Shirley Siluk Gregory's Blog
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
With the New Year just days away, most of us are probably thinking about ways to improve ourselves in 2008. Lose weight. Exercise more. Read more. Save more. Eat better. And on and on.
Rather than adopt such piecemeal resolutions, though, I believe it's more productive to make it my New Year's goal to live as environmentally responsibly as possible. That resolution, if followed, automatically makes all the other typical resolutions come true too.
How? Well, if you're following a truly green lifestyle, you're eating fewer processed foods, buying more local produce, consuming less meat and maybe even growing some of your own food in a backyard or container garden. All the latest research on diet and health tells you that means you'll be healthier and, most likely, lose weight too.
If you're aiming to be as environmentally responsible as possible, you'll also walk or cycle more than drive. Again, more exercise, better fitness, less weight.
Reducing your consumption of unnecessary goods, or buying used when you really need something, is not only environmentally kind but kind on your wallet as well. So you save money by trying to be more green.
And what about the resolution to read more? If you've made living green a personal goal already, you know that it helps to continually inform and enlighten yourself. The more you know, the more green you can be. (Just be sure to choose books from the library or used bookstores whenever possible, to conserve on resources ... and money.)
Clearly, the best resolution for the New Year is to live as green as possible. That done, many of your other goals just naturally fall into place.
On that note, best wishes to all for a happy, healthy and prosperous -- in the greenest of ways -- New Year!
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
It's easy to become frustrated at the lack of resolve we so often see among politicians and agencies dealing with environmental issues. There's so much they could do to improve the Earth for everyone, but so little they often seem to accomplish.
Feeling like that, though, can become a road to disheartenment and helplessness. That doesn't help anyone -- yourself included -- or anything.
So the next time you find yourself frustrated about yet another roadblock set up by a developed nation in the fight against global warming, or yet another vote for a polluting industry over environmental protection, take a deep breath and acknowledge you can't change everything. Then realize that, at least, you can always be a "green army of one."
That means working every day to make the best environmental choices you can. To reduce your consumption of fossil fuels, plastics, chemicals and junk. To reduce the amount of waste you produce. To make a difference -- however small -- for your own world. Because feeling like you can make a difference is always better than feeling powerless and frustrated.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
While I've been thinking about how to prepare for the coming holidays and what to give the people who mean most to me, I've discovered an interesting thing: the greener I get, the more meaningful my holiday celebrations have become.
When it comes to gift-giving, for example, I find that I spend more time quietly reflecting on the things my friends and family members would most need and appreciate. I also focus more on ways to make those gifts environmentally friendly, whether they're fair-trade, carbon-neutral, recycled or homemade. As a result, I discover I'm less likely to experience the negatives most people associate with the holidays: overflowing shopping mall parking lots, long lines at cash registers, obnoxious canned "holiday" music and junky gifts that no one either wants or needs.
In making a greater effort to work with what I already have and plan for celebrations that are both simple and eco-friendly, I've also found that the holidays are more stress-free and lighter on both the planet and my pocketbook. That's helped me to enjoy the holidays more for the reasons they should be enjoyed: to reflect on and give thanks for the blessings in my life, and to make the most of them all, whether they're family, friends, health or happiness.
I hope that you, too, find that going green helps make your holiday celebrations more meaningful -- no matter which holidays you celebrate.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Consumers. It's such a common description of people these days, we hardly bother to think about the implications. But if we stop to look below the surface and consider what it really means, we might find it's time to redefine ourselves.
Do we exist just to consume? Not our basic consumption needs -- food, water, shelter, clothing -- but stuff. Because that appears to be the way in which people are most valued these days, as shoppers, buyers and spenders.
As consumers, though, we're not encouraged to make choices that are wise, sustainable, healthy or green. We're encouraged only to get out there and support the economy, to keep the great engine of commerce chugging along.
Of course, a healthy economy is important for everyone. But an economy based solely on consumption for consumption's sake is what's led us to where we are today: a world facing dire environmental problems that threaten plants, animals and people alike.
The solution is to redefine ourselves first as citizens of the Earth or fellow human beings. Then, whenever we need to buy something -- whether it's a loaf of bread, a new pair of shoes, a birthday present or a coffee-maker -- we can let our purchasing decisions be guided by that environmentally responsible perspective, rather than by a label others have tagged us with.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
One of the more aggravating responses I often see to articles or comments about the damage we're doing to our environment is, "You just want everyone to 1) go back to the Dark Ages, 2) eat bark and live in caves or 3) die." While such reactions sound ridiculous, I hear them often enough that I believe they need to be addressed head-on.
Part of the problem stems from news and science itself: there seems to be such a growing body of bad news and disturbing new findings about climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and so on that it's hard not to feel pessimistic or depressed. Understanding the urgency of the world's environmental troubles, though, doesn't mean we as environmentalists want these troubles -- we're just acknowledging reality. The nay-sayers, though, see this as gloom-and-doom thinking.
The other part of the problem arises from a difference in philosophy. If you're green-minded and you're concerned about the havoc we're inflicting on the globe, you're probably taking lots of personal actions to make a difference and agitating -- online, in the real world or both -- for businesses, governments and other organizations to take action too. So, when you don't see enough evidence of such action, it's easy to feel discouraged.
Again, though, this doesn't mean we eco-minded types are hoping for disaster. We're just trying to get through to others who haven't yet acknowledged the seriousness of today's problems. And that's a step in the right direction, not a wish for doom.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Anyone who's ever played the video game SimCity knows how difficult it is to keep a virtual community humming along smoothly over time. Sooner or later, some small, neglected problem -- whether it was low tax revenues or insufficient police protection -- would metastasize into a runaway crisis. And, by the time that happened, trying to apply a fix was all but impossible.
Raising taxes to generate more money for the police, for example, would cause residents to revolt and businesses to move out of town, once again depleting the city's coffers. Sooner or later, all the pieces of the city -- infrastructure, business, homes, parks -- would crumble beyond repair and the game was over.
And that, I'm afraid, is the situation we're risking by not taking immediate and meaningful action now to curb greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. This problem, no longer small but definitely neglected, threatens to reach a point where all the money, programs and technology we throw at it will be just an ineffective a fix as the desperate SimCity tax hike. We'll have let the problem fester and grow for too long to manage it comfortably.
Now here's the scary part: we're not sure when we will reach that pivotal moment, that point of no return. There are plenty who believe we've already passed that critical time, while others pooh-pooh the fact that climate change is even a threat to worry about. I'm not ready to take the fatalist viewpoint yet, but I will do everything I can to reduce my impact on the planet and lobby my elected officials to take the larger actions I personally can't. I hope many, many others will adopt the same approach ... for all our sakes.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
The litany of bad news regarding the Earth's climate and environmental crises never seems to end, but one story in particular grabbed my attention this week. It was a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which warned that climate change is likely to create greater health risks for children than for adults.
The report explores a disturbing range of potential threats to children's health. The increased risk of natural disasters, for example, is likely to affect children around the world -- not just directly, but indirectly as well, through such impacts as contaminated water supplies, increased breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects and greater risk of food-borne diseases.
But there was more still: warmer temperatures and greater rainfall are also linked to childhood diarrhea, which is tragically fatal to more than a million-and-a-half children under the age of five each year. And higher levels of pollution, including ozone, and allergens mean a greater risk for childhood respiratory problems and other ailments.
As a parent, I worry enough on a daily basis about the world I'm leaving behind for my little boy, who's only 4 1/2. Reports like these only make those worries more real and stark. Hopefully, they also will help to inspire many more people to finally start taking the threat of climate change and environmental degradation more seriously. Let's hope so, for our children's sake.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
An article in the San Francisco Chronicle this week described a disturbing trend among today's children. Kids, the article said, aren't only not playing outdoors and getting into nature much anymore -- they're not even interested in doing so. If it's not on Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel, nature is boring, many children apparently believe -- video games, Web surfing and trips to the mall are much more entertaining for them.
Of course, the natural world isn't boring ... but you have to understand it, be aware of its intricacies and mysteries, to appreciate it. Otherwise, as one child interviewed for the article said, "the only thing you look at is the trees, grass and sky."
That's where green-minded parents and educators can make a huge difference: by talking to kids about the wonders of nature, reading with them about strange creatures and awesome landscapes, and -- most of all -- by enjoying the real, natural world with them. So plant some seeds in a flower pot with your child. Go digging in the backyard to see what lives beneath your feet. Show them in real life how amazing, unexpected, weird and miraculous nature can be. Because it's certainly much more than just "trees, grass and sky."
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
My 4 1/2-year-old son isn't a vegetarian -- he's tasted hamburgers and chicken and steak -- but he doesn't make a habit of eating many of the things other people eat, because I don't either. Considering how many outbreaks of E. coli and other food-borne pathogens there have been in recent months and years, can you blame me?
It's unfortunate that our food supply has been so troubled but, for me, it's also one more reason I choose the foods I buy very carefully. When I buy beef, which I don't eat but my husband does, I try to find a grass-fed, organic variety. When I buy chicken -- again, something I don't eat -- I look for free-range birds raised without antibiotics in their diets. Yes, these choices are often a bit (or a lot) more expensive than the usual commercial varieties, but I feel they're worth it, considering they put me and my family a little further outside the industrial, chemical-laden food chain. Better for us and the environment.
Doctors and scientists have long known that eating a diet high in fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and low in fatty meats and meat or dairy products, is the healthiest way to go. Now that also seems true simply because meat is where most of the cases of food poisoning arise.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
An emerging body of opinion lately is saying that it's too late (or too expensive) to stop global warming, so we should just prepare to adapt to it. Rather than being visionary, though, this philiosophy is dangerously short-sighted.
The cost of doing nothing except things that help us "get used to it" are incalculable, simply because we don't know how many tipping points or chain reactions we might be setting off in future.
What price could you put on an ever-widening reach of a warm-climate disease like malaria? How much do you think the people of New Orleans (and officials at every level) would have been willing to spend on proper levees and wetlands management, if they knew then what they know today?
Hindsight, as the saying goes, is 20/20. A little foresight should tell us that's the case with climate change as well.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Whether you buy organic food or organic cotton, you've probably noticed the price-tags are anywhere from a bit higher to considerably higher than those for "regular" food and goods. If only we could see the true cost of the things we buy, though: if that were to be the case, those organics probably wouldn't seem nearly so expensive.
Because, while the cost of "regular" food and goods (usually imported from places like China, India or elsewhere in Asia) appears cheap -- based on the price-tags we see at the store -- those goods actually cost much more when you take into account their full impact on the planet. Add in the medical expenses and lost work-days caused by industry-farmed beef that's loaded with fat, antibiotics and, occasionally, e coli, and suddenly, that grass-fed, organic beef doesn't seem so costly. Factor in the need for ever-more pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation water to keep a "regular" cotton field producing -- to compensate for the degradation of the natural soil -- and an organic-cotton t-shirt would seem like a bargain.
It helps to keep that in mind when you shop for whatever you shop for. Because the price on the tag doesn't always reflect the price we're paying in the form of an ever-more degraded and ever-more polluted Earth.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
You don't have to look far these days to find one news story or another with a title something like, "Planet in Peril" or "Threatened Earth."
But as right on as the facts -- rising carbon dioxide levels, rising seas, melting ice caps -- in these stories are, the headlines kind of misconstrue the problem. And, in doing so, they risk making the problem seem less urgent to some of us humans.
Because the Earth, or the planet, isn't really under threat. It will still be here, in one form or another, 1 million, 100 million, 1 billion years from now. It's life as we know it that's at risk. Yes, polar bears and orangutans and krill and albatrosses ... but humans too. We're far more threatened (and more responsible too, of course) by the changes taking place here on Earth than the planet itself is.
If more of us only realized that, we might do more to solve the Earth's problems -- our problems -- before they get much worse.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
With myriad books and Websites about how to eat healthier, how to eat in a more environmentally responsible way, how to eat locally, how to eat cruelty-free, etc., it's understandable if we feel overwhelmed by too much information and confused about how to eat.
I've found, though, that a single, simple concept usually helps me make the right choices. It's a concept that guides me every time I enter a grocery store.
That concept came to me in a quote from Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma." In an article in Time magazine in 2006, Pollan offered "Six Rules for Eating Wisely," and one of them in particular struck me as very wise indeed:
"Don't eat anything your great-great-great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food."
It's a simple rule, easy to remember and remarkably effective. It rules out most junk foods, processed foods and packaged foods, and reminds you to eat things that actually look like food: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, rice, beans ... you know, stuff like that.
So the next time you go shopping, try to remember Pollan's advice. It's easier than memorizing an entire treatise on good eating, but it works just as well.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
A growing number of food activists and authors are touting the benefits of a locally-based diet these days, and it's easy to see why: while organic produce might be better for you, it's not necessarily better for the planet if your organic tomato or organic peach has been shipped from a farm or orchard 3,000 miles away.
I try to eat locally as much as possible, choosing in-season fruits and vegetables and making an effort to visit area farmer's markets rather than supermarkets. You would think local eating would be easy in a place like Florida, where I live: after all, the weather is mild enough for year-round agriculture, even in the northern parts of the state.
You would think so, but think again: it's amazing to me how often I find produce trucked or shipped from many states away or even overseas. The worst recent example came when I was looking for oranges (should be easy in Florida, yes?) and, everywhere I went, the only choice was oranges from South Africa. This, to me, seemed worse than environmentally damaging. It struck me as downright insulting. Do we really have to bring our fruits and vegetables from the other side of the planet?
OK, so maybe the problem was that Florida orchards were in between seasons. But even California or South America would seem a preferable source for oranges then. My solution was one I think I'll be increasingly adopting as I try to localize my diet: if it's traveled too far to make it to the local grocery store, I'm not buying it.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
If you've ever tried to persuade a global warming denier -- and it's frightening to realize there are actually deniers still around in great numbers -- about the reality of human-caused climate change, you know how maddening such conversations can be. The same is true when talking with some people about other aspects of green living -- whether it's vegetarianism or veganism, animal rights, organic agriculture, etc. -- with which they disagree: the discussion can turn unpleasant, even ugly, when your counterpart starts questioning your intelligence, your motives or even your own ethics.
While it's hard to resist fighting fire with fire in these circumstances, try to avoid doing so. The best way to bring around supporters to your cause always requires sugar, not vinegar. So stay calm, stick to the facts (and make sure you have your facts straight first) and fire away at the arguments, not the arguee. If might not work every time -- maybe not even most of the time -- but you'll always gain more respect in someone else's eyes if you demonstrate that you can stay above the fray and retain your cool, even your sense of humor, even when the discussions get heated.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Remember that scene in the 1991 film "City Slickers" when the main character, Mitch (played by Billy Crystal), is talking with the tough old cowboy Curly (Jack Palance) about the secret of life? The exchange went like this:
"Do you know what the secret of life is?" Curly asks, then holds up one finger. "This."
"Your finger?" Mitch responds in his usual joking way.
"One thing," Curly answers, not responding to the "joke." "Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don't mean ----."
"But, what is the 'one thing?' " the now truly curious Mitch asks.
"That's what you have to find out," Curly says, smiling.
While I don't always rely on comedic films for my life-guiding philosophy, this bit of dialogue actually makes a deep and meaningful point: if you find one thing in life that drives you, motivates you, inspires you, whatever it might be, you've found a purpose. Work from there, and you'll generally move in the right direction in life.
It's the same way with converting to a green lifestyle. If you've been cruising along in the typical modern lifestyle without giving much thought to the environmental impacts of every action you take each day, the idea of re-tooling your ways to be more eco-friendly and sustainable can seem overwhelming. There's so much to keep in mind, so much to do or not to do: don't buy processed foods, do buy fair-trade, don't redecorate with high-VOC paints, do buy sustainably harvested woods, and on and on.
But it really doesn't have to be that complicated. If you're looking to build a better lifestyle, follow Curly's advice and focus on "one thing." Whether it's shifting to a locally based diet, eliminating harmful chemicals from your home, biking more often instead of driving or switching to renewable energy, choose the "one thing" that feels most important to you, and start there. The rest will come with time.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Read enough about the environment, pollution, industrial farming, resource depletion, climate change and other challenges facing nature, and it's easy to start feeling hopeless and helpless. After all, how can one person choosing local produce, sustainable woods and solar power make a meaningful dent in a world of six billion people, a few of whom wield much greater control and possess billions and many more of whom scrape by, barely hanging on day after day, hoping only to create a better future for their children?
Yes, subscribe to enough news services or peruse enough headlines, and it's understandable how one might start to despair. But don't let yourself fall into that state. The world still offers wonders and beauty galore, and every effort you make to help preserve those is a reason for optimism rather than gloom.
Still, you can tell yourself that over and over again, but self-talk doesn't always cut it. So if you find yourself slipping into a mood where talk alone can't snap you back into hopefulness, get out into nature. There is no better healer for the spirit.
Whether you find a quiet spot in a local forest preserve to listen to and watch the bluejays and squirrels, take a long stroll along an unpopulated stretch of shoreline or even sit peacefully in a chair overlooking your backyard, you'll discover that taking a brief break to commune with nature might be the very cure for your dark mood. Better yet, you might realize that you've just experienced a first-hand reminder for why living green and sustainably is so important, so worthwhile: it's for preserving the natural world that nurtures and renews us all.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
No, you can never be a "little bit" pregnant or a "little bit" on fire, but is it possible to be a "little bit" green? Not only is it possible, I believe, but it's a goal worth striving for.
Too often, we take an all-or-nothing approach toward our goals. Stay on this diet strictly but, after one afternoon's indiscretion involving a bagful of chocolates, give up completely. Resolve on Jan. 1 to start exercising regularly but, after a lazy weekend on the couch, decide to throw in the towel. Pledge to cut up your credit cards if you make one more impulse purchase but, after finding that flat-screen TV on sale big-time, conclude that you're just not the saving kind.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Worthy goals are always important, even if you fall off the wagon once in a while. And it's the same way with green living.
So don't despair if you find, after your Saturday grocery trip, that you've bought regular -- not fair-trade or shade-grown -- coffee, raspberries shipped from Chile and a bag of heavily processed snacks made, apparently, almost exclusively from high-fructose corn syrup, trans-fats and genetically modified grains. The fact that you're feeling guilty means you're still paying attention: you read the labels and realized you could have done better. So chalk the shopping trip off to a momentary lapse and resolve to do a little better next time.
Because a "little bit" green is always better than not green at all.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Talk to enough people, and you're bound to find at least a few lapsed vegetarians -- people who, for one reason or another, once chose to give up eating meat but eventually reverted back to their old ways. Maybe it was too difficult a diet to maintain in social situations, maybe it was the wrong vegetarian diet for that point in their lives (for example, not enough protein when pregnant), maybe it was just getting old.
On the other hand, I think you'll also find that many of those lapsed vegetarians eventually return to some sort of kinder, gentler diet. Maybe it's not 100-percent vegan or vegetarian, but perhaps it emphasizes humanely raised beef, sustainable seafood and organic dairy. Whatever the choice, the end result is clearly better -- at least a little bit -- than a completely thoughtless approach toward eating.
I view green living in the same way: it's hard -- sometimes near-impossible -- to always lead the most environmentally responsible, sustainable lifestyle. Maybe you live in a small community where it makes more sense, from a fossil-fuel consumption standpoint, to shop at the mega-store two miles distant rather than to make twice-weekly trips to the co-op in the next town 24 miles away. Maybe there are times when you're getting ready for a vacation or family gathering, and just can't avoid doing multiple loads of laundry during peak energy hours.
No matter. As long as you're consistently TRYING to live greener, even when you don't always succeed, the results are always worth it. It might be a few quarters saved in your monthly electric bill, or a few less pesticides in your weekly diet of fruits and vegetables, but every little bit counts.
So don't "give up" like so many lapsed vegetarians, just because living green can be challenging at times. Just as it's OK, once in a great while, to join your friends for a night out for pepperoni pizza, it's also OK, once in a while, to grab the most convenient quart of milk at the gas station mini-mart instead of making an extra trip for organic 2-percent from the store on the other end of town. Living green isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, and every little extra bit of green you can add to your lifestyle makes a positive difference, both for yourself and for the environment.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
One of the things I've discovered in my ongoing quest to live in an environmentally responsible manner is, the more I learn, the more reasons I find to live even greener and more sustainably.
Without knowing much about how our food is produced, for example, we can still recognize the importance of eating fresh, healthful and nutritious foods. But the more you read and learn about modern agriculture and food processing, the more you begin to apprecite the environmental and health benefits of, say, organically grown produce and hormone-free milk, eggs, chicken and beef.
Similarly, the more you find out about where our cotton clothing, wood furniture and plastics come from , the more incentive you discover to buy organic fabrics, sustainably harvested woods and natural products instead.
So keep reading and keep learning, wherever and however you can. Knowledge is not only power, it's the best way to move yourself and others toward a better, greener way of living.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
One of the least well reasoned arguments I hear against global warming and other environmental threats goes like this: "How arrogant are you to think that we puny humans can have any measurable, much less catastrophic, impact on a massive, billions-year-old system like Earth?"
Just arrogant enough to jive with reality, it would appear.
Was it arrogance to think we could split the atom, build an A bomb and harness nuclear energy? Been there, done that.
Was it arrogance to think we could so pollute the environment that water could burn? Look up "Cuyahoga River fire."
Was it arrogance to believe we could wipe out an entire species of creatures? We've done so over and over again, just in the past few hundred years: dodo bird, passenger pigeon, Florida red wolf, Steller's sea cow, and on and on.
So is it arrogance to believe that small humans -- by the billions, mind you -- could collectively consume enough natural resources, produce enough waste, eliminate enough natural habitat for other species and pump enough warmth-absorbing gases into the atmosphere that we might actually alter the face of nature?
Clearly, our actions can have a real impact on the planet. The arrogance lies with those who choose not to believe the well supported evidence that shows it's so.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Who isn't green these days? It seems like every company advertising anywhere is now green, eco-friendly and fighting hard to stop global warming ... but is it true? Has the global corporate world suddenly risen up as one and gotten environmental religion?
The short answer is, probably no. Oil companies are still drilling for oil and refining and selling fossil fuels. Pesticide makers are still marketing poisons designed to kill pests and weeds. Giant retailers are still shipping products thousands of miles and operating brightly lit, climate-controlled, energy-guzzling mega-stores.
Some companies -- maybe even most, to some degree -- are making little green improvements here and there: upgrading their fleets with vehicles that get 5 or 10 miles more to the gallon, maybe, or adding skylights to their new buildings to reduce artificial lighting needs a bit. It's a start, but many have a long way to go before you could honestly call them green. It's just that green is in, and marketers have figured that out; it's a way to bring in green of a different kind.
So don't believe the hype. Before you make a buying decision based on a "we're-now-green" ad campaign, do some homework first to find out if it's really true. There might be a greener business you could support instead that simply isn't as spending as much on green marketing.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
One of the challenges in adopting a green lifestyle is persuading others who aren't so green-minded that your choice is more than a personal quirk or fad movement.
While even those detractors who don't understand why you've become a vegetarian or started biking to work might profess to being pro-environment, there's a disconnect there, an inability to see clearly how every individual choice can benefit -- or harm -- the world around us. But every action we take does have an impact, however small, for better or for worse.
Until we all get on the same page -- until we all agree and understand that certain lifestyles are environmentallly unsustainable (and therefore irresponsible) -- it will be hard to effect widespread and meaningful green changes on a lasting, global scale. That's why those of us who have decided to live green need to commit to having an ongoing conversation with others about the whys, and not just the whats, of sustainable living.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
What if your doctor told you today that you were very likely to develop a painful, life-altering, chronic disease within the next 20 years, but that you could stave off the worst symptoms in the future by making drastic changes in your lifestyle now?
Would you agree to, for example, stop eating all meat and fish, walk at least four miles every day, and eliminate all processed foods and synthetic chemical products from your life? Or would you find the prescribed sacrifices too difficult to swallow, throw caution to the wind and hope that, in 20 years' time, medical science will havve found a quick cure for your future malady?
That's essentially the choice we're facing today with the two-headed threat of global warming and peak oil. Both of these issues will take years to play out to maximum effect, but we're already feeling those first winds of change: rising ocean levels, shrinking glaciers and ice caps, warmer temperatures and higher gas prices. The question is, are we willing to gamble on our planet's (and our own) future health and well-being in hopes of a fantastic cure down the road? Or are we ready to do the smart thing and start rethinking the way we live and making changes now?
The choice is ours.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Why does every discussion about living green, eating green and doing right by the environment have to, for some people, devolve into a political argument? It seems there are those who are just so bought into the way they live that any suggestion to live differently is viewed as a personal attack.
In fact, some of these argumentative types seem to take a large amount of glee at not only shooting down an eco-friendly suggestions, but launching into an over-the-top defense of the polar opposite. Think the guy who mocks the vegetarian then resolves to order a 96-ounce steak in the vegetarian's "honor." Or the gal who sneers at the "hippie chick" who eschews chemical-laden cosmetics, then goes on to tell the "hippie" that she'd change her mind in a second if only she would treat herself to a top-to-bottom makeover and a beauty-product shopping spree at the nearest day spa.
Foks, this isn't personal. Some lifestyle choices are simply more environmentally damaging than othres, and the results impact us all. So when one of us "greenies" suggests you consider a few changes in your habits, don't go all medieval on us: do a little homework, study the facts, ask yourself some hard questions and then decide if your actions are really as benign as you say they are. Eco-friendly living is all about thinking green, not red or blue.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
The advance guard of the green, sustainable living movement has already gone beyond emphasizing organic food to touting the even greater environmental benefits of local eating. So where will trends take us from here? I believe the movement is in the direction of what I'll call hyperlocalism.
What is hyperlocalism? It's the shift to a reliance on local products of all kinds, not just local food products. Eventually, I believe, it will be a practice of necessity, especially as dwindling fuel supplies lead to skyrocketing transportation costs. In the meantime, though, it's a movement that recognizes the environmental costs of all things carried over great distances: the fuel consumed, the pollution and greenhouse gases produced, the money that leaves a local economy to benefit large multinational corporations with little interest in the communities they market to.
Or course, there will always be goods that can't be found, grown or produced locally, so a certain amount of long-distance interchange will always be necessary. But the more we can produce the things we need within a narrow radius of space, the more lightly we can tread upon the planet and the richer our individual communities will be.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
George Monbiot proposes a disturbing yet revelatory idea in "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning," hie new book on the solution to global warming. It's the idea that no government, no agency, no group has really taken any hard-hitting, meaningful steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions because, deep down, the people in charge know that we, the citizens, don't really want them to.
That's because the actions that would really make a difference require us to do more than simply switch to more energy-efficient lightbulbs and trade in our SUVs for compact cars. It would take us agreeing to -- no, demanding -- carbon rationing, better public transportation, a near-complete halt to long-distance air travel and other radically life-alteing (for those of us lucky enough to live in the developed world, anyway) changes in the way we live.
It's human nature, I suppose, just like we want to lose weight, but would rather find a magic pill or sacrifice-free diet that lets us eat everything we want, rather than have to acknowledge we eat too much junk and move far too little. Or the way we'd like to have more money saved, yet, rather than deny ourselves that special purchase or expensive vacation, we overburden our credit cards to the point we can't even keep our accounts in the black.
Sooner or later, though, all these pleasure-giving denials of reality -- these "inconvenient truths," as Al Gore so aptly put it -- bear fruit that can no longer be ignored. We're "suddenly" 20 pounds heavier than we used to be. We "unexpectedly" don't have enough to pay the cable bill this month. Or we're "surprised" one day to discover the ocean shoreline is a lot closer to our house than it used to be, the summer heat waves are a lot deadlier and the crop yields from our local farms are a lot lower.
That's why making the transition to a green lifestyle -- and committing to working for change at the local, regional and national levels -- is something we all should want to do now. Because our small sacrifices today could help prevent some very predictable yet unpleasant "surprises" a few years down the road.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
As a proponent of green eating, I was both annoyed and intrigued by Time Magazine's recent cover story on the local food movement. It heralded the article with a cover featuring a larger-than-life red apple with a round yellow sticker on it reading, "Forget Organic. Eat Local."
Annoyed, because the admonition to "forget organic" seemed an irresponsible blanket statement about a more eco-friendly way of eating that's growing by leaps and bounds. Intrigued, though, because I understood what the headline writer was getting at: organic is better than conventional agriculture but not as good as agriculture that doesn't ship food hundreds or thousands of miles from where it's grown.
After reading John Cloud's feature, though, I was left mostly annoyed. While informative in many ways, the article was often glib -- the reference to food co-ops as "too political for me," for example, or calling the concept of community supported agriculture as sounding "a little lefty." There was also this comment, in response to Michael Pollan's assertion in "The Omnivore's Dilemma" that "We place our faith in science to sort out what culture once did":
"But science should trump culture on matters of nutrition," Cloud writes.
Never mind that the science Pollan refers to isn't sound nutritional science but the junk/industrial food science that gave us things like chicken nuggets, neon-hued yogurt and snacks that change color in your mouth.
Finally, it struck me as a gross omission that an article about eating locally never mentioned Alice Waters of Chez Panisse, probably one of the earliest proponents and practitioners of this food movement.
Learning to eat well and in an environmentally responsible, sustainable manner deserves serious treatment, not wink-and-a-nod coverage that ends with comments like, "I'm not a purist about these choices -- I ate a Filet-O-Fish at McDonald's on the way to (a CSA) farm. But in general, I have decided that you are where you eat."
Sorry, but knocking organic food over local while giving back-handed praise to fast food does the green food movement, whatever its focus, a disservice.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
"Out of sight, out of mind" isn't just a tired old cliche. It's actually the reason many of us can live as blissfully as we do in the unsustainable, unhealthful ways we do.
Face it: would you eat as many hamburgers, barbecued ribs or chicken wings if you had to slaughter the cow, pig or hen yourself ... or even watch someone else do it? And would you be as quick to throw out all that trash -- rather than composting or recycling it -- if you lived across the road from the dump where that waste ends up? Would you enjoy that morning mochaccino as much if it was your parents earning pennies on the dollar for the coffee beans they grow? And would you be as quick to go on a summer-clothing shopping spree if it was your teenage daughter working 70-plus hours per week in the overseas factory where those clothes come from?
I know it's a downer to think about those things, but it's also reality. And reality right now is pushing ever closer to our collective consciousness, whether it's in the form of global warming, E. coli outbreaks, a rising incidence of diet-related diseases or widespread environmental degradation. "Out of sight" might still be "out of mind" for many of us, but the view is growing increasingly clearer and harder to ignore.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Buying carbon credits to offset one's personal carbon dioxide emissions is becoming increasingly popular, with celebrity support from such names as the band Coldplay and former vice-president Al Gore. But are carbon credits really the right way to go?
It turns out that not all carbon offset programs -- planting trees, installing solar panels, and so on -- are created equally. Some are more effective than others in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, some are poorly managed or executed, and some require long periods of time to have any measurable impact. So it seems smart that we not rely on carbon offsets alone to solve our greenhouse gas problems.
However admirable, carbon offsets alone won't compensate for all the carbon dioxide the world produces, and they won't alone help wean our society off of fossil fuels and non-renewables. The only long-term and effective way to permanently reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to move toward a more sustainable, less wasteful way of life. Think of it as the difference between recycling waste and not producing it in the first place, which is always the more environmentally responsible -- and cheaper -- way to go.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
The concept of the "butterfly effect" -- how small actions can ripple outward through time and space to create massive changes -- has been around for a long time, long before the movie of the same name, even before Ray Bradbury's short story, "A Sound of Thunder," of time travel gone horribly wrong. The butterfly effects of global warming and environmental damage we're beginning to see today, though, are not works of fiction but very real -- and potentially devastating -- signs of a changing world.
Small increases in ocean temperatures, for example, can result in dramatic changes to coral reefs, driving out the small organisms that color and feed live corals, leading to coral bleaching and -- eventually, possibly -- to death of the reef, the loss of millions in tourist dollars and the exposure of vulnerable beaches and coastlines to far worse erosion and wave-borne storm damage.
So too can small temperature increases mean the difference between stable ice sheets or accelerated melting, which -- in turn -- can lead to higher sea levels, major property losses in coastal areas, drastic changes to such cities as New York, London and Hong Kong, and -- even more frightening -- a possible slowdown or shutdown of the Atlantic ocean conveyor belt that today helps keep much of Europe comfortably habitable.
That's why it's so important for all of us, now more than ever, to live mindfully, respectfully and responsibly -- to live green lifestyles that are as sustainable as possible. Because every little action each of us takes could make the difference between the gentle flutter of a butterfly's wings or the deafening thunder of a rising ocean tide.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Living green shouldn't be a choice of luxury, available only to those with the income and access allowing them to buy fresh, organic fruits and vegetables, whole grains, natural fiber clothing and environmentally friendly furnishings. Ideally, every person should be able to eat healthful, nutritious foods and live sustainably. Unfortunately, that's not the case, and options for the have-nots appear to be growing worse rather than better.
Just as economic disparities between the world's richest and poorest are growing, so too are dietary ones. The well-off live in neighborhoods with overflowing grocery stores and bustling farmer's markets, while low-income and rural citizens are left with the worst sources for healthful foods: convenience stores, fast-food restaurants and dollar shops.
Fortunately, there are people and groups out there working to improve the situation, creating community gardens in low-income urban areas without nearby grocery stores or promoting community supported agriculture in which subscribers can buy fresher, more nutritious foods cheaper than they could find anywhere else in their neighborhoods. But much more needs to be done.
Just think of all those wasted acres of potential local gardens -- abandoned, trash-filled lots in cities, overtreated and resource-hungry lawns in the suburbs, empty properties in small towns decimated by depopulation and big-box competition. There's hope for the future, but it's going to take a revolution in how we think about food and how we live. The results, though, could be a much fairer, healthier future for us all.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
How important is food to human society? Outside of the insanely obvious -- without food, we'd all soon become so much human compost -- it turns out that food, especially the availability of it or the lack thereof, has helped determine pretty much every aspect of human history and development.
That's the most fascinating lesson Jared Diamond provides in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies." A professor of geography at UCLA, Diamond starts by asking a question that's probably occurred to many of us at one time or another: Why, given there's no scientific reason to believe any one group or race of people is smarter or more inventive than any other, did human cultures evolve along such different paths? Why, for instance, did Europeans sail to and eventually take over much of North America and Australia, eliminating or displacing those regions' native peoples, rather than the other way around? Why did the earliest civilizations arise where they did?
The answer to all those questions ultimately rests with food. Areas with a diverse and plentiful supply of easily domesticated plants and animals had a built-in advantage over regions with fewer such food sources. Domesticable plants and animals gave rise to agriculture, which enabled people to settle down in farm communities, produce enough food to allow some people to specialize in trades other than food cultivations, build large populations and complex political systems, and eventually develop resistance to animal-origin epidemic diseases like smallpox, measles, tuberculosis and more. Those advantages have cascaded down to present-day societies, explaining why there are still such disparities in wealth and economic development around the globe.
It all comes down to food. And that's why we should keep our food choices not only healthful, but natureal, green and sustainable. Food is culture. Food is life. Food is nature, and so are we. And, as Diamond demonstrated so persuasively in a subsequent book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed," when people start messing with nature in ways that can't be sustained, a society's very existence can be threatened.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
The solution to a technology problem is not always more technology. Sometimes, the best way to solve a technological challenge is to go back to square one and eliminate the inherent problem with the original technology.
Case in point: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and the hole they were creating in the ozone layer. People didn't reverse the tendency of CFCs to thin the ozone layer by devising orbiting CFC vacuums to suck up the offending gases before they reached the ozone layer. No, the global community at large agreed to phase out the use of CFCs and move toward other aerosol propellents and coolants that didn't threaten to punch a cancer-causing hole in the atmosphere.
On the flip side, consider the abhorrent "solution" some scientists claim to have found to the threat of mad cow disease. Rather than simply eliminate completely the feeding of other cow and animal parts to cows, which are natural grass-eaters, not meat-eaters, some researchers say the answer is genetically engineered cows whose genes are no longer capable of producing the prions that cause mad cow disease.
Which is why I found the advice proffered in a recent Inc. Magazine column on predicting the future so galling, wrong-headed and downright dangerous:
"Don't worry!" the caption chirpily reassures readers, "Today's rapid rate of change means that problems like global warming may be solved faster than we expect."
Now I understand the reasoning behind the column: that future technologies barely foreseen today could eliminate our current greenhouse gas-spewing dependence on fossil fuels. That might be true, but if it takes only 10 quick years to reach that point -- wildly optimistic, given how slowly the wheels of research and development turn -- that's still 10 more years of us pumping damaging tons of carbon dioxide into the air, which climate experts say will linger and do harm for decades to come.
A greener lifestyle today, on the other hand, will help stave off those increases starting now and give us time to work on longer-term solutions. "Don't worry" is hardly the message we should be getting right now.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Why is it that some diet and lifestyle trends -- low-fat, low-carb, and so on -- seem to attract followers more easily than green living, which is inherently natural, healthy and good for the planet? I think it's because trends involve basically simple formulas or rules -- don't eat this, do eat that -- while green living requires much more thought and individual decision-making.
Do you eat meat or not? For one person, maybe, it depends on whether the cow or hen was sustainably raised and naturally fed. For someone else who's decided the amount of energy required to produce meat isn't worth the environmental cost, it's a different decision.
And then there are the decisions beyond simple food: How do you power and heat your house? How do you travel to work? How will you reduce your carbon footprint? Will you eschew buying new when used will do? And on and on and on.
In a nutshell, green living requires far more mindfulness than any lose-weight or healthy-living trend that asks only that you buy this particular cookbook, or take these particular dietary supplements. It takes more effort, but that's why -- in the end -- it's far more worthwhile. The payoffs -- in terms of your own health, that of your family and that of the world we live in -- are far, far greater.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
I was scanning the radio dial a while back, searching for something to listen to, when I came upon a true classic: Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World."
I lost myself for a while in the sweet melody, then started paying attention to the lyrics:
"I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world."
The truth and depth of those words suddenly struck me: It really is a wonderful world, I thought, and it's the small, deceptively simply things that are often most wonderful of all.
Not just skies of blue and clouds of white, but other things we often forget about or take for granted: how plants almost miraculously turn sunshine and water into the carbohydrates that nourish us, how the human body functions so effectively to use those carbohydrates for growth and energy, how the Earth and the sun are both just right -- size, distance, elemental composition -- to nurture life on our planet, how all the complex pieces of nature, from the microscopic to the mammoth, fit together to creat a single, interdependent, intertwined organism.
And that's why it's so important now for us all to start living greener and more sustainably. Because this marvelously functioning Earth, with all its many interconnected parts -- plants, minerals, animals, water, climate -- has been thrown out of balance by us and by nobody or nothing else. It's our responsibility, our duty, and our survival-preserving obligation to clean up our messes and get back to being able to truly enjoy a wonderful world.
Oh yeah.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Persuading others you care about -- family members, close friends, work associates -- to adopt a greener lifestyle can feel like a Sisyphean task: you talk and talk and talk about all the reasons to live green, they agree with you, and -- a week later with no noticeable change in their habits -- you start the challenge all over again.
More often than not, if you're making your case well without being preachy or strident, others will nod and say, "Yes, you're right. We should all consume less, waste less and take care of our planet." But actually persuading people to make meaningful changes themselves, that's hard. Old habits aren't easy to break, even when you know they're not good for you.
Maybe the answer lies in a more compelling way to make your case, a way that makes the need for green living more urgent and more personal:
- Do it for yourself. Just read the labels on our foods, drinks, personal-care items and household products; they sound like chemistry experiments more than things from nature. While industry types insist today's additives, pesticides, preservatives and other compounds have never been proven to harm people, these products are simply not a part of nature, which we're also part of. It only makes sense that keeping things as natural and simple as you can is best ... and most healthful.
- Do it for your kids and grandkids. Despite how we appear to live our lives, as if everything today will always be available, no matter when, the natural resources we depend on are finite. Bottom line: the more clean water, clean air, rich topsoil, mined metal and fossil fuel you consume today, the less there will be for your children and grandchildren. And if you're consuming wastefully AND not recycling, the path toward depletion is even faster.
- Do it for the planet that gives you life. You depend on the Earth every day for the most basic of needs: air with just the right mixture of necessary natural gases (nitrogen, oxygen) and as few contaminants as possible; wholesome food with the calories, nutrients and minerals you need to survive; climate that supports the vital systems of agriculture, industry and society that enable our survival. For all its apparent robustness, the world is a delicate system: tip one feature (greenhouse gases, for example) too far out of balance, and many other pieces also quicly fall out of place. Honor the Earth that nurtures you by respecting and caring for it at least as much as you care for, clean and maintain your home, garage and backyard.
Posted by Shirley Siluk Gregory
Wendell Phillips once said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," and the same can be said about living in a green, sustainable manner: protecting the Earth and our own health and well-being takes eternal vigilance, now more than ever.
In our highly consumerized culture, new must-have products and new must-eat foods seem to enter the marketplace by the hour, tempting us with ever more opportunities to want, buy, own and eat. Whether we need these things doesn't matter. Whether they're good for us or the environment matters even less.
But that's not a healthful, responsible or sustainable way to live, and we see the price of this kind of lifestyle every day: rising obesity, rising diet-related illnesses, rising environment-related illnesses, rising debt.
The solution lies in eternal vigilance. Be on the lookout, always, for misleading advertisements, damaging products and wasteful habits. Because our world is as precious as life and liberty and, unlikely liberty, once the Earth is lost, it can never be regained.