the green clash

Hiatus

2010-09-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

I'm just a slave to CreComm instructors, and they tell me I need a blog about journalism.
So my green blog here is going to take a little rest. I won't hesitate to post here if I feel so inspired, but otherwise, check out my new blog here. I'm pretty excited about it.

xox

Manitoba birds next victims of oil spill

2010-07-09T11:29:00.000-07:00

Read my article here.

I love and hate writing articles like these. It's fulfilling because it's such an important issue, but it's also quite depressing. Sometimes I'd rather just stick my head in the sand, especially in situations like these when there's nothing we can do about it...

except: let's not let it happen again.

Wheels out, rails in: EPC

2010-07-08T08:50:00.000-07:00

The Free Press reported that the executive policy committee has voted to pursue light rail over bus rapid transit yesterday. Mayor Sam Katz's inner circle is standing by his plan to scrap the second phase of bus rapid transit in Winnipeg (the first one, a link between The Forks and Jubilee Avenue, is currently under construction), funneling money set aside for it into road infrastructure projects. Instead Katz is championing a new light rail system which he hopes will be funded by federal cash set aside for public-private partnerships, much to the chagrin of upper levels of government.

There's much debate in the media these days on the merits of light rail vs bus rapid transit, for Winnipeg. Light rail is a really neat idea, in theory. But some people are saying BRT is the best choice for Winnipeg when considering things including population, transit use statistics, cost and, most importantly in my view-- the fact that we are already building a BRT line. BRT can easily be converted to LRT, anyway, according to the article linked above.

"The goal is to have a modern, vibrant, progressive city. That's what I want Winnipeg to be," Katz told reporters.

Modern, vibrant and progressive. Sounds good.

And after decades of rapid transit delays at city hall, it seemed pretty cool that we were on our way to a BRT system, despite its flaws. But if the EPC's vote gets approved at council July 21, we will end up with a lonely BRT stub and an ambiguous and precarious plan for light rail.

Any rapid transit system is better than no rapid transit system, in my opinion. It's too bad momentum for a long-fought-for BRT project is creeping to a halt.

I'll be interested to see how this issue plays into election campaigns.

Deep-water oil drilling and the precautionary principle

2010-06-23T16:43:00.000-07:00

A judge who had (and may still have?) investments in petroleum companies has cancelled Obama's six-month ban on deep-water drilling (read here).

His argument: because one oil rig exploded and killed people, devastated the surrounding coastal and aquatic ecosystems and decimated the livelihood of thousands of people, that doesn't mean they all will.

True, clearly. But that's not the point, and I'm pretty sure this judge is smart enough to realize that.

The point is this event has caused excessive harm, and it should give us pause. A moratorium on drilling allows time to review regulations to ensure they are adequate, and that they are being followed in the industry as a whole.

The U.S. government is making very wise use of the precautionary principle in their decision. The precautionary principle states that when something is SUSPECTED to be harmful to the environment and public, precautions should be taken even when the harm has not been scientifically proven. Instead of going ahead because "it hasn't been proven harmful," stop and analyze because "it hasn't been proven safe." This is especially relevant for chemical use in plastics, pesticides, etc.

I understand that many, many people rely on the oil industry for their livelihoods and that the ban deeply affects them. But the spill deeply affected many, many peoples' livelihoods as well. There has to be a time when we step back and re-evaluate. This is the time. I'm so glad Obama's administration acknowledges that.

As for Judge Feldman, should his involvment with petroleum companies be a factor in judging his decision here? Most people these days agree that there is no such thing as 'unbiased,' as we all have our backgrounds. However some biases are more concerning than others. The article states it's not clear whether Feldman still has stocks in these companies.

Is this guy looking out for his own interests, or are journalists just searching for a captivating headline? Perhaps it comes down to worldviews. Maybe those who tend to invest in oil simply aren't those who tend to side with the precautionary principle.

please don't kill the geese

2010-06-17T11:32:00.000-07:00

Dandelions, mosquitoes and geese, oh my!

What do these three things have in common? It's not a stumper-- they're all valuable things that occur naturally in the environment that people want to eliminate purely for reasons of convenience and aesthetics.

More about dandelions and mosquitoes later-- this post is about geese, and why I feel they should not be driven from the city or physically harmed. Check out this article by my fellow Free Press intern Britt Harvey about how geese are apparently the new scourge of residential retention ponds and golf courses.

The city is looking into how to humanely control the goose population in the city. Harming or killing the birds, a federally protected species, is not currently an option.

Population control is sometimes necessary when a species becomes overpopulated due to lack of predators, etc, and starts to wreak havoc on an ecosystem. But as far as I can tell, the reason people want these birds gone has to do with poop in the grass when they walk their dogs.

Give me a break. God forbid your outdoor experience isn't completely antiseptic.

Now a machine that squirts water at geese to annoy them and make them go away is one thing (and pretty funny, actually) but this is something else entirely:

"Refraining from harming the birds is of the upmost importance, said Poulin, noting Winnipeggers have contacted him to see if they could shake the eggs or damage the nest."

Really? Just imagine a disgruntled homeowner skulking through the dewey grass of a residential retention pond to kill a batch of unborn goose babies. I truly hope this does not actually happen. Anyway, good luck because the goose parents will peck you, and rightly so.

Why do we need to get rid of geese in the city? Wildlife in an urban environment is a treasure to be enjoyed. Plus they only pass through a couple times a year. I live near a retention pond and one of my favourite activities this past month has been to go feed and visit the three growing goose families living at the pond. Baby geese are the CUTEST THINGS EVER! Sure my shoes are a bit mucky after. I wipe them on the sidewalk. Big deal.

Lastly, we all need to remember the geese are not in fact encroaching on our territory-- we are in theirs. The sense of entitlement some people have about what 'belongs' in their urban environments baffles me. I bet you the geese aren't particularly pleased at all these buildings and cars we've put in their nesting grounds, either.

In a time when suffering, dying, oil-soaked birds and other creatures are regulars on the news, I take huge comfort and joy in the health and happiness of our local feathered friends.

Really really bad oil spill.

2010-04-30T09:02:00.001-07:00

I've been following the developments regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and have been trying to think of a productive post since the beginning. I still haven't thought of anything groundbreaking to say, so I'm posting anyway, to acknowledge that it is utterly devastating. It makes me so angry and I wonder how it's allowed to happen. I hope the investigation will be thorough and not hesitate to bring those responsible to account (in this case, BP) in a significant way. This level of risk to ecosystems and animals, not to mention the livelihood and physical health of many, many people, is not acceptable, and I'm happy to read Obama will not be approving any new offshore drilling until the matter is investigated.

I missed Earth Day

2010-04-23T10:28:00.000-07:00

What kind of environmental blog doesn't include a post on Earth Day, you ask? Clearly, my kind.

Yesterday, the world celebrated the awesomeness of the earth, with activities and events around the world.

Earth Day passed through my life as not much more than a blip on the radar, I must admit. While in past years I've been involved with enviro groups who have organized activities to mark the day, this year celebrating Earth Day was not a top priority. And I don' think that's necessarily a bad thing.

While special days to celebrate causes and groups of people are lovely, as they provide a focused time of year to concentrate events, promote awareness, etc, I wonder if they also work to undermine the legitimacy of the cause. I'm probably nit-picking, but I guess the argument is, why should we only celebrate the earth and sustainability on one day? Instead of it being a token cause, it should be something we integrate into our values and our lifestyles every day. That way people can't get away with saying "well, I didn't litter on Earth Day, that's good enough."

I suppose this could be said for any special day, and really, it's better to have a day singled out than none at all, and certainly the intention is not to relegate caring for that issue to just that one 24-hour period. Still, I'm not concerned about missing Earth Day because that stuff is on my mind constantly, and I'm not in danger of forgetting it.

Shaping virtual environments

2010-04-18T19:45:00.001-07:00

Going off topic, (thanks to a Creative Writing class assignment) let's talk about the one thing I probably know the least about in the world: video games.

I can probably count on one hand the times I've actually played any video games. I've never seen the appeal of sitting in a basement pretending to do something you could actually be doing in real life (unless it's shooting a bunch of people-- I don't see the appeal of that, period). It just seems lazy, and don't get me wrong-- I love to be lazy. But if I'm going to be lazy, then figuring out a bunch of buttons and controllers actually seems like more work than it's worth.

But from the limited exposure I've gotten to a few games in class, I DO see some value in it all. First off, clearly not all games are just about racing or killing. There are some interesting and psychologically complex games out there that offer a whole other level of interaction.

Most importantly, I am intrigued at the possibilities that come with the creation of a game. When constructing a video game, you are shaping a virtual reality of your own choosing-- the rules follow your logic, the choices possible are in line with the values you map out for this little world. You've created a paradigm all your own that people, if they so choose, must operate within. Basically, the creator of the game is God.

What incredible, and destructive, potential these games have. And they can be used for good or ill. It makes you think about what ulterior motives companies may have for creating certain games. Thousands of kids (and adults) spending hours in a virtual world where you are rewarded again and again for killing without thought-- I wonder who could benefit from that...

But then again, these games could also serve a rehabilitative purpose. It might do good for some to spend some time in a virtual landscape that provides positive feedback for respecting human life, cooperating, etc etc. I guess it's the same as how people argue that competitive board games are not good for children, while cooperative ones teach them positive lessons.

These are certainly not new ideas, but it's the first time I'VE really though about it. Pretty fascinating.

Five reasons it's hard to be green in CreComm*

2010-03-20T09:54:00.000-07:00

1. There's no time to do anything productive-- whether it's a green film festival you planned to attend, or that petition you just didn't have time to stop and sign before class, it's just not happening.

2. Energy wasting is common-place-- your plan is to stay up just a few more hours to get some of this work done, but you end up conking out in front of your computer... on the couch... or curled up on the floor, with the lights blazing for hours.

3. You max out your student card re-printing assignments-- a fear of automatic spelling failures means many trees die producing your two-page article.

4. Pre-packaged and fast-food is your new best friend-- if you have time to grab a lunch from home before you leave in the morning, it'll probably be a pre-packaged frozen meal. Even if you make something to bring, it certainly won't last you the long hours you might be spending at school.

5. The bus becomes way too much to handle-- if you have a car available but prefer to take the bus, well that's all out the window now. If it gets you there a half hour faster in the morning, it's in, because every second counts. Plus it can be difficult --and scary-- catching a bus home late at night.

As all CreComms, and many many others out there know, when you have an extremely demanding job, program or project you're immersed in, it's sometimes hard to focus on anything else. There's sometimes no extra time or energy to put into being sustainable. I'd probably find this really frustrating, if I had time to think about it...

*note: this post is slightly exaggerated for comic effect.

earth rights = human rights

2010-03-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

As we bask in a ridiculously early spring here on the prairies, the tangible effects of climate change are hard to deny. We're living in a very interesting time-- for the first time, environmental activism is intersecting with human rights activism in a way that can't be ignored.

For the first time, we are seeing quite clearly how environmental changes are affecting people, like ice roads closing early and isolating an aboriginal community without access to affordable supplies. And while this is clearly very bad, maybe it's the wake-up call we need to start taking this climate change thing seriously.

It's a lot harder to dismiss environmentalists as irrelevant tree-worshipping wackos when it's clear the cause they're fighting for is directly affecting the well-being of humans across the globe. And while right now it may only be affecting those without the economic resources to avoid it, that won't last forever.

This is the perfect time to ensure human rights and environmental activists join forces and really make some changes, planning for the future and providing for those who are already facing very serious issues due to global warming.

Growing sprouts in a jar: DAY FIVE

2010-02-23T21:07:00.000-08:00

So pretty much four full days after I put the seeds in, the sprouts were ready to eat. I could have left them longer but I was impatient.

They're good on sandwiches, in pitas, in salads, or just alone, as a snack. Well worth the tiny effort...

Growing sprouts in a jar: DAY THREE

2010-02-20T20:54:00.001-08:00

Look, they're growing! They're not nearly ready to eat yet, but coming along well:

And a close-up:

They look kind of gross, eh? But they will be delicious...

Growing sprouts in a jar: DAY ONE

2010-02-18T19:28:00.000-08:00

So I thought I would up the anticipation for this post by taking a three week hiatus... it was all strategy, I swear.

Growing sprouts in a jar is a really fun thing to do. It cuts down on packaging from store-bought sprouts, and probably saves a fair bit of money too (one 125g bag of Mumm's Sprouting Seeds, sold here or at Organza, goes for less than $5 I THINK, and it makes several jars, each of which roughly equals one $1 carton at the store) though I don't think the high price of sprouts is a major concern to most people. Still.

Supplies:
The main supplies needed are sprouting seeds --there are various mixtures-- (must be made for this purpose--I read somewhere that using random seeds can apparently be harmful to your health, though in hindsight maybe that was a marketing gimmick for the seed companies??), a wide-mouthed jar, and cheesecloth.

Other supplies: a rubber band, a spoon, scissors, water.

Step 1: Pour 1-2 tablespoons (I always do 2) of seeds into the jar.

Step 2: Cut a square of cheesecloth (make it several layers thick, or the seeds can fall through) and fasten it over your jar with a rubber band.

Step 3: Fill your jar with some water (as long as the seeds are well covered, really), swirl the water around, then dump the water out. Look how much fun I'm having:

Step 4: Fill the jar with about a cup of water (again, well-covered), let soak for 2-6 hours, then drain.

Step 5-on: Swirl the seeds in water, then drain, twice a day, until you are satisfied with your seed growth (so the only time they are actually sitting in water is the initial soaking in Step 4). Then eat!

Other notes: The seed package says they'll be ready in 3-6 days. For me it's always been closer to 6, but they're ready when the jar is full, basically. The package also says to store the jar opening down, at an angle in a bowl, but I've tried doing this and not doing this, simultaneously, and saw no real difference. It may prevent potential mold problems though.

I will update with sprout photos in the coming days so you can see their progress--exciting!

Growing food at home

2010-01-31T17:05:00.000-08:00

My boyfriend and I both enjoy experimenting with growing edible plants in the house during winter.

Last year, Curtis tended lovingly to this bell pepper plant that grew by his window all winter, and though the peppers were clearly stunted and didn't taste like much, he used them for seeds. Most of the fun is just watching these things grow, anyway-- if you get food out of them, all the better.

photo by Curtis Sawatzky

I'm currently attempting basil, tomatoes and chili peppers. I'm not holding my breath I'll get any food out of these, but the possibility is still exciting...

And if anyone has time to spare (clearly not CreComms) and is feeling crafty, try this.

Next week I'll document the growing of sprouts in a jar-- it's amazing.

prairie grass in peril

2010-01-25T10:02:00.000-08:00

The CBC recently reported a dramatic loss of indigenous prairie grasses in Canada over the past few decades. Tall-grass prairies are now extremely endangered, with less than one per cent of an initial 6,000 square km remaining, mostly in Manitoba.

I took a keen interest in this article, as I have a strong connection to and love for our prairie landscape and find it sad to see this historic piece of our heritage in peril.

But reading the article, I realized it was likely not the kind of thing most people would deem important, or even interesting, and I can't really blame them. With tragedies like Haiti and countless others in the radar lately, it's hard to find room to worry about grass. Questions like 'how does this affect our lives?' come to mind. What are the practical consequences if tall-grass prairies were to disappear altogether? I imagine the answer, realistically, is 'none.'

Still, the loss of this ecosystem means the human-caused destruction of a piece of nature inherent to our prairies for thousands of years-- that's huge.

In my opinion, there is value in working to save something simply for the sake of saving it, because it has a right to exist, and absolutely should continue to exist.

A group of environmentalists are working on preserving the grasses. As many thousands of causes as there are, there are at least a few to champion each one-- as it should be.

Photo by Curtis Sawatzky

An evening In the Chamber

2010-01-16T15:34:00.000-08:00

Last night 60-odd CreComms trooped over to the Rachel Brown Theatre on Bannatyne to see Theatre Projects Manitoba's newest production. In the Chamber 2010 consisted of two one-man performances, which tackled humans' relationships with, and rejections of, corporate and bureaucratic systems of which they are an inherent part.

Part One: Last Man in Krakendorf, written and performed by Gordon Tanner, portrayed a man dealing with the aftermath of a massive hog barn fire, (an unfortunate Manitoba reality) an event that has drastically changed his worldview.

Tired and grumpy, I was expecting to hate this production from the get-go. I have to admit, the first hour exceeded my lowly expectations. While I found Tanner's performance to be a touch hammy and over-acted, he was still a captivating character with a struggle that touched me on many levels. To watch the aftermath of a human waking up from a life of morally bankrupt drudgery to find passion and emotion in a cause he never imagined he would is very powerful. Still, it went on a little long, and I can't deny I dozed from time to time, only to wake up not seeming to have missed a beat-- a sign much could have been cut.

Part Two: Last Man in Puntarenas, written and performed by Steven Ratzlaff, was less entertaining. It deals with a man who has just quit his job in the health-care industry, reminiscing about how the system led to his family's destruction.

I commend Ratzlaff's clearly proficient acting ability-- his character was quirky and charming and there were some funny moments. But the majority of the script was almost ridiculously tedious. And while I understand that was part of the story and his character (he admits to his friends, portrayed by balloons, that his speech is dull and he can't imagine why anyone would want to listen to him), I cannot understand how reading lengthy and verbose passages analyzing Manitoba's medical system off the page can pass as worthwhile content in a play. Most of it came off as a dry university lecture, and I had serious trouble staying focused. The big question: if a party balloon can't endure his rant (his "friends" kept leaving throughout his speech), then why should we be expected to?

While In the Chamber had redeeming qualities, overall, it was mediocre. That's about it.

Worm massacre... dun dun DUN

2010-01-10T22:04:00.000-08:00

Finally, faithful readers, I bring you the long-awaited, much anticipated gory tale of how my house became a red wriggler graveyard.

We use a vermicompos t to dispose of organic waste, ie, fruits, veggies, egg shells, coffee grounds-- anything that biodegrades. A vermicompost is basically a compost that is self-contained in a large plastic box (like a Rubbermaid storage container) with air-holes. Inside, red wriggler worms (not the same as earth worms) eat your compostable food, making it into a beautiful earthy compost substance! Vermicomposts are ideal for people in apartments and places where a larger backyard compost isn't doable. Because we just moved this summer, we haven't had a chance to set up a backyard compost yet.

www.agricultureinformation.com/mag/?p=2742 (upper right)
www.enasco.com/product/WA22600H (lower left)

This brings us to Halloween 2009. (Fitting, for this ghastly tale...) When my jack-o-lantern had worn out its welcome, I happily chopped it up into little easily-digestible pieces and placed them in the compost. A few days later, I noticed a horrible smell coming from the basement. I descended into the bowels of our house to sniff it out.

To my horror, upon inspection of the compost, I discovered dozens of dried up worms strewn across the tiled floor, in a 3-foot radius of the bin. Clearly the more courageous worms had chosen to make a break for it. They had tried to escape... and failed. Poor things. I truly felt sadness at the loss of these helpful little creatures. But it only got worse...

Covering the top of my compost was, surprise surprise, a mound of rotting and moldy pumpkin. Clearly, I had over-done it-- my poor worms simply couldn't handle all that food, and it had started to rot, creating an uninhabitable environment for the wrigglers. The pumpkin must have skewed the chemical balance of the whole compost because the entire thing seemed to be a rotten mess I just didn't know what to do with.

After peeling the worm carcasses off the basement floor and mopping thoroughly, I had to put the compost outside, due to the smell. It was a difficult decision, seeing as it was December and I knew it meant certain death for probably hundreds of worms. But it was just too gross.

And that is how I became the perpetrator of perhaps the worst worm massacre in the history of the world. Checking several days later, all my little friends, who had happily eaten our waste for 2 or 3 years, had been reduced to a thoroughly dead, gray, gooey--yet kind of frozen--mess. It has been weighing on my conscience ever since.

The moral of this story is NOT to stay away from vermicomposts. They are awesome, simple to use, and very good at reducing waste in the home. And I can promise you that it isn't hard to avoid the mess I got myself into-- we had no real trouble for years before. I can also guarantee that escaped worms are a VERY rare occurrence. Not once before this incident have I ever seen one outside the bin. Plus, they don't get very far anyway...

The moral is, do not overload your vermicompost with one type of matter. It is a bad idea. Keep its moisture balanced, and give it a variety of food-- only in the quantity that your worms can handle! That way you avoid a rotting moldy mess.

I know I may have scared most of you off of in-house composting, but it's important for everyone to know the potential hazards of mismanaging a bin, in order to avoid a massacre. Vermicomposts really are pretty awesome, especially if you like worms, like me. If anyone wants to start one, I can hook you up with red wrigglers!

the Christmas tree dilemma

2009-12-23T21:21:00.001-08:00

The sustainable Christmas tree dilemma has plagued me for years now. A while ago I got my parents to forgo the real tree and opt for an artificial one. Then I learned that apparently, that's even worse.

Clearly it's a bit late in the season for this post to be useful this year, but I proudly present to you my second Free Press article:

Click here!

My take: I guess it makes sense that in a general-concept kind of way, that using real trees is better for the planet than using artificial ones, due to chemicals in plastic, and the environmental cost of shipping the fakes from China, etc. That being said, if you already have a fake tree, especially a second-hand one like me, it is not unsustainable to use it.

No matter what the argument, it just makes me sad to see a real, beautiful tree whither away in my living room, sacrificed for the fleeting pleasure of a piney smell. And even though I know if I hadn't bought that tree, it would just be sitting, unused and dejected in a lot, that doesn't take away from the sense that the whole tradition is inherently flawed. Sure, tree farms sequester carbon while they grow. But why are we growing trees just to dress them up in tinsel for two weeks then make them into wood chips?

This year I didn't put up any sort of tree, but I did decorate my house with second-hand (yes) real pine boughs, and they look and smell quite gorgeous. If you find ones that have fallen naturally, you're not hurting anything by using them as decorations.

Happy Holidays!

Copenhagen blahs

2009-12-22T21:34:00.001-08:00

Due to the topic of my blog I feel compelled to comment on the outcome of COP15, but the truth is I don't have much to say.

Some countries managed to create some sort of non-legally binding accord that will help poorer countries curb their emissions, but did not come up with any actual targets for top emitting nations. So... this is better than nothing. I don't doubt that it's hard to get nearly over 100 leaders to agree on something. But should we be comparing it to nothing, or the ideal? If it's not legally binding, you could say it doesn't mean much. Or you could choose to believe that they will follow up and continue to build on this accord.

Canada managed to look as uninterested as possible in this conference. Big surprise.

I just have a big case of the 'whatevers' when it comes to this topic. It's all been said before.

climate hoax-- what's the point?

2009-12-14T16:41:00.000-08:00

The Yes Men are at it again: this morning these increasingly infamous prankster activists sent out a series of fake news releases stating Canada had committed to greenhouse gas emission levels much higher than any discussed in the past, at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Reporters were skeptical, and the Yes Men revealed themselves as the culprits later in the day.

While in the past I've had no problem with the antics of groups like these, the more they go about their little pranks, the more I'm left to wonder, what's the point? Apparently they will host a news conference tomorrow telling us just that-- I can't wait.

In a world where we are bombarded with so many diverse and constantly updating media sources, it's hard enough to get the story straight when you're not having to fish through deliberately placed media hoaxes. And while it may be worthwhile to put reporters' bullshit meters to the test from time to time, I also just feel frustrated with it all.

The Yes Men just come off looking fairly shallow-- do they really care about this cause, or are they just looking for attention, to cause a stir? And if it is the former, how is this actually helping anything?

Class 2, I love you

2009-12-11T12:37:00.001-08:00

Off-topic, but important nonetheless-- This semester in CreComm has been stressful, completely insane, overwhelming, a huge learning experience, hilarious, exhilarating, and amazing. In addition to enjoying the instruction of some fabulous and inspirational teachers, and enduring some hair-raising assignments, I've had the privilege of doing so with some of the best people I've ever met.

Class 2, you guys are top quality people. I'm so happy to have gotten to know you all. There is no group of 25 people I've ever instantly meshed with so well. I was constantly impressed at how supportive we were of each other and how much fun we were guaranteed to have just hanging out, in and out of school. And we were always ready to laugh, probably too loud and too often, but I think that really helped us survive the term.

As much as I'm looking forward to meeting more great CreCommers when our classes change next term, I'll always miss our lovely little Class 2 family.

Thanks for a great term, everyone.

Stay tuned next week as I blog the horrific tale of how my basement floor became riddled with dried out worm corpses, and a holiday debate: real vs artificial Christmas trees!

Cheers!

Climategate?

2009-12-05T18:45:00.000-08:00

So you may have heard of what some are calling Climategate: emails hacked from a leading British climate research centre and released online may point to a group of scientists tampering with climate research to make human-made global warming appear more prominent than it is.

The jury's still out on what exactly the emails mean, but there will be an inquiry, as there should be.

This is an important reminder that we can't blindly trust experts on either side of the climate debate. It is absolutely unacceptable for scientists to be tampering with data, whatever their overall intentions.

Climate change skeptics who broke this story online have accused mainstream media of refusing to cover this story in a timely manner.

Suppressing truth is never a good idea, no matter what the end. And it's clear doing so is detrimental to the cause in the long run, as climate change activists will now have to contend with this black spot on their reputation.

It seems players on both sides of this debate are desperate for rationalizations to justify their actions. However, whatever the outcome of the inquiry, this incident is no excuse to stop caring for the planet.

See my fellow CreCommer Jess Chapman's worthwhile post on this topic here.

RRC's Go Green Team

2009-12-02T11:11:00.000-08:00

Last Friday I decided to check out the new sustainability group on Red River College's Princess Street campus, the Go Green Team. Though the meeting was small, it seems this group is on the right track. The group is spearheaded by business admin student Raimey Gallant and James Cook, vice president Princess Street (soon to be resigning from the Red River College Students' Association, by the way), and has two campaigns in mind for this year.

One project is to reduce the amount of waste students produce from disposable Tim Hortons coffee cups. In addition to working with Tim's to have them incorporate recyclable cups, they will be encouraging students to use re-usable mugs as a more sustainable alternative. They will be selling them to students at cost in the new year.

Their second initiative is a campaign to ban bottled water at RRC, following in the footsteps of the University of Winnipeg.

The Go Green Team's next meeting is Tuesday Dec. 8 at 2 p.m. in P412. Everyone is welcome.

Look for Jeff Ward's article on the group in the next issue of the Projector.

Twitter-- social tool, or narcissistic indulgence?

2009-11-24T09:48:00.001-08:00

So today in PR class, creating a Twitter account was a mandatory assignment.

I certainly see the value in social media, but sometimes it's a bit of an overload. I don't really get this Twitter thing. I can see how it is great for PR and such-- to get the word out about an event or cause, or pass along an important news link. And if you're a believer in citizen journalism, then it's a very effective tool. Twitter might also be a good way to absorb the news, but only if you are constantly staring at the screen for updates.

Beyond these work-related Twitter uses, the practice seems a bit frivolous. Do I feel inclined to log into yet another website to see which random You Tube video people liked, or what they're up to tonight? No. It's not that I don't care about what's going on with my friends. But we have texting, Facebook, email, blogs... there is no shortage of ways to express yourself online. And I am always against saying things just for the sake of saying them.

I also have no interest in following random celebrities. I think it's a bit weird.

But to be fair, it all depends on how we use this medium. As stated above, there are several worthwhile ways that Twitter can enhance the communications industry. If it's used efficiently and professionally, I have no problem with it.

Either way, I know I can't escape this Twitter thing, and I'll probably eat my words and warm up to it soon enough. There was a time when I was anti-Facebook, and now I'm an addict.

Climate kiboshed

2009-11-18T19:38:00.000-08:00

The CBC reported Tuesday that federal environment minister Jim Prentice announced Canada will not be tabling legislation for greenhouse gas emission limits any time soon. Canadians and others around the world had high hopes for commitment to a global GHG reduction at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in December.

According to Prentice, it's unrealistic to expect to negotiate an international treaty next month. He hopes instead to enter into some sort of interim accord that will maintain momentum for a future treaty (a pretty non-committal plan), though that agreement may take a year to create, in its own right.

I am not surprised at Prentice's announcement, considering this government's nonexistent track-record of positive environmental action (that's not to say the previous government was any better, in a practical sense-- paying lip service to a cause is not enough).

On a side note, Jim Prentice has said some weird things about the environment in the past. For example, he thinks global warming could be good for polar bears.

People concerned with the environment can no longer be dismissed as the lunatic fringe of society. They are parents, professionals, students, taxpayers. They care about things like making sure their kids and grand-kids aren't living in a hell of our own making. A recurring theme in environmental campaigns these days is to focus on the mess we are leaving for our children to clean up, if it's not past the point of cleaning by then.

As a party who aligns itself with family values, I wonder why the Conservatives aren't jumping to champion this cause...

Being energy conscious

2009-11-13T13:52:00.000-08:00

The University of Winnipeg's The Uniter featured an article on the perils of energy-sucking electronics this week. It's something so integral to our lifestyle that we often take it for granted. After a recent move, I don't currently have a TV, but normally I'm a complete TV junkie. And one of my worse enviro faux-pas is that I tend to fall asleep on the couch with the TV and all the lights on. It's my secret shame, and something I really need to work on.

Props to The Uniter for covering this issue! Please read The Uniter, they rock.

H1N1: climate of fear

2009-11-06T13:59:00.000-08:00

Other than the fact I used "climate" in my title, (clever, eh?) this post is not environmentally themed. But I can't help commenting on the H1N1 madness currently infecting the minds of way too many authority and media figures. As I see it, there are two problems.

Problem one: excessive media hype
News media is giving a disproportionate amount of attention to this issue. I do not think deaths from H1N1 should be taken lightly, and there are several important issues, such as the Aboriginal/H1N1 plight, that certainly deserve media attention. But it needs to be kept in perspective, or else it's called fear-mongering. For the better part of a year or more, this has been the top story almost everywhere I look, and it's getting ridiculous.

Surprise, surprise-- H1N1 made the front page today: one Manitoban may have died from it. According to one of four H1N1 articles in the Top News section, Manitoba's chief medical officer Dr. Joel Kettner said the fall H1N1 outbreak could possibly be more severe than last spring, when seven Manitobans died. Later in the article, Dr David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, said "over the next few weeks we're going to see perhaps what we saw in June." I don't mean to downplay the death of the seven victims, but I don't find that to be an exceedingly high number.

While H1N1 is certainly a very important public health issue, featuring it time and time again on the news is not going to do anything to help the situation. This is an ethical struggle for journalists, who want to report on what people are interested in. But they have to realized that at a certain point, they're contributing to the frenzy they're reporting on.

Problem two: wait-list witch-hunt
Clearly related to problem one is the disproportionate (there's that word again...) amount of blame being directed at those who have had the vaccination shot and are not on the priority list. Apparently, these people are morally bankrupt scum-of-the-earth. Participants in this hate-fest include the media, health officials, and the general public.

Everyone seems to have gotten themselves into a tizzy about the Calgary Flames "jumping ahead" of children, the elderly, and all sorts of down-and-out priority list vaccine candidates. The decision to vaccinate the Flames came at a time when vaccination clinics were open to the public-- ie, while a priority list existed, (though I don't really understand why) anyone who wanted to was allowed to line up to get the shot. So while it's kind of unfair and elitist to have a private vaccine party for wealthy sports stars and their families, it does not merit the outcry of derision it has elicited, including the Alberta health agency firing two employees involved in the debacle. (Of course, from a PR perspective, they had no choice but to fire them.) The bottom line is that health officials need to get their act together when it comes to telling the public who can and can't get this shot. Once the priority list was enforced, I understand that in at least one Winnipeg clinic, there were flu shots to spare. So who exactly are they stealing from?

This column of Oct. 31 documented the author's trip to a flu shot clinic, where he confronted people in line who were not on the priority list. People have their reasons for not wanting to get sick and die. They want to be protected from what the media is portraying as a particularly horrific and devastating illness. It seems a little hypocritical to hype it up, then get mad at people responding to that hype.

Blogging and the "unbiased" journalist

2009-10-27T08:42:00.000-07:00

Clearly, blogs are the way of the future. Anyone who's anyone in the communications world has one, or should. It's a way to get your name out there, to get a following, to express your viewpoint and showcase your writing and persuasive skills. Plus, blogs are a way to empower citizen journalists-- they provide an effective communication medium to the average person, who previously had no voice in the media.

But if you want to go into journalism, in which fair and balanced -- and even objective (see #5)-- writing is highly valued, there is a line that can be crossed when blogging personal opinion. But where is that line?

As someone who is very opinionated when it comes to environmental and animal rights issues, and who has worked with activist groups in the past (a lot of PR-related work actually, organizing rallies and fundraisers, etc), I've always struggled to keep the journalist and activist parts of my life as separate as possible, to maintain credibility.

And then along comes this blog. I wanted it to be good. I wanted it to be focused. I wanted to write about something I'm passionate about. So I chose to write about my environmental struggles. Now, I'm all about exposing my biases and dealing with them upfront, when I work as a journalist. I don't try to hide my views or background. But this blog highlights them in a way that's hard to ignore.

So how can I maintain credibility in the journalistic world while blogging all about my biases? Even though the idea of completely non-biased and objective journalism has for the most part been de-bunked in this day and age, I think journalists should still be leaning toward that end of the spectrum as much as possible. Does this mean that I’m not qualified to cover environmental issues as a reporter? Take Saturday’s climate rally—I was there covering it for the Projector. But if I hadn’t been, I havemight been there as a supporter. Is that a problem? I truly don’t think my views affected the way I covered the event. But others may disagree. I think I’m intelligent enough to know how to report on an event responsibly, despite my views. I didn't cheer or join in protest chants. But, I pitched that story because I felt it was important—is that unethical?

Of all the questions I’ve been posing, that one I think I can answer: no, it isn’t. To be part of the media means to have significant power. It’s the power to have a hand in shaping what your audience sees, and thus, how they view the world. Part of that power is simply choosing what gets covered. If I think a story is important, not only is it not unethical to report on it (as long as I’m not involved in it, of course), but it’s my duty as a journalist committed to serving the public. However, it is imperative that journalists ensure that their biases do not seep unnoticed into their writing. I know I’m hyper-sensitive to this in my own work, which is good. It’s also important to make sure that I treat the subjects I’m interested in on an equal footing with other topics that may interest others.

Journalists have opinions, it’s not a secret. Many respected journalists have blogs and columns where they express their views and arguments. I’m hoping that as long as I do so in a respectful manner, and stay within the realm of logic, that my credibility as a journalist won’t be harmed. I just hope I can do it properly.

I've found a very helpful blog post by American journalist Lindsay Beyerstein that talks about how strong ideological orientations can sometimes be a benefit to uncovering 'truth', and how dispassion should not always be the ideal.

But I’m still searching for the big answer to this dilemma. Comments are very welcome!

Update: This evening I spoke to my very intelligent friend (who has worked as a journalist) about this, and here's her take: All journalists have opinions. But the line is crossed when you get so involved in an issue that one side of a story no longer feels comfortable talking to you-- that's when you lose your ability to report properly. I think that makes a lot of sense. So maybe I shouldn't be participating in protests, but I can still have my views-- fair compromise I think.

global citizens call for climate action

2009-10-26T03:24:00.000-07:00

Roughly 400 people showed up at the Legislative Building in Winnipeg this past Saturday as part of a potentially record-breaking worldwide demonstration telling world leaders to commit to real climate action.

The global action was coordinated by American-based group 350.org (check out the rally photos-- very inspirational!) and the demand on governments was clear: commit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 350 parts per million (ppm), the largest amount deemed safe by scientists, in Copenhagen this December.

(Note: numbers had dwindled a bit by the time of the photo, taken after the march to The Forks)

181 countries participated in 5200 actions worldwide, and according to a 350.org organizer I emailed before the rally, 270 of those were set to be in Canada.

My question is this: is 400 really a good turnout in a city the size of ours? It's certainly no embarrassing failure, but is it enough to show the government that this is an important issue that needs urgent action?

I once heard a statistic that every letter sent to government represents the opinion of a thousand people. Maybe that applies here too. If so, 4000 voices is not too shabby.

But why don't more people come out? Do they not care at all? Did they not hear about it? I only came across the event on Facebook, and reading an article in the Free Press the day-of. It would be fairly easy to miss. Is this a case of inadequate publicity? Or do people just not feel like getting out of their cozy houses on a chilly Saturday? I hope it's the former-- much easier to remedy.

Why grass is EVIL

2009-10-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

My title's a bit sensational, I admit, but it got you here.

This post is inspired by one of my CreComm buddies who, attempting (and utterly failing, as usual) to mock my environmentalist views, said something along the lines of "I'm going to go burn some grass after school." To this I replied, "go ahead."

Reasons grass is unsustainable:

1.Mowing it wastes gas. (not to mention how many people bag and trash their compostable grass clippings!)

2.Watering it wastes water.

3.Treating it with chemical herbicides is toxic.

There are lots of benefits to having a lawn made of grass-- it allows you to enjoy your space. It's a place for kids to play. As not everyone wants to dig up their yard to plant wild prairie grasses (so cool!), there are ways around the enviro-hazards grass promotes.

1. Use a manual push-mower. It's a little more work but it does the job fine. The grass clipping just disintegrate into the lawn.

2.Don't water your lawn. That's what rain is for. This may require that you disengage from the whole 'perfectly manicured suburban lawn' pressure. Yeah, your neighbors might consider your slightly yellow lawn an eyesore. Too bad.

3.Avoid pesticides-- use green weed-killing alternatives (scroll down on that link).

I know it's fall, and lots of you probably don't have lawns, but keep this stuff in mind for the future. For the most part, being sustainable isn't rocket science.

Buyer Beware: Frozen vs. Fresh

2009-10-14T14:51:00.000-07:00

For those who aren't CreComms: from time to time I'll be posting assignments that don't necessarily fit with my blog topic. Today I'm writing about our group Buyer Beware project for Advertising class.

What we did, and why--
If you're anything like me, (busy, lazy, hungry, stressed) you probably have good intentions when it comes to healthy eating, but life often gets in the way. You get home from a busy day. There are no clean dishes, and tackling the monster pile in the sink is the last thing you want to do. There's not much in the fridge, and you can't think of anything remotely easy to make. You settle for the dregs of the yogurt and half a bag of chips.

If I've just described your evening ritual, they you're in luck: a group of experts (ok, well, me, Alexa, Rachel, Jordan and James) explored the pros and cons of frozen and fresh (home-made) meals, as it relates to the average student, or otherwise frazzled person.

Taste Test--

We decided to conduct a blind taste test at the Red River College Princess Street Campus to see what students (and other passers-by) preferred: fresh or frozen. We chose to compare a frozen Stouffer's Skillet Sensations Chicken Alfredo and a frozen Bassili's Best 6 Vegetable Lasagna with their respective home-made equivalents (cooked by us- average students with average cooking skills!).

While the fresh lasagna beat the frozen one with a whopping 76% of votes, the chicken alfredos came in much closer: tasters actually preferred the frozen option (at 53%) over the fresh (47%). We were surprised at this result.

Our average-to-low cooking skills may have contributed to the odd chicken alfredo result. (Really though, I tried it- our fresh cooked chicken alfredo was amazing!)

Survey--
We also surveyed students to see what their priorities are when it comes to purchasing food: they rated taste, price, health and convenience from one (highest) to four (lowest).

Based on what 80 respondents ranked as their first priorities, here's how they stacked up:

1. Taste, at 53%
2. Price, at 30%
3. Health, at 11%
4. Convenience, at 6%

We were quite surprised at these results-- we expected price and convenience to rank highest among busy students who often have lots of expenses and debt. However, 67.5% of students voted convenience as their last priority. (Note: one flaw in our research was that while we were aiming to survey students, we attracted faculty, staff and the general public to our taste test and survey instead, which may have skewed our results.)

Conclusions--
So what did we learn? Well, it all depends on what you're looking for.

TASTE
If taste is your top priority then it's kind of a toss-up. If you're a great cook, then a home-made meal is probably the best bet. That way, you can customize your meal. But if you're useless in the kitchen, a quality frozen meal might be for you.

PRICE
If you're on a budget and your pantry screams "discount bin," then you might go for the pre-packaged stuff as well-- but not always. While the fresh lasagna cost roughly twice as much to make than the frozen option, the chicken alfredos only varied in price by a couple of dollars (the fresh was a tiny bit pricier). Also, frugal shopping (such as buying in bulk) can make home-made meals more cost-efficient.

An interesting note: the huge price discrepancy between frozen and fresh lasagna corresponds to a large preference discrepancy, while both chicken alfredos were similar in taste preference and price.

HEALTH
In terms of health, it can go either way. Both our frozen entrees boasted the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check logo, but not all frozen foods do.

One health benefit to some frozen foods is that because you purchase a set amount, it can help you control your portions. When I make a big batch of something delicious, I have a hard time not consuming it all in one meal.

However, frozen processed foods may contain unhealthy preservatives and additives. This article warns against consuming them on a regular basis due to carcinogen exposure, allergies and other health risks. For example, Stouffer's Chicken Alfredo contains the additive phosphoric acid, rated harmful to health.

A benefit to home-made food is that you can see and choose what goes into your meal. It's up to you to decide the fat and sodium content. You can choose fresh, healthy and even home-grown vegetables. It keeps you in touch with your food like microwaving a pizza pop never will.

CONVENIENCE
If time is of the essence, then go with the frozen option. Clearly, heating up a pre-made meal takes a fraction of the time it takes to prepare one from scratch, not to mention the stress it can cause an inexperienced cook.

Australian current affairs show Today Tonight conducted a similar frozen vs. fresh study, with several conclusions similar to ours.

The final word--
There is no wrong or right when it comes to fresh vs. frozen-- it all depends on what you're looking for. We hope we've at least spelled out the issues to consider, next time you're shivering in the frozen food aisle, wondering what to buy.

Side note--
While this was NOT part of our project, I want to add a quick word regarding the environmental impacts of purchasing frozen foods. Just one more thing to consider, and a tie-in to my blog topic.

Frozen meals require disposable packaging that can often be avoided when diligently shopping for fresh ingredients. Further, importing foods from far away increases greenhouse gas emissions, and frozen foods require even more energy to keep them cold in transport. One North American study found that the average meal travels 2,400 km altogether, from field to table. Our frozen chicken alfredo is a product of the U.S.A., while our frozen lasagna hails from Edmonton.

Climate change deniers: "the courage to do nothing"

2009-10-08T19:08:00.000-07:00

It seems to be getting less socially acceptable to express views denying humans' hand global warming, but there are still plenty of climate change skeptics out there.

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Christopher Monckton, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's former science advisor, spoke in Winnipeg this week on why he doesn't believe in human-caused climate change.

Here are some things, as quoted in the Free Press article, that ring in pretty high on my bull-shit meter for this particular skeptic:

1. The luncheon at which Monckton spoke at was sponsored in part by Friends of Science, previously revealed as an oil industry front group.

2. This quote by Monckton: "The best solution is to have the courage to do nothing."

Seriously? Is this a joke? Why on earth would you need courage to do nothing? There is nothing courageous about maintaining the status quo. Who does he think will actually buy that line?

Unfortunately, the correct choices are usually the hardest ones. So if an oil-industry backed scientist tells me to do nothing, while an impartial one tells me we need to make urgent and difficult change, I'm going to believe the latter.

I encourage people with alternate views to post -- I'm more than happy to be convinced that human-caused climate change is all in my head! Think of all the free time I'll have to worry about other things...

Defining the suburbs

2009-10-01T15:42:00.000-07:00

What are the suburbs? Are they any residential area not adjacent to the city centre? Are they satellite communities completely separate from a city? Are they a lifestyle?

As people in my age group begin to pair off and settle down, we each have to make decisions about where we live, and those decisions define our lives and how we interact with the world.

To the young, modern, urban, university-going environmentalist (am I painting a picture here?), the concept of "the suburbs" is often met with disdain, disgust, and moral condemnation. But what are we actually talking about here? When it comes to the debate on the pros and cons of suburban living, some serious clarification of terms is necessary. To many, the concept of packing up and moving to the outskirts of town has a very symbolic meaning. "The suburbs" is an extremely loaded term.

Technical definitions--

Based on my superb and in-depth research techniques (I googled "define: suburbs"), definitions of "suburb" vary between a residential area just outside city limits, or on the edge--but within-- those limits.

I think we can agree that in popular understanding, a suburb is a residential community at least somewhat removed from the city centre (a place of work and recreation), which necessitates vehicular travel. That's pretty vague though. How far from downtown does a residential area have to be to fit this definition? I don't think Wolseley is considered a suburb, but Norwood might be. Or if it isn't, then what about Old St. Vital? Where's the line? If someone can link a great definition, please do.

The suburbs as a lifestyle--

Basically the above discussion is irrelevant, because when someone says "you moved to the suburbs? whoa, you sold out, man!" they don't care if your house falls within the city limits or not. They're talking about something much bigger.

Images of monstrous and morally bankrupt suburbia have been explored in pop culture over the years, and include tree-less, cookie cutter homes with 3-car garages, desperate housewives and rich, wasteful, out-of-touch people driving their SUVs around as much as possible. While there may be some truth to these little gems, please indulge in them with caution, because stereotypes hurt.

With my enviro-guilt complex, you can imagine it was hard for me to buy a home in non-central Southdale. While I would have liked to live closer to downtown, where I go to school and hang out often, there were plenty of good reasons for our choice. 1. Familiarity-- it's the area my boyfriend and I grew up in (more or less, I'm a Windsor Park native). So we didn't move to the 'burbs, we just shuffled around within them. 2. Family-- we're a walk away from the boyfriend's parents'. We use their car and "borrow" their food. We're poor, so it's great. 3. Compromise-- my boyfriend goes to the U of M. We needed decent bus routes to serve us both.

So you can probably also imagine that I'm quite preemptively defensive about where I've chosen to live. While I've gotten flack once or twice from drunken and disgruntled hippy hipsters, I must admit I'm my own worst critic on this one. Did I sell out? Does where I live define me?

Ok, I'm about to blow most of your minds with this revelation: moving to a non-central residential area does not automatically enroll you in the mindless-suburban-excessively-consumptive club.

An ideal sustainable and otherwise healthy community is a place in which people live, work, play, and build relationships, in close proximity. Focusing on the local is always best, I agree. Not only does a setup like this encourage interconnectedness and community involvement, but it limits the need for cars. But that doesn't mean you are evil if you live out here. In some circles, I feel ashamed to tell people where I live, and that frustrates me, because I love our house and neighborhood. In fact, we benefit from the proximity of an urban habitat-- the Seine River is a short walk away. We ski and toboggan there in the winter, and deer and other animals are part of our community (they steal our garden veggies!).

But the truth is, it's hard to be sustainable when things aren't central. Walking, or even busing, to the grocery story is a real hassle. I don't have access to the organic stores that populate the hippie haven of Wolseley (nor could I likely afford to shop there --an upcoming post). An hour bus ride to school downtown is the norm, and service really isn't great at night. It's a big effort, but what can I say? As an environmentalist, I'm location-challenged.

In terms of the city's future, re-developing existing urban areas to make them livable should be the priority. But with a constantly expanding population, suburban development (whatever that may mean) seems inevitable, at least to some extent. What we can do is strive to make it as sustainable as possible. This means things like preserving and incorporating mature trees into development, providing efficient and accessible public transit (can't stress this one enough), and providing some local amenities to eliminate needless car trips. There are also benefits to new developments, such as opportunities for sustainable construction techniques like geo-thermal.

I found a CBC archived series on sub/urban issues, and specifically, the video called The new (sub)urbanism (number 9), that seems pretty relevant, even if it's a bit old.

To sum up, suburban dwellers can be environmentally conscious too, and marginalizing us won't help anything. Not everyone can live in the city centre.

"We're the planeteers-- you can be one too, 'cause saving our planet is the thing to do!"

2009-09-20T07:24:00.000-07:00

And now for something a little more upbeat...

Captain Planet was one of my favourite cartoons as a child. What a fabulous way to teach young kids about the environment-- slip it into the Saturday cartoon roster! Promoting teamwork and multiculturalism, and with a voice cast including Whoopi Goldberg, Meg Ryan, Martin Sheen, Tim Curry and Reading Rainbow host LeVar Burton, it was certainly a high quality show.

As a kid, I always wanted to be Linka (the blonde).

I'm completely ignorant when it comes to current children's cartoons. I wonder if they put out any similar social/environmental responsibility-themed shows these days. If anyone knows, please share! Also feel free to list some of your favourite childhood cartoons-- that's always fun.

If you've ever seen I Heart Huckabees, it about sums me up.

2009-09-14T22:10:00.000-07:00

"What am I doing? I don't know what I'm doing. I'm doing the best that I can. I know that's all I can ask of myself. Is that good enough? Is my work doing any good? Is anybody paying attention? Is it hopeless to try and change things? [...] Maybe I should quit. Don't quit. Maybe I should just f*cking quit. Don't f*cking quit. Just, I don't know what the f*ck I'm supposed to do anymore."
-- Albert Markovski, I Heart Huckabees
----------------------------

That's me--the classic existentially angsty upper-middle-class environmentalist! But at least I can laugh at myself. This is the meaningful, emotionally-charged post where I bare my soul. Then we can get on to the fun stuff.

So here it is: not a day goes by that I don't agonize over a disposable coffee cup, an extra car trip, or the sad future of our planet in general.

I care a lot-- it's kind of annoying, actually. I care about animals and their habitats; I care about the beauty and integrity of the earth; I care about trees; I care about the health and happiness of my future children; I care about losing our beautiful winters (and I'm not being sarcastic). But why? I just do-- it comes from somewhere pretty deep. And I believe that everyone cares in some way, even if they're not letting themselves feel it.

I can't stand to see the earth fall apart at the hands of humans, especially because I'm just as guilty as anyone. It makes me really, really sad.

So how do I cope?

When you suffer from chronic guilt, rationalization becomes your best friend: "I have to take a car to the store-- cat litter is heavy!" "My shower was too long today, but it's ok because I won't have one tomorrow." "I'll buy fast food just this once, but only because I promise to take all the garbage home to recycle."

Of course, this only partly works.

Another handy coping strategy: doublethink. This Orwellian technique can sometimes give me a much-needed break from my environmental angst: while knowing full well the state of things on one level, I simultaneously block it out and exist in blissful ignorance. However, this is a dangerous tool and must be used sparingly. I think too many people indulge in doublethink on a regular basis (whether it results in simple environmental apathy or outright climate change denying). You can't keep your head under the sand all the time-- nothing gets done.

But then we get to that endlessly frustrating question: what is the point? Will I single-handedly stop climate change by walking to the store one afternoon instead of driving? No. What's the difference if I recycle this one can or throw it in the trash?

But it's still important to try.

I cannot stand when people say "The earth is a lost cause, so why bother doing anything to help?"

For one thing, maybe we can't reverse all the damage, but it's not an all or nothing deal. We can make things better, if not perfect. Clearing plastic bags out of one urban river habitat may not solve the world's sustainability issues, but it will clear the junk away for birds and squirrels to make their homes. Baby steps.

Plus, it's a matter of principle. Just because there seems to be one inevitable negative outcome does not mean it's ok to actively participate in making it a reality.

If nothing else, making the effort to be green is essential to my mental health. Humans need hope to survive.

My goal is to live with the knowledge that not-so-good things are happening to the earth, while actively working to be part of the solution. This way I can ease my guilt and be productive.

In the end, I think the key to my survival will be to focus on the good.

Is "suburban environmentalist" an oxymoron?

2009-09-10T17:43:00.000-07:00

As a young environmentally-conscious student living in a residential area, it often seems that the world I live in is at complete odds with the one I want to live in.

To be green on a regular basis is a constant struggle-- against peer pressure, city infrastructure, (oh Winnipeg Transit...) mass media, and my own laziness. Convenience and popularity are often things modern environmentalists have to forgo, and it's not easy. I'm not nearly as successful as I'd like to be.

My inadequacy as an environmentalist (and the ensuing guilt) is something that causes me a lot of grief, and it's not just going to go away. This blog will be a documentation of victories and failures in my continuing quest to make sustainability a way of life-- not just a hobby. I'll share helpful tips, strategies, info, and problems I have yet to overcome. I'll also touch on current environmental issues in politics and the media.

Always feel free to comment with tips, experiences and thoughts. I also hope to link up to other bloggers whenever possible. For example, check out Danielle Conolly's post on how to de-clog your drain without all those nasty chemicals.

Stay tuned!