I want an acre

After reading "One Acre" by Joy Williams I have decided it sounds like something I would like to do. Williams bought an acre of land on the edge of the Everglades and just let it grow. She had a house there to live in, but it was a humble house and she made few improvements on it. Eventually, she walled the property in along the road and nature grew wild. From her descriptions, it sounded like a very beautiful place.

It isn't just the beauty that attracts me, it is the idea of creating an area where nature doesn't have to be managed. It can just be. There aren't very many places like that anymore in this world. I understand the reason for that, I really do. I am human and I would like to sustain our population because I believe there are some wonderful things about the population. But as a consequence of population growth, the land around us is affected. Throughout this whole experiment of mine, I have realized, practicality aside, that it saddens me to see so much altered for our civilization.

Protecting just a small area from human change and letting it go through its own natural changes seems like a very nice way of giving back. In a way, it is not actively doing anything, instead it is actively doing nothing except what is necessary. Just as Williams realized, the most important part is making sure it is protected even after I leave it. She searched for the right person to sell it too and I would have to do something similar. I hope I get the chance to facilitate a piece of pure nature.

Confessions

I have been driving my car when unnecessary. After all my big talk about reducing my driving, I am guilty of driving to my night class and to any meetings that are after 6pm (free parking!). My only excuse is the cold and the dark. Once it is dark outside, I have found I don't like biking back to my apartment. (Neither does my mother, honestly.) It is also getting colder and I also don't like the cold. So there you have it, I am a wimpy and lazy environmentalist.

How should I fix this problem? Maybe I should make up for it by carpooling everywhere possible and employing driving techniques to improve my gas mileage.

Something interesting I learned about my balance in the ecosystem today is I am still pretty comparable to the average American. I used the Nature Conservancy CO2 emissions calculator and my estimated emissions are 11 tons of CO2 per year. The U.S. average is 27 and the world average is 5.5. While that is much better than the U.S. average, the details are what is interesting to me. Home energy accounts for 40.7% of my emissions (36.2% U.S.), food and diet is 31.5% (15.1% U.S.), driving and flying is 21.3% (44.3% U.S.) and recycling and waste is 6.5% (4.4% U.S.). I didn't realize how much of my food and diet were contributing to my impact. I'm not sure how to start buying local foods, however. For one thing, they are more expensive and all price decisions have to be agreed upon by my roommates. But I will have to do some research about local suppliers and see if they will supply throughout the winter.


As a sidenote, I am the 753,420,193 richest person in the world. I was expecting a ridiculously large number like that, but I was surprised because that puts me in the top 12.55% of people! Really puts things in perspective, huh? It was pointed out to me, though, that the issue with this site is that "richness" is relative. It is the purchasing power that is important, how much you can get for what you have. But it still makes me think twice about calling myself poor!

The Smackdown: Global vs. Local

Recently, in another class of mine, my professor mentioned the trend of globalization, which set me off on an interesting train of thought. Amidst the professor's babel about different ecologies (a word that turns up in every lecture), he actually hit on something I paid attention to! Amazing, right? As a side note, I promise I am a good student.

But back to my thought. With the current stage of environmentalism in our society, everything local is loved. Local foods, local businesses, etc ... "Going local" makes for a more sustainable life, right? If you aren't buying products from thousands of miles away, then those miles won't give you a black check on your sustainability record. It makes sense to me!  When my professor mentioned globalization, however, two different and separate ideas in my mind collided and did not agree with one another. See, all along I have been thinking that local products are better than non-local, yet at the same time I talked about the "globalization" of our economy as a good thing. These two ideas do not coincide. Don't ask me how I managed to get this far without realizing this -- my mind confuses even me.

How do I reconcile this? Globalization in our society can't really be avoided - especially with the Internet. Heck, I had a view on this blog from Singapore! I don't know anyone there, but someone found me and now my ideas are being shared with that person. (Welcome, Singapore reader!)

It isn't only ideas being shared globally. It's also products, of course. My clothes come from Taiwan, my coffee comes from Columbia, my oranges come from Florida, my dairy from the happy cows in California and my MacBook Pro was made in China. I live in a global community. Going off on a little bit of a tangent here, I heard another professor say he depended on his local community while he was growing up. Nearly everything he needed came from the people around him -- he depended on his neighbors. This is no longer true. My community of neighbors is global. I probably won't buy my textbooks from local bookstores, because it is cheaper for me to order them used online. A lot of the times, I order from Europe because they are cheaper yet. If I have a question about electronics, I probably won't go to a shop in downtown East Lansing. I'll do a search online for my information.


The exchange of ideas doesn't really have an impact on how sustainable my life is, but the exchange of products on a global scale does. If my clothes were made in Taiwan, they had to travel all the way to the United State for me to wear them. As another example, I just found some paper of my roommate's. The pack of printer paper was processed and/or packaged (it isn't clear which) in Atlanta, Georgia. However, the wire-bound notebook was made in Vietnam and the filler paper pack from Meijer was made in Thailand. I can honestly say I had no idea paper traveled that far. This paper was made from trees in Thailand (presumably)? I am using items from around the globe and those travel miles are racking up.

With all that said, I can see the flip side. It is more efficient to produce one thing you're good at making and share it with others who reciprocate the process, rather than trying to make everything you need yourself. So, Colombians make coffee and ship it to my local coffee shop, instead of Grand River Coffee harvesting their own beans. The only problem with this scenario is one society is only just starting to realize. We didn't factor in environmental costs involved in transportation. These costs are slower to show their effects, but their effects are pretty huge. The oceans and the atmosphere are suffering from boats, planes and cars zipping all over the planet with our goods.

Of course, I don't have a solution. I'm just good at pointing out the problem! Seriously, though, I think it would ridiculously hard (read: impossible) to back track with globalization. The internet is here and it is not leaving. But I also don't think focusing on the local products is bad. Local businesses need support too! There needs to be a balance, of course. As far as those pesky transportation costs, lets hope we can find a cleaner way to share our goods.

As for me, I am going to be more conscious of the distances my purchases travel. While I can't cut out products from overseas completely, I will buy what I can at a local level. It is the best compromise I can come up with for me. I will also try to find ways  to give back that will make up for all those miles my favorite shoes traveled to reach me!

Sustain-a-what?

Today while at CVS Pharmacy I purchased Organic Wear blush and bronzer. I wasn't planning on purchasing green makeup until absolutely necessary, but I decided to buy it after discovering my prescriptions were suddenly covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield and therefore only five dollars! But this got me to thinking, how is buying this green make-up making my life more sustainable? What is sustainability anyway?

Merriam-webster.com tells me that the definition is "of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged."  This definition, however, doesn't relate directly to my life. Traveling to CVS for supplies doesn't equate to harvesting a resource for me. The resources have already been harvested and I am simply using them. I don't have control over the resources harvested, except through the indirect power of the consumer. So what does sustainability mean specifically in my life? I've thought about it and while I don't have much control over the amount of resources being harvested right now, I do have control over how much of those resources I personally use and how much I "give back" to the planet in the way of recycling and being picky in my product purchases. 

I feel like the majority of the human population is living out of balance in their environment. Most creatures on this planet live balanced existences - if they don't, they soon perish. Nature is the equalizer who calls in the debts owed. I honestly think the theory of natural population control over time has some merit. The laws of nature are harsh and one population can exploit resources for so long before there isn't enough to sustain any population. Already our population is facing distribution and scarcity problems for many. Whenever I think about this, I think about the people of Easter Island. How can that situation not apply to the whole world - an island of resources in space?

The key to a successful population is balance. Give back to the system as much as you take out of it. The residents of Easter Island failed to give back as many trees as they took and they soon ran out of trees. I, personally, do not have the power to guarantee everyone individually will give back to the system as much as they use. I can, however, try and do the same in my life. This is sustainability to me. Giving back as much as I take out. If that means recycling as much as I can and paying a little more for "greener" products, then that is what I will do. I will recycle all of my paper (and there is a LOT of it). I will bug my roommates about turning off lights and unplugging electronics. I will continue to try to balance my lack of funds with my desire to buy local or eco-conscious foods. All of this, not because I actually believe recycling this one can will make that big of a difference in the overall scheme of things (except indirectly, as I discuss in a previous post), but because these acts balance out my equation. I am doing all I personally can, or at least as much as I am currently willing (I am not willing to give up my car quite yet ...). This whole blog is an experiment, really, to see how much more I can give back. Maybe, if I give back enough, it can not only equal out my equation but also someone else's!

Activate me

I was recently told by a very good friend that I am not a feather, but instead a boulder. (If you're confused about this statement, please read my last post.) My actions do have an effect, she says, even if indirectly. But does this mean I should be taking more strides to do something about current environmental issues. If I alone have the power to affect change, am I a hypocrite for talking about it and not doing anything drastic?

Should I completely give up my car and ride my bike everywhere? Should I only buy local and organic food sold at the city market? Do I need to go to the extremes? ..I don't want to go to extremes. Is that selfish? I'm not sure exactly, but here is an example to help illustrate my point:

In the book for my class, Wilderness and the American Mind by Nash, he discusses the dichotmy of wilderness and humans. In the end of the book, he concludes that humans are intrinsicly separate from nature, or rather, that our population has outgrown nature. I have a hard time following this line of thought. He uses this argument to say that human civilizations should be small islands amongst all the wild lands of the planet and should build their civilizations up and not out. This seems very extreme to me. Why should humans have to sequester themselves from the rest of the bio-community? Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for restraining our destructive tendancies and containing urban sprawl, but Nash's idea gives me an image of human civilizations floating above the planet. This just strikes me as a really dramatic solution. Sort of like a cosmic mother saying, "If humans can't play nice, then they can't play at all" and punishing the population by forcing it to live in little islands of life in the air. That would be like saying, this fish has eaten all the other types of fish, lets put them all in aquariums so they can't harm anymore fish. Sounds ridiculous to me.

Maybe I am just overly optimistic, but I thatthat life on Earth wouldn't remain unbalanced for very long. Eventually the fish population will even out, even if that means one fish replaces another. I also believe that humans will either figure out a way to continue our civilization into the future by living sustainbly in the environment or die off because of lack of resources. I guess that doesn't sound particularly optimistic. That idea I borrow from Thomas Malthus, who I always thought was cleverly pessimistic in regard to the future of our civilization.

Nordhouse Dunes, A Wilderness area in Michigan.

So, back to my point. Segregating the human population from the very planet that sustains them seems very extreme to me and on a much, much smaller scale, changing my life completely also seems extreme. I don't think us humans are all that bad. A lot of us are careless and destructive, but we have obviously made some significant strides in wilderness protection. (Read some of Nash to learn more about this!) And more will come, I am sure. I will be one of the first to vote in higher standard of fuel efficiency or what evey technology savvy vehicle is invented in the next 50 years. But I am not going to give up my car completely (unless that solar-energy floating car comes out - that I would totally go for!). As Henry David Thoreau believed, it is best to have one foot in civilization and one in the wild. It is important for us to appreciate the wild, but we should also appreciate all the amazing things we have done within our own civilization. As members of Earth we are part of the larger biotic community and the smaller human community. Both are important. So, no, I will not become an activist. I will do all that I can without giving up my current life completely, and those little things I do can still have an effect.

...I am going to Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity, though. Does that count as activism? :)

The effect of one

Do you ever think about how tiny and infinitesimal you are? My entire life has consisted of Mid-Western Michigan, with a few forays out into the world. While in the midst of a busy day, it is so easy to get caught up in my life and imagine that everything I do has the utmost importance. I have to do this, I have to do that. I make it sound like if I don't do it, everything will come to a screeching halt. But the truth is, only a few people will even notice. My roommates will, because I chatter to them about everything, repeatedly (their patience is amazing). The professor or my boss (or whoever) will notice. My family will know. And that's it. Nobody outside of this tiny little circle in the middle of Michigan will ever know my life was upended (by good or bad circumstances). The things I do have such a small effect on the whole. I suppose it is something like ripples in a lake. Throwing a big rock in the lake will cause ripples to form and disturb everything on the surface, but I am more like a leaf. Or a feather. My life causes some disruption in others in the immediate vicinity, but nobody on the other side of the lake will ever know.


One of my very best friends (shout-out to Shelly!) is studying abroad right now in Belize and she keeps a bunch of people updated on all of her adventures, which are numerous. Reading her emails reminds me of exactly how huge this planet is and how many tiny little feathers are out there causing the tiniest of ripples in their own lakes. Nobody down there will know about my accomplishments and failures.


And then, think even bigger and you realize how all of these people on the whole planet are only a tiny speck of dust on the surface of one humongous lake in the enormity of space.

So my question for today is, do any of my sustainable efforts even matter? In the scheme of things, will changing all of my lightbulbs reduce energy usage in America? Will driving less and biking more reduce the carbon outputs into the atmosphere? Probably not. Nobody except me (and you, the faithful reader) will ever know I did anything. Why should I even try then? Well, for one, because I want to. Because it makes me feel like I am helping, even if my help matters not at all. But also, because I am an optimist. I believe that all around are tiny little feathers on the surface of my metaphorical lake doing their best to help out. And maybe changing one light bulb doesn't matter, but if a lot of people change their one light bulb then maybe we can push out that ripple of change just a little bit farther.

Success and introspection

I have installed CFLs in all but a few light fixtures in my apartment! Plus to save on waste of incandescent bulbs, I am keeping the old bulbs and will be putting them back in the light sockets at the end of my lease. This is also a plus for me since I spent the money on these CFLs and would be taking the savings they provide with me when I leave. That is more of an economical decision rather than an environmental decision, but one must wear many hats.

Also, I have purchased a few green body care products, including face wash, shampoo and toothpaste. I am replacing things as I run out of the product because I don't want to waste what product I already have. I have also decided I will purchase makeup (when I run out of current supplies) from Aveda. Their makeup seems to be good quality and green. The cost is a little more than what I normally buy, but I can probably swing it.

On a semi-unrelated note, I have been thinking about the class this blog is for and the issues discussed in it. I can't seem to decide on a particular issue. Should the human race act as if they are part of nature and everything they do is part of the natural cycle, or should we be cognizant of what we do as separate from the natural cycle? This recent sustainable movement seems to be calling for both at the same time.  All this talk of going green and making changes in our life so our actions don't adversely affect the environment strongly suggests that what we do is separate and bad. Or at least just separate. But at the same time it seems to be culling a following of people who appreciate nature and talk about it as if we were all part of the same cycle, similar to more Eastern types of thought.

Which should it be? Can I legitimately say I am part of nature and the environment when I spend so much of my time online in a virtual world that has nothing to do with nature. But if I follow that train of thought, then we are adversely affecting the world and it is selfish to continue doing so, so I should protect it. But do I want to be separate from my environment? Do I really want to see myself as superior from everything else? 

Is pollution from humans the same or worse than from other species.

If, on the other hand, I decide that I am, along with the rest of my species, simply an overgrown ape altering its environment just like every other creature alters their environment, then changes we make shouldn't matter, right? And I should just continue living, confident in the fact that changes happen anyway, anthropological or not.

I suppose I have found a solution after discussing this in length. Or a solution good enough for a fence-sitter like me. The answer lies in the middle, I think, as it most usually does. Of course we as a species are part of our environment. We can't survive without it, so we have to be affected by it and it affected by us. But, we are different from most species on this planet. We have the power of our brains, which have led us to create such civilizations that no other creature has managed. These civilizations, and the people in them, do have the power to change elements of the planet at large. Small changes, compared to the size of the planet,  but significant none the less. 

So what should we do? Overall, I think the goal of the environmental movement sweeping across the planet (somewhat at least) needs to be altered. "Save the planet!," people cry, but the planet doesn't need saving. It will remain for much longer than we can even imagine. Humans on the other hand, are ridiculously delicate. We depend on a certain set requirements for life on Earth. Clean air, clean water, space to live, enough food. As it turns out, we have the power to destroy not the planet, but ourselves.  If changes aren't made in our actions, then we may just destroy the environment we need to survive.