Environmental Reciprocity: What About Regular Stuff?

Today on the bus I was talking with my buddy Bart who works for the New England Grass Roots Environmental Fund or NEGEF about my ideas about "Environmental Reciprocity" and he helped me clarify some ideas that are honestly still forming. It's much easier to quantify "give back what you take" for something like carbon emissions, or mLs of spring water. But what about the everyday manufactured things like paper cups or dishwashers or cars (minus the fuel) for that matter? There has been some chatter about whether or not a Hummer is actually more environmentally friendly than a Prius just based on the energy it took to manufacture it. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to advocate for a Hummer, but it is a good idea to consider the embodied energy over the entire lifespan of an object. And for hybrids or electric cars, battery manufacture and disposal is certainly a major hang up. Let's hope battery technology improves.

Anyway, back to more generic stuff...

It seems like there are two options for sustainable types of products.

• Products which biodegrade quickly from readily renewable resources

OR

• Products which are meant to last a really long time, from stuff that will last a long time (and the parts that run out first ought to be from readily renewable resources)

What does this mean?

It means that there's a lot of disposable plastic stuff which will no longer be the norm as oil gets more expensive. So what's on the out?
plastic flatware
plastic packaging
gosh, wouldn't it be great if there was a renewable resource-based tire! (besides just cannibalizing older tires...)
Styrofoam
plastic fake plants? Please. These should be outlawed...


It also means that there will probably be an increase in temporary products made from plant-based material. Like this disposable flatware made by BSI Biodegradable Solutions.

Then there are those mysterious objects which seem neither here nor there - I haven't figured out how to think about them... stuff like CDs, or window fans, or lawn chairs...

Ok, I'm going to stop thinking about stuff and maybe close my eyes for a little while... :P

Environmental Reciprocity

About a week ago we Hal Colston from the Good News Garage and NeighborKeepers came to speak to my church group about his journey in starting these organizations and about what keeps people in poverty.

He said a prevalent attitude he has had to un-teach is the idea of entitlement. And in this case it means you fill out some paperwork, and you get your food stamps, because you have a right to that food. But Hal advocates for what he calls Reciprocity. If the Good News Garage gives someone a car then that person is now obligated to give back to the community in some way. Maybe it's giving someone a ride to work, or maybe it's volunteering at some local charity. It's the recipient's choice of what to do, but they have to do something in order to receive a car. "You have to give back".

Then I spent a few days at an Environmental Education conference and instead of coming away encouraged, I came away with that nasty twist in the stomach familiar to people who work in environmental advocacy. Perhaps for the first time I had genuinely confronted the question "Is what we're doing enough?" And I had to admit the answer which nobody wants to say out loud: No, It's not enough. If everyone changed their incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent, is that enough to save us? Of course not. Well then, what is enough? ... And so you see why I had this knot in my stomach.

The next morning before my head left the pillow a small part of the answer came to me: "Environmental Reciprocity." This is simply the idea that in an environmental context, if you take something you must put it back.

That 200 Mile Road trip I'd like to go on costs more than just gas; its costs CO2, and just like you remunerate the driver, you should also compensate the atmosphere by removing that same amount of CO2.

The scary part is that the earth will reach equilibrium eventually whether we like it or not, and either we will reciprocate voluntarily, or the resources will be taken from us involuntarily, and I don't think anybody wants to see that.

True Environmental Reciprocity is daunting. For every car ride, for every hot shower, every kWh used in microwaving dinner, we should remove the emissions that we incur.

I don't think Environmental Reciprocity is a new idea. In fact I'm certain that any kindergartner could have told me this. It's funny how that idea seems to have been selectively applied.


So, of course, now that we have a measuring stick (and we are so off of the mark), how do we start? System-wide change is starting (with flex-fuel cars and increased public transit), but while I wait for that to take hold, my attention has been turned towards carbon sequestering projects. But I'll save that for a later post.