Taking care of the earth can be, well, expensive: How do you get around the costs of going green?

I work for an educational institution that would love to “go green.” We have a great sustainability center and many ideas for what we could do to reduce our impact on the earth. We have many ideas, but we also have one problem–doing the right thing gets difficult really quickly.

Example: This year, some colleagues and I tried to introduce single-stream recycling into our campus’ residence halls. We were very excited about this, as we felt it would make things simple for students (no separating materials!) and ease many new students into recycling for the first time. We did not foresee how hard it really is to change people’s behavior. The single stream program was anything but a success, even as we tried harder and pushed stronger with marketing. We even had a year opening barbecue dedicated to sustainability in the residence halls, but recycling participation rates have  gotten more and more dismal.

What’s more, some staff members started turning against recycling. After all, it cost us three times as much to recycle as it would have cost us to ship the same items to the landfill. Those are startling numbers indeed. We were suddenly faced with a poor economy and the question “Do we abandon what’s right? Can we afford what’s right?”

It is a very sad situation when it becomes so costly to do what’s right. Not only does the program physically cost more, but it costs employee time to sort the contaminates out of the mix, and as they say, time is money.

However, we were not willing to give up this fight. Some leaders of this project have done some research and found ways to reduce cost while still making the program simple to students. Instead of trying to do single stream, which was actually more complicated for many students and costly to us, we will be offering recycling on a hall-by-hall basis for papers and plastics. This means halls have to opt in and have a recycling chair. Our own staff members will collect and separate the recyclables, which will erase the cost that the city would charge. Hopefully this new solution will work, but the situation just goes to show how complicated so many issues are. I am glad I have a team of people by my side that is committed to doing the right thing, however.

In a similar sticky situation? Here are some tips that I would suggest before abandoning your project all together:

1. Search for alternatives to the way that you are currently trying to do things. A really great tool would be to visit other organizations and see how they are battling the same issue. You can often find great ideas if not practices to duplicate.

2. Look for grants to help you get started. Not all businesses or organizations can afford to go green on their own. If you come up with a great idea and an action plan however, there is a chance that you can get someone else to help fun your project.

3. If all else fails, perhaps you should explore other ways your business or organization can go green that make more sense for your budget and goals.

Where did all the sane people go?

Disclaimer: I consider myself moderate and sane. I am in no way promoting any political party in this blog.

Watching politics for the past year I have several times been inclined to ask, “Where did all the sane people go?” Although I do not identify with either major political party in the United States completely, the side that bothers me time and again are the Republicans.

First it was the radio and television personalities such as Newt Gingrich and Michael Savage, host of the Savage Nation. I recently moved to a somewhat rural area of the Inland Northwest and I was suddenly catapulted into a world where the Savage Nation plays on the radio like clockwork at 5 p.m. everyday and congressmen fight against having young men and women live in the same residence halls.

Then comes the new breed of Republican politicians. People who disrupt the President when he is speaking during a national address much as a third grader would interrupt a teacher. People like Sarah Palin, who insist on distorting facts and using scare tactics to lure people to her side (think death panels). People who paint faces on the President’s portrait and liken him to Adolf Hitler. Then there are the everyday citizens who seem intelligent enough until they accuse the president of not being born in the United States. You’ve seen the town hall videos–some of these people are crazy.

What I am confused about is what all of the commotion is about. Why did all the crazies come out of the woodwork all of a sudden?

Some people say it is because there are many whites who are afraid that a black man is in power. That may be true in some cases, but I feel a large majority of people lack the facts. Many people have core values, which I will not deride. These values include anti-abortion and Christian values. I do not think this is wrong. What I think is wrong is that the leaders of a party that tries to portray itself as “Christian” commit acts daily that are un-Christian. How is fear mongering, accusing someone of not being a citizen and plain lying “Christian?” The problem here is these leaders are very good at persuading certain groups of people that they are right and they are taking care of them when they are simply taking care of themselves.

Another problem I have with this “Christian” cover by this party is the lack of support they have for other people. Case in point is the outcry against socialized programs.  Would not Christ himself favor “socialism” over letting people fend for themselves? If someone is truly Christian, I would think they  would be supportive of systems that help those less fortunate than themselves.

So I will suggest a call to action to all the sane Republicans left out there. Please speak out against the crazies in your group and put them in check. Right now they are representing you all poorly and making people like myself second guess the intelligence of anyone who would choose to be associated with a party such as this.

Pit bulls: Hate the humans, not the dog

I would like to take a moment to talk about something that boils my blood–the misinformed hysteria regarding a certain breed of dog.

The pit bull.

What comes to your mind when you think about a pit bull? For many people across the world feelings of fear immediately pop up. But where does this fear really come from? How many of these people have actually spent enough time with a pit bull to judge its behavior?

I own a pit bull mix. I used to introduce her as a lab mix for fear of judgment from the people I talked to. I knew that if she got into one scuffle at the dog park she would automatically be labeled as “that pit bull” by people who know nothing of this dog’s true nature. In fact, once a dog started attempting to mount my dog, she snapped at him as if to say “get off of me” and immediately the owner said, “Oh you hate to see that happen. Is that a pit bull?”  I thought, “Yes, I do hate to see stupid dogs trying to molest my dog.”

My dog is as sweet as can be. She has absolutely no dog aggression and she behaves as many pit bulls I have met over the years-extremely fond of people and tolerant, if not downright playful, with other dogs. Anyone who truly has met several pit bulls will soon learn how sweet they are and what poor guard dogs they can be since they are so fond of humans and crave affection. Yet, when I introduced her to a man from Europe he ran away from her terrified even though he’d never met a pit bull and my dog had what I could only describe as a “love me please” face on and expressed absolutely no interest in him.

The sad truth, however, is that some evil people have trained some of these dogs for violence and that is what people focus on.  Moreover, some people buy pit bulls thinking that they will protect their property or look “cool.” This makes the good dogs and the good owners suffer. The pit bull is not for the weak of heart. Having a dog with such a negative social stigma is not to be taken lightly. There is no doubt it is a strong dog and its capabilities should not be brushed aside. As with any dog, you must take caution when it is in a new environment, with new dogs or new people. You must watch your dog. You must train your dog. YOU must take responsibility for your dog.

I have heard people say we should not keep pit bulls because they are dangerous just like a wolf or lion–it is their opinion that all pit bulls should be euthanized or banned from cities. I wonder if someone of this opinion would then like to ban all domesticated dogs. After all, they are all descendants of wolves and their nature could turn at any moment. In fact, when I am at the dog park I find other breeds of dogs more likely to attack than the well-trained pits.

It constantly amazes me how people are scared of something that they have no first-hand knowledge of and that is statistically never going to affect them. Far more people die from smoking then getting bitten by a dog of any kind. Yet what are we trying to ban?

I say blame the humans, don’t blame the dog. I had a friend that was bitten by a dog (which happened to be a pit)  about a year ago and this is what set me on a quest to right the wrongs against this breed. This dog was euthanized because it was abused by its owners, not properly trained, and then it snapped. This dog could have had the potential to be a great dog but it never had a chance with these horrible owners.

My final message would be this: Know your dog’s breed and train it appropriately. To those against pit bulls, learn more about this breed above and beyond the slanted media stories and you will see a completely different side to the story.

Read an interesting story about pit bulls from Newsweek.

Clever conservation idea

Save your Logo lets companies who use an animal as a mascot contribute to the conservation of that species.

Save Your Logo creates an opportunity for companies represented by a plant or animal in their logo to contribute to the conservation of that species.

Save Your Logo is an innovative global initiative in the field of biodiversity that involves public and private funding, with supports like the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the World Bank, the International Union for Nature Conservation and the Endowment Fund for Biodiversity.

Clever little idea, methinks!

Conservation: When should we compromise?

A very close friend of mine is involved in developing a book about a particular animal. This animal is being considered as and Endangered Species, and my friend’s job is to create a book aimed at land owners that will inform them about this species and how they can help protect it. If they protect the species, there is a possibility that it will never get placed on the endangered species list and thus, these landowners will not have to incur any restrictions on their land, where this species resides. In essence, protecting the species is a win-win for everyone.

The problem is, there are certain truths supported by research that are not supported by the land owners. Livestock grazing, if not done properly, has been found to degrade habitat for this species. However, this group of land owners relies on livestock grazing for their livelihood, and so representatives from this group are speaking out so that nothing about grazing is included in this book. While my friend knows what the research says, he asks himself two questions: a) What will happen if I alienate this group of land owners?  and b) These land owners have been working on the land first-hand for years. What if they know more than isolated research?

I freelance for an organization that helps land owners receive benefits in exchange for protecting and conserving critically endangered wildlife, flora and their habitat. I have seen that working together is often one of the most beneficial solutions to environmental problems and that land owners are the best stewards of their own land. This is one solution to solving a big and complex problem and it benefits everyone involved.

How do we draw the line between compromising for the sake of not offending a group of people versus doing what we believe is right? How do we balance the different interest groups that are involved in any type of decision making on anything in society that is worth debating? How do we really know what’s right? Is it appropriate to take an occasional loss in what we think is right to gain a strategic alliance with a group that may help us in the future?

I suppose the correct answer to these questions will vary from person to person, but from watching my friend’s struggle with this issue I suppose it is sometimes OK to create an alliance with a group of people, taking a small loss, but in the end possibly attaining a milestone in success. The hard thing is choosing your battles. In some cases, it would be wrong to compromise–it may go against your morals. In this case, you should not compromise. You must fight. But I think the most important thing that I have picked up from my friend’s situation, is you must respect others and you must always remember, if you are planning to burn a bridge you better not plan on crossing that bridge again later.

How far must we take our moral obligations to the earth?

I am an avid protector of the environment, but I find myself facing daily struggles about how to live my life. I think every environmentalist inevitably faces certain hard decisions every day. On one hand, we want to care for the environment and the world’s wildlife and human populations. On the other hand, this makes life very difficult.

Should I bike to work for 30 minutes in the snow and 8-degree temperature? Should I stop eating the french fries I love so much from McDonald’s? Should I buy only local even though I can barely afford it?

Today I read an article about the effects of birth control hormones when they are flushed down the toilet. According to a University of Idaho press release, “James Nagler, professor of biological sciences, recently discovered that 17α-ethynylestradiol – an active chemical in birth control pills – causes cells in rainbow trout to have an abnormal number of chromosomes.”

There have been studies on the effects of birth control hormones on human populations as well. One study stated that the estrogen that entered drinking water as a result of flushing the toilet could affect the gender of an unborn child, thus causing a positive spike in the birth of female babies.

It would seem ethical then, to cease the use of birth control pills. This, however, fails to address the world’s problem with overpopulation. It also fails to recognize the many health benefits that are offered by birth control pills such as controlling the severity of endometriosis and interstitial cystitis.  Many women even use birth control to lessen the pain of their menstrual cycles.

How do we find a balance then, between protecting the environment and protecting ourselves? I personally suffer from a condition known as interstitial cystitis and have been successfully using birth control as a method of controlling the pain and discomfort associated with the condition for more than a year.

I feel horrible knowing that by treating my condition, I may be negatively affecting human and animal populations. So what are we to do?  Should we all just try to do what we can to help save the environment and worry a little less about the not-so-good things we do to contribute to the problem? Is it enough that I use reusable shopping bags, buy organic, recycle, start a carpool club at work, and write this blog? Or should we all sacrifice just a little more?

Change

After a lengthy absence from my blog, I have started writing again. This rather abstract piece is just what came out when I started typing today. It is about change, renewal and transformation.

Change.

It’s hard to come by. We fight against it. We struggle to keep the status quo.

Right now there are many changes around us. In America, in the world, in our personal lives.

There are two types of people. Those who resist and those who seem to chase the change. Take the recent presidential election. There are those people who are frightened by what President Elect Obama means exactly by “change.” Change is disruptive. Change is painful. Change is not easy. Change is different.

Then there are those who worship Obama and the ideals that he represents. They see change as a rebirth and renewal. A sign of hope. A death and transformation of the old into something new, exciting and just.

In our own lives we fight these battles every day, though most of us choose to stay the same and avoid change. We live our lives. We are thirty years old. We are seventy. We are more or less the same as when we were twenty.

As I look back at my life I realize that I, too, have been resistant to change. I always thought I was so open, but I realized the hardest change to accept is change from within ourselves. We put barriers up that impede our progress toward self actualization and fulfillment and we continue to live with the same morals and patterns each day of our life. We forget to grow and we remain stagnant.

The past few months I have thought a lot about change. Transformation. Renewal. Rebirth. These are the words that have come to mind.

I struggle each day with just how to go about change. What’s natural is what comes easiest. The more and more I think about how I would like to change the harder it becomes to put my fingers on how to accomplish this.

Then I realized to change I must erase everything I once knew. Everything I believed was right starts to crumble before me and I am left with a collapsed empire that must be rebuilt. Many of those who are involved in mystic studies have a way of looking at this as a process of death. To be reborn, you must first die, and so death is the first logical step on the path to transformation and renewal. You must let everything go and start over. Look at things from a new perspective. Start fresh.

I feel a sort of death within me. Not in a literal sense, but in the metaphorical sense I just described. I feel like walls are slowly starting to fall around me and for that I am able to see all the more clear. I can wipe the slate clean of any grievances I may have held onto. Any self loathing I may have experienced.

Starting from the beginning with a strong understanding of what you want is the most logical way to rebuild anything. An architect wouldn’t try to create a building without first laying out the design and contemplating each type of material that was going to be used in the building’s construction. So must I be an architect and rebuild my belief systems with a solid foundation and plan of action. It’s much easier than patching up holes later.

Change is scary, but change is liberating. Change can make you a stronger person. Or it can destroy you.

There are two types of people. Those who run and those who face life and the change that comes with it. I have decided to become the latter.

Global warming denial costs us all (except those who profit from it)

“Global warming is made up by the government. They’re just trying to suck more money out of us when we’re already in a recession!”

“Who is the one making all the money off of global warming? Al Gore!”

“I don’t believe in global warming because the earth goes through natural warming cycles.”

I become more and more apalled as I read online forum comments and articles touting that global warming is an elaborate hoax and will come to be nothing more than a gigantic Y2K fiasco.

What is most disturbing is those organizations and “scientists” who are getting paid to trump these lies to the public.

Case in point is the Heartland Institute.

This organization says its mission is “to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” Furthermore, the institute claims to be a non-partisan, non-profit organization that is unaffiliated with any businesses.

However, the institute has been documented as receiving $561,500 in funding from ExxonMobil from 1998-2005. The company also receives funding from Phillip Morris, the tobacco company. In addition, the Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton, Director, Economic Policy Analysis, General Motors Coorporation.

Needless to say, the Heartland Institute denies that second-hand smoke is dangerous and says that global warming is an unproven farce. It even recently held a conference with the purpose of convincing people that global warming is a myth and is not a crisis.

The Heartland Institute’s research on global warming is laughable. The institute states that global warming is not a crisis, yet one of the organization’s very own researchers found the following:

• Eighty-two percent of climate scientists agreed with the statement, “We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.”

• About 56 percent agreed when asked, “Do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes?”About 14 percent were unsure.

First, this sample was non-scientific; it was placed on the Web site for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Furthermore, I would argue that the true percentage of scientists who believe that global warming is due to anthropegenic causes is actually much higher. Most scientific organizations, including the American Geophysical Union, the American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, the Federation of American Scientists, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the European Geosciences Union, have released statements that conclude that global warming is happening, and it is due to man-made technologies. Many of these organizations have also concluded that swift action must be taken.

However, let’s say that the Heartland Institute’s research is correct. Is it not enough that nearly 60 percent of scientists surveyed by the institute think that global warming is caused by man-made processes, with only slightly more than a quarter of scientists saying that it isn’t?

Let’s say there is a 60-percent chance that you will get mugged if you walk outside alone at night without any protection (pepper spray, for example). Would you continue to walk alone at night sans protection because there is still a 40-percent chance that you will not get mugged?

It is crucial that people understand that even IF global warming is not caused by humans we need protect our planet and our future. Furthermore, we have the responsibility to be stewards to the earth regardless of our beliefs about global warming. How dare we pollute and rob the land that gives us so much? We ought take care of our environment and invest in clean energies from a pure moral standpoint.

The Heartland Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and claimed that climate control policies hurt consumers. It seems that this is already a popular farse by global warming skeptics, although the rise of green technologies in markets across the world has actually improved economic viability in many countries.

This type of stereotypical “global warming policy hurts the economy” view could have detrimental effects in the long run. What if global warming meets all of our worst predictions? Its effects will cost us an invaluable amount of money, resources and human lives. However, if we engage in responsible practices to mitigate the possible effects of global warming, and it turns out that it really was a hoax, we STILL benefit from a cleaner, more livable and sustainable environment. So either way, we win. Unless we follow the advice of organizations such as the Heartland Institute, who thinks we should not do anything to mitigate global warming.