The Opportunistic Bride

I'm getting married next summer, and it has occurred to me more than a few times that 'green weddings' are so much easier said than done.

A quick google search will introduce you to plenty of blogs, consultants, and planners with advice and services to help couples plan a 'green wedding' (Rent a hybrid limo! Choose a LEED certified venue! Ask your caterer to use organic ingredients!) but the fact is that any big event, no matter the purpose, is inevitably going to be a source of waste, carbon, and consumption.

Photo from the hilarious Practical Ryan Gosling.

I know that our wedding will be no exception. We've got a huge guest list, (that's what happens when you marry into an Irish Catholic family) from all over the country (that's what happens when you come from a family of nomads).

But it doesn't mean we're not trying wherever the effort seems worthwhile. We chose a location near the majority of our guests so that as few people as possible are traveling. The reception and ceremony are both on-site so there isn't any travel required between the two.  We're doing paperless invitations for most guests, and online RSVPs for all.  And so on and so forth.

I realized recently, though, that something I've been doing just to save my sanity is also helping to make our wedding greener: I am an Opportunistic Bride.

Instead of having an exact vision of what precise colors, flowers, decorations, etc. our wedding must have, I've been letting happenstance and luck determine our exact decor. Found an awesome container at a thrift store or in a dumpster? Dust it off and call it a flower vase! Some random pieces of ribbon that my aunt saved from someone else's wedding? They're perfect!

It doesn't mean that I take every old thing I find and plan on using it in the wedding. I'm being quite selective, in fact.  It just means that I don't need to hunt for very specific or perfectly matching items.

Instead, I keep an eye out for items matching the general look and feel that I hope to accomplish. I always have a few paint chips in my purse so that I can check to see if my opportunistic discoveries fit the general palette I'm going for.  I've given myself permission to match a broad color range instead of an exact hue, and to not need consistency or symmetry anywhere in our decor.

I'll still have to buy some things new, no doubt, but being open and flexible to reuse whatever objects I can find has allowed me to save a lot of used items from the landfill, not to mention saving my budget and my sanity as a bride.

Ain't no power like the power of the people

Often in the past when people learn that I'm an environmentalist, they ask me which I think is a better approach to environmental solutions: NGOs or the government?

In college I struggled with this question because I didn't like either option., Instead I would introduce a third: individuals. The entire major I created in college was founded on the idea that individuals are more empowered than they realize to have an affect on the environment, for better or worse. As consumers, I would argue, we are capable of "voting with our dollars" for the kind of world we want to live in-- a sustainable one, or one full of waste, pollution, and toxic chemicals. So instead of counting on the government or on environmental nonprofits to solve all of our problems, I concluded, the most important approach to addressing environmental problems is to convince individual people to make the right choice, in support of a sustainable economy that doesn't degrade the earth. I was confident that this could be done if only people are taught to care about the environment, to link their purchases and other actions to environmental harm, and to believe in the true power of collective action.

Then I graduated from college. I was still passionate about the power of collective action affecting change through many small, individual actions, but I began working for a nonprofit and saw how much could be done by this sector to protect land, water, and resources. Plus, I no longer felt I could go on my "individual action" rant when I wasn't dedicating my day to addressing individual action any more- so more and more, I would answer "NGOs, of course," whenever the question arose- NGO or government?

Then I started graduate school. I'm still working for a nonprofit, mind you, but I'm also taking environmental policy courses in the evenings. At first the effect these classes were having on me was a new answer to the proverbial "what's the solution?" question, and if asked, I would have said, "the government, of course." Because ultimately, the infrastructure of our society, and the regulations that control our economy and so much of our daily lives, from how automobiles are subsidized to how water quality must be reported to consumers, is up to the discretion of our government. These decisions are hugely important, and I began to see that even nonprofits dedicate much of their time and energy trying to convince governmental bodies to act one way or another. Even the organizations that have historically not been very politically involved are growing their advocacy efforts today.

As the semester continued on in my first environmental policy class over the summer, however, my professors began to really emphasize the intentional limitations of the U.S. government's effectiveness -- checks and balances make our government more balanced, yes, but with that balance comes a whole lot of inaction, by design. And so, the cheery optimism I felt for the government's effectiveness at the beginning of the semester began to wear off.

But a new realization arose out of the ashes of my defeated optimism. Part of the reason politics can be so ineffective is because the election cycle can take higher precedence than issues. But where does power lie in elections? You wouldn't always know it, but ultimately it lies with individuals. And even when not concerned with getting re-elected, politicians are faced every day with the mandate to represent their constituents. So if their constituents started demanding new priorities, like the environment, then government actions, in theory, should start mirroring what the public demands.

I know that corporate lobbyists and other influential advocacy groups complicate this situation, but part of the reason that lobbyists are so powerful today is because individuals have largely volunteered to take a backseat in politics in the past, happy to let someone else drive. But that's changing. With the new administration and important legislative decisions being made like health care and climate change, people are beginning stand up a bit more and demand their voices be heard too. Normally it's hard to get a majority in what the public wants, much less a consensus, of course, but involvement is an excellent first step. I think last year's election shows that individuals can certainly prove their effectiveness through collective action, and I'm inspired to believe that collectively we can demand even more change of our government.

So now, if asked the question again, which approach is more effective in producing environmental solutions, I will be returning to the original answer I used to give in college. Yes, the government has an impressive amount of control over how our society is structured, and nonprofits are capable of influencing those decisions, and acting outside of the government to protect natural resources, but ultimately, the government is looking to please its constituents, and nonprofits are looking to gain the support of its members and donors. That means that individual action is the most effective solution, whether it's responsible consumption, support of NGOs, or voting for and lobbying politicians to act in our best interest.

Buy Nothing Day Anyway.

Happy Buy Nothing Day, everyone.  

For almost 20 years, Buy Nothing Day has been celebrated by environmentalists and activists around the world in response to Black Friday and the gluttonous season of shopping that begins around this time each year. This year, getting the word out about over-consumption is made more difficult at a time when the lack of "consumer confidence" is blamed for the downward spiral of our economy.  At work when I asked to put up a flyer in the lunch room about Buy Nothing Day, I was told no.  Any other year would have been fine, they said, but this year when so many retailers are suffering, it's just not ok to tell people not to shop, they said.  And let me remind you I work for an environmental organization. 

So I've been wondering what other challenges this year's Buy Nothing Day has found due to the economy.  Like after 9-11 when Bush called for Americans to go shopping as if it were the ultimate patriotic duty, consumers are being called on now to save our economy by going back to the stores and spending their money on things they don't need and can't afford. And this frustrates me to no end, as if these retailers are really what need saving.  I'm not denying that putting retailers out of business won't affect people in a  negative way.  Job loss and cities full of abandoned buildings are terrible for society, but I just can't believe that this disastrous economic climate isn't waking more people up to the dysfunctional pattern of mass consumption that Americans are trapped in.  I would hope that rebuilding our society and our economy to promote a more sustainable way of living, and encourage a more fulfilling pursuit than the pursuit of stuff, might be the goal for more people right now, instead of saving retailers.

Well this morning, I was happy to check my email and see a message from AdBusters, the originators of Buy Nothing Day and other positive culture jam campaigns including True Cost Economics.  The email from Adbusters acknowledged the state of the economy today and that this economic climate makes a whole new set of challenges for Buy Nothing Day.  So, they say, let's confront the economic meltdown head-on.  To quote Kalle Lasn in the press release:

 "It's our culture of excess and meaningless consumption -- the glorified spending and borrowing of the past decade that's at the root of the crisis we now find ourselves in."

Yes, Adbusters, I couldn't agree with you more.  They go on to describe the economic meltdown as an opportunity to start a new era, "the age of Post-Materialism" wherein everyone lives within our means.  Imagine that.  So, I encourage everyone to buy nothing today despite the suffering economy.  There is a bigger goal here than saving any one retail chain, and if we really want to save society from the ailments of a dying economy, we need to revise our habits, today and every day.  

More than "made in china"

My weekly emails from worldchanging.com always bring a bit of information and hope to my Friday afternoons.  This week, they introduced me to an effort that I want to applaud by Patagonia, the clothing company. 

It's called The Footprint Chronicles, a website created by Patagonia that explores the origins of various products made by the company.  Click on a product (ranging from backpacks to shoes to strappy dresses) and the site brings you to an interactive map of the world, highlighting the origins of the product's materials and source of labor used to compile the materials and manufacture the product.  The full article from worldchanging admits that the site, and even Patagonia as a responsible company, are not perfect.  There are gaps and limits to how detailed you can get.  But it's a start, and I'm really happy to see the effort being made.  

Imagine if every company offered this service for every product.  Imagine if consumers cared enough to demand it.  Imagine if it were required by law.  The accountability and transparency this sort of thing brings would do wonders to address the externalities that are so easily ignored today.  It was only recently that food products sold in the US were required to have nutrition facts and ingredients listed.  And since these requirements took effect, it has taken a bit of time for consumers to really take advantage of it, but now you can see how listing these ingredients has affected consumer markets.  

At the grocery store I recently saw a loaf of bread that advertised on the front of its packaging that it didn't contain high fructose corn syrup.  I also saw an ad in a magazine recently that asked consumers to check their facts about the high fructose corn syrup, arguing that it was no worse than sugar or other sweeteners.  This kind of dialogue is important, and healthy.  Consumers have more information, and while industries can do their best to persuade consumers the positive or negative implications of those facts, it is still empowering for the consumer to be able to make these more informed decisions, and to hear that a debate exists about the ingredients of their food.  I'd like to see the same type of exchange for all products.

I'd like to see information made easily available about the source of the materials, the location of the labor, and the social and environmental costs of the ingredients and manufacturing methods.  Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles gives us a glimpse of what this information could look like.  I hope that other industries follow suit. As a consumer, I will support those who do. 

Economic Theory

So the economy is still crummy.  Unemployment is up.  Gas prices are a little lower than they were but still higher than a year ago.  The government-issued stimulus checks helped stir up some hot consumer action for a little while early this summer, but didn't create any lasting results (who's surprised?) and now people are freaking out because the back-to-school shopping was a disappointment for anyone who was counting on new sales.  They are expecting equally sour results for holiday shopping. 

I like to think that the poor economy has not lead to a society full of hesitant consumers, but rather that the slowdown in consumption came first, and then the economic slowdown followed as a result.  This chicken and egg theory of mine, if true, would make a huge difference, no matter what reason consumers had to change their habits, as long as there is a conscious decision behind it.  

Possible reasons (besides a bad economy) to consciously decide to stop shopping:  

• consuming a lot of material goods is bad for the environment. Consuming less is better.
• the 80s and 90s were a time of overabundance, and maybe people are just sick of it.
• the sharp realization that there is a difference between want and need.
• the realization that what you already have is good enough. 
• the desire to save money.
• pure rebellion.

Any combination of these reasons (and countless others I haven't thought of) that result in a  slower consumer-driven economy would make me happy.  It means that people made the choice to consume less, rather than being forced to do so by higher prices and a bad economy.  That choice means that these changes are lasting, and that the economy had better adjust. The possibility of this economic theory having any truth makes me hopeful for society...  something today's economists are having a tough time feeling.  

Baby Steps

A couple days ago No Impact Man posed a question: 

"If a friend decided they wanted to do something about the environment, how would you tell him or her to start?  What's the way in?  What's the most important step?"

Since Monday, over 120 people have responded to the question with their advice and opinions.  It took my a while to decide, but finally I contributed:

"Re-evaluate the word 'need' and shop accordingly."

Other contributers offered more extreme suggestions like "go vegan" and "stop using your car for journeys less than 2 miles- walk or bike" and I'll admit that those actions might have a more immediate impact than mine.  But if you're brand new to making green lifestyle choices, I think it's better to start basic.  In order to make your green habits last, it's best not to over-commit yourself if you're not sure how much you're willing or able to do. 

So for a first step toward going green, I would encourage someone to just sit down and think long and hard about the word NEED.  A few things to start with:

• What does 'need' mean to you, and how does that definition differ for other people around the world? Or just a few generations ago? 
• Make a list of everything you truly need. Compare that list to what you actually own.
• From the list of true needs, how are those needs met?   
• Pay attention to what advertising is telling you about needs.  How often does the word come up in ads?  Or the concept?  (Think planned and perceived obsolescence!)
• Before you started thinking about it, who defined your needs for you?  Where did you concept of need come from?
• An important part of this transition is watching your language.  You can curse all you want, but watch your use of the word 'need.'  How often do you say it?
• What do you mean when you say need?  Strong desire?  Entitlement? True necessity?
• Think about what it feels like when a true necessity isn't met.  

When you're able to separate your needs from your wants, you are already doing something good for the environment.  It makes you think twice before buying anything frivolous.  It makes you appreciate things in a different way, and it's hard not to act differently after such a mind shift. There's a difference between not wanting something in the first place because you understand that you don't need it, and pining after something intensely but resisting because you're told that refraining is better for the environment. If you're only holding out for the environment, you'll eventually snap and go on a spending spree.  But if you can evaluate needs and wants and differentiate between the two, eventually you start prioritizing differently, and you start wanting less.  Trust me.  It's a liberating realization.

Sincerely, 

Amelia 

Kudos to Credo

Working Assets, the friendly do-gooder phone company that sends you Ben & Jerry ice cream coupons for your business, has evolved its wireless franchise into Credo Mobile, a do-gooder cellular offshoot.  Naturally, I'm intrigued.   At the risk of sounding like an ad for Credo, allow me to divulge what I've learned thus far.  

First of all, they're making an irresistible offer: switch to them from your current cell carrier and they'll pay your early termination fee, up to $200.  Then they'll send you a new phone for free. AND you can keep your current phone number. They also have a free recycling program to deal with your old phone. Hot diggity!  And of course, the biggest bonus of switching to them is that 1% of your bill goes to good causes and progressive nonprofits.  

1% might not be a lot, but it's way more than all the other guys will give you.  And from what I could tell on the Credo website, the same plan I have at Verizon is actually cheaper at Credo, so I'm paying less and donating more.  Cool.  I do wonder, though, if Credo does well for itself going forward, will the 1% perhaps increase to, say, 2% some day?  Or 5%?  I'd very much like to see that.  

I would also like to see them encourage people to use their phones longer than the standard 2-years that people do now.... it's such a waste to get rid of a perfectly good phone after only two years, just to upgrade to new unnecessary bells and whistles or a sleeker style.  So I sincerely hope that in their effort to be progressive, Credo points out to its customers that if your phone isn't broken, it doesn't hurt to hold on to it as long as you can for the good of the planet.  

I'd also love to see them address how cell phones are made and what goes in to them.   I'm not sure if there is a way to avoid the need for Coltan in new cell phones, but you should know that mining Coltan is a serious threat primates in western Africa according to the Worldwatch Institute.  I first learned about this problem at a talk by Jane Goodall videographer, Bill Wallauer that I attended a few months ago, and Bill convinced me that this is a huge problem.  If anyone is in a position to address this problem, it's Credo. Rather, if there's anyone that gives me hope about addressing this problem, it's Credo.  

In both of the mailings I've received about Credo (one via mail directly from Credo and the other via email from Co-op America) they called out AT&T for being particularly bad for having links to Dick Cheney and his cohorts.  Well I have Verizon, and there was no mention of how Verizon stacks up.  Does anybody know anything to good or bad about them?  I've got some research to do.  

Sincerely, 

Amelia

Stimulating bad habits

I've been wanting to write a post about the economy, well, since before I even had a blog really.  Reports that the US was slipping into a recession early this year came to most Americans as bad news.  I don't mean to glorify financial hardship, but I was genuinely excited about the recession and what it might imply.  Predictions of the recession were based largely on statistics showing that Americans were shopping less.  The government's solution was to send stimulus checks to taxpayers, hoping the tax refund would inspire more shopping, and thus pump enough money back into circulation for the economy to prevent a true recession.  

My secret hope for the existing economic slow-down was that it had nothing to do with how much money Americans had access to, but that Americans were changing their shopping habits out of a growing awareness of the environmental and social repercussions of consumption.   My optimistic theory was supported by several news articles about generation YAWN (young and wealthy, but normal) who live well below their means for conscientious reasons.   I was hoping that stimulus checks would result in no visible increase in spending habits, and that we'd see further proof that Americans were finally learning the true meaning of "simple living."

But alas, the AP has reported otherwise this week.  The article says that consumers stepped up their shopping in response to the stimulus checks that were sent out last month, and that economists feel more secure as a result of the recent increase in retail sales.  

I'm a little disappointed that my theory about the economic slow down did not hold true, or at least has not proven to be true so far.  I'm still holding on to some optimism about high gas prices and the possibility that they might inspire lasting changes in American's energy habits; not just driving but electricity consumption and consumption overall.  I'll keep an eye out for other clues that support or deride my theory on the American economy and the possible rise of in environmental conscientiousness, and in the meantime I'll keep a little faith that consumption patterns can change based on environmental or social awareness.  

Sincerely, Amelia 

There is no away, only a waste

The society I live in doesn't just waste- it fosters a culture of wastefulness; it encourages waste; and it profits off of waste-at least in the short term.  As for the long term, there isn't much concern for it when it comes to our habits with waste.  Consumer culture, from an economist's point of view, is much better off with waste in the picture.  And from the consumer's perspective, waste is out of sight and out of mind. 

The ability to profit off of waste is made possible by the concepts of planned and perceived obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is when something is produced in such a way that it will fall apart and need to be replaced for some functional reason. There is a careful balance of being well enough made that the consumer still trusts the producer to buy the same product again, but poorly enough that they feel the need to replace the original product altogether.  Kitchen disposables are an example, but this category has grown to include more and more types of products.  A lot of new clothes are made now to last just long enough to get you through a season, and by the time the style is out of fashion, the clothes have also started to fall apart. (Think H&M, a popular clothing store with essentially disposable clothes.) 

The style factor is what's known as perceived obsolescence.  Items that are in perfectly good condition might be considered garbage simply because they have gone out of fashion.  This allows producers to target the same consumers with new 'needs' constantly and indefinitely.  Clothes aren't the only thing that go in and out of fashion, though.  Cars, furniture, electronics, even houses go through phases of popular design changes, and consumers are encouraged to keep up with the ever-changing standards of what is 'in.'  

As long as every consumer is either forced by function or encouraged by form to shop more, the economy has little incentive to shift its habits away from this culture of wastefulness. What's worse, consumers are so far removed from the waste they produce that it is rarely even an after thought.  While proper waste management is an important aspect of the solution needed here, true sustainability calls for a shift in the world's mindset towards waste. 

From the producer's perspective, this means waste=food.  I don't mean eat shit, I mean recycle and reuse contents of old items to make new and improved items. It's been proven by many pioneers of industry (Ray Anderson of Interface, Inc. is one such hero), but it hasn't caught on by the mainstream just yet. I am optimistic that eventually it will be widely understood that this model of production is the only way humanity can sustain itself as we face new limits of nonrenewable resources. 

From the consumer's perspective, this means getting to know your waste, and changing your relationship with it.  Find out what happens to your trash after the garbage man takes it from your curb.  Find out what waste is caused by your consumption upstream from you, in the production, packaging and marketing process of the items you buy. Go visit your local landfill to see what "away" really looks like.  

The most fundamental way you can change your relationship with waste is to stop thinking of it as going "away."  Incinerated garbage produces toxic air pollution.  Landfill garbage piles up eventually, (look what happened to Naples, Italy) and puts chemicals into the ground and water. Toxic chemicals in my drinking water is not what I have in mind when I say waste equals food.  

Simply put, there is no away.   Our language about garbage should reflect this fact.  Rather than saying "I am throwing it away" imagine if we instead said "I am wasting it."  This shift in language habits would have a great impact on how we think about our trash, and eventually, how we act with trash.  A better awareness of the consequences of consumption and waste opens the door to new actions. Consumers have the ability (and the responsibility) to choose higher quality, longer lasting products, and products that follow the model of waste=food.  

If you'd like to learn more about this, I'd recommend the book Cradle to Cradle- check it out in my recommended reading list on the right.  

Another nice recap of this concept of closing the loop of waste and production is the video The Story of Stuff. 

not a paper cup, but not perfect either

Strolling through Whole Foods this weekend, I came across an interesting new consumer product:  a ceramic cup, made to look like a paper cup.  

The concept is innocent:  one reusable item that can be purchased to replace countless disposable items, cutting down on waste and minimizing use of natural resources.  In early January when the eco-trendy-blog-world first caught wind of I am not a paper cup, the product was praised for being smart and having a great sense of humor. At the risk of appearing to not have a sense of humor myself, I'll admit that I'm totally irked by I am not a paper cup. Luckily I too have a blog on which to vent about it. 

First and foremost, why must it look like a plain paper cup?  I congratulate the designers at DCI, who created the porcelain base and silicon top to identically match a nondescript white paper cup and a white plastic lid.  But what message does this give?  If I saw someone drinking out of this cup, I would have no idea that they weren't drinking out of a paper cup.  Half the excitement of environmentalism being so trendy right now is how easily you can wear your values on your sleeve, spreading the good word of green far and wide.  But if it looks like you're using a regular paper cup, someone else with a real paper cup will just blend in, and not feel any pressure to switch to reusable alternatives. I hate to advocate guilt tripping as a method of spreading environmental ethics, but you have to admit it's been effective in the past.  

Beyond the lack of guilt it assigns, using something that is eco-friendly but in disguise as something harmful seems to defeat the purpose of leading by example.  Of course there is value in doing something good and letting it go unnoticed.  But while cultural support for environmentalism is still young and fragile I think it is important and necessary to foster that support by proudly showing off every choice to go green, big and small. So why make a reusable cup that is indiscernible from a disposable cup?  I would at least have liked them to plainly say "I am not a paper cup" on the cup itself to get the message across more clearly.  

The second thing that irks me about these cups is that they each cost around $20.  If there's one way to ensure that the green movement remains a fringe trend, it is to make it inaccessible to the masses.  I'm sure it was expensive to make, but twenty bucks for something that looks like a piece of trash is a bit absurd.  It's right up there with those pre-torn jeans.  On top of that, everyone I know who goes to coffee shops regularly and leaves with disposable paper cups in hand is guaranteed to already have plenty of reusable mugs at home that they are choosing not to use.  So what great service is this new trendy cup offering? Are the consumers of this product actually more likely to use it than any other thermos-type mug they may already own, or could purchase just about anywhere for less money? Most other reusable to-go mugs I've seen are larger, more sturdy and durable, and more versatile than this one.  Somehow I'm skeptical that spending $20 on something that looks like a small paper cup is actually going to do the trick of impacting the planet for the better. 

My suspicion is that this trendy gadget will be a popular gift among affluent consumers, and that because the product itself doesn't say "I am not a paper cup" anywhere on it except for on its (plastic) packaging, owners will choose to keep it inside said packaging, resting on a shelf, and will never actually put the object to use.  If that's not a royal waste of materials, I don't know what is. 

Greenwashing

We all know that green is in.  It has become trendy enough that even the least green markets are able to capitalize on it.  Sweatshop-produced clothing can now be found with cutesy phrases about nature, loving your mother, and going organic.  While the content of these messages might be green, the contradictions and hypocrisy in how that shirt came to be are a bit unsettling.  (I personally love this image as a symbol of how far the trend has gone.  Thanks to Keith at the Unsuitablog for this image and other great subverts.)  I call this Individual Greenwashing.  

As individuals make the shift toward green living- whether sincerely making changes in their daily habits or just buying into the trendy and high-profile opportunities to look green, businesses and brands are finding a high profitability in aligning themselves with the green movement as well.  Part of this is hopefully a true shift in priorities for industry, based on the recent realizations that business has an impact well beyond what is immediately visible from corporate headquarters.  But a good part of it is still just for show.  Like an individual who slaps a "save the polar bears" bumper sticker on their SUV and hopes that no one notices their carbon footprint, a company that brags about being green (but has little to show for it) is dangerous for a gullible society like ours. 

Hunter Lovins was recently interviewed by Sustainable Industries, and when the topic of greenwashing came up, she said that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.  "Hypocrisy is the first step to real change" said Lovins.  I see her point, and I agree that trying to look good is at least acknowledging that being good is something to strive for.  She goes on in the interview with some examples of companies like GE that started out with blatantly misleading claims of being green. Upon seeing how profitable the green-looking programs were, they decided to do more to actually become green, in order to capitalize on the trend further.  So we've got that to celebrate.  But are companies today being rewarded for actions they aren't taking at the Earth's expense? You betchya. 

As consumers, we can avoid greenwashing by becoming familiar with various certifications, and then shop accordingly.  "All Natural" and other vague claims on food are usually examples of greenwashing.  If the food actually meets any green standards, it should be certified organic, which is available internationally.  Paper and wood should have the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification, and you should only buy it if it does. The US Green Building Council has done wonders to standardize a certification process for eco-friendly construction, so you can look for proof of LEED certification from any company that is either remodeling or constructing, in order to tell whether or not they are actually walking the walk.  Reeve Consulting from Canada has done a nice run down of other things consumers should think about and look for to avoid supporting greenwashers.  They also point out the EcoLogo, which started in Canada and is now being used more widely in North America, and Fair Trade Certification, which is internationally recognized.  

These are just a few examples of ways to weed out the greenwashers from the sincere green businesses.  I'd like to note that sometimes even these certifications can be abused.  If a company is environmentally harmful in most of its actions but prints its annual reports on FSC certified paper, they should know that this one good action is not enough.  After all, you can't slap a "save the polar bears" bumper sticker on your SUV and hope that no one notices your carbon footprint.  

If you have other tips or suggestions for folks on ways to avoid supporting greenwashers (or to at least be aware when you are supporting them), please feel free to comment.  

Sincerely, 

Amelia 

Cutting Costs

I'll admit it.  I think my environmentalism comes from being cheap.  I also think my creativity comes from that same frugality, as does my skill set as a bona fide pack rat.  They all compliment each other quite well, and I'd have a harder time living by my environmental convictions if I were as spend-happy as the average American.  Yes, I do have the rare but existent impulse buys and hypocritical purchase cravings that I occasionally give into if I can't fight them off, but by and large, it's great to be a cheap environmentalist.  It's a bit of the 'chicken or the egg' phenomenon: I could easily say that I am thrifty in order to lighten my ecological footprint, and that is mostly true today, but my preferred lifestyle choices are certainly conducive to "simple living" in terms of low-consumption and low-impact, and in that sense I know I'm lucky.  I'm lucky because living by my ideals usually isn't a struggle for me.  

Let's take a few steps back to see what I mean.   Something in the house breaks (say a wooden stool) and I don't want to throw it in a landfill or deplete the Earth's resources by purchasing new item to replace it?  Great, we have a craft project!  Notice I didn't even mention the money I saved by not buying a new one, but there was a point in my life where the cost factor would have been a bigger deal in my decision-making process.  Regardless of what drove the decision to fix the broken stool over chucking it and buying a new one, the decision we made there was cost-effective and environmentally sound. 

Mike actually gets credit for this craft project. (Not only is being thrifty conducive to an environmentally friendly lifestyle, but having a thrifty and crafty boyfriend is too!) 

The stool top is made of several pieces of wood, and they were coming apart (that's what happens when you find used stools in alley ways).  So Mike took an old Altoid box and screwed both the top and bottom over the crack on the bottom of the stool.  The other metal piece in the middle is from a broken electric stapler that we took apart a long time ago. I had saved this metal scrap because it looked like an exclamation mark and I thought it would be a nice touch for a mixed media/collage piece, but function over form called for a new use.  Anyway, after screwing the Altoid box pieces and metal exclamation mark right over the crack on the bottom of the stool's seat, the stool is now as good as new.  Voila!