Trashing Those who Recycle
There is a common theme emerging among writers who label people who choose organic food, recycling, or clean tasting water as mentally challenged, insensitive, selfish and crass, not to mention economically imprudent. It's not unusual that as the popularity of organics, recycling, or bottled water grows, these choices more frequently come under attack. Articles are generally written to appeal to readers' opinions rather than to inform them, and no story is constructed without some bias. However the problem with editorializing issues this way, is that the authors succeed more in generating controversy around their own rather personal lifestyle choices, than delving into issues more germane to sustainable environment.
A couple of weeks ago a New York Times Book Review of "Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash" , was fairly neutral except for a parting shot in the final paragraph where the NYT author questions the author Elizabeth Royte for her time management skills and intelligence:
"...her jumping-off point seems to be the idea that our best, highest use as human beings is to keep our ''garbage footprint'' to a minimum. That is a value judgment, because minimizing waste -- sorting trash, composting, cooking from scratch rather than relying on dinners in microwaveable dishes -- takes time, and time is a currency. Royte sounds smart; it's hard for the reader not to wonder what else she might have done with all those hours she spent washing out her used yogurt containers."
The author suggests that in order to recycle one needs to be flush with time and insouciant enough to waste it. One wonders if or why he took the time to actually digest Roytes' painstakingly researched garbage expository, since he seems so focused on perfunctorily discounting the gritty essence of her account. He could have just as easily contributed to the discussion about recycling programs by suggesting ways they could be improved, questioning if recycling tempts complacency about personal waste creation, or any other legitimate controversies. Why did he focus his energy on the book author's time involved "washing out a yogurt container[s]"? Time-consuming? I pity the person too frenzied to wash out a yogurt container. How do they find time to take a shower?
Water Wars
In today's New York Times Tom Standage reports in Bad to The Last Drop that his "water tasting" with friends proved that tap water tastes as good as bottled water. For his entertainment, he drank the water then "cleansed the palette" with wine. A few months ago Michael Skapinker wrote a like-themed article in the Financial Times in "The Boom in Organic Food Sales Defies Science and Sense."(May 18, 2005). He too reported on a water tasting contests and concluded scathingly:
"In 1997, The Sunday Times assembled a panel which failed to tell the difference between tap and bottled water. One panel member commended a glass of water for its "fresh, sweet lemony aroma", only to learn that it came from a tap in some Birmingham public toilets."
These articles strain to convince the audience that bottled water is the same as tap water, and that even if tap water is loaded with chemicals, you will die some other way: "You will also have to wear a gas mask in the shower, and when unloading the dishwasher.", says the NYT. And what if 200 year old pipes are so clogged with metal debris that your water truly its too off-putting to drink? Since both Standage and Skapinker report from London, so perhaps their opinions are geographically relevant, however many people drink bottled or filtered water rather then their community's water because their tap water is unsafe, because there are odorous chlorine or chemical flavors in their water, or because it comes out of the tap brown or yellow or filled with lead from pipes.
Interestingly the author okays drinking bottled water in countries where the water 'may not be safe'. But if anyone were to witness the mountains of plastic waste littering the landscape of some developing countries they wouldn't think of buying and discarding a plastic bottle there, since these countries are often especially unable to deal with the growing piles of waste. In some remote towns in Nepal, for lack of any other disposal method, they make retaining walls out of plastic bottles leftover from trekkers, who could more cheaply use filters.
The New York Times author makes some very good points. Bottled water comes in plastic bottles that are not good for the environment and not necessarily good for animals. Siphoning water from one place to another endangers some water sources and uses energy. But he neatly overlooks the options that the real facts present. How could the municipal water systems be improved? Can more water use be localized? Can a filter accomplish the same goal as plastic bottled water with less devastation to the environment? His main point though, goes on step further. He suggests:
"Of course, tap water is not so abundant in the developing world. And that is ultimately why I find the illogical enthusiasm for bottled water not simply peculiar, but distasteful."
He continues:
"Clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects, according to the International Water Management Institute. Improving sanitation, which is just as important, would cost a further $9.3 billion per year. This is less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water.....The logical response, for those of us in the developed world, is to stop spending money on bottled water and to give the money to water charities."
Again, his sentiments are compelling. In a global system one would be naive to claim there is no links between our consumer decisions and global consequences, or that there is no irony to our gluttonous consumption in light of obvious suffering. However is his solution plausible? Water issues are acutely linked to corporate draining of water supplies, commoditization of water, privatization, international disputes over water, or drought brought on by global warming. While it would be a positive step to 'stop drinking water out of plastic bottles'; confusing the issue by cluck-clucking that our desire for clean water is inconsiderate to the rest of the world, misses the point.
Organic Food
The 'self-satisfied snob' theme is popular. In Don't Get Fresh With Me!", a recent editorial in the New York Times, the critic waggles a pointed finger at those who choose organic food:
"What makes the snobbery of the organic movement more insidious is that it equates privilege not only with good taste, but also with good ethics. Eat wild Brazil nuts and save the rainforest. Buy more expensive organic fruit for your children and fight the national epidemic of childhood obesity. Support a local farmer and give economic power to responsible stewards of sustainable agriculture. There's nothing wrong with any of these choices, but they do require time and money."
The author omits the fact that not long ago, all food was grown "organically". Methods of food industrialization and the yield driven techniques of the "Green Revolution" then changed our concept of agriculture. The organic movement that is "sweeping the country" is 30 years old. Despite the truths in her anecdote about saving rainforests, the author is essentially criticizing marketing not flawed thinking on the part of organic food consumers. I'm sure we could have a field day with the marketing for her brand of boxed breakfast cereal or her frozen dinner or her canned spaghetti. Is it wrong that marketing promotes rainforests? Furthermore, organic doesn't necessarily equate to expensive. Food in small communities is often obtained very economically locally and organically. These affordable options, co-ops for instance, allow anyone to participate - and do.
In addition to consumer accessibility and affordability, growing food organically turns out to be better for the environment. A recent study done in the UK, where 3% of the farmland is organic, found that organic farms are more biodiverse, with almost twice as many plant species as well as more birds and bats. Organic food is more nutrient rich and chemical free, therefore it's healthier. The economics of organic farming gives incentives to farmers to produce food organically.
There is no shortage of issues that consumers can be taken to task for. Organic food and recycling are fortunate options in our capitalist world, and if capitalism works to produce industries that work in parallel to the environment, then minuscule increments of time and money are trivial sacrifices for the benefits we gain from these options. We should focus on how these choices can be improved, because denigrating those who chose to try to live more responsibility only seems self-serving.
