TIME magazine recently reported on what happens to consumer electronics when they die, and it’s pretty ugly. Read the article, or if you prefer, watch Michael Zhao’s YouTube video:

In large part, it’s up to us to dispose of our e-waste safely, and up to manufacturers to publish instructions for doing so. For instance, my laptop (which is much-adored, and will not be thrown away anytime soon!) came with a recycling kit. One can always give old-but-working gadgets to charity and sell broken things for parts.

And on a larger scale, we ought to encourage the U.S. to sign on to the Basel Convention, and solve our pollution problems here at home rather than exporting them.  The Basel Action Network is campaigning for the U.S. to do just that. They also focus on the larger problem of rich-world pollution being exported to developing countries.

Exports and exploitation aside, though, I think the root of the problem is the mentality that says we have to have the latest, greatest, shiniest toys, and anything older than two months or so is just passé. Maybe it’s time to reexamine that assumption.

***

On a more positive note, the American University in Iraq is calling for book donations. They seem to be looking for books on social science, technical books, that kind of thing, so if you have the books and money for postage, this looks like a great way to do something positive for the Iraqi people.

***

Finally, Tamora Pierce and others have come out strongly against the proposed REPAIR Act (H.R. 767), which purports to help native wildlife but could end up hurting “undesirable” wild animals, such as feral cats. Feral cats are not a danger to humans, and they deserve to live every bit as much as do their domesticated cousins. It’s far better and more humane to neuter them and release them back into the wild than to kill them outright. (Besides, when the phrase “killing kittens” is used as shorthand for ultimate evil, it’s a pretty good indication that the government shouldn’t be funding it.) Please write your senators and ask them to vote against this ill-considered bill.

Tags: Uncategorized by Sarah Brand
2 Comments »

One of GOOD magazine’s latest “Transparencies” (interesting charts, to the rest of us) is on plants that can neutralize common toxins.  The chart itself is a rather unwieldy graphic - I had to scroll sideways to get the whole thing, and my monitor’s set at 1280 x 800 - so similar lists can be found in text here and here.

The items containing these toxins are everywhere (e.g., plastics, as those “essential2″ ads keep helpfully reminding us). Their effects may be slight; then again, they may not. Either way, we should want clean air on principle, and if a potted plant can help make it cleaner, then why not?

For myself, I’ll look into getting a red-edged dracaena (listed as “marginata” on the GOOD chart). The source of all knowledge says it requires minimal care, so hopefully even I can manage it!

Tags: Uncategorized by Sarah Brand
1 Comment »

In spite of the general tenor of this blog so far (collective action! social justice! RAINBOWS!!!!), I consider myself to be pretty pragmatic. Until recently, though, that meant valuing businesses over the environment. People were obviously more important than spotted owls.

But that isn’t what environmentalism means at all. It isn’t that the environment is more important than our lives; it’s because our lives are important that we need this planet. And unless we figure out terraforming or discover a planet with all the characteristics that make Earth hospitable to life, we’re going to need it for a while.

It’s easy to assume that we can’t do anything about our carbon footprints or the amount of waste we produce, or that the effect would be so small as to not be worth our time.  But think of it like voting.  A single vote rarely determines the outcome of an election.  Yet millions of people vote anyway.  It’s a responsibility that comes with citizenship in a democracy.

We are also, then, responsible for living sustainably, as citizens of this world.

The Nature Conservancy’s Everyday Environmentalist section has suggestions for doing just that from its staff and some of its bloggers.  (Thanks to Open Culture for the link.)

Tags: Uncategorized by Sarah Brand
No Comments »

I’m way behind the curve on this one, but the article in question isn’t going to get any newer, and I have to make my first real post sometime.  The NYT article “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” suggests that reducing our meat consumption may be a surprisingly effective way to protect the environment.

• Almost a third of Earth’s ice-free land is somehow involved in livestock production.
• Livestock production creates nearly a fifth of all those greenhouse gases you’ve been hearing about.
• In other words, cows hurt the planet even more than cars.
• Quote: “if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius.”

Unlike oil–which is necessary to our daily lives, at least until alternative energy sources become widespread–meat isn’t really something we need. Personally, I don’t think I could ever be a vegetarian, let alone a vegan. But could I give up greasy hamburgers and just treat myself to steak on special occasions? Yeah, I think so. (Really special occasions, of course, would get filet mignon.)

I’m not particularly wealthy by American standards, but even so, I’ve grown up in the world of Wal-Mart and high-speed Internet, where almost everything I might happen to want is available at a moment’s notice, at very little cost. (Music, anyone?) And I’m sure many of my generation could say the same. But at some point, we Americans will have to assume our responsibilities as global citizens, and realize that behind our instant gratification, there are deeper costs to the environment and (in many cases) the developing world.

It’s the classic economic dilemma: finite resources, infinite desires. And it’s about time we started scaling back our desires to match the resources available, rather than taking more than we can afford in the long run to produce all the things we want right now.

Tags: Uncategorized by Sarah Brand
No Comments »