Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There are some people who are always going to tune out a message, especially if the message is controversial. As a generality, most people don’t like change. They don’t even want to hear about change! So for many people a subject like climate change is threatening, and they react defensively by relegating it to “just politics.” Then they can rationalize not listening.
I don’t know the best way to inform in these circumstances, and there probably is no “one size fits all” approach. Messages that speak to what a particular audience is interested in may succeed, especially if the message is given impartially and even somewhat gently/compassionately (rather than hitting people over the head with the information). Maybe figuring out what’s important to a particular community or group, and how climate change will likely affect that particular thing of importance. I also think it helps to combine a negative message (the many downsides of global warming are a naturally negative message) with what positive steps can be taken to learn more, do more, etc — but not in a way that’s overwhelming (which makes the listener feel they can’t possibly make a difference so why try).
That said, I also think there are times to speak strongly regardless of how people react. Some people will take note, listen, and act. Both approaches can work depending on the timing and the audience.
I’m sorry to say my life is much more fueled by “fuels from hell.” We use them to heat our home (and live in a climate with 5 months of serious winter weather and lots of darkness),run our two cars,travel, etc. It would take A LOT to transition completely to “fuels from heaven” and I’m not sure it’s possible here. But I’m sure I could do a better job trying.
I see all three of them at work in my community. The “subprime nation” mentality has declined since the Great Recession, but not disappeared. The other two are both prevalent, with “dumb as we wanna be” probably more so. But I feel there’s an increasing optimism of innovators in sustainability that I find encouraging. There’s so much more going on than there was 5-10 years ago here. Local government is taking more interest, the media is taking more interest, and more sustainable shopping options are available. I think with more education, publicity, time and persistence, innovation can prevail.
I agree the book is interesting. Finally finished the first 200 pages! I think the world can change. Friedman points out that there have been many other sea changes in society (he mentions the Industrial Revolution and the Tech Revolution), and he thinks that can happen for sustainability as well. I agree with him that it can. Sustainability is finally starting to grow in people’s thought and actions in a way we haven’t seen previously. It needs to become more systematized, and that will take a lot of time, effort and persistence. But I think it can happen. I do tend to be an optimistic person, some would say idealistic. 🙂 But I’ve seen many changes in my life that I didn’t expect, and there can be more of them!
After reading Emily’s ideas, I thought of Represent, Raise Up and Recommend. The first two in particular have kind of an advocacy connotation. Other words not starting with R might be Advocate, Champion, Campaign, Promote, Advance, Elevate. Maybe a word at the end with a different letter (not R) works!
I’m a bit of an idealist and like to think her vision is possible. But I think it will take a very long time and many incremental steps. Vanna, your experience demonstrates what a long road is ahead. It’s ridiculous for people to judge you based on not using single use plastics. Good for you for hanging in there.
However, I think it will take an approach that is less judgmental and preachy than Johnson’s. If I hadn’t had such a positive experience working with Zero Wasted and other resources before I read her book, I might have just thrown my hands up and said I can never do this. As Vanna says, maybe the initial vision needs to more awareness, more mindfulness, and step-by-step a more environmentally-friendly approach for more and more people. And with support, not derision! We need to support each other in our efforts, not judge. Support (and humor!) will attract people, and once people start taking steps, most people will feel good about them and want to do more. That’s been my experience and the experience of many others I’ve had the opportunity to share zero waste ideas with. Small successes can build into big success. That’s how most movements make real change. It helps to view it as a journey, not a race.
I learned a number of interesting things, for example, how to recycle makeup, reselling books on Amazon, ways to get rid of junk mail, to name just a couple. I also realized that Johnson’s super-minimalist approach to zero waste is not mine. I can just hear her disapproving of me, but that’s ok.
I think the statement is a bit simplistic. Some conveniences that are time-saving aren’t tricks of marketing companies. They really do save time, for example, some packaged foods that would take significant time (and sometimes more money) to make from scratch. And saving time and money is critical for many people who must work outside the home (sometimes multiple jobs) just to make ends meet. To me, the challenge is balance. How do we reduce our waste as much as possible given our individual circumstances? Johnson is very “black & white” in her approach. In my view, life is often full of tradeoffs and shades of gray. I believe an approach that acknowledges this will make the zero waste movement more accessible to many people and therefore more accessible.
Vanna, I agree that thinking “upstream” is important. It would be great to think of an “R” word for it!
I think her statement is a bit extreme, which is how I felt about her voice throughout the book. Purpose to me is much bigger than any one commitment, zero waste or otherwise. And I’ve always valued experiences over things, long before anyone talked about zero waste. (I’m 65 so have been around awhile!) I’m thankful to be much more aware of the waste I create and how to minimize it. It’s essential for our planet and future generations, both of which I care about deeply. I appreciate the ideas in Johnson’s book, and I’ve learned a lot from Zero Wasted and other resources. The journey has enhanced my understanding and commitment, but it has not transformed my purpose or life, and I don’t think that’s necessary to make a difference.
Sometimes people look at my multiple bags and containers, but I don’t care. Sometimes I look at all the plastic in other people’s grocery cart! 🙂
I’ve really enjoyed these responses! Darcy, you summarized my thoughts very well. 🙂 I feel that Johnson seems to expect everyone to give up a lot of other activities to focus on making their own soap, etc. However, many people must work in full-time jobs outside the home, and many people want to devote time to their community — which their communities very much need. I’m now retired after 44 years of full-time work, and I’m still working as a volunteer in my community. I also spend time helping with my grandchildren. I have more time now to devote to my Zero Waste journey and am delighted to do it. But I won’t give up my time helping my grandchildren and my community. Those are legitimate needs, and I want to help meet them. There has to be a balance, which Johnson doesn’t recognize in her book.
I agree that it’s easy for people to become disconnected from their actions, and I’ve very much appreciated the Zero Wasted website and other resources making me more aware. I was more connected when I was young, growing up in with parents who had grown up in the Great Depression and did not tolerate waste. I loved many of the new conveniences that eventually came about, bought them, and threw them in the trash. Not good. But I feel Johnson speaks from a highly privileged perspective that ignores how most hard-working people in the US and elsewhere live — couples who work long hours (often multiple jobs) just to make ends meet for their families. They can’t afford to buy organic produce, or make multiple trips to various food sources (bulk store, other grocery store, cheesemaker w/ no wrapping, meat store w/ no wrapping, fresh baguettes). She also ignores people who have special needs for serious food allergies (gluten and dairy intolerance, as just one example). It is much more difficult to find package free food to meet this need. (I know from personal experience.) Her wardrobe ideas would never work in MN where I live. I would have appreciated a nod by her to the fact that her “demands” (and that’s how I felt she wrote them) won’t work for everyone. We can all make progress on a Zero Waste journey. We cannot (and I mean cannot, due to individual circumstances) go to the extreme she’s gone.
I think you retain some ideas and practices that you agree with, discard some you don’t agree with, and retain some you wish you could get rid of but you can’t (too ingrained!). My husband’s and my parents grew up in the Great Depression, and the men all served in World War 2. As a result, they raised us with a strong sense of “no waste allowed” which we have worked to carry on. But post-WW2, there was a great deal of economic growth and development of new convenience items, which one used if affordable. It made life easier and supported the economy! Both of these influences affected me. The former has made working toward Zero Waste easier and something very meaningful to me, not only because of the environment (which is critical!), but because not wasting was a fundamental value in my family. The latter has made it more challenging because I bought in big time to increased convenience. But I’m committed to finding a way to do both! I must say, I don’t think Johnson is at all committed to convenience, which ignores the need of many hard-working people who have to have conveniences which are inexpensive to work multiple jobs, raise a family, and make ends meet. And I’m frankly skeptical of her claims of how little time it takes her to do what she does (go to many different stores to have no waste groceries, for example). But her book is thought-provoking, which I appreciate.
