Lawn Dilemma

I live in surburban Long Island, and that basically means that I am expected to maintain my lawn according to the exacting standards of my meticulous neighbors--a lawn, in other words, that is plush, green, and free of unsightly weeds and crabgrass. And that is no small feat when temperatures on the Island reach 100 degrees in July and August as they are often known to do. When that happens my beautiful grass dies, but ugly weeds and crabgrass seem to thrive. It's almost as though they're mocking me by grown to epic heights, while the grass that I had struggled so hard to establish in June withers away.

Perhaps there's not much we can do about dead lawn patches in the heat of summer (other than keeping the sprinkler on all the time, which is no real solution), but don't pesticides at least off us the opportunity to get back at those ungodly weeds? Pesticides are indeed an easy way to ensure a weed free lawn, but at a huge ecological cost. They leach into our groundwater, kill helpful organisims in the soil, and may be responsible for the astronomical rates of breast cancer in places like Long Island.

So does this mean that we basically have to give up on a weed-free lawn. Not exactly. Ed Thompson, founder of the Molloy College Sustainability Institute, believes that the same results can be achieved without having to poison ourselves. Here's what he has to say:




Of course, there are other viable options as well. A friend of my, Kathy Reba, has been trying for years to convince me to get rid of my lawn entirely. "Why don't you just plant perennials in place of a lawn?" she is always suggesting. While this might be an option in some places, my neighbors in Nassau County might look askew at such a development.

A better option for me--and something I've been working on for the past two years--is to replace my regular lawn with a zoysia lawn, which requires much less water and care. A zoysia lawn also stands up much better than traditional lawns to the punishing heat of summer, and is so dense a turf that no pesticides are usually needed on it.

But more on the zoysia issue later....

The Story of Stuff

According to the EPA, Americans generate 236 million tons of garbage each year. 164 million tons of garbage eventually end up in landfills, including...

26,800,000 tons of food
8,550,000 tons of furniture and furnishings
6,330,000 tons of clothing and footwear
5,190,000 tons of glass beer and soda bottles
4,200,000 tons of plastic wrap and bags
3,650,000 tons of junk mail
3,470,000 tons of diapers
3,160,000 tons of office paper
3,070,000 tons of tires
2,820,000 tons of carpets and rugs
2,230,000 tons of newspapers
2,060,000 tons of appliances
1,520,000 tons of magazines
1,170,000 tons of wine and liquor bottles
970,000 tons of paper plates and cups
840,000 tons of books
830,000 tons of beer and soda cans
780,000 tons of towels, sheets, and pillowcases
540,000 tons of telephone directories
450,000 tons of milk cartons
160,000 tons of lead-acid (car) batteries

Fortunately for the rest of us, there is someone out there who is tackling the problem of our human waste in a way that is both informative and engaging. This modern visionary is Annie Leonard, who several years ago began to do an extensive study of what happens to all the stuff we buy and then dispose of. The results of this personal odyssey were captured by Leonard in her animated documentary, The Story of Stuff.

Now Leonard has gone one step further by taking the basic ideas that she developed in her film and writing one of the most illuminating books that I have read in recent years--also entitled The Story of Stuff. What separates Leonard from many other environmental activists is that she never seems to have an ax to grind. Leonard simply lays out the steps involved in the production and disposal of our human stuff and explains in an objective and fairly dispassionate way what the consequences of this system are.

Leonard's documentary and book should be considered required reading for anyone who is concerned about the future of our planet.....Just be sure to get the book from your public library instead of buying it, so you don't unintentionally commit eco-hypocrisy!

The Problem with Fluorescent Bulbs

According to the EPA, "If every American home replaced just one light bulb with a [compact fluorescent bulb], we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars." Fluorescent bulbs also use about 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer.

Over the past two years, I have begun to replace all of the standard light bulbs in my house with fluorescent bulbs. I like to think that this simple change is as good for the planet as it is good for my wallet. There's no doubt that I'm probably saving some money over the long run by using fluorescents, even though they cost about about 10 times the amount of standard bulbs.

My problem with fluorescent bulbs is that they contain on average about 20 milligrams of mercury. That's enough mercury to contaminate 20 million acres of water. If this mercury somehow ends up in the food chain, it can cause severve damage to the brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver.

None of this would matter if people using fluorescent bulbs actually recycled them, but in fact only about 25% of the 700 million florescent bulbs being sold each year are recycled by consumers. The rest go into the garbage and then into landfills, where they have the potential to wreak havoc on the environment and on human health.

My question: are fluorescent bulbs really all they are hyped-up to be? Sure they save energy, but at what ecological cost?

Less War, More Cool Eco Stuff

By several estimates, our military adventures in Iraq and Afganistan will cost the American tax payer 1.3 trillion dollars by the end of 2011. It strikes me that this money could probably be put to much better use than extirminating human life.

There is no end to the good that intelligent and resourceful people could accomplish if all the money that we are currently squandering in Iraq and Afganistan were suddenly used to solve some of the grave social, enocomic and enviromental problems currently plaguing our society. Imagine if all that money we are spending in Iraq was used instead to develop alternative renewable sources of energy that could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Or if these funds were used to develop fuel cell technology for automobiles. Or if the trillion dollars was used to provide a finanacial incentive for families to install solar paneling on their homes. Imagine the enormous good that could come from using the precious dollars of the American taxpayers for programs that might actually benefit themselves and their children.

But this is mere speculation. The military industrial complex has always been looking for ways to get the taxpayer to foot the bill for monstrous weapons that can more efficently kill those who are unable to protect themselves against us. And there is nobody in our government who is so much as wispering about this nefarious connection between bloated corporate profits and our need for endless war.

But just in case you were wondering what specifically could be accomplished if the war in Iraq was suddenly to end tomorrow, you may want to check out the fabulous program developed by the National Priorities Program. You will probably cry when you see the possibilities that will never materialize thanks to this war, but perhaps, at least, your tears may ultimately prove redemptive.

No Animals Died to Make This Breakfast

Who says that you need to kill a cow, butcher a pig, or abuse a chicken to have a healthy and filling breakfast? Forget the bacon and eggs. There are tons of wonderful breakfasts that you can eat if you follow a vegan diet. Here are just a few of the options:

Muesli -- a really healthy breakfast meal that can be sweetened using assorted dried fruits. I also throw in some almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, and ground flax seed to boost the amount of healthy fats and protein.

Homemade Granola -- ususally not as healthy as muslie, because of all the fat and sugar needed to get the oats to stick together, but certainly better than bacon and eggs -- recipe

Multigrain Pancakes -- recipe

Tofu Scramble -- like scrambled eggs, but with...tofu! ChooseVeg has a great video that shows you how to make this great meal.

Vegan French Toast -- You can make traditional or banana vegan french toast, and it tastes just as good without the milk and eggs.

Barley or Wheatberry Porridge. It was a good enough breakfast for folks in the Middle Ages, so it should do the trick for you as well. Just cook the barley or wheat berries according to the instructions on the packet. During the last five minutes of cooking add soymilk, honey (not technically vegan, I know), cinnamon, raisins or other dried fruits and crushed walnuts/almonds.

Eating a healthy breakfast consisting of whole grains, some protein (e.g., tofu or soy milk) and some healthy fats (e.g., nuts or seeds) is a great way to start off your day and give you the energy you need to be productive. Any of the breakfasts described above will be a whole-lot healthier for you than some damned McMuffin, omelettes, or any of the other animal-based breakfasts that many American's eat. You'll be helping your heart and waistline at the same time you are saving the lives of animals. A win-win situation for all involved--except for factory farmers, that is).

For a more extensive list of vegan breakfast options check out ChooseVeg.com's helpful website.

Continuing Thoughts on Veganism

Yes, adopting a vegan diet can help save the planet, eliminate unnecessary cruelty to animals, aid in feeding the world’s hungry, and reduce the blobs of fat that currently hang on American’s guts and posteriors. The choice to eliminate all animal products from one’s diet is probably one of the most moral decisions that any human being can make in this age of planetary distress. I congratulate anyone able to forsake the flesh and by-products of the beast, whether they do so for moral, health, or aesthetic reasons.

My own little experiment with veganism, however, has convinced me that it is damn difficult to put into practice if you don’t have the luxury to live in more enlightened parts of the country like California, Oregon, or Vermont. Even here in New York—supposedly a bastion of progressivism in the United States—it is extremely difficult to find places to eat suitable for those practicing veganism (good luck trying to find anything even remotely vegan on the menus at Applebees, Friday’s, or Friendy’s!). Vegan meals are also much more labor intensive to prepare and require much more forethought than other kinds of food choices.

That having been said, we Americans can no longer afford to continue to eat the way we have since the 1960s with animal products and fast food making up the bulk of our food choices. In his provocative article in the New York Times, “Unhappy Meals,” Michael Pollen gives the most practical tip on how to eat a healthy—and fairly planet-sustaining—diet:

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Although this may sound a bit simplistic, if more Americans tried to put this advice into practice, the entire planet would ultimately benefit. The key to success seems to be to take incremental steps in reducing one's overall consumption of animal products. There is absolutely no reason why an ecologically conscious person couldn't limit his or her consumption of animal products (dairy, eggs, and cheese for example) to two or three times a week, and perhaps reserve the consumption of animal flesh to the odd special occasion or holiday. This compromise would probably not satisfy a hard-core vegan, but it would be a dramatic improvement to the typical American diet and would significantly reduce the amount of animal cruelty currently practiced.

Is this a reasonable compromise or a cop-out? Let me know what you think.

The Chinese Conundrum

The Chinese currently have a population of 1.3 billion people. The U.S. has a population of 300 million.

The average ecological footprint of one Chinese citizen in 2006 was approximately 2.0 (a footprint of 2.0 means that that it takes approximately two global acres of resources to sustain each person in China). By comparison, the ecological footprint of the average American in 2006 was 24, which basically means that the typical American was using ten times the Amount of resources as the typical Chinese.



The problem is that the entire planet’s biocapacity is 4-5 global acres per person. This wouldn’t be much of an issue if everyone on earth lived more like the average Chinese rather than the average American. Unfortunately, those 1.3 billion people in China (not to mention their friends in India, Thailand, and the rest of the developing world) have a strange desire to live like we do here in the U.S. Instead of riding bicycles, they want to drive cars or SUVs; instead of eating their traditional, healthy, low-fat, mostly plant-based foods, they want to eat Big Macs and Kentucky Fried Chicken; instead of shopping at stores selling inexpensive locally produced products, the want to buy imported TVs, DCD players and Ipods at suburban-style mega-shopping malls. In short, they want exactly what we have, and, since everyone knows that our American way of life is as close to perfection as one can find in the universe, who can really blame them?

But, if everyone in China actually tried to live like the typical American, our fragile little planet would no longer be able to sustain life as we know it.

So, as I see it, we have two options:

1. We can tell the Chinese that they don’t have the right to live so damned irresponsibly and discourage them from trying to live the kind of lifestyle that we have here in the U.S. This, however, would be a bit hypocritical on our part…rather like telling the Brazilians they shouldn’t clear-cut their forests after we have all but decimated our own.

2. Or, we can try to set a moral example ourselves by taking the steps necessary to reduce our own exorbitant levels of consumption and, in doing so, reduce our ecological footprint to a more reasonable level. Don’t worry. This doesn’t mean that we would have to live like people in Bangladesh. We could, however, try to adopt some of the more ecologically sound practices of Europeans, whose average ecological footprint is only 4.9. Anyone whose ever been to Germany or France will tell you that life is pretty damned good in Europe, even if they do have to recycle and pay a bit more for gas than we do.

Perhaps if we did make an effort to get our ecological footprint down to even European levels, we might actually set a positive moral example for the developing world instead of promoting a model of consumption that can only lead to the death of our planet. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Chinese will necessarily follow our example, but, at the very least, for once—just for once—we wouldn’t seem quite so hypocritical when we exhort other nations to behave responsibly.

A Sign of the Times

.....As Mike correctly pointed out in a previous post, all signs indicate that the consumption level of Americans is being reduced in the face of economic uncertainty. This clearly is welcomed news, considering that we Americans previously had the lowest rate of savings and highest consumption rate in the developed world.

.....I recently paid a visit to my local butcher, and asked if the recession was hurting his business at all. He said that, on the contrary, our rotten economy has actually been helpful to him. As he put it, "Instead of people going out to dinner and spending $100 on steak, they have been coming to me, and for $20 they can get two of the best steaks we have."

.....I use this steak example with no offense intended towards my vegan friends. We all agree that it would be preferable if Americans also simplified their meal choices to include more plant-based foods. But the fact remains that many Americans are choosing to forgo fancy restaurants and buying items they don't really need, because their values are beginning to change as they confront the reality of economic uncertainty.

.....A cultural shift may very well be occurring in which people begin to embrace - or at least are more open to - the ideals of movements like Voluntary Simplicity, Sustainable Economics, and Smart Growth. Yes, there will always be people who choose to drive gas-guzzling vehicles and to live excessive lifestyles, but hopefully, such individuals will become the exception rather than the norm in our society.

So who's hurting, anyway?

I keep hearing about how tough times are for Americans during what many economists are calling the "greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression." But I have to confession that here on Long Island--epicenter of the the crudest form of crass consumerism on the planet--I just don't see any evidence at all that people are changing their behavior in the face of economic uncertainty.

I went to the mall the other day to buy some much needed curtains for the house ($29 on sale at J.C. Penny's, in case you were interested). It was a Wednesday morning around 11am and I was amazed to find that the parking lot of the mall was as packed as ever with the usual assortment of over-priced cars and SUVs. As I struggled to find a spot to park my 15 year old Corolla, I couldn't help noticing all the people leaving the mall loaded down with shit that they probably didn't really need. Inside, the mall seemed about as crowded as ever with the typical garish, self-absorbed drones--drinking Starbuck lattes, of course--who have always shopped there.

Am I just living in a land-o-plenty in an otherwise struggling country, or are these people simply incapable of reducing their consumption after so many decades of habitual buying? My guess is that it is the latter. We are so used to deriving our happiness and meaning from what we buy that the idea of reducing consumption is sacrilege to many Americans.

The good part of all this is that those of us who have been living prudently will ultimately benefit from the inability of our neighbors to stop shopping. They may drive their own families into bankruptcy because they must have the latest Ipod or flat screen TV, but this sort of desperate consumption is probably all that stands between us and total economic annihilation. Certainly, if the economy of the United States had to depend exclusively upon cheap bastards like myself, we'd all be in very big trouble. All I can say is, thank god for other people's addictive tendencies!!!

A Fishy Practice

In this blog we have had some interesting debates about whether it is necessary to go completely vegan if one is really concerned about issues of animal cruelty. While acknowledging that veganism is the ideal diet for all those concerned about the welfare of animals, the well-being of the planet, and their own physical health, I argued that a vegan diet is far too difficult for most people to follow, and that a more viable option for most people would be to follow a low-fat vegetarian diet such as the one recommended by Dr. Dean Ornish that includes limited amounts of low- or non-fat dairy products (milk, egg whites, yogurt, and cheese), ideally from animals that have been raised humanely. I agree, however, that the goal of anyone even remotely concerned with issues of animal ethics would be to eat as much of their food as possible from plant-based sources and to dramatically reduce their consumption of all animals and animal products.

There are some confused individuals, however, who believe that they are following a vegetarian diet, even though they still eat fish regularly (they are technically referred to as pesco-vegetarians). It’s almost as though these people have convinced themselves that salmon, tuna, and Chilean sea bass are not really animals, and that the rules they follow with regard to the humane treatment of other species don’t really need to be applied to marine life. Let’s get this straight: (1) fish are sentient life-forms like all other animals and they feel as much pain as other animals when they are slaughtered, and, (2) if you are concerned about issues of animal cruelty, you will eat fish as regularly as you would a slab of cow flesh…which means not at all.

When one considers the health risks involved in eating fish loaded with mercury (e.g., tuna, swordfish, shark, etc) and other dangerous containments such as lead, industrial chemicals (e.g., PCBs) and pesticides, it becomes evident that—despite all of the propaganda issued by the USDA and their pimps in the corporate fish lobby—the risks involved in eating seafood very well may outweigh the benefits. And when one realizes that our current fishing practices are driving many of the world’s marine populations to extinction, there is even a greater moral argument for eliminating fish from one’s diet.

I would like to hear how our pesco-vegetarian friends justify the consumption of seafood while clearly having moral qualms about eating land-based animals. I may be a bit naïve, but I don’t really understand how it is any more ethical to chow-down on salmon steak than it would be to consume a hunk of cow, pig, or chicken. Could someone explain the logic of this to me?