blog

In this blog, I have always had a mix of tones. Some of the posts are what I would call salty or spicy. Recently, though, I have been reconsidering my approach. The fact is that most people care about the environment, and harsh words are not going to help.

A lot of our consumption is emotionally motivated, and that merits kindness and understanding rather than a judgmental tone. So I will probably be going back and, over time, tempering the salty posts as they occur to me.

In the meantime, if you encounter a post that feels harsh or otherwise unhelpful, you are always welcome to get in touch with me and I will provide you with a more user-friendly nugget of advice, assistance, and/or encouragement.

It’s a given that we all care about the environment here. And I am here to help. The fact is that it can be very very hard to make ethical choices in a hyper-consumerist industrial society.

It can also be hard to voluntarily choose to do without something, if you have the money to obtain that thing, and the thing is satisfying some deep emotional need. Having multiple houses; flying a lot — it’s easy for me to judge, but the fact is that circumstances in this society have played out in such a manner that, for example, people live a long distance away from their families. And if they have the money to fly across the continent to a brunch or a graduation ceremony, or to own multiple houses in multiple countries, they are not likely to forgo that unless they have a better way to meet the underlying emotional need. I’m here to help people (including myself) identify our root emotional needs, and find gentler and more sustainable ways to meet them.

And of course, there are physical needs too. For example, if I’m away from home and I need to drink some water or get something to eat, and the only options available are packaged and single-use plastic. Or, if I need to get from point A to point B, and the built environment and transportation infrastructure are hostile to pedestrians or anyone else not in a car.

If you’re like most of us, being berated isn’t going to help; we’re already beating ourselves up over it, and I suspect I’m not the only one who has at least on occasion skipped a meal or done without water rather than taking on single-use plastic.

But, if somebody points out that there’s a nearby shop that sells sandwiches wrapped in paper; or tells you that the minimart over there allows you to refill your own reusable cup, then that is going to help!

Same with transportation options. Maybe there’s a nicely tree-shaded street parallel to the pedestrian-hostile one I’m trying to walk on. Or maybe there is a trolley or bus route I didn’t know about.

(Note: When I say “people” here, I am referring to fellow eco-minded citizens. This blog, and my book, are not attempting to change the mind-sets and behaviors of people who are not concerned about biospheric collapse.)

As I’ve mentioned earlier, choosing a low-footprint life is a strictly voluntary task — no one can force it on you — and a lot of it involves internal “marketing” within ourselves. Behavioral economics!

PS. I truly have a deep abiding love for snarky humor. But I’ve realized it needs to be channeled in a way that is aligned with a higher purpose. Fortunately, in addition to being a sustainability educator, I am also a fiction writer (under a pseudonym). So I allow some of my fiction characters to be snarky. The only catch is that the characters have to evolve by the end of the story, and become more sensitive and empathetic.

Question on my social feed: How can you easily divert grey water from your place to your plants? Maybe catch the water coming out of your clothes washer hose in a container and put it into jugs to carry outside?

We don’t have a clothes washer at the house. (There was one here when I bought the house, and a dryer too, but I got rid of both to make an additional sleeping room.)

I hand-wash clothes outdoors in a bucket or small tub, and then distribute the water to shrubs and mulch piles and such.

(I have extensive experience living/training in arid environments, and also in camping/festival settings, so I know how to economize on water, so it is only ever very small quantities of water we are talking about here. A gallon or two a week at most usually.)

My current housemates use a laundromat.

Previous housemates have sometimes used a laundry service.

We wash our dishes outdoors, and distribute that small amount of water onto shrubs and mulch piles and so on.

I have experimented with washing indoors, saving the greywater and then transporting it outdoors. It worked OK, but the greywater tends to get nasty very quickly so it’s best to carry the jug/bucket outdoors and distribute it as soon as possible after washing.

I still prefer to wash outdoors, because it eliminates the extra labor of having to haul the jug or bucket through the door(s) from indoors to the outside.

Brad Lancaster, author of the bestselling “Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands” books, has mentioned (when I heard him give a talk some years back) that he has an outlet hose leading from his washing machine to his yard. He rotates the hose among multiple fruit trees.

In my immediate previous post, titled “Memorial Day,” I shared with you some of my favorite speakings-out against militarism and war.

I see a lot of us Boomers who identify somewhere along the “liberal” spectrum ranting and meming on their social-media pages about how awful the “red” politicians are. And stating or implying that the “blue” ones are going to save us.

I don’t feel represented by so-called “liberal” candidates who continue to promote and feed war. And feel dismayed when fellow liberal Boomers seemingly are not acknowledging this aspect of the “blue” mainstream.

It’s like we forgot that we really are anti-war. It’s like we forgot that being truly, deeply, adamantly anti-war is very much an option. And a necessity, for the environment as well as for people.

I cringe when I hear fellow “Woodstock Boomers” say that they have grown up since their idealistic days of the 60s. As if being absolutely anti-war were immature, idealistic, impractical.

Just about every mainstream Democrat I can think of who has run for office in recent times, are far too entrenched in the war complex. Hearing that President Biden spoke to the graduating class of West Point, with some verbiage of the “protecting our freedom” sort, was just one recent cringe.

And yet, recognizing the gravity of the situation, I still mostly suck it up and vote for these types of so-called liberals, just to avoid the even worse alternative. It’s a tricky thing though, and I see both sides of the vote argument.

But, just when I risk going totally down the rabbit hole of “oh well, nothing I can do,” last year I somehow started getting emails from Veterans for Peace. And found out that civilians can join. And so last year I joined, as a life member. VFP are a breath of fresh air, a lifeline, a reminder that it is indeed valid and realistic to be absolutely anti-war. They help me hold my center so I can more clearly see the militaristic gaslighting of even the “blue” politicians.

The red politicians, you can see them coming. The blue ones are much less obvious and thus potentially much more dangerous.

On this national holiday weekend, which honors U.S. military personnel who died while serving in the U.S. armed forces — and which marks the unofficial beginning of summer — (thanks Wikipedia), I would like to share with you some of my favorite writings/speeches about the problems with militarism and war.

• “Supporting Our Troops While Condemning the Systems That Exploit Them” (Desireé B. Stephens, 2024):
“Memorial Day is a time for heartfelt remembrance, a day to honor the valor and dedication of those who have laid down their lives. Yet, it is also a time to confront the uncomfortable truths about how our government often exploits the very individuals we seek to commemorate. … Our government, through policies and practices, has historically leveraged military service as a pathway for those with limited options, creating a system where the most vulnerable are funneled into the line of fire. This exploitation is compounded by the nature of the conflicts in which our troops are engaged. Wars waged under the banner of national security often mask deeper geopolitical and economic interests. These conflicts inflict immense harm not only on our service members but also on innocent civilians around the world. … On this Memorial Day, let us extend our support to the families and communities of the fallen. Their grief is immeasurable, their loss irreplaceable. Let us also stand in solidarity with our veterans, many of whom bear physical and emotional scars long after the battles have ended. Our respect and gratitude for their service must translate into tangible support—accessible healthcare, mental health services, and robust reintegration programs. At the same time, let us raise our voices against the systemic exploitation of our troops. We must demand policies that prioritize diplomatic solutions over military interventions, that invest in our communities rather than in the machinery of war. Our commitment to peace must be as strong as our commitment to honoring those who serve.” (From Let’s Have the Conversation, newsletter by Desireé B. Stephens; subscribe here to read the entire article and a variety of her other deeply insightful writings on decolonization, community-building and more.)

• “War Is a Racket” (Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, 1935): “WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations. For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out. Again they are choosing sides. …” Read the piece in its entirety here at ratical.org

Described below is a rural setting that sounds very livable. It has real community, and culture. I personally will always prefer cities, and actually real cities are collections of villages. Which maybe explains why this description of remote villages in Romania sounds like a rural life that I could live with.

The reason I’m bringing this up is because a lot of people in the doomer / prepper groups are saying that everyone has to move out to the country and live with just one or two or a few people on a big piece of land. Truly that is the opposite of sustainability. Not only does the math not add up with 8 billion people on the planet, but also, most people cannot survive, let alone thrive, without sharing labor and ideas and BEING WITH EACH OTHER.

“Weary hooves scuffed up clouds of dust as the herd trudged up Viscri’s dirt-road high street, stopping to gulp water from a trough beneath a gnarled walnut tree. Routine kicked in, and they peeled away through arched gateways and into their own cobbled courtyards, where they’d be milked and fed for the night.

“This was the evening procession of cows, when residents gather outside their pastel-coloured Saxon homes to watch the herds return from pasture – a daily ritual that’s been signalling the end of the working day in Viscri, Criț, Biertan and the other medieval villages of south-eastern Transylvania’s Târnava Mare region for hundreds of years. …

“… the area has a fascinating barely-changed-in-centuries feel to it; horse-drawn carts are the main method of transport and residents eke out a sustainable existence from smallholdings or shepherding. …

“Storerooms were fashioned out of the thick walls, and when Viscri was under attack, its villagers would retreat with their livestock into the church and sit out the siege. The rest of the time, the rooms were used to keep dried hams and bacon fat; the church’s so-called “Lard Tower” was opened every Sunday so that each household could take a single piece of fat or ham to last them the week, a tradition that only ended in the early 1990s.

“On the laneways running down from the church and in the surrounding streets, I came across little stalls outside some of the houses, each one draped with woollen socks and gloves and colourful slippers, the fruits of an initiative that helps local women earn an income. Cristina Vasilche, who has been making two pairs of slippers a day for the last 10 years, showed me the process, scrubbing each alternate layer of wool and linen mesh with soap and water until the supple shoes took shape. …

“Liviu Damian, the man chosen to look after the village flock this season, was spending the entire summer at the sheepfold here, his only company a couple of local shepherds and the fierce sheep dogs that (mostly) keep the area’s wolves and bears at bay. His temporary home was a bare-floored shack, where he cooks, eats, sleeps and – in the room next door – makes cheeses using an assortment of wooden troughs and trays. There were about 180 sheep under his watch, which his shepherds milked by hand each evening; most households own between 10 and 20 sheep, and they all receive a few kilograms of cheese from Damian each week.”

“Europe’s remote, lost-in-time villages” (Keith Drew; bbc.com)

Interestingly, the feeling I get from this description of a small rural village region in Romanoa has more in common with my experience living in one of the most densely settled areas of central Tokyo than it does with my experience of modern rural areas in the USA. Community, traditional culture underlying everything, stacks of beneficial interactions and relationships.

The other day I made up a German word. At least, I don’t think this is a real word. It might be a real word, but probably not in the sense that I mean it.

The word is “flugschmertz” — literally “flight pain.” For me it means not the assorted pains associated with traveling by airplane (as obnoxious as those pains are). Rather, it’s the pain I feel at seeing so many fellow environmentalists still constantly getting on airplanes.

Eco footprint consists of many things, of course, and travel is only one of them. I think what gets me is that we actually witnessed the effects of cutting out flying (and greatly reducing driving, and some other categories of consumption) during the pandemic shutdowns.

We witnessed the very quick and beneficial effect on air, water, ecosystems. So I find it heartbreaking that some fellow environmentalists have seemed to find it so easy to get back to hopping on planes.

My invention of the word “flugschmertz” was prompted by hearing on the news that an estimated 18 million people would be flying on Memorial Day weekend. (And a total of 40 million traveling.)

Ouch. I feel actual pain, almost a physical pain, when I hear about fellow eco-concerned people — who are seriously worried about biospheric collapse and all that — still taking multiple flights a year and so on. And I do have some eco-minded friends who are very frequent flyers. (Specifically, I am talking about fellow white eco Boomers, particularly those of us who have traveled already. Other demographics are outside my lane to comment on. And many have never before had the chance to travel in their lives.)

One of the ways I deal with this pain is by reminding myself that maybe my vegan friends feel this way every time they hear about someone who supposedly cares about the environment eating meat. Like, if I post a picture of a burger that I ate at a restaurant.

I also noticed that I have to sort of compartmentalize this in my friendships. Like, I just sort of try not to dwell on it. Maybe that’s how my vegan friends deal with being friends with me, an omnivore.

Also, it is possible that people are cutting down on flying even though they still fly. Just as some of us are cutting down on meat-eating even though we still eat meat. A person can be a high-volume consumer, but we don’t know where they started.

And: There are lots of ways to cut our footprint. Travel is only one category.

And, it’s possible to at least in part mitigate the impact of flying, by purchasing carbon offsets. Although carbon offsets are not perfect, they are a way to help mitigate the footprint of flights and other travel. If you have friends who fly a lot, and they seem like they might be receptive, you could suggest this to them.

And, according to what I have read recently, a transatlantic flight is about 1 ton emissions (as is a flight within the USA). We are allowed to emit a second ton per year and still meet the global climate target. If one gets really focused and sets priorities, it needn’t be terribly difficult to bring one’s household activity emissions to under 1 ton.

If you yourself are a person who flies a lot, but it does bother you from an eco-footprint standpoint and other standpoints, there are some other things you could try as well.

As I’ve mentioned before in this space, if you find yourself flying to a place more than a couple times a year, and it goes on for more than a year, and it’s not for work, you could consider moving to that place. (If it is for work, you could look into changing your job and/or the travel aspect of it.)

Or you could try to persuade the person/people who you’re visiting to move to where you live. Or, split your time between the two places. Six months there, and six months at your official place of residence. Try not to leave any empty houses on either end; we are in a housing crunch, and besides, empty houses are a liability in many ways.

You can also look into the emotions underlying your motives for wanting to fly a lot. For example, you could have some deep-seated feelings of deprivation left over from childhood. Or, you could be feeling your age and mortality, and not want to acknowledge it. This invitation to look deeper is something I strongly suggest to people who are really wanting to cut their footprint, and finding that their “travel wants” are colliding with their “footprint aspirations.”

You could also become an “armchair traveler” of your dream destinations. There are various ways to do this; I have written about it on this blog and will dig up the link for you when I get around to it. (Or type “Venice” into the search field of this blog; that should bring it up.)

Also, a lot of us find, as we get older, that we can satisfy a lot of our yearnings vicariously by giving young people the same opportunities we had (or didn’t have, but wanted) when we were young. So, you could pay for a young person in your life to visit Europe or wherever they want to go. If they don’t want to go alone, then you could buy an extra ticket for friend their age who wouldn’t be able to afford to go otherwise.

And finally, it’s worth remembering that the harmful footprint of flying and tourism isn’t just ecological; it has socially and economically harmful aspects as well.

If you are an eco-minded person and you still fly, and/or are a high-volume flyer, is there anything(s) that would make you willing to stop or reduce your flying? Knowing that each flight emits one ton of CO2, and we are supposed to be aiming to keep our emissions under two tons a year, total, for all of our activities? If so, what might make you willing?

PS. Something I sometimes forget is to remind myself that my little corner of the universe is not the whole world. Just today, Flight Free USA’s e-newsletter landed in my inbox with lots of good news. I’ll post some links below.

Further Exploration:

• “This Scottish City Just Banned SUV And Airline Ads. Here’s Why” (David Vetter; forbes.com). “Scotland’s capital city has banned advertisements for airlines and sports utility vehicles, along with ads for cruise lines and oil and gas companies, in what campaigners are calling a ‘historic’ step-up in action to tackle climate change. Edinburgh’s council announced on Tuesday that it had moved to exclude adverts and sponsorships for ‘high-carbon products and services’ that ‘undermine the council’s commitment to tackling the climate emergency.’ The ban covers airlines, car companies that advertise SUVs and cruise operators, as well as ‘all firms and associated sub brands or lobbying organisations that extract, refine, produce, supply, distribute, or sell any fossil fuels.’ Polluting companies and arms manufacturers have also been banned from sponsoring events in the city. The decision makes Edinburgh the first British capital, and Europe’s second capital city, to enact such a ban. In 2020, Amsterdam became the first major city in the world to ban fossil fuel advertising, along with ads for air travel. Other British towns to have enacted similar bans include Cambridge, Liverpool and Norwich.”

Hooray for these climate-courageous cities, and others that are taking action even when/where national governments aren’t stepping up.

• A movement called “make them pay” proposes to tackle climate injustice via a three-point plan: ban private jets, force wealthy polluters to pay for their higher emissions, and tax frequent flyers. The website points out that 80% of the world’s population has never set foot on an airplane, and 50% of commercial aviation emissions are caused by just 1% of the population.

• From Flight Free USA’s website: “One flight, One seat, One Ton of CO2. We are in a dire climate emergency, flying fries the planet and yet there are about 125,000 daily commercial flights in the world and growing. Pledge to fly less in 2024 for the climate!” (Note: The target agreed on by experts is to keep our carbon emissions under 2 tons per year. One single flight is more than many people around the world emit in entire year.)

• To find out the most effective climate actions that an individual can take, The Guardian did a survey of top climate scientists. “Most experts (76%) backed voting for politicians who pledge strong climate measures, where fair elections take place.” Cutting airline travel came in second: “The second choice for most effective individual action, according to the experts, was reducing flying and fossil-fuel powered transport in favour of electric and public transport. This was backed by 56%, and two-thirds said they had cut their own number of flights. Flying is the most polluting activity an individual can undertake and makes up a large part of the carbon footprint of the rich. Globally it is a small minority of people who drive aviation emissions, with only about one in 10 flying at all. Frequent-flying ‘super emitters’ who represent just 1% of the world’s population cause half of aviation’s carbon emissions, with US air passengers having by far the biggest carbon footprint among rich countries.” (Other effective actions cited by experts in the Guardian survey were, in order of rank, reduce meat intake; reduce home heating and cooling emissions; join a campaign or protest group.)

(Copy-pasting a comment I made in one of our local issues forums, in case some of you might find this verbiage helpful in dealing with similar elitist/classist attitudes in your area.)

Regarding County Commissioner Robbins’ comments criticizing Daytona Beach. I have a huge problem with talking about our unhoused neighbors as a problem the same way that we talk about trash on the beach as a problem.

These are human beings, and homelessness is a result of deep structural issues nationwide that need to be addressed. And throwing mean-spirited potshots is not going to help.

I do understand that a parent would not want their young child to see people sleeping on the streets, shooting up drugs etc.

Back when I was growing up, and we would occasionally see people on the streets, Mom & Dad would take the opportunity to let us kids know there are people less fortunate than ourselves.

So let’s focus on making a world where homelessness and untreated addiction and mental illness isn’t a thing anymore.

On a related note, I have a big problem with calling homeless people transient. Many of my homeless neighbors are a lot more solid steady presence than the rich people who live out of town but own houses here which they maybe occupy a week or two of the year. Rich transients, with not much of a stake in the community other than protecting their own property.

Vacant houses are a huge liability for neighborhoods, and bad for year-round businesses.

The rest of the county tends to treat Daytona Beach like its trashy stripper girlfriend. They want us to shake our moneymaker but then they blame us for looking a certain way. For having the typical problems that are attracted by high-volume tourism.

Added later: Our modern society has taken a bad detour. We have become a society that does not recognize that all members have something to contribute. We sideline people. When in fact, everyone has a role to play. All indigenous cultures knew this and know this. We as a society can relearn what we forgot, and I have high hopes that we will do so.

And: Also, regarding the implication that the Daytona Beachside is too dangerous & crime-ridden:

I have lived in the Main Street area for almost 11 years. One block south of Main Street, five minutes’ walk to the beach. I love the beach and walk on the beach at all hours.

I walk around this whole area at all hours.

If my schedule permits, I am happy to be a safety escort for people who want to try walking or spending time on the beach or beachside streets but don’t feel safe.

I used to be a pedicab driver (bicycle-taxi) around the boardwalk; we worked til late late night. We ranged from Daytona Shores all the way up to, sometimes, the Publix north of Steve’s diner!!