My public comment on the Keystone Pipeline

We know climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, namely the burning of fossil fuels.  President Obama has promised us oil independence - let us take steps in that direction by NOT building this pipeline, and instead, investing in energy sources that will sustain us in the future, not cripple us and our children's children.

The United States should take a leadership role in the world by denying industry- and greed-based proposals such as this one and move forward with this country's history of innovation.  This pipeline will only deny the inevitable as there is still only a finite amount of oil shale, tar sands, and crude oil to be refined.

Building this pipeline will negatively impact me by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, by continuing to destroy and develop Native American lands, and by failing to respond to the sentiments of U.S. citizens, who are vocalizing their dissent of this plan.

Please do not approve this plan - it is environmentally destructive, socially unjust, and deeply un-American.

The biggest repository for plastic waste is the ocean.

Read more here, for the 50th anniversary of Silent Spring.

Environmental Justice

Every time I hear about the environmental justice movement I hear it contrasted to the environmental movement: while I was at Greenpeace, in some classes in college, and most recently at the US Social Forum. The environmental movement is mostly situated within middle-class white hegemony and seeks to reduce the problem by individualizing it - giving each individual the power to act, you know, like the good ol’ American Dream. Change your bulbs, save the world. Get a job, end poverty. Use birth control, reduce world population. That kind of thing.

The environmental justice (EJ) movement, on the other hand is grounded in the context of historical social injustice. EJ issues are generally also spatially grounded, and a generically recognized EJ issue is some sort of hazardous waste in the backyards of poor people of color. EJ points out that many of the problems of the environmental crisis lie in the roots of colonialism. So EJ is grounded both historically and socially, as well as spatially. In this context, the way to stop dumping hazardous waste is to stop having poor people.

This week I heard a lecture that talked specifically to the historical/spatial aspect, that of burying the past, of burying social inequity. The work of EJ then is to study the material wastes -- or “imperial debris” -- of the past, making visible social inequalities. EJ, then is the antidote to our “green consumption,” “greenwashing” rampage.

This new wave of “green” consumption is a response to a basic understanding that this treadmill of production and consumption is flawed. However, rather than making any significant changes, we make the superficial addition of “green” consumption, “green” production and continue on our way. Don’t worry that the whole system is flawed; at least it’s green now. Now you can feel good about driving.

Seriously. The slogan for Toyota's new Prius is: "Welcome to the 3rd generation Prius, where man’s wants and nature’s needs agree." (Source) And, "Harmony between man, nature, and machine" (Source) (Also, can't help but notice the repeated use of the gendered word "man.")

As for greenwashing, it’s usually used in this way - just paint the whole thing green. Greenwashing, says Wikipedia, is a portmanteau of "green" and "whitewash." So - make no structural changes, only superficial ones to change how people interpret it. “Green” cars, “green” coal, etc. However, it can also be looked at as a “whitening” of the movement, with regard to class participation. If to be green means to have the newest, greenest product, only those who can afford to buy it can be really green.

EJ provides a grounded antidote to greenwashing by unearthing historical inequities. Grounded in such a context, it becomes clearer that greenwashing is really just the same old symptomatic solution to the continuing problems.

I wonder, though, if it is possible that the environmental movement can provide any new tools to the continuing civil rights movements. Can the environmental movement make us more aware of the ecology of social movements? Or the cyclical nature of change? Can grounding ourselves in the natural world help us gain perspective and inform our work?

Books recommended at this week’s lecture: On Bullshit and There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

Pinkwashing

Couldn't have said it better myself, so here's a quote:

I want to get serious about breast cancer. I want to raise awareness and find a cure. How will pink kleenex on my desk and pink toilet paper in my office cure breast cancer? How does wearing pink lipstick to work and adorning our suits with pink scarves and pink ribbons change the survival rates for women in our country?

If we really believed in eliminating breast cancer — and all cancers — we would have radically overhauled our health care system in America. We would rethink the relationship between consumers/patients, hospitals, research centers, and pharmaceutical companies. And we wouldn’t try to sell pink clogs and pink candy to raise breast cancer awareness in our country.

From thecynicalgirl.com.

Agricultural Complex

What do bananas, Colombia, and Disney have in common?


I don't know, but this is what I found at my local food co-op.

Walruses??!

And I QUOTE:

"How can Exxon Mobil have walruses in the response plan for the Gulf of Mexico?"

Story & video @ Huff Post.

Meat (over)consumption

Americans eat 10 billion,

10,000,000,000
animals each year!

Holy cow! Learn more: watch or read.

what's in your soap?

this is interesting. wired breaks down palmolive dish soap into it's ingredients and discusses the purpose of each one. i'd like to see, also, from where or how each is synthesized.