Made to Break

"At present it's much cheaper to buy a new microwave, DVD players, or vacuum cleaner than to get a malfunctioning one fixed. That's crazy." -MacKay, 225

Once upon a time, people wore clothes until they tore, patched them up, and wore them again. Once upon a time, my mom darned socks instead of throwing them away and buying a new package. Once upon a time when something broke you brought it in to to a repair shop, waited a few days, then picked it up and it was good as new. There has been a shift within the past few decades away from this repair mentality to a toss it and buy a new one mindset.

Electronics are almost made to break, with their 90 day warranties and hard to reach customer service. Last September I bought an HP DeskJet Printer for $25; it came with a black and color ink. My ink ran out at the beginning of this term and upon going to buy new ink I noticed it was cheaper to buy a new printer that comes with free ink, then to buy replacement ink. There is something wrong with this picture.

MacKay writes that the fact it is cheaper to replace and object than to get it fixed is due to our tax system, which taxes the repair man (225). This is true but it is also a case of externalizing the costs. Taken at sticker price, it is cheaper to buy a new printer or pair of shoes. In reality this is not the case. The environmental costs and already externalized from the shelf price (carbon emitted to make your shoes). But what about the environmental costs of disposing your old electronic?

It is an honest statement to say that you have no idea what happens to your old consumer good when your done. Chances are it is laid to rest in a landfill, or 'recycled,' which usually implies outsourcing to Third World countries, harmfully polluting citizens there.

My point of this ramble is that it is worth it to pay more and have a toaster or vacuum and pair of shoes fixed than to buy into the made to break market.

Here is an Annie Leonard video, part of her Story of Stuff web series:

Cool to be 'Cool'

"In Britain, for every degree that you turn the thermostat down, the heat loss decreases by about 10 %." -MacKay, 143

My last post was about how only doing a little goes a little ways, so it may seem hypocritical that this week is about as small as action as turning the thermostat down one degree. I was not trying to disown little actions, only stating that they get in the way of actually making progress. It is easy to say "oh, I unplug my charger and toaster now" and carry on solo commuting to work in your hummer. Little actions are good, just keep in mind that that is all they are: little, and much more needs to be done. That out of the way, let's talk about thermostats. MacKay writes that turning the thermostat down from 20*C to 15* C (68* F to 59* F) nearly halves heat loss (p, 141). This may seem like a large jump. I think that 59* F is a bit major, but it is not too painful to set the thermostat at 62* F or 65* F.

If wearing long sleeves and sweatshirts inside is not for you, MacKay offers a few other small suggestions for lowing heat consumption. Adding "loft insulation and cavity-wall insulation reduces heat loss in a typical old house by about 25%" (p, 142). Double-pane windows can also help to insulate a house. If you have done these small changes and are ready for a bigger investment, the most efficient way to heat a home is with a heat pump.

Posing with my houses heat pump

"Whereas the bar-fire's efficiency is 100%, the heat pump's is 400%." -MacKay, 147

First off, if anyone knows what a bar-fire is please let me know. Google only comes up with stories of fires in bars. Next, the matter of heat pumps. MacKay describes an air-source heat pump that warms up the outside air to cool down the air inside the building (air-conditioning), as well as working the other way around to heat the building. He also describes ground-source heat pump that cools down the ground using plumbing to heat your house. Heat pumps are still a form of electricity, but are the best 'future-proof' option for heating. Too expensive? Check that your house is properly insulated and crank the thermostat down. Sweats are in.

Energy Straight Talk

"Don't be distracted by the myth that 'every little helps.' If everyone does a little, we'll only achieve a little." -MacKay, 114

This book seems like it will most definitely live up to it's title. David MacKay is full of honesty. How many people would be able to shove the above comment in the world's face? 'Every little bit helps' is the mantra of the environmental movement, but he makes a truly valid point. Sure, everyone can unplug their cell phone chargers but that saves takes a small chunk of energy usage. Humans are the most adaptive species on earth, that is why we survived and beat out the archaic sapiens we roamed the earth with. So sure we have survived massive climate shifts before (the Pliocene to the Pleistocene) but this man-aided global warming is a different beast. Describing the doubling of CO2 emissions as having the same effect as raising the temperature 2% MacKay writes,

"Such temperatures have not been seen on earth for at least 100,000 years, and it's conceivable that the ecosystem would be so significantly altered that the earth would stop supplying some of the goods...taken for granted." -MacKay, 10

So what do we do? With a rising population about to top seven billion and a developing South, how do we shift the focus to better use of fossil fuels and alternative energy? We cannot keep taking little steps, but make large leaps. Do not just unplug your charger but your television, microwave, coffee maker, hairdryer. Sell your car and ride the bus. I have recently done this (not sold my car, but riding the bus into school), and it may not be the most fun, but I am saving tons of money. Country wise, the ethical thought needs to be 'the polluter must pay.' It simply makes the most sense. As MacKay puts it however, not just the contemporary polluter, but look at each countries historical footprint and gage from there (14). Big changes need to be made with supply and demand. MacKay offers some ideas on pg 115,

1. Reduce our population! He includes a controversial quote, "While the footprint of each individual cannot be reduced to zero, the absence of an individual does do so."

2. Changing our lifestyle. Examples: live where you work, ride your bike, use cloth shopping bags, consume only what you need, slow down.

Main point: Think big, act big. Go beyond just unplugging your chargers and buying organic label food.

Clock of the Long Now

An additional post for week 6: 10,000 Year Clock of the Long Now.

When I read about this in Blessed Unrest, I was intrigued. I finally had time to visit the Clock of Long Now's website, and have decided it is the coolest thing ever! Hawken writes that the clock is an attempt to remind humans of the idea of the future. We are living not just for today but every action we take will affect those farther down the road, just like we are affected by historical events behind us.

The Long Now website states that civilization is revving itself into a pathologically short life-span and some sort of balancing corrective to the short-sightedness is needed to encourage the long term view measured in centuries. This could not be more true. We are driven by fast moving technology and a world of constant new commodities. Even our democracy is short sighted. The election process starts at least a year in advance and when one party replaces another they simply spend their time undoing everything. It is a cycle of stagnant near-sightedness.

Hawken asks, will there be anyone around to hear the clock chime in 12,006? He argues that if you do not believe so then you should not have children, because by having children you are are betting on the Clock of Long Now. If you do place the bet that someone will be around to celebrate when the Clock chimes, how could you possibly not do everything in your power to ensure the generations that precede you will inherit a safe, clean world?

I would like to have hope in the clock of long now, and I think it is a clever tool for thinking about the future. Even if I never have children, I am a proud Aunt to ten adorable children and sure hope their descendants are around when the clock chimes. This is enough for me to try to live as simply as I can, and you should too. Bet on the future.

*Excerpts taken from Paul Hawken, "Immunity," Blessed Unrest (Penguin Books: New York, 2007), 154.

Voting With Our Wallets

"From the [World Trade Organization's] perspective, a fish is a fish is a fish, and it doesn't matter what happened to sea turtles, dolphins, or workers when that fish was caught." -Hawken, 120

This statement was very striking to me. Fall term I learned about the Bretton Woods Institutions, World Bank and International Monetary Funds, along with the WTO. These systems claim that they are helping developing countries but in reality, they are exploiting them and hindering them from every developing. An argument my professor in International Studies mentioned was that it seems as though, in order for the West to function, we need the Global South to stay impoverished. We are riding on their backs, and the big global leaders intend to keep it that way. When a developing country needs a loan, the WB opposes structural adjustment programs, demanding that in order for the country to receive their loan they must privatize and open their markets. This has little to no benefit for them at all. In the process of this closed-door money transfers and contracts, the environment is left in the dust. Globalization has woven its way into society but is not a glossy picture. Hawken writes that, inevitably, it entails the corporatization of the commons, i.e., water, seeds, media, and the human genome (121).

"Privatization... removes assets from the hands of the state and place them into the marketplace, where consumers vote every day with their wallets." -Hawken, 129

We are born to consume. When the economy is in crisis, the government gives us more money so that we buy more stuff to stimulate the economy again. What is wrong with this picture? EVERYTHING. We have come a far cry from the simplicity of our ancestors. As Professor Barbara Brower said in class today when talking about how Native American's and other indigenous cultures survived for so long, "They defined their needs and wants. They did not want what nature could not give them." We want what nature cannot give us and this has led civilization down the path of environment and potentially self-destruction. Restoring humanity is not about fancy words such as 'sustainable', 'organic' or even 'environmentalist'. We need to revert, in some strides, back to nature. To put it simply: There are no tomatoes in Oregon in the winter so we should not eat them. Also, modern technology needs to be used as a tool for spreading the message, connecting, and learning, but not a hinderance to face to face communication.

Want what you need. Think before you buy. When you buy that out of season fruit, cheap Made in China toy, or Happy Meal, you are casting your vote and letting your government know you approve. How we use/do not use our wallets can change the world.