Starbucks Eco-frustration
By Starre Vartan
April 14, 2008

Full Disclosure: About once a week I go to Starbucks. I hide my head in shame (hey, I protested Starbucks putting locals out of business in the 90’s) and stand on line for a soy latte. I work and attend grad school in Manhattan, and Starbucks are everywhere AND they always have Silk (sometimes organic but at least GMO-free) soymilk, a necessity for me since I haven’t drunk cow’s milk god knows how long. And if you’ve been a student, (not to mention a way more than full-time blogger/freelancer/editor), you can relate to my need for caffeine! If given the option, I’ll go to a local coffee place- even go out of my way for one, but sometimes they can be hard to find.

So, my following rant has some substance to it, as a semi-regular customer of the ubiquitous chain (and yes, yes, I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I admit it, so sue me! I swear I never went there until I became a workoholic). But I write this as a real, regular customer, which I think gives it some weight. Here’s my suggestion, since Starbucks has been losing customers recently: Bring back the Mug!

On this entire continent called Europe, you go into any espresso bar or cappucino cafe and if you choose to stay, you get a real mug, teacup or espresso shot receptacle from which to quaff your java fix. And every Starbucks I’ve ever been to has the tables, and seems to encourage people to sit down, but why do those people all have takeaway cups? Paper cup and hot cup protector thingy (recycled, good), plastic top, all of which could be completely done away with if denizens drank from real mugs that could be washed and reused a thousand times. Of course, if you’re getting your coffee to go, you need to use a disposable (unless you have a refillable coffee mug to use of course- but Starbucks has trouble even dealing with these.)

If you’re going to sit down at a coffeehop, you shouldn’t be using a disposable cup. It’s wasteful, and frankly, uncivilized. Drinking out of a proper cup is a more relaxing experience, and reminds us that disposable items should not be an expectation, they should be a convenience, an exception. We should be using disposable ONLY when we really need them, period.

Just imagine where that cup started. A tree, and bucket of crude extracted from the ground. Some of the oil goes to make the plastic tops on the cups. A tree was grown, felled and processed into the cup (along with some post-consumer recycled paper). Try picturing all the energy it takes to chop down the trees and collect and recycle the paper, then the machines that manufacture the paper cups, and the gas used to transport them to a zillion Starbucks, all for 20 minutes of use before they are tossed in the garbage and then add to our landfills, or end up in the environment. Think of all the plastic coffee tops and where they end up (plastic doesn’t really biodegrade, or won’t for thousands and thousands of years).

According to this article, tons (literally) of plastic blows out into the ocean into “the eye of the North Pacific subtropical gyre, where opposing ocean currents form a vortex bigger than Australia, trapping tons of floating debris in its circular flow”.

Trash that wound up there used to decompose. Now, with 403 billion pounds of plastic produced annually, according to the Houston-based consulting group Chemical Markets Associates Inc., areas of the gyre have turned into a soup of indigestible shards that can break down to the size of plankton and be mistaken for food, endangering millions of fish and birds.

“No matter where we go, we find plastic,” said Moore, 60. “The ocean is now this plastic soup, and we just don’t know what that’s doing.”

Marine debris worldwide kills more than 1 million sea birds and 100,000 mammals each year, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.

After you’ve commented on the cup issue here, you can also add in something about those stupid sizing system. My friend Michael, who alerted me to this campaign (thanks!) and wrote several vociferous comments about the insistence on throw-away only, also had this to say:

And ask them to spare us from that venti, grande bullshit. It’s polluting our language. What’s wrong with small, medium and my favorite - grande pompino? (ask your Italian friends for a translation).

Oh, and if I’m going to be paying through the nose for a shot of damn espresso, why the hell isn’t it organic and fair-trade? What are we paying for anyway? Too many freebie cups may be the answer.

Radiohead’s “In Rainbows”
By Craig Platt
November 7, 2007

It all started back in 1992. Radiohead with frontman Thom Yorke had a searing single floating up the charts, a song like nothing else on the radio and the line that every teenage boy thought was cool, “I don’t care if it hurts, I wanna have control.”

Now almost fifteen years later they’re still living that mantra. The maverick rock band from Oxfordshire has been changing the way we think about music for a long time now. Each album is completely unique, always fresh and the band unwilling to become what so many bands of their class have become, a caricature of the original. Radiohead is, if anything, stubborn.

So why is their new release, ‘In Rainbows’ so special? The title of the album certainly isn’t special and the music, while consistently fantastic is just what we expect from this legendary band. Why does Radiohead still surprise us? By releasing the album themselves, sans record label, packaging, cardboard cutouts and flashy artwork, by avoiding iTunes and peddling their own music they’ve succeed in making their music important.

What does it say that they avoid the way everything is done? What does it say that you can only buy the album? That they refuse to be disposable? They refuse to be an Apple commercial and now they’re refusing to let a record label define them, time them and make them into something they may or may not be. As we begin to move forward as a generation it’s important to consider Radiohead as a forward thinking institution, not just a band.

Why? Well, because they ask questions. How much is music really worth? How do you survive in a business steadily declining? No packaging, that’s green, right? And the whole, “we don’t care about what anybody else is doing”, that’s a good quality.

I don’t know, maybe I am getting older and my idea of cool is probably fading into mothball stinking old man jeans and flannel shirts from 1992 when Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Radiohead were heavy in the rotation and hanging out in parking lots, back yards and gas stations was all the rage. But there’s something to Radiohead. They’ve maintained their edge. They’re sort of an anomaly. No schmalz. No Bono grandstanding. No legendary member standing out. No infighting on tour or in the rock mags. Just a group of guys that get off on evolving.

So, how much have people paid for music? And what do people think about it? I paid nothing. I try to never pay for anything. It just feels good to say to someone, I got that for free. That being said, I will pay to see them live. Many others followed my example. Someone paid $1,000, others $6.66. They’ve become an economic experiment, the labels worst nightmare. But we always knew the bands would have the last laugh on the machine.

Jonny Greenwood said of “In Rainbows”:

“Partly just to get it out quickly, so everyone would hear it at the same time, and partly because it was an experiment that felt worth trying, really. It’s fun to make people stop for a few seconds and think about what music is worth, and that’s just an interesting question to ask people.”

Well, there you have it. Radiohead. Changed, but the same. Enjoy and go buy it. Or don’t. They don’t care.

We Be Jammin’
By Starre Vartan
November 4, 2007

Noise Pollution is Environmental Pollution
What’s more annoying than a crying baby? Ruder than tossing a butt on the street? More disgusting than an airsick neighbor on a plane?

Cell phone chatter.

BLAH, BLAH BLAH….why don’t people GET it? Nobody wants to hear what you’re saying into your mobile phone! I don’t care if you grandfather is dying, your dog pooped on the floor, or that you got a raise. I JUST WANT SOME QUIET!!!!!

And now that I know these details of your life, I HATE YOU. Even though I’m sure if I met you at a party over a wine or three, you’d be my new best friend.

Yes, I know I should be a more zen person, content to let life’s annoyances float over my head with nothing more than a nod and a beautific smile, but damn it, no matter how hard I try to achieve the zen there’s always a person on a phone to challenge me anew. And it’s a battle I rarely win.

If noise pollution is environmental pollution, then inappropriate cell phone chit-chat should be treated like the toxic crap it is. Shut it down and contain it. But how? These people rarely respond to rude looks and shushing.

Now there’s a pollution solution.

Jammers Unite!

This article in the NYTimes (OK, so I’m now officially behind the times, yuk, yuk, but I really didn’t know about these being so easily available) shows us how we can all start blocking cell phone signals in a significant area around our persons. Cell phone jammers block the signal between the tower and the phones within a given area and calls are cut off. I can’t wait to use this on the train, judiciously, of course. Only obnoxious a**holes who can’t follow the rules (on my train it’s simple; speak in a low and civil tone, and go into the vestibule for extended conversations).

If a significant percentage of the population does this, soon we’ll have a little peace and quiet where before there was just constant jabber. Let’s do it!

Shout out to Bri for hooking me up with this article.

Green+Woman=Wussy; Green+Man=Technology?
By Starre Vartan
July 7, 2007

I’m not the only one who’s noticed that men are taking over the environmental discussion. An eco-event in Bryant Park in New York City tomorrow is just one example that recently crossed my desk. There will be five speakers and not one woman! If there was a panel of five women, and no men, would people see it as a ‘woman’s event’? I think so. So why does this get to be an eco-discussion and not a men’s roundtable on the environment?

A great piece over at Grist questions whether the ‘new’ environmentalism isn’t just all about making ‘green’ more appealing to men, since women are already on the bandwagon, and most importantly, what that means for how we make changes in the future.

“[Thomas Friedman] wrote that America should redefine green to make it more “muscular” and transform its characterization by opponents as “sissy,” “girlie-man,” and “vaguely French.” Elsewhere, he has summed it up this way: “Green isn’t some ‘wussy’ tree-hugging thing. Green is patriotic. Green is strategic. Green is the new red, white, and blue.” Wussy being derogatory slang for “especially unmanly,” consider Friedman’s view to be the opposite. Call it “manly green.”

Do we need ‘manly green’ to keep environmental discussions on the table as a serious issue? Why are women’s issues (typically thought of as healthcare, reproductive rights, education, the environment) always pigeon-holed as such? I mean, doesn’t everyone go to school, get sick, decide to have kids or not, and breathe air and drink water? Why are these issues feminized? And relegated to second-class status because of it?

Surveys — from sources including the Yale School of Forestry, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and American National Election Studies — consistently show that women feel a stronger connection to the environment than men do:

-Women are up to 15 percent more likely than men to rate the environment a high priority.
-Women comprise up to two-thirds of voters who cast their ballots around environmental issues.
-Women are more likely than men to volunteer for and give money to environmental causes, especially related to public health.
-Women report both more support for environmental activists and more concern that government isn’t doing enough.
-Women support increased government spending for the environment, while men favor spending cuts.

Polls also show that about 68 percent of American consumers have gone green, preferring health-conscious and environmentally responsible products. Since 90 percent of women identify themselves as the primary shoppers for their households, and women sign 80 percent of all personal checks, it’s safe to say that women are leading a quiet revolution in green consumerism.

These trends suggest more than simply stronger support for the environment — they reveal a completely different attitude about it. Prevailing masculine views see environmentalism in terms of energy independence, as a political or military tactic. In the speech quoted above, President Bush pointed to alternative fuels such as hydrogen as a way for America to wean itself off foreign oil. A few years earlier, the CIA called the environment “the national-security issue of the early 21st century” and “the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate.”

If making the environment more of a manly issue means relying on technology, how does that impact what decisions are made and what to focus on? Instead of relying on innovation to solve our problems, what about the more prosaic ideas of cutting down on consumption, recycling, and conservation? Are those too girly? Not exciting enough? I think this argument takes a lot of liberties about what is ‘male’ and what is ‘female’; the writers are making pretty huge generalizations here. I think in the end, whether and idea is ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ is irrelevant, but I hate to see one sex dominating the discussion and having a bigger voice on any subject as important as the future of the environmental movement.

The Avoided Topic

Original illustration for Eco Chick by Gregory Grigoriou of I See Dots

The Problem

This month, one of E/ The Environmental Magazine’s feature stories is about the the myth of the population dearth, the idea that we’re not replacing ourselves at quite the rate we have during the heights of human population growth, which occurred in the 1960’s. The doom and gloom predictions of economists that there won’t be enough young people to sustain economies in the future might have families considering a 3rd or 4th child. But look at the statistics and you’ll see that the Earth’s population is still zooming straight up. While it’s true that most of that growth is coming from people in developing nations, everyone plays a part:

Let’s look at the accelerating momentum of population growth. In the year 1000, there were an estimated 254 to 345 million people on the planet, mostly living agrarian lives. World population grew very slowly in those days. In 1200, 200 years later, there were still only 360 to 450 million people. Move all the way up to the relatively modern world, in 1700, and there were still only 600 to 679 million people sharing the planet.

The first billion was reached, probably, in 1802. But after that we really took off as a species. It took just 125 years to add the second billion, in 1927, and only 34 years to get to three billion, in 1961. Four billion (1974) took just 13 years, and five billion (1987) another 13. We crossed the six billion threshold in 1999, after only 12 years. When will we get to seven billion? How does 2012, just six years away, sound?

Americans, especially, are a more significant part of the continued population growth than people in most other Western nations. I’m sure you all saw the heralding of the 300 millionth American a few weeks ago, and it won’t be long before we get to 400 million:

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation with significant population growth, and a new report sees those burgeoning numbers as a factor in our unparalleled impact on the environment.

While Europe shrinks, U.S. population grows by just under one percent a year, which translates to 8,000 people a day, or three million per year. The 300 millionth American will either be born here (or move here) sometime this fall. According to Victoria Markham, executive director of the Connecticut-based Center for Environment and Population (CEP), the growth is magnified by a very high rate of resource consumption. “The U.S. has the largest per-capita environmental impact in the world,” she says, “not only in terms of resource use, but also the pollution and waste associated with it.”

The U.S. uses three times more water than the world average per capita, and (despite being only five percent of world population) consumes a quarter of its energy. Americans buy and use a lot of stuff, Markham says, but there’s more to it than that. Baby boomers, despite their relatively high level of environmental awareness, are also enjoying an unprecedented amount of wealth, living in larger houses on more land than any other generation in U.S. history. What’s more, she says, the nation’s number of households is also increasing dramatically as families fragment. (Average household size dropped from 3.1 persons in 1970 to 2.6 in 2000, according to U.S. Census figures.)

The Solution

For us all to live as healthfully as we can, while still leaving places for nature to be nature, there have to be fewer people. This is the only way I can see for human beings to continue into the future without using up all the resources on Earth. And I’m not talking about cutting population in developing countries (though I’m certainly not opposed to supporting birth control and family planning for those places), but starting at home. The only people you can really change are you and your friends and family.

You’re not just using a lifetime’s worth of resources when you have a baby in this country, you are using an American’s lifetime’s worth of resources. Think about that, and your one baby might as well be triplets. I’m not suggesting that we legislate the number of children people have, but I think we should question this whole idea that it’s ‘OK’ or responsible in some way to have 2 or 3 kids. Because when those 2 or 3 children are Americans, they will be consuming much more than their peers throughout the rest of the world.

Just think, a world with fewer children will mean better schools and teachers for those that are here, less competition to get into college and find jobs, and less of a necessity for us all to live in crowded urban conditions that foster disconnection with nature. I know this is not a ‘popular’ opinion, and I understand this is an emotional question, but I think that anytime one is thinking about how one can consume less over a lifetime, the concept of not creating any more people has to be discussed. If you like kids, adoption is an amazing way to save a child’s life.

The Reason

One of the reasons I feel so strongly about the concept of population decline is that I grew up in a small town of fewer than 5,000 people, and my time there founded my environmentalism. I spent so much time outside, exploring the acres of woods and wetlands surrounding my home that I developed a keen relationship with the natural world at a young age. As I got older, I rode my bike on miles of dirt roads, wending my way among small farms, lakes, swamps and up and down innumerable hills to get to my friends’ houses. There were few cars on the roads I travelled, even the ones that were paved.

I’ve noticed that most (not all!) of the people who I’ve met who have an intense and unwavering respect and adoration of nature’s variety have grown up in rural areas. I don’t think this is a coincidence. While I long to still live in the idyllic environments of my youth, I realize that it is far less harmful to live in an area that is already developed, and to live close to other people, sharing resources and using public transportation. The town I live in now has about 83,000 people and it makes sense to have buses and trains, sewers and schools for us all to share. But I see far fewer trees, stars and I hear and see people constantly. I am most certainly less in touch with the seasons, I haven’t met an undomesticated animal in months, and I’ve forgotten the names of trees that I haven’t seen in ages.

But I live here because we’ve all heard the facts and figures about how much more eco-friendly city dwellers are; in a responsibly-run city, individual impact can be lowered even more. But this brings me to a question; what about kids growing up in cities? Is the average city kid going to be in touch with a natural world they have little chance to come in contact with? (I’m not meaning to disparage city kids here, or urban parks, which are great outlets and learning experiences, but there is nothing like being completely enveloped in non-human made environments).

So, if the human population continues to grow at it’s present rates, we can’t all enjoy the rural lifestyle where we can learn nature’s rhythms first-hand. We need, for the sake of keeping any vestige of open space, to live in cities, or densely populated suburbs, which are not the best places to learn from nature. Live in cities and have less contact with nature, but have less impact on it or reduce the number of people over time so that there’s room for people to live in rural places and there’s space for intact ecosystems to thrive. I know which one I choose.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXCUSE ME, THERE’S BLOOD ON YOUR DIAMOND

“I don’t understand about diamonds, and why men buy them. What’s so impressive about a diamonds except the mining?”

—Fiona Apple

Many of the prisoner-laborers who work Sierra Leone’s open-pit mines end up in shallow graves, executed for suspected theft, for lack of production, or simply for sport. (© Jean-Claude Coutausse/ CONTACT Press Images)

A few years ago, I asked for jewelry for Christmas; I wanted my boyfriend to give me something that I could wear and be reminded of him. When he gave me a pretty sapphire and diamond necklace, I tried not to be horribly disappointed. After I explained why I wasn’t into the gift, he gallantly returned the expensive necklace and exchanged it for a gorgeous green amber amulet for half the price. Amber I can love: Composed from the preserved living blood of a tree, it often contains pockets of ancient air, or even an unlucky insect, and catches the light in ways that a diamond never could.

Maybe its because I studied Geology in college that I see diamonds differently than most women. To me they are just cold carbon chains, unique from common coal and graphite only in the way the atoms line up. Diamonds have a crystalline lattice structure as opposed to coal’s earthy conglomerate one.

But I’ve determined that its neither geology nor taste that is the real reason that I don’t want a diamond ring (or teardrop earrings, or a honking diamond necklace when I strike it rich) one day. It’s the fact that the majority of diamonds are made from the backbreaking labor of the African people who mine them (who make about $30 a week officially, but usually make half that) and the Indian people who cut and polish them (the average price to cut a stone is about .25) Diamonds are also used to fund wars: Rebel leaders in Sierra Leone have used diamonds to pay for weapons that have thus far killed 75,000 and left 12 million homeless. Since Americans buy 65% of the world’s diamonds, you can bet our lust for the gems has financed murders.

Most poor countries have few laws to protect the environment and even less to enforce them. Diamond mining opens gaping holes in the Earth and pollutes the water as topsoil and mine ‘tailings’ (toxic chemicals) wash into surrounding waterways. I’ve seen this first-hand in the US, where there are regulations, and lets just say ‘destroyed landscape’ pretty much sums it up.

On top of all of this, diamonds are a racket. It costs less than $10.00 to dig a .8 carat diamond out of the ground, polish it, and ship it to the US, where it will be sold for $1000 or more. Diamonds are only valuable because companies set artificial price controls. Diamond marketers spend billions yearly on advertising to convince us that diamonds mean love, power and exclusivity, when really they are plentiful and cheap.

From Wikipedia:

The production and distribution of diamonds is largely consolidated in the hands of a few key players, and concentrated in traditional diamond trading centers (the most important being Antwerp). The De Beers company holds a clearly dominant position in the industry, and has done so since soon after its founding in 1888. De Beers owns or controls a significant portion of the world’s rough diamond production facilities (mines) and distribution channels for gem-quality diamonds. The company and its subsidiaries own mines that produce some 40 percent of annual world diamond production. At one time it was thought over 80 percent of the world’s rough diamonds passed through the Diamond Trading Company (DTC, a subsidiary of De Beers) in London, but presently the figure is estimated at less than 50 percent. De Beers used its monopoly position to establish strict price controls, and market diamonds directly to consumers in world markets.

You can read more about Amenesty International’s experience with diamond mines here. And don’t let me get into gold mining…(that will have to be a future post).

If you or your loved one insists on a diamond, there are thousands of vintage stones out there; you can use one to create a new ring or necklace, or enjoy a more old-fashioned style. There are also many great sustainable jewelry companies out there, and there IS the option of ‘conflict-free’ diamonds from Canada, but for me, the environmental consequences of any kind of mining are too extreme to justify it, even if the miners are paid a fair wage.