Preserving the environment (and your soul)

Recycling the past
I do not recall when the idea of environmental conservation was planted in my head. My earliest relevant memory was a debate I had with a friend in 6th grade. I made an accusation of him being wasteful and he responded by challenging me to use only one ply of paper each time I do a number two. Of course I did not experiment with that possibility but the moral of the story is that a sense of ecological responsibility stuck with me from an early age. In fact, it has become a personal mission of mine to fight for the betterment of our (dying) environment.

In that sense, moving to Boston/Cambridge was like a dream come true. In this city eco-friendly products are abundant. From biodegradable toothpaste to biodegradable detergent; from recycled garbage bags to recycled paper, things I had to painstakingly seek out while living in Japan (I didn’t even bother trying in Hong Kong), are readily available here, literally just around the corner. True, this country consumes up to half of the natural resources of our planet and is responsible for a similar share of waste, but it is at the same time encouraging to see cities like San Francisco where the recycling rate is as high as 69%. Certainly, there are much we Hong Kongers can learn; obnoxious slogans about a non-existence blue sky just wouldn’t do the job. It is unfortunately that putting a price tag on environmental conservation still seem to be the most effective way out; too many of us just wouldn’t care unless there are financial incentives. Damn capitalists!

Complexity & Complicity
It has always been quite clear to me what to root for: big corporations are bad, tiny local business is good, sweat shops are bad, fair trade is good, genetically modified products are bad, organic produces are good, cars are bad and bikes are good etc. While many of these contrasts still hold true as far as I am concerned, the picture seems to have gone a lot more complicated. For instance, a recent BBC documentary entitled "the great global warming swindle" compellingly debunks the popular consensus that human-made greenhouse gases are directly responsible for global warming (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html). The documentary argues that the anti-global warming movement is based on motives that are more political than scientific.

In the same vein, “organic” is becoming more and more like a brand than a way to help keeping the earth and our bodies healthy. It has become clear that the energy require to deliver and disseminate organic goods outweighs its benefits (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html). Equally perplexing is the fair trade movement—there are so many brands out there that have different standards. Their implications and true outcomes are often too difficult for an average consumer to decipher. Worse, as the rumor has it, many fair trade farmers/advocators are turned off by the restrictive labels and membership systems and rather do their own thing without joining a larger fair trade club.

While renewable energy is in urgent demand, other more traditional, albeit environmentally damaging, forms of energy are desperately needed, especially in developing countries. Whether we like it or not, coal might still be the most efficient and readily available source of power. The question is how to eliminate the pollution caused.

An interesting article in the latest issue of SEE (http://www.project-see.net/) discusses the importance to look beyond energy conservation. The author argues that some energy-efficient products would actually be more harmful to the environment when the whole life cycle is considered. How and where the product was made and what kind of waste it will create when disposed (e.g., mercury inside CFLs) should all be considered.

So when we look at the bigger picture, things seem no longer be as straight forward as we (and Mr. Gore) might want them to be. With that said, the principle of three R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) should still be upheld as the golden standard.

Reduce, Reduce, Reduce
While we invest much effort in recycling, we must not forget that it is in a sense the last resort. Recycling exhausts energy and often times require more energy than producing the same product from raw material. Thus, we should aim to reuse what we already have, creating less waste and consuming less energy. Better still, we should try our best to reduce our consumption all together. But obviously this is easier said than done. After all, we were taught to strive for more and better and bigger, only through such practices will we be truly happy, will the economy continue to grow. Only an enlightened few could go the opposite way and reduce their needs, and indeed consumption—something commonly promoted by the Buddhists, Christians, and Taoists etc.

The moral question of responsibility need not be an abstract or religious one and could be boiled down to a question my mother asked me when I was young(er): lifestyle and life—which one would you rather sacrifice?

Christian Chan
June 18, 2007
Storrs, CT, USA