Inconvenient Hypocrisy: China Attacks Conspicuous Consumption, U.S. Press Lashes Out 26 June 2007

The Wall Street Journal recently ran this headline: “Beijing Mystery: What’s Happening to the Billboards?” (LINK).

The accompanying article details the efforts of Beijing city officials to rid the massive megalopolis of what I consider to be the worst urban eyesores in any city. Yet, rather than commend these officials for actions that I consider to be environmentally-friendly (we mustn’t ever forget the urban environment, after all), the WSJ seems to deride them. Consider this quote:

“In one of the most ambitious attempts ever to sanitize a city’s image, cranes were recently sent in to dismantle many of the 90-odd billboards lining the road. Some billboards still standing have tin sheets tacked onto them, to conceal the ads.”

Notice the key word “SANITIZE.” That’s a very dubious characterization. Is that what Beijing officials are trying to do? Is that what we would call it if, say, San Francisco decided to do the same? No, if S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom (a man whose policies I largely admire) were to launch a parallel campaign, he would be lauded for his efforts to improve the city’s atmosphere, hailed as a champion of those fighting to crack down on hyper-consumerism.

“City officials want to prevent Beijing from becoming one very big Times Square. Because billboards have become an eyesore, Beijing wants to “reorder the urban landscape,” says a city official.”What, may I ask, is wrong with this? Who wouldn’t want to avoid having their entire city resemble Times Square? Notice again in the quote the writer chose to use a very “Communist-era” quote. Of course, officials born, raised and conditioned this way are going to use such jargon. Relayed this way, without a more in depth interview to get at the underlying motives, it smacks of stereotyping all Chinese officials as programmed “Commie robots.”

“Many use exaggerated terms that encourage luxury and self-indulgence which are beyond the reach of low-income groups and are therefore not conducive to harmony in the capital,” Mayor Wang said in remarks released to state media.”

Mayor Wang states rather clearly that it’s better for Beijing citizens to not be manipulated into pursuing the fruitless chase for ‘luxury’ that will only put them in a position of great debt. Clearly, Mayor Qishan looks at U.S. citizens, with their $10,000 in average credit card debt and the fragility of the U.S. economy that is leveraged to the breaking point and understands that to follow this path would mean ruin for his people.

Hats off to Beijing Mayor Wang Qishan, a man who should be commended around the world for this campaign.

Song o’ the Day is an easy choice, if one that dates me: Fugazi’s “Suggestion.” Frontman Ian MacKaye laments, “Why can’t I walk down a street free of suggestion?” Pretty apt, me thinks.

Technorati Tags: beijing, billboards, china, gavin newsom, san francisco, urban landscape, wang qishan

Inconvenient Dessert: Pink(berry) is FAR from Green 24 June 2007

You must have heard of Pinkberry (LINK) by now. The ubiquitous yogurt shop that is popping up all over Los Angeles and Manhattan. They serve two flavors, the classic which is just Japanese yogurt/calpis/calpico/yakuruto-flavor and then green tea which, though I haven’t tried it is supposed to vaguely resemble green tea flavorings.
I held out, not wanting to endorse yet another new fast food chain, but finally knuckled under last week while walking around Venice, California. Technically, Andi knuckled under and I’ve still yet to support this ‘worst-of-all-things-generically-asian-pop-culture’-styled junk food shop.
What I noticed first and foremost is that EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING in Pinkberry is disposable. Every cup, spoon, napkin, fixture. Not exactly atypical for fast food, but also not exactly responsible. Especially when coupled with the fact that there are NO RECYCLE CONTAINERS AT PINKBERRY!
I asked the pyt behind the counter if I could recycle our container, as well as the heap of plastic and paper spilling out of the garbabe container.

No dice.

Okay, but what about your business recycle. You must have recycling out back in a recycle bin, right? Can I take my container and spoon out there.

We don’t recycle AT ALL.

Ouch. A brand new business, opening in the age of environmental hyper-awareness, and it makes ZERO effort to do the right thing.

If YOU give a damn about your world, find a dessert shop that at least shares your commitment. Handing Pinkberry your money is a bad, bad idea.

Oh, and I got an extra treat when I walked in with my vintage Polaroid land camera. It was pointed out to me that there is a big NO CAMERAS sticker on the door. As if someone is going to capture their secret formula.

To sum it up, Pinkberry is:
Paranoid.

Irresponsible.

Environmentally unconcerned.

Flavor-free.

Expensive.

NOT yogurt. (check out the lawsuit (LINK))

Overall, I’d have to say Pinkberry is incredibly overrated. If you’re a fan, do let me know just what excites you about this new junk food chain. Is it more their contribution to the waste stream or is Pinkberry’s willingness to help you put on a few more pounds?

Song O’ the Day is SHUGGIE OTIS’ “Sweet Thang”. You have to know Shuggie.

los angeles, pinkberry, polaroid, recycle, shuggie otis, venice, yogurt

HEAT Excerpt #28: Why Bush, Clinton, Obama Are Deaf to Climate Change 20 June 2007

From George Monbiot’s well-researched and rather articulate new book, “HEAT: How to Stop the Planet Burning”. (you can grab a copy HERE - directly from the publisher, thus reducing the accumulated ‘carbon value’ of the book as it won’t have to travel to other warehouses):

(the bold sections and typos are my own)

“I have sought to demonstarte that the necessary reduction (90% by 2030) in carbon emissions is — if difficult — technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible. There is a reason for this. It is not up to me to do so. It is up to you.

Those of us who are already campaigning to reduce the impact of climate change cannot do it by ourselves. Given that this is the greatest danger the world now faces, we are astonishingly few. It appears to be easier to persuade people to protest against . . . speed cameras and high fuel prices, than to confront a threat to our existence. There is an obvious reason for this: in those cases something is being done to us. In this case we are doing it to ourselves. In fighting climate change, we must fight not only the oil companies, the airlines and the governments of the rich world; we must also fight ourselves.

The problem is that no meaningful progress has been made at the international climate talks. The problem is that we have not wanted it to happen. It is true that governments of the United States and Australia have done everything in their power to prevent the talks from succeeding or even from taking place. It is true that the defining feature of these negotiations is that someone else is always to blame. The governments of the rich nations complain that there is no point in cutting their own emissions if emissions are to continue to grow in China and India. The governments of China and India complain that limiting their pollution is a waste of time if the richer countries — whose output per head is still far greater than their — are not prepared to make the necessary reductions. It is also true that the fossil fuel companies use their tremendous wealth to buy everything they need, including a politician’s suit with the politician still inside it.

But if those governments that have expressed a commitment to stopping climate change have found their efforts frustrated, it is partly because they wanted them to be frustrated. They know that inside their electors there is a small but insistent voice asking them both to try and to fail. They know that if they had the misfortune to succeed, our lives would have to change. They know that we can contemplate a transformation of anyone’s existence but our own.  

So they play to the script which we have all ghost-written. They will make frowning speeches about the threat to the planet and the need for action. They will announce that this issue is of such importance that it transcends the usual political differences and requires a cross-party consensus. They will urge everyone to pull together and confront the enormity of the threat. Then they will discover, to their great disappointment, that progress has not been made, that it is in fact very difficult to make, and the decision about what should be done will yet again have to be deferred.

In the U.K., as my researcher Matthew Prescott pointed out to me, government policy is not contained within the reports and reviews it commissions; government policy IS the reports and reviews. By commissioning endless inquiries into the problem and the means by which it might be tackled, the government creates the impression that something is being done, while simultaneously preventing anything from happening until the next review (required to respond to the findings of the last review) has been published. I have an image in my mind of the British prime minister up to his neck in water on the floor of the House of Commons, explaining that ‘in the forthcoming White Paper on energy efficiency . . .’.

Governments will pursue this course of inaction — irrespective of the human impacts — while it remains politically less costly than the alternative. The task of climate-change campaigners is to make it as expensive as possible. This means abandoning the habit of mind into which almost all of us have somehow slumped over the past ten years or so: the belief that someone else will do it for us. . .

. . . This is partly, I think, because of the sustained global economic growth between then (1990’s) and now. We are simply too comfortable, and we have too much to lose. It is partly also because, accompanying this growth (indeed to some extent driving it) has been a surge in indebtedness, especially among the young, who used to be on the front line. Debt induces a bright panic, which ensures that those burdened with it can sledom see byond the next few weeks.

But I also blame that tool of empowerment, the internet. Of course it is marvellously useful, allows us to exchange information, find the facts we need, alert each other to coming dangers and all the rest of it. But it also creates a false impression of action. It allows us to believe that we can change the world without leaving our chairs. We are being heard! Our voices resonate around the world, provoking commentary and debate, inspiring some, enraging others. Something is happening! A movement is building! But by itself, as I know to my cost, writing, reading, debate and dissent change nothing. They are of value only if they inspire action. Action means moving your legs. Indeed, if this book has not encouraged you to want to DO something, then I urge you to return it to the shop and demand your money back, for it has proven useless.

Technorati Tags: china, climate change, heat, monbiot

Inconvenient Household #3: Ants & other Pests 15 June 2007

CONFESSION TIME: I screwed up. But first, the back story.

We’ve recently moved into a new home, one that has wonderful raised beds (outside!) for gardening, a living room the size of Rhode Island (because we live so large), a jacuzzi that looks to have last operated in the 1970s, and more spiders, ants, gnats, moths, roly-poly bugs and bees per meter than any home I’ve ever occupied. Honest to god, this house is an entomologist’s dream. Without exaggeration, we’ve seen at least two dozen black widows in the month we’ve been here.

Now understand that insects don’t bother me at all. In fact, I’m so at peace with the critters that I use a Bugzooka (LINK) to remove them to the great outdoors without doing them harm. Even the black widows are simply deposited over the neighbor’s fence (along with our cat droppings and food scraps).

Yet. . . yet. . . the ants are driving me crazy! I’m one of those guys who really appreciates a clean kitchen. I don’t like dishes in the sink, crumbs near the toaster, or fingerprints all over the chrome strip on the fridge handle. Call it my one and only anal obsession. Or don’t call it that as it isn’t really appropriate. So when I found that ants more or less consider our kitchen counter tops a natural extension of their digs, I knew I was in for another dose of “daily hypocrisy” (LINK) no matter what I did.

My first attempt at reclaiming the kitchen was to simply clean the hell out of the counters. Soap, water, bleach, more bleach. Not a perfectly environmentally responsible solution, considering the bleach, but fairly low impact. Worked for about nine minutes before the first of the scouts returned.

After this, I worked quite diligently to ensure that no scrap of food was left around. No dice. Mind you, all this time I’m wiping out hundreds of ants with a wet rag every day and feeling rather guilty about it in the process (blame Pixar and a brief conversion to Jainism (LINK) in the early 90s).
“Natural” remedies did little other than drain my pocketbook and dash my hopes. Finally, regretfully, full-of-misgivingsly, I purchased a can of RAID. Indeed. Can you believe it? Neither can I. I’ve read “Silent Spring” (LINK). I know how nasty and altogether wrong the stuff really is. And I did it anyway. FOR SHAME, MR. BRILLIANT!

Did it work? Nope. Within 24 hours, the ants were back at it. At what, I’ve no idea as I never found them getting any food, carrying any horde in their pincers. But I DID get to inhale poison, and I did get to violate a personal code of conduct. All in the name of frustration and convenience. And fear that of tiny critters who do me not a whit of harm. FOR SHAME!

Two weeks later, and they’ve left on their own. I’m sure we’ll meet again next year at the same time. I’ve pledged aloud, while standing in the corner near the sink where they used to congregate, a pledge to leave them alone when they return. I’ve apologized to the relatives of those who died in a toxic fog. I hope that this step backward will compel me to to finally understand that my pampered, sterile, altogether artificial life needs MORE of the natural world, not less.

FOR SHAME!

Song o’ the Day is something that I’m betting will be new to you. It’s the Insect Surfers’ “Insect Stomp”. Great early-90s surf band, the IS. Just hit play, darling. (you really should make a playlist out of my Songs ‘o the Day - the selections I make are amazing.)

Technorati Tags: bugzooka, hypocrisy, insects, jainism, rachel carson, raid, silent spring

YES MEN Flip Big Oil the Bird 14 June 2007

June 14, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEEXXON PROPOSES BURNING HUMANITY FOR FUEL IF CLIMATE CALAMITY HITS

Conference organizer fails to have Yes Men arrestedText of speech, photos, video: http://www.vivoleum.com/event/

GO-EXPO statement: http://newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2007/14/c5086.html

Press conference before this event, Friday, Calgary: http://arusha.org/event/7214
Contact: mailto:fuel@theyesmen.org More links at end of release.Imposters posing as ExxonMobil and National Petroleum Council (NPC) representatives delivered an outrageous keynote speech to 300 oilmen at GO-EXPO, Canada’s largest oil conference, held at Stampede Park in Calgary, Alberta, today.

The speech was billed beforehand by the GO-EXPO organizers as the major highlight of this year’s conference, which had 20,000
attendees. In it, the “NPC rep” was expected to deliver the long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by US Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman. The NPC is headed by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, who is also the chair of the study. (See link at end.)

In the actual speech, the “NPC rep” announced that current U.S. and Canadian energy policies (notably the massive, carbon-intensive exploitation of Alberta’s oil sands, and the development of liquid coal) are increasing the chances of huge global calamities. But he reassured the audience that in the worst case scenario, the oil industry could “keep fuel flowing” by transforming the billions of people who die into oil.

“We need something like whales, but infinitely more abundant,” said “NPC rep” “Shepard Wolff” (actually Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men), before describing the technology used to render human flesh into a new Exxon oil product called Vivoleum. 3-D animations of the process brought it to life.

“Vivoleum works in perfect synergy with the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,” noted “Exxon rep” “Florian Osenberg” (Yes Man Mike Bonanno). “With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will continue to flow for those of us left.”

The oilmen listened to the lecture with attention, and then lit “commemorative candles” supposedly made of Vivoleum obtained from the flesh of an “Exxon janitor” who died as a result of cleaning up a toxic spill. The audience only reacted when the janitor, in a video tribute, announced that he wished to be transformed into candles after his death, and all became crystal-clear. (more…)

Inconvenient Language Barrier: Ignoring the Hispanics 6 June 2007

!CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL!

Most of you know that it’s 2007. A great portion of you know that we need to reduce global greenhouse emissions 90% by 2030 if we’ve any hope of stabilizing runaway global temperatures. Here in the United States, instead of working together to achieve these goals, we politicize the subject (thanks, Al! thanks, George!), meaning we make it a whole lot harder to achieve a national consensus on what steps we need to take. This is a problem that is close to insurmountable, but I’m a closet optimist, so I think that, with the help of a new political party and a series of crippling general strikes, we’ll get there! Is Eugene Debs running in ‘08? (Perhaps three of you got a chuckle out of this.)

But even this problem of politicization of a fundamentally nonpartisan issue is, I think, secondary to a massive and largely ignored language and cultural barrier. Specifically, while the U.S. “CAUTION: GLOBAL WARMING” chorus continues to swell in number and volume, it delivers its message almost exclusively in English. Given that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (LINK), the Hispanic population is going to be responsible for nearly 50% of the U.S. population growth between now and 2030, this is something we need to fix immediately. Some forward thinkers, like the Earth Policy Institute (LINK), responsible for the publication of Lester Brown’s seminal “Plan B 2.0″ (think “Inconvenient Truth” but with ANSWERS: LINK) are publishing their output in dozens of languages, but a direct targeting of the U.S. hispanic population by everyone (including yours truly) is required.
As of 2007, the eco-community is overwhelmingly white-midde/upper class. By 2030, over half the Western United States will be non-white. We won’t achieve our reduction goals unless we expand our ranks to include a representative slice of the population and citizenry.

If the eco-community doesn’t start making websites (Grist, Treehugger, Worldchanging, etc), and if Hollywood doesn’t start making films that at least partially cater to the surging populace of Hispanics in the United States, their critical messages will not reach the population that is making itself, each day, more and more of a powerful consumer and voter force. As a result, we’ll all be poached (LINK).

Song o’ the Day = Baja La Luna Mexicana by Concrete Blonde. Do you remember it? I have a real soft spot for this one . . .

Technorati Tags: earth policy institute, eugene debs, greenhouse emissions, hollywood, lester brown, treehugger

An Inconvenient Life: Rumination #11 3 June 2007

See that washed out mugshot? That’s me. All in all, I’d say my life is pretty good. I live in a nice place with nice people and we all try to do nice things. I enjoy what I do - working to help people and companies increase the sustainability (oh the quagmire of the definition of this word!) of their activities. I have an amazing family. I am part of the small percentage of the global population who doesn’t have to daily fear war, famine, disease and myriad assorted brutalities. Believe me, I am every day grateful for each of these things.

Yet.

This business of every moment trying to do the right thing for the global community can be a bit of a ball and chain. I can be a bit of a buzzkill around family and friends with my “Is there chicken stock in the soup?” or “Sorry, I can’t come to that fabulous event because the sponsor company supports Arctic drilling.” My penchant for screening all consumer purchases with tools like Alonovo (LINK: ALONOVO.COM) and analyzing origin source and chemical properties of my foodstuffs certainly allays some of the instant gratification that would otherwise be associated with consumption. With family in Hawaii and Australia, I worry about how to visit them now that I’ve sworn off jet travel (LINK: JETS SUCK). While I endorse a move back to the 55-MPH speed limit as a way to cut oil consumption and reduce emissions, I know damned well that I will chafe at the bit. With a four-year-old son (LINK: Justice Brilliant) to whom I feel great pressure to act a perfect role model, the heat is on to lead by example.

If you’re slogging through this waiting for a nugget of profundity, I’m sorry to disappoint. The only thing I have to say is: It’s awfully hard to do the right thing even when doing so means only giving up luxuries that were inconceivable as little as fifty years ago. I’ve been conditioned to expect easy comforts: instant heat, year-round blueberries, hourly flights to New York. Educating myself that these comforts are not only trivial but harmful is one thing. I can accept this academically and even spout my newfound education with much passion. Practicing what I preach? Not impossible, but more difficult every day.

Do you wrestle with similar issues?

Song o’ the Day is my personal theme song. “Be Thankful for What You’ve Got” by William DeVaughn. It’s in my top ten, all time.

alonovo, climate change, eco-buzzkill, jet travel, william devaughn