I heard a new term that may have described my condition.
Solastalgia, a term coined Aussie Glen Albrecht, is a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at home, but the environment has changed. It's true—homesickness would be exactly the word to describe what I felt as I looked across that valley. What I find interesting is that its not only changes in natural landscapes that produce this feeling. Only a few years ago a large red grain elevator was removed from Wilcox, Saskatchewan where I lived seven years. This sounds really weird, but it really left a gap in the town—and I'm referring to the feeling of the place, not the look of it.
Anyways, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with our eco-journey, but I know its something. Maybe its this: like changes in our closest people, changes in familiar places can really effect us, more than we think.
Those are my thoughts anyways... I would love it if you would be willing to share an example of solastalgia from your life and your views on how this is connected to what's happening in our local environments.
P.S. I am including a link to a paper I wrote for a Soil and Salvation theology class called Home. It talks about how my understanding of geographical places in our lives shaped my ecological relationships. Feel free to read if you wish:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19nMR4zmP1Gc0RENXRpMXhwXzVzVEtFYkN6Y3hEd0FNelJn/view?usp=sharing
Years ago, when I lived in Calgary, I would often escape to Mount St. Francis Retreat Centre just outside of Cochrane. It would usually be the odd Sunday when I would hop in my truck and make the 25-minute drive from NW Calgary. Driving along Highway 1A I could sometimes feel the muscles in my neck listen to gravity and fall down into my back. It was as if my body knew that the beautiful mountain views would lead me to a place where I could decompress from the "rat-race" of the city. Often, after arriving, I would walk a loop that took you around the large, near 500-acre property. Part of that walk included a path through some beautiful spruce trees that waved majestically in the Chinook winds, whatever the season. There were certain points along that path through the trees where you could sit down and admire a view that included the Rockies to the west and the rolling hills of the Bow River valley to the north. While the views were amazing, it was the way that those spots affected the other senses that I really remember. Peace whispered through the wind in the trees while vitality spoke within its fresh aromas. It would at once give me the feeling that, if only for a moment, I was Adam, the only person on earth.
Fast-forward a few years later when I returned to visit that same pathway. Cochrane is a bustling little city with more and more people eager to fill new subdivisions. As I am walking down the path, I hear the distant sounds of hammers, saws and advertisement laden radio stations coming from the hill on the nearest northern valley. Looking across, my heart sinks, feeling that in some way this place will not be the same for me anymore. Why does this bother me so much? Is it jealousy that other people are enjoying what I thought to be just for me (aka. I am not Adam anymore)? Is it disgust at the lack of variety in the new housing constructed? This past week I heard a new term that may have described my condition.
Solastalgia, a term coined Aussie Glen Albrecht, is a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at home, but the environment has changed. It's true—homesickness would be exactly the word to describe what I felt as I looked across that valley. What I find interesting is that its not only changes in natural landscapes that produce this feeling. Only a few years ago a large red grain elevator was removed from Wilcox, Saskatchewan where I lived seven years. This sounds really weird, but it really left a gap in the town—and I'm referring to the feeling of the place, not the look of it.
Anyways, I'm not sure what exactly this has to do with our eco-journey, but I know its something. Maybe its this: like changes in our closest people, changes in familiar places can really effect us, more than we think.
Those are my thoughts anyways... I would love it if you would be willing to share an example of solastalgia from your life and your views on how this is connected to what's happening in our local environments.
P.S. I am including a link to a paper I wrote for a Soil and Salvation theology class called Home. It talks about how my understanding of geographical places in our lives shaped my ecological relationships. Feel free to read if you wish:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19nMR4zmP1Gc0RENXRpMXhwXzVzVEtFYkN6Y3hEd0FNelJn/view?usp=sharing
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Cecil the Lion: Missing the forest for the trees
Watching the news the last couple of nights—you don't have much choice when your spouse works for a television news network—I couldn't help but notice the enormous amounts of coverage on the "Decapitation of Cecil the Lion". Seeing clips of protesters, petitions online, and graffiti on the dentist's property responsible for the killing confused me. Yes, I agree that poaching is bad and that animals should be protected, but if people are really mad about the killing of animals, shouldn't they be up-in-arms about climate change? We are now living in what is becoming known as the earth's sixth mass extinction. The Center for Biological Diversity websites states that:
"We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century."
While past mass extinctions were caused by natural catastrophes like asteroids, volcanic eruptions and natural climate shifts, this one is unique in that it is entirely caused by humans. The website continues:
"In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming."
My point is that if we don't do something about climate change, there likely won't be any Cecil's to cry over fifty years from now. I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here.
My other point on this is how people can get so upset about Cecil, while fellow human beings are being exploited and killed the world over. For this point I highlight paragraph 91 from Pope Francis' recent encyclical on ecology:
"A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. This compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment... Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society."
Well said. Just yesterday I was listening to Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything while at work (I'm painting for my brother-in-law so need something to occupy my mind). In the intro she talks about how a discussion with an Bolivian government environmental representative changed her view on climate change's impact. She said that many indigenous Bolivians living in the Andes mountains relying on fresh water from glaciers are seeing direct consequences of global warming. Their water sources are being drastically reduced and the worst part of it is that most of this is being caused by richer developed nations like us. In other words, direct consequences of our emissions are impacting people who already have much lower standards of living than us.
"We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century."
While past mass extinctions were caused by natural catastrophes like asteroids, volcanic eruptions and natural climate shifts, this one is unique in that it is entirely caused by humans. The website continues:
"In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming."
My point is that if we don't do something about climate change, there likely won't be any Cecil's to cry over fifty years from now. I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here.
My other point on this is how people can get so upset about Cecil, while fellow human beings are being exploited and killed the world over. For this point I highlight paragraph 91 from Pope Francis' recent encyclical on ecology:
"A sense of deep communion with the rest of nature cannot be real if our hearts lack tenderness, compassion and concern for our fellow human beings. It is clearly inconsistent to combat trafficking in endangered species while remaining completely indifferent to human trafficking, unconcerned about the poor, or undertaking to destroy another human being deemed unwanted. This compromises the very meaning of our struggle for the sake of the environment... Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society."
Well said. Just yesterday I was listening to Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything while at work (I'm painting for my brother-in-law so need something to occupy my mind). In the intro she talks about how a discussion with an Bolivian government environmental representative changed her view on climate change's impact. She said that many indigenous Bolivians living in the Andes mountains relying on fresh water from glaciers are seeing direct consequences of global warming. Their water sources are being drastically reduced and the worst part of it is that most of this is being caused by richer developed nations like us. In other words, direct consequences of our emissions are impacting people who already have much lower standards of living than us.
So while I applaud peoples anger and frustration with Cecil's death I would encourage us to dig a little deeper into the bigger issue that threatens all of earths species---including us.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Vehicles: Less is More?
For the past year Morgan and I have been discussing whether or not we really need more than one vehicle. One U.S. stat shows that cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all their emissions. StatsCan says that in 2005 private vehicle emissions accounted for 63% of our total household emissions (Saskatchewanians were the worst car polluters in the country, emitting 2,184 kg per capita). Naturally, an easy solution would be to decrease our driving and/or get rid of one of our vehicles. Turns out, that its not been that easy for us...
Currently we have two 2010 vehicles: one a Hyundai Elantra (aka Howie), the other a Ford Escape (aka Jimmie)—does anyone else name their cars?
There was a period of time earlier this year where we only had Howie because Jimmie was not yet in the picture and Fernando, our 2007 Honda Fit, had sacrificed himself to save me in a severe car accident this past December (another story for another time). During that time we decided to try living our lives with just one car. I would take Morgan to work, then drop of Clare at day care, and then drive to my work. At the end of the day, I would get Clare, and Morgan would find a ride home with a colleague since her job finished later than mine. This was doable, but resulted in a lot of driving for me, to the point where I wondered if we were even saving more money or more emitted C02. One day, I tried taking the city bus to work so that Morgan could have the car. It was somewhat inconvenient. The route included one transfer and a wait. Its poor that I complain about this when I saw so many of my students on the bus that day. They must take that route everyday! The other thing was that if I took the bus then no one could pick up Clare at the end of her day from daycare. All of this inconvenience led us to look into getting another car.
And that's just it: being without a car in a city like Regina is very inconvenient. I know that the city is trying to make the bus more accessible, along with bike lanes, but I feel there is so much more that can be done in this area.
Nevertheless, with me going back to school this September and Morgan on mat leave, our vision of living with one car may be more realistic. There are both good bike and bus routes to the University of Regina and that will leave Morgan with a car. And with this in mind the topic of dropping one of our cars came up again. Call it providence or serendipity, but after suggesting that we lend Howie out to someone who needs it within our community, someone in our neighbourhood recently approached us with a need for an interim vehicle. We are now considering this and trying to decide how it would work. It seems that God is smiling on our new attempt to cut down on our driving carbon footprint.... We'll keep you posted.
P.S. Recently I read this comment in a New Internationalist magazine that a reader had to a story on climate change. They said that the big things that need to happen start as simply, and as difficultly, as the places where we live and work. For example, what is the walking score of our homes in relationship to grocery stores, schools, and the big one, our places of work? And if that score is low, are we really willing to consider making changes that will increase that score. For me, I have taught for the past four years at LeBoldus High School which is a 10 min drive, 15 min bike ride and a 30 min walk from home. I have been considering asking for a transfer to Miller High School which is a 3 min walk from our front door. Think of how much this change would decrease my carbon footprint. I would not have to drive to work hardly ever! Now, I realize that there is a little more flexibility with a teaching job since there are schools scattered throughout the city. But lately I have been thinking about all of the advantages that one would have if they work, rest and play within the same general area. Not only would this decrease your carbon footprint but I am pretty sure it would increase your connection with your neighbourhood and general well-being. Again, another topic for another time...
Currently we have two 2010 vehicles: one a Hyundai Elantra (aka Howie), the other a Ford Escape (aka Jimmie)—does anyone else name their cars?
There was a period of time earlier this year where we only had Howie because Jimmie was not yet in the picture and Fernando, our 2007 Honda Fit, had sacrificed himself to save me in a severe car accident this past December (another story for another time). During that time we decided to try living our lives with just one car. I would take Morgan to work, then drop of Clare at day care, and then drive to my work. At the end of the day, I would get Clare, and Morgan would find a ride home with a colleague since her job finished later than mine. This was doable, but resulted in a lot of driving for me, to the point where I wondered if we were even saving more money or more emitted C02. One day, I tried taking the city bus to work so that Morgan could have the car. It was somewhat inconvenient. The route included one transfer and a wait. Its poor that I complain about this when I saw so many of my students on the bus that day. They must take that route everyday! The other thing was that if I took the bus then no one could pick up Clare at the end of her day from daycare. All of this inconvenience led us to look into getting another car.
And that's just it: being without a car in a city like Regina is very inconvenient. I know that the city is trying to make the bus more accessible, along with bike lanes, but I feel there is so much more that can be done in this area.
Nevertheless, with me going back to school this September and Morgan on mat leave, our vision of living with one car may be more realistic. There are both good bike and bus routes to the University of Regina and that will leave Morgan with a car. And with this in mind the topic of dropping one of our cars came up again. Call it providence or serendipity, but after suggesting that we lend Howie out to someone who needs it within our community, someone in our neighbourhood recently approached us with a need for an interim vehicle. We are now considering this and trying to decide how it would work. It seems that God is smiling on our new attempt to cut down on our driving carbon footprint.... We'll keep you posted.
P.S. Recently I read this comment in a New Internationalist magazine that a reader had to a story on climate change. They said that the big things that need to happen start as simply, and as difficultly, as the places where we live and work. For example, what is the walking score of our homes in relationship to grocery stores, schools, and the big one, our places of work? And if that score is low, are we really willing to consider making changes that will increase that score. For me, I have taught for the past four years at LeBoldus High School which is a 10 min drive, 15 min bike ride and a 30 min walk from home. I have been considering asking for a transfer to Miller High School which is a 3 min walk from our front door. Think of how much this change would decrease my carbon footprint. I would not have to drive to work hardly ever! Now, I realize that there is a little more flexibility with a teaching job since there are schools scattered throughout the city. But lately I have been thinking about all of the advantages that one would have if they work, rest and play within the same general area. Not only would this decrease your carbon footprint but I am pretty sure it would increase your connection with your neighbourhood and general well-being. Again, another topic for another time...
In the dark
Do you ever leave the lights off on purpose even though it's hard to see what you're doing? Or turn the light off behind you in a public washroom, just to save a bit of energy, even though you realize that it's silly and it probably doesn't make any difference in the big picture? No? Neither do I.....
My dad used to always yell at us when we were little for leaving the lights on. I'd be in the basement and he'd make me come all the way up to my room on the second floor to turn off my light. I'd always ask why he didn't just turn it off himself but the message he was trying to get across seems to have sunk in. I hate when someone leaves the lights on now. I think for my dad at the time the lesson was about waste, maybe wasting money that he had to pay for the power bill. Still waste is a big problem for most of us today.
Part of the reason I fumble around stupidly in the dark from time to time is to see what it would be like if we didn't have electricity. Lots of people don't. It really bothers me how much I take things for granted, not enough to stop taking them for granted though... I am constantly trying to remind myself how lucky I am. Only to be pulled back down into self entitlement and restlessness again and again.
A few weeks ago a water main broke on our street. I woke up at 3am to go pee....(pregnancy problems)...when I went to wash my hands, nothing came out of the tap.
I was stunned. I called the city to complain and found out we would be without service for about five hours. Five hours! What a major inconvenience to my conveyance filled life. Having no water really makes you appreciate how precious it is though.
Even if only for a day.
Yes, I am writing this while sitting on the bathroom floor in the dark.
Maybe we are all in the dark.
Too much?
I couldn't resist.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Clover: Weed or Flower?
Because of the dry summer we have been having (save the last two days of non-stop rain), our backyard and frontyard lawns have been taking a hit. In fact, parts of our backyard lawn—a small 12X20 ft. section—is now dead. Last week while surveying the damage, I had an idea: why not seed some clover? In addition to producing beautiful spring flowers, clover is an excellent nitrogen fixer, and above all, a top choice for honeybee pollinators. Sounds like a great grass alternative right? Apparently the City of Regina doesn't think so, or at least this is what Morgan was told while trying to buy some the other day.
After all of the stuff that I've heard about declines in worldwide honeybee populations and their importance to our food system, I find it really puzzling that the City would ban such a plant. Morgan said that the reason it was banned was because it's invasive... What is meant by invasive? Oxford says it is "to spread very quickly, undesirably and harmfully." If this is the definition of invasive then I would say that grass is invasive, not clover. When you think about all the water that is wasted and chemicals applied to lawns used throughout our city, should not grass be outlawed?
A couple of years ago someone told me that at the turn of the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to find a lot of grass growing in peoples yards. Reason? People needed that land to grow food. Then, as society "progressed"—another term that will deserve a future blog to unpack—the presence of grass was a sign of status. If you had a grass that meant you didn't need to grow your own food. Now everyone grows grass, even though its status symbol has faded.
Another example of how language can spin meaning are the words weed and flower. Why is it, that certain plants are called weeds and others aren't? If I came from a background that saw dandelions as a beautiful flowers with many uses, would the weed word association even occur to me? Just something to think about.
Anyways, I ended up planting the forbidden clover. I will keep you updated.
After all of the stuff that I've heard about declines in worldwide honeybee populations and their importance to our food system, I find it really puzzling that the City would ban such a plant. Morgan said that the reason it was banned was because it's invasive... What is meant by invasive? Oxford says it is "to spread very quickly, undesirably and harmfully." If this is the definition of invasive then I would say that grass is invasive, not clover. When you think about all the water that is wasted and chemicals applied to lawns used throughout our city, should not grass be outlawed?
A couple of years ago someone told me that at the turn of the 20th century, one would be hard pressed to find a lot of grass growing in peoples yards. Reason? People needed that land to grow food. Then, as society "progressed"—another term that will deserve a future blog to unpack—the presence of grass was a sign of status. If you had a grass that meant you didn't need to grow your own food. Now everyone grows grass, even though its status symbol has faded.
Another example of how language can spin meaning are the words weed and flower. Why is it, that certain plants are called weeds and others aren't? If I came from a background that saw dandelions as a beautiful flowers with many uses, would the weed word association even occur to me? Just something to think about.
Anyways, I ended up planting the forbidden clover. I will keep you updated.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
The little things....
Even though I feel climate change is a serious concern, I am hesitant to talk about it. It is still such a touchy subject. Social media is a great way to spread the word about something and I feel like the environment is an important topic for discussion. Still, the limitations of facebook and twitter leave a lot of room for misunderstanding, judgment, and a lack of empathy. That makes me nervous.
Even though I have opinions and I try my best to do better for my kids environmentally speaking, I am certainly no expert. I still go through drive thru at McDonalds sometimes, and turn on the air conditioning. I don't do research before every clothing or food purchase and I realize that makes me a hypocrite when I try and speak up about how we can all do better.
I guess I still think the point is to try. Finger pointing is easy. I am not trying to criticize anyone for their choices, but I am worried about where we might be headed. We should at least talk about how to be friendlier to our planet right?
If anyone has any suggestions about things they are doing I'm all ears. In the meantime, I like sharing my struggles and successes if anyone cares to listen.
In terms of action, it has been a slow start for me. I do little things like using reusable bags at the grocery store, turning off my car as soon as I'm not driving to avoid idling, and testing myself to see how quickly I can turn off the tap when I'm brushing my teeth or how quickly I can shower.
Grocery shopping is always interesting.... If you can't find something that fits both categories, is it better to buy local or buy organic?
Josh and I have recently gotten involved with the Blue Dot movement through the David Suzuki Foundation. That feels like a step in the right direction. Look into it if you have time. I'm sure the website explains it more clearly that I can.
Even though I have opinions and I try my best to do better for my kids environmentally speaking, I am certainly no expert. I still go through drive thru at McDonalds sometimes, and turn on the air conditioning. I don't do research before every clothing or food purchase and I realize that makes me a hypocrite when I try and speak up about how we can all do better.
I guess I still think the point is to try. Finger pointing is easy. I am not trying to criticize anyone for their choices, but I am worried about where we might be headed. We should at least talk about how to be friendlier to our planet right?
If anyone has any suggestions about things they are doing I'm all ears. In the meantime, I like sharing my struggles and successes if anyone cares to listen.
In terms of action, it has been a slow start for me. I do little things like using reusable bags at the grocery store, turning off my car as soon as I'm not driving to avoid idling, and testing myself to see how quickly I can turn off the tap when I'm brushing my teeth or how quickly I can shower.
Grocery shopping is always interesting.... If you can't find something that fits both categories, is it better to buy local or buy organic?
Josh and I have recently gotten involved with the Blue Dot movement through the David Suzuki Foundation. That feels like a step in the right direction. Look into it if you have time. I'm sure the website explains it more clearly that I can.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Starting out
Greetings all...
This entry marks the beginning of Morgan and Josh's (MoJo) eco-journey. The idea came to us because we are such a perfect green couple that wants to change the world... Ah... Not really. The truth is that a couple of nights ago we had a huge fight—I lamented about how our planet is going down the drain and Morgan kept citing examples of hope. This is how most of our fights go: If one person takes one side of an issue the other person will take and defend the other side, even if they disagree. Probably not the best marriage strategy, but this is to be expected when you marry two journalists.
The source of my laments came after listening to an audio book by Al Gore entitled The Future. A great book with lots of credible stats and information, there was one section in which Gore expounds all of the science behind climate change. The one stat that hit me was that since the first recorded temperatures in the late 1800s we have had 9 of the 10 hottest years on records in the world. This isn't that hard to believe after the heat that we have experienced in western Canada this summer, and the horrendous forest fires that have come with it.
Earlier this year we watched a documentary called The Age of Stupid which presents a clear message on the possible devastating effects of climate change if we don't get our act together. As a result of intense and heated discussions about what we can do to create a better future for our children (Clare 20 months and new baby to come in September), we decided to start a blog in which we would share the struggles and challenges that we encounter in both mitigating and adapting to climate change.
We are by no means neo-hippies who have things like fermentation and canning all figured out, but we are definitely wanting to decrease our carbon footprint and hope that you will join us on this journey and share your struggles as well.
Peace,
Morgan, Josh, Clare and Baby Campbell
This entry marks the beginning of Morgan and Josh's (MoJo) eco-journey. The idea came to us because we are such a perfect green couple that wants to change the world... Ah... Not really. The truth is that a couple of nights ago we had a huge fight—I lamented about how our planet is going down the drain and Morgan kept citing examples of hope. This is how most of our fights go: If one person takes one side of an issue the other person will take and defend the other side, even if they disagree. Probably not the best marriage strategy, but this is to be expected when you marry two journalists.
The source of my laments came after listening to an audio book by Al Gore entitled The Future. A great book with lots of credible stats and information, there was one section in which Gore expounds all of the science behind climate change. The one stat that hit me was that since the first recorded temperatures in the late 1800s we have had 9 of the 10 hottest years on records in the world. This isn't that hard to believe after the heat that we have experienced in western Canada this summer, and the horrendous forest fires that have come with it.
Earlier this year we watched a documentary called The Age of Stupid which presents a clear message on the possible devastating effects of climate change if we don't get our act together. As a result of intense and heated discussions about what we can do to create a better future for our children (Clare 20 months and new baby to come in September), we decided to start a blog in which we would share the struggles and challenges that we encounter in both mitigating and adapting to climate change.
We are by no means neo-hippies who have things like fermentation and canning all figured out, but we are definitely wanting to decrease our carbon footprint and hope that you will join us on this journey and share your struggles as well.
Peace,
Morgan, Josh, Clare and Baby Campbell
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)