E-waste stands for electronic waste. This includes anything from discarded and broken cell phones, computers, iPods, and small appliances.

Developed nations are dealing with a crisis of overconsumption, which produces many harmful consequences. One of these consequences is e-waste, which is created when electronic products are thrown away. Unfortunately, the production, consumption and ultimate disposal of e-waste is sped up with planned obsolescence, when products are intentionally designed to have a short lifespan—they either break quickly and cannot be repaired inexpensively, or new versions are continually being designed to replace older ones. With the technology available to us, products can be designed to last for decades, if not longer. However, things seem to be lasting for less and less time. This is all in the name of profit, benefitting corporations that want consumers to keep buying products. According to Greenpeace USA, the average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

But the dangers don’t come solely from the waste itself; even more severe problems occur when the waste is broken apart. When e-waste is disposed of, it is often sent overseas where people in struggling developing nations take apart the products to recycle the e-waste and attempt to salvage parts with any value. Some recycling companies that appear to be reputable engage in this careless practice as well. North America and Europe are known to export a large percentage of their e-waste to countries like India, China, and Ghana.

In the process of taking apart the electronics, these overseas workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, putting themselves, their families and their environment at risk. These toxins include heavy metals such as lead, beryllium and mercury, as well as chlorinated solvents, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These are all deadly chemicals. Why should people in developing countries have to pay for the greed of our wasteful consumer society? 

What can you do about E-waste?

1. Rethink the amount of electronics you buy: don’t buy a new cell phone just because your contract expires and you can get the newest version that everyone else is getting. Also, look into getting your small appliances repaired before buying new ones. Reduce, re-use and recycle, in that order. Remember that no matter what advertising tells us, things don’t make us happy.
2. When you do have to get rid of electronics, recycle them with reputable companies. You can also contact the company where your product came from in the first place, and ask them if they have a take-back program. Always ask the recycling depot or company if they send the electronics overseas. If they don’t give a clear answer, choose somewhere else. Or, do some research and check with environmental organizations that would be able to direct you to a recycling depot in your area.
3. Support groups that are against e-waste. Recently, students from Simon Fraser University have formed a group to ban e-waste on campus. With plans to make an educational documentary to raise awareness of e-waste, teach people where they can safely recycle their electronics, challenge the amount of electronic waste people produce, and create an “E-waste Day” at SFU, the group is determined to tackle the issue of e-waste. To support them, join the Facebook group “Stop E-waste at SFU”, and follow the blog http://e-waste2011.blogspot.com/, which they update with their weekly progress, and you can find links to educational resources on e-waste and recycling depots around Vancouver.

Photo credit: Greenpeace India

Does the individualization of environmentalism have any merits? Can it successfully co-exist with collective action? Environmental advertising (or “green” advertising) assures consumers that they can evoke positive environmental change by adopting simple habits and by purchasing green goods provided by companies (Maniates, 2001). These include wearing clothing made from sustainable fibres, consuming local and organic food, purchasing hybrid cars or choosing cosmetics made with natural ingredients. However, some environmental scholars such as Michael Maniates have criticized these actions as greenwashing which individualizes environmental problems.

The tension at the heart of consumer culture is that it is a fragile system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely (Varey, 2001). The resources needed to extract, produce, transport, and advertise the products that consumers take for granted are being used up at an alarming rate, with devastating environmental costs. We all know this. Consumer culture has received ever-increasing blame for the environmental crisis, which marketing responds to with “green advertising”.

Michael Maniates’ research (2001) provides an insightful critique of this individualization associated with green marketing. Green advertising, he argues, coyly sidesteps the underlying issues of overconsumption and individualization, in the attempt to preserve familiar, comfortable patterns of consumption. According to Maniates, true environmental action would involve long term solutions such as collective public policy that reduces our consumption patterns and breaks our reliance on fossil fuels. This perspective argues that within green advertising, larger social patterns and powers are ignored and civic action is disregarded as a viable solution. Instead, individualization places all blame (as well as all responsibility for action) on individual consumers. In reality, however, green advertising is sustained through a capitalist system that is innately un-environmental in its need for constant growth and the development of new markets. Goldman and Papson (1996) share these sentiments, claiming that the entire purpose of advertising is to create demand for products, and therefore advertising is inherently un-environmental.

Citizenship vs Consumption

But maybe green advertising has benefits that cannot be disregarded. First, in order to fully grasp the complexities of contemporary culture, it is necessary to broaden the traditional definitions of “consumption” and “citizenship”. Maniates asserts that “the individualization of responsibility, because it characterizes environmental problems as the consequence of destructive consumer choice, asks that individuals imagine themselves as consumers first and citizens second” (2001, p. 34). However, I wish to counter this idea and maintain an alternative view of the coupling of the “citizen-consumer”. Trentmann agrees that this phenomenon leaves social change to the realm of consumption, but argues that this new form cannot be overlooked. Thus, the conventional definitions are no longer satisfactory. Citizenship –too often see as irrelevant and stuffy– is being transformed. As Trentmann asserts, “the political is back” (2007, p. 147). Consumption and citizenship do not have to be viewed as a zero-sum game. In fact, consumers are increasingly concerned about political ideas within their consumption habits—consumer boycotts, Fair Trade Certified alternatives and concerns over sweatshops are all examples of this.

Muldoon’s research draws on the concept of the citizen-consumer in the realm of environmentalism. For instance, as Muldoon argues (2006), people have different ways of being politically active, and the marketplace may be an arena for individuals who shy away from politics to be active in environmentalism. Others argue that it is often easier for voices to be heard within the marketplace than within politics. Since companies are afraid of losing business, they may be more likely to respond to public opinion. Here, green marketing has a useful purpose and can fill the voids in collective public action (Muldoon, 2006).

Although Maniates (2001) argues that environmental change is not possible in the realm of the individual consumer, the fact remains that in several cases, (such as some food and personal hygiene products) consumption may be inevitable—so why not offer environmentally-friendly alternatives? Perhaps, green advertising offers consumers a reminder and an opportunity to engage with their environmental values on an ongoing basis. Seyfang also arrives at the conclusion that individual environmentally-conscious consumption is a “necessary complement” to more radical action—necessary because people require some purchased goods (2005, p. 302).

Empowering the Individual?

A second argument claims that green advertising’s individualization is not detrimental because it acts as an empowering force for individuals. As previously mentioned, there was a high level of concern for the environment among Americans in the 90s. However, citizens’ actions do not reflect this level of concern. This is a situation that is still extremely relevant. The authors believe that environmental advertising can be remarkably effective at empowering individuals to act on their environmental concerns. Cobb-Walgren, Ellen and Wiener’s telephone survey measured perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and environmental concern. Perceived consumer effectiveness is defined as the “belief that the efforts of an individual can make a difference in the solution to a problem” (1991, p. 103).

However, not all advertising is equally effective in empowering consumers. Interestingly, it appears that the more “lighthearted” advertising (advertising which serious environmentalists may critique) is more effective. The authors suggest that marketing may wish to avoid discussing how dire a situation is (what they call the “sick baby” appeal), or else individuals will be completely overwhelmed and will not feel that there is anything they can do. As they argue, “one can think he or she is guilty of contributing to the problem without thinking he or she has the power to solve the problem” (p. 105).

What is suggested instead of the “sick baby” approach is marketing campaigns that show how individuals are making an impact through their daily decisions. For instance, Encorp (a Canadian recycling company) regularly features advertising that mentions the positive impact of individuals’ decisions. One of their newspaper ads proudly declares: “Just by recycling your beverage containers you help keep the equivalent of 126,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases out of BC’s atmosphere” (Encorp, 2009). This way, people will be inspired to do more. The authors believe that this can be done without minimizing the importance of the issue at hand. In effect, the authors do not dismiss green advertising as a marketing campaign. Instead, they see it as a valuable tactic in warding off sentiments of hopelessness. As they argue, “both public and private policymakers who seek to encourage voluntary behavior on behalf of the environment should try to enhance consumer perceptions that their own actions will improve the environment” (1991, p. 111).

Therefore, these findings suggest that green advertising’s individualization of environmental action is not wholly detrimental. Green advertising may help to raise an individual’s personal sense of control in the problems of environmental destruction, causing more action to be taken. This is a key point that Maniates may have overlooked. Although collective action is perhaps the key element in positive change, individual empowerment may be the important precursor to collective action. In this way, individual action and collective action are not at odds.

Greater Effects: Voluntary Simplicity

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that individual green consumption can actually lead to more significant action. Voluntary simplicity (VS) refers to the trend of adopting a lifestyle with little consumption and material goods (Kumju et al., 2006). This decision is noteworthy because it is born out of personal choice rather than economic necessity such as poverty or war. Voluntary simplicity is not necessarily new, but the researchers have uncovered a significant new element to add to the theory: beginner voluntary simplicity (BVS). Beginner voluntary simplifiers are not true voluntary simplifiers yet, but are important precursors in the process. They may not reduce their overall consumption, but have taken measures to purchase environmentally-friendly options (Kumju et al., 2006). Because of this, beginner voluntary simplifiers are a crucial target market for green advertising.

Essentially, consumption can be seen as a continuum rather than a binary, with voluntary simplicity on one side, and extreme consumerism on the other. This allows for the possibility of change. The authors decided to study this unique group to decide what steps they were taking, and what motivated them to take part in BVS. The authors determine that although advancement from BVS to VS is certainly not inevitable, there is a group of beginner voluntary simplifiers named “apprentice simplifiers” who will eventually become true voluntary simplifiers (Kumju et al., 2006). The role of green advertising is quite high for this group, the authors suggest, as they may “rely on more accessible and mainstream media, as well as actual product information on packaging” (Kumju et al., 2006, p. 526). Green advertising has educational appeal to this group of BVS.

What do you think?

After weighing the different arguments, Muldoon explains, “the game of sustainable living begins when more people can play. And anything that encourages greater contemplation of, and participation in, green issues is worth examining” (2006, para. 46). Here, I believe Muldoon is correct. Collective environmental groups are made up of individuals—empowered individuals who believe real change can be made. For this reason, it is simply not possible to altogether discount green advertising, and the individual action that stems from it. Green advertising and green consumerism can provide a place for the union of individual and collective action.

Therefore, I believe that individual action, though not sufficient, can be beneficial and may even strengthen areas of collective action. This is not to say that the greenwashing of products is a valuable advertising practice. Rather, I wish to avoid discounting the companies who have invested effort in the hopes of truly supplying a more environmentally-conscious product. I also want to recognize that individuals can be powerful agents of social change.

But I should open this conversation to you, the readers. You’re consumers of environmental media, and most likely buy environmentally-friendly products. What do you think? Is individual action sufficient? Is it important? Or is it just a way to continue destructive consumer culture?

Reference List

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ellen, P. & Wiener, J. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 102-117. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Encorp. (2009). Beverage Containers [print ad]. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.encorp.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=914&Id=1&Se=38,58

Kumju, H., McDonald, S., Oates, C. & Young, C. W. (2006). Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Goldman & Papson. (1996). Green Marketing and the Commodity Self, Sign Wars, pp. 187-215. NY, New York: Guilford Press.

Maniates, Michael. (2001). Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? Global Environmental Politics 1(3), 31-52.

Muldoon, Annie. (2006). Where the Green is: Examining the Paradox of Environmentally Conscious Consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 23. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Seyfang, Gill. (2005). Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship? Environmental Politics 14(2), 290-306. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Google Scholar database.

Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147-158.

Taina, a Vancouver-based environmentalist and blogger, has taken on a challenge most of us would find daunting: living for a year without any plastics. She started in January, so May marks the fifth month into the project. Every few days, she updates her online followers with her challenges, successes, and angry (though justified) plastic-rants on her blog Plastic Manners.

Taina cites many reasons why she’s decided to tackle this particular issue. Basically, our society is in denial about both the pervasiveness and the dangers of plastic. First, many plastics leach toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that are dangerous to our health. Bisphenol-A, PVC, and phthalates are only three examples. Furthermore, plastic is polluting the oceans, and have been found in enormous amounts in the bodies of animals like whales, clams and albatrosses. Single-use plastics, such as straws, spoons, water bottles, bags and coffee cups are the worst offenders and the greatest source of plastic pollution.

Finally, recycling is not the answer. Not all plastics are recyclable, and those plastics that are not will be on this earth forever. If they are recyclable, they are usually “downcycled”. This means that they usually cannot be made into the same product. They have to be made into something smaller or of lesser quality. A little is always lost at every step. Recycled plastics can also break down into toxic byproducts. Not to mention, recyclable plastics do not guarantee that they will, in fact, be recycled.

I was lucky enough to ask Taina a few questions about her project and she was kind enough to let me share her story with you:

Q: What pieces of advice can you give to people who want to use less plastic?

A: I think it all has to start with a recognition of the problem- an awareness of how ridiculous our throw away habits have become. Take a granola bar. Great snack that you enjoy for maybe one minute, but the plastic packaging around it last FOREVER in our environment. An unpackaged treat (homemade), without the pollution and guilt, would be way more rewarding, guaranteed.   

Second, once you have really internalized the “dilemma”, then start refusing. On behalf of future generations/Earth/the Oceans, say NO THANKS! Refuse one item at a time – a straw, a bag, a coffee cup, a lid— until it becomes second nature and starts to apply to a wider range of things. And there are so many little convenience things that are easy as pie to give up right away without major changes to lifestyle. The bigger changes will come, when you are armed with awareness and quick refusal instincts. 

Q: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned so far in the project?

A: Hmm… I have two thoughts:

“Debbie Downer” would say: how catastrophic plastic pollution really is, and how important it is for us to act now. 

The optimistic part of me says: how easy it is to give up plastic, and how absolutely rewarding it is to go back to the roots, and make your own stuff. Convenience is not what makes life colourful.

Q: What are you most missing that you can’t find an alternative for? What alternatives do you wish existed that don’t?

A: Beer is one item that I wish existed readily without the plastic- caps on the bottles, lining inside cans. I will be making my own very soon.

Health products are hard to find without plastic- be it Advil or birth control pills. And other natural products (e.g. plastic-free toothbrushes) that are always wrapped in plastic. Same with plastic-free mascara (although someone recently gave me a tip on how to make my own).

On the alternatives front, I’ve come to realize how little you actually do need.  People always ask me about alternatives, and my list of essentials is actually not that big. You can simply live with less and be totally happy. Back to the store-bought granola bar, I totally don’t miss things like that; it is simply out of habit that we feel like we need all these convenient things.

Q: There seem to be two conflicting issues when it comes to this project. Some healthy, local, organic products come in plastic, whereas their non-plastic alternatives are either slightly less healthy, or come from far away. How do you balance these two issues?

A: I’m constantly battling with this one- so this answer will be rambly. It goes case-by-case:

When it comes to natural products wrapped in plastic, I simply say “no way!”. If it were really green, it wouldn’t have the offending substance around it. Those companies will not be getting my money. There are always better options out there- and if the stores and/or creativity fail you, then you just give it up all together. No biggie.

When it comes to things like the soap nuts [natural nuts that can be used instead of laundry and dish soap], I always land on the side of the nuts versus a plastic-wrapped detergent. This is because plastic has a huge footprint. First, the manufacturing of it from petroleum is ridiculous.  As is its shipping from wherever it was made. And then the waste; the biggest thing for me is that the plastic will never go away. If I do my own lifecycle analysis comparing the two products, intuitively the nuts would always win, even if they are shipped too.  Now, there may be a better, local, alternative to the nuts- like a baking soda that was made here.  I use that too. 

(I could go on forever about cleaning products. Most people feel that they need so many different types of products, because that is what industry has wanted to sell us. Literally, you could use baking soda and/or soap nuts to do your whole house, clothes, and dishes. And the benefit is that you, your kids, and your pets won’t be suffering from all those chemicals. And what about things like the stain repellents on clothing? Is the lack of a spot really worth our health?)

When it comes to health versus plastic, health wins in most cases (as long as “health” does not mean unnecessary “green” alternatives). For example, I will buy medicine when needed. And I buy organic vegetables and produced now, even with the stupid plastic sticker, if no other option is available. This is because the pesticides have a huge impact too, both on the Earth and me. And at least the sticker is small, and I am supporting a greater cause by putting my money to organics. But again, with a little planning, I don’t have to shop in those places that over-sticker their products.

I guess on the whole, it is a balancing act. Everything we do has an impact. The question is, what is an acceptable impact for you personally?

Q: Have you encountered any people who do not support your project? How do you deal with any criticism?

A: On the whole, people are super stoked.  I don’t think anyone wakes up and looks forward to consuming plastic and polluting, so they are happy to know that life without it is possible. It is interesting how little it takes for their own awareness to kick in. The only negativity I have received so far came from the Styrofoam-interest association. It figures.

Taina’s awesome blog contains frequent updates, as well as information about the dangers of plastics and links to other plastic-free activists. Check it out yourself at http://plasticmanners.wordpress.com/

Penn Jillette and Teller, from the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! TV show, calls in the latest episode organic food for “bullshit” (see video below). Penn and Teller’s main point why organic food is “bullshit” is simply because it “might mean you’re getting your food from giant corporations or China.”

But what Penn and Teller fail to mention is that the so called “Food Policy Analyst Expert”, Alex Avery, is paid by the Hudson Institute. The Hudson Institute is an American conservative, religious and free market think tank. Simply put, they are corporate lobbyists. And the prestigious-sounding Hudson Institute is funded by giant corporations such as Monsanto, the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) food.

You also shouldn’t forget that Penn and Teller are members of the Cato Institute, which is another libertarian corporate think tank funded by such fine corporations as ExxonMobil. The Cato Institute is known for spreading and funding anti-scientific climate denialism and misinformation.

But this is not the first time Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!” show receives criticism, and especially not when they cover environmental topics. In season one, aired 2003, Penn and Teller claims that the global warming crisis was created by “hysterical hippies and environmentalists”. Their biased and misinformed global warming episode has since then been criticized and debunked. Logical Science has listed and debunked the claims Penn and Teller made in the episode:

“In Episode 13, season 1 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! they try to prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists. This is why the episode is titled “Environmental Hysteria”.  We would just like to point out that Penn Jillette is a research fellow of the ExxonMobil and Industry funded CATO institute which has strong minarchist leanings. This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation. During the show he puts Tobacco and Oil funded lobbyists against hippie college protesters.  If a fair match was their intent they should have those lawyers up against any of the scientists on this massive list. Granted the show was officially about “hysteria” and not science itself but that doesn’t excuse them for grossly misrepresenting a very strong scientific consensus and providing facts thats are demonstrably false.  The following is a quoted, sourced, and time stamped point by point analysis of their show. It will focus on the facts presented by Penn & Teller’s “experts”"

Another debunked claim by Penn and Teller is that recycling paper would pollute more than making new paper. This is a false claim:

“Recycling also helps prevent pollution. For example, recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water.

Simply put: Don’t trust a magician!

Photo credit: JoshuaDavisPhotography.COM

How can you be an eco-friendly traveller? Well, considering the immense amount of carbon emissions generated by air travel (hundreds of pounds of fuel per passenger), the term “eco-friendly traveller” may be a bit of an oxymoron. Still, when on vacation or on business abroad, the search for greener alternatives is not totally hopeless. 

Before You Leave

• Packaging, Packaging, Packaging:

Unfortunately, all those cute, miniature-sized toothpastes, shampoos and conditioners create much more waste than regular or refill-sized packages. Instead, opt for products with less packaging, or bottles and boxes that can be re-used.

The Soap Works (http://puresoapworks.com/index.htm) has been making biodegradable, natural bar soaps with absolutely no packaging for 25 years. Their Shampoo & Conditioner bar is perfect for hair washing while travelling, the Carbolic bar repels mosquitoes and other pests, and the Tea Tree bar’s antiseptic properties make it perfect to clean minor cuts and scrapes.

Wysi Wipes (http://www.canawipe.com/home.html) are a great green alternative to pre-moistened cloths, for washing dishes while camping, removing make-up, or cleaning up spills. Rather than using one-time-use facial cleansing wipes that remain in a landfill forever, Wysi Wipes can be washed, re-used, and are eventually biodegradable. They start as tiny tablets that take up no room in a suitcase, but expand many times their original size after adding water.

• Natural Remedies:

Products without synthetic ingredients, preservatives, artificial colours and harsh chemicals and pesticides are easier on the environment, and safer for everyone.

Swimming and snorkelling while wearing sunscreens with harsh chemicals are not only dangerous to you, but can harm the fish, coral, and natural environment around you. Sunscreens should be PABA and paraben free. Badger (http://www.badgerbalm.com/default.aspx) or Soleo (http://www.soleousa.com/) are some of the cleanest brands you can find.

Essential oils can be used as natural bug repellents. Citronella, lavender and tea tree are at the top of the list. If you get bitten, tea tree oil works well to soothe the itch. They can also be purchased in ready-made spray forms at your local health food store.

Other natural remedies include: ginger for nausea and motion sickness, probiotics to prevent travellers’ sickness and digestive upsets, and grapefruit seed extract to purify drinking and bathing water.

While You’re There

• Reuse:

Everything possible on vacation should be re-used. Pack some cloth bags in your suitcase for shopping and bring your trusty reusable water bottles along as well. Tip: double walled stainless steel canteens keep water cold hours longer in tropical heat than single walled stainless steel, aluminum or plastic (plus, they’re better for you).           

• Respect the Local Ecosystem:

Choose hotels, tours and day trips that use environmentally friendly practices. Eat local whenever possible (this is usually much more fun than eating local at home). When in nature, remember the golden rule—take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints.

• Save Electricity, Water, and Gas:

Just like at home, don’t leave lights, TVs or electric appliances on. Don’t leave the water running or take long showers. If you’re staying in a full-service hotel, refrain from requesting laundry or cleaning services unless absolutely necessary. Or, if you’re doing some sightseeing, take the bus or walk instead of renting a car. You’ll experience more of the culture that way in the process.

On Your Way Home

• Recycle:

Believe it or not, a lot of resorts and vacation destinations don’t have the same recycling facilities that we’re used to. So—take it home! Empty packages aren’t heavy, so bringing them home to be recycled isn’t too hard.

• Souvenir Shopping:

Although the most environmentally-friendly option is to avoid buying any souvenirs, most people like taking a little something back to remember their trip. If you’re buying souvenirs for yourself or for others, ensure that they’re environmentally responsible choices. For example, make sure they’re actually made in the location you travel to, but don’t damage the local ecosystem (no crocodile skin wallets!). As always, don’t buy anything you don’t need or won’t want in a few years.

Good luck and bon voyage!

Using a small part of the square, tourist guides organized a simple but effective exhibition of photographs. The central theme was littering public and historic zones, garbage production and recycling. The gallery included a small tree made of recycled paper, with photographs hanging instead of leaves. Most photographs were about polluted rivers, garbage along coast lines and litters on the streets. Recycle bins were demonstrated and equipment was available for children to draw and write their own green message. Passers-by could get informed about the various consequences of littering and not recycling.

This initiative should be set as an example to all kinds of organizations. Tourist guides realized that litters harm their profession, and decided to draw attention towards that fact. All kind of organizations and professions have problems due to environmental issues. Thus, all different groups can inform about environmental problems and guide other groups of people so as to diminish them. It is crucial that events take place to raise public awareness as to how simple everyday habits hurt both the environment and humanity.

From Madrid to Salamanca

The trip has been pretty uneventful, nothing too eco/energy related to remark on except the usual thing about how trains are amazing ways to get around. But I did notice this as an East Coaster. The amount of sprawl here is next to nothing. The only time you see buildings are when you come across a town. The rest of the way is grass, hills, rocks and trees…I want to say that it’s an open canopy savannah. Part of the density may be caused by the seemingly inhospitable terrain in western Spain but a big part is that these cities were build before the car so they are built on a human scale (unlike some American cities I could name). Living on a human scale is vital to a sustainable future because a city if a city’s lifeblood is cars, its pulse will stop after Peak Oil.

There were lots of trees around the tracks but I did see wind farms in the distance a few times, but as there were a lot of trees and the farms were in the distance, I was unable to snap a picture so you’ll have to take my word on it. Also, urban density preserves natural areas from development which is always a good thing…

Eco-Friendly Pest Control for Salamancan Convent

The other day I was walking around town when I bumped into a falconer feeding his falcon on his leather-gloved arm. Since it was Christmas here recently, and their are tons of days to various Catholic saints I figured he was here as part of a fair or something like that for kids. I asked him what he was doing with the falcon and he explained to me that there are far too many birds and mice around the convent and the park nearby and that he and his falcon were there to take care of that.

What a great form of pest control, both clean and green. It doesn’t use harmful chemicals like DDT or inhumane traps (like the glue traps Georgetown University uses to get rid of mice- or it’s what they gave me and my roommates when we had one).

Plus it’s cheap and pretty cool.

I Thought I left These Ideas Behind in the US

The other day was my first day in my two week language program at Universidad de Salamanca. It’s four hours a day, the first two are language, the next hour is writing and the final one is culture. As it was the first day, we went around the room and said where we are from and what we are studying. After I said I study environmental sciences my writing professor said she doesn’t believe in recycling and that they just mix everything together and throw it in a landfill. I hear that all the time in the US and I eventually got so sick of it I took a tour of a recycling plant and guess what, they actually recycled. Craziness. Maybe there are a few towns out there that have corrupt recycling programs, but the world does recycle. It would be an impressive act of subterfuge if the entire world made up a billion dollar materials industry.

In my culture class when I said I study environmental sciences, (since STIA is a little hard to explain) my professor asked me if I believed in Global Warming. I told him that it is the most important problem facing society and we must solve it immediately. He responded by saying, so you think it’s real? I wish it weren’t but just because I wish it were so does not mean it is. Hopefully these professors’ opinions are the exception, not the rule.