Furman Greenbelt Sustainable Living Community

In my last blog, I talked about how one can change their habits through cues and rewards. In this blog though, I’ll be talking about how one can begin to shift their lifestyle through small choices over time. The lifestyle that this blog will be talking about though, will be, how to make clothes last longer when properly cared for. Why should you take care of your clothes correctly? You should take care of your clothes properly so they may last longer and you will not need to get new clothes as often. As a bonus, as we all know, the fashion industry is a hot mess when it comes to sustainability, but by learning to care for your clothes correctly, you can become sustainable by protesting against the fast fashion industry in a very peaceful way by not buying new clothes as often. 

There are many different methods of taking care of your clothes. But before I begin, let me define what ‘proper’ means. Proper means, using the right amount of detergent, using the washing machine correctly, knowing how to read clothes labels, and knowing how to wash your clothes without damaging them.

Let us begin this journey of change as a college student. Most college students either learn how to wash their clothes when first going to college, or learn how to before college even begins. But did you know you could be damaging your clothes by not washing them properly? The most common mistakes college students, and others, make when washing their clothes are too much detergent, overloading the washer, not sorting clothes, and not checking the garment labels (Festiva Laundry). Each of these mistakes can take some life off of the garment, leading them to not last long. 

Using too much detergent can cause extra soap suds that do not completely rinse out of clothes, leaving behind a sticky residue (Bennett, 2022). But by measuring out the right amount, using only about 1 tablespoon per average weight load (Sanci, 2023), preventing detergent buildup is simple. To make this process more sustainable, try switching to a ‘cleaner’ detergent brand or make your own detergent.

The next common mistake that people tend to make is overloading the washing machine. Overloading a washing machine can cause performance issues mechanically, not clean your clothes, and tear clothes up (Buiano, 2023). The simple way to prevent your clothes and machine from being torn and overloaded is by decreasing the amount put in so that about the machine is only ⅔ full. You can also prevent your clothes from showing tears by using a delicate’s bag. A delicates bag is a bag where items that are more fragile, like silk, bras, or knitwear, can be put into to prevent tears from happening on the garment. Delicates bags have been shown to lessen the damage some garments might face. I can say this for certain through personal experience.

Next, not reading the garment label of your clothes before washing them can lead to disastrous consequences. Some of those consequences could be your clothes shrinking, getting holes, etc. But to properly take care of your clothes, reading the garment tags can instruct you how to wash your clothes properly. Checking the tag before washing your clothes can help preserve the longevity of your clothes (Buiano, 2023). Below is a stand guide of images that tell you how to wash your clothes. These images range from what temp and how to wash, bleach or no bleach, dryer or no dryer, etc.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/68d051_3d1483f9ac114bd2a8e5a163649064c7~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_1000,h_891/fcc_laundrylabels.png

 

Finally, the last mistake people tend to make is not sorting their clothes. Sorting clothes is important because it helps preserve the color of the garment. Think about it, you have a load of whites but you accidentally put one red sock in the load of whites. Now all of those whites are a pink color! Trying to revert the pink back to white would take a miracle. This is why sorting clothes by color is important. When sorting clothes, you’ll also want to think about the material of the garment. Is it delicate, is it linen, is it a sturdy material, etc. Separating by color and type of material is helpful because it can preserve the cloth. For instance, if I want to wash my linens, I would want to use hotter water because it can sanitize the linens better. But if I use hotter water when I wash my clothes, they tend to shrink. This is why separating is important because you can then give each category of garment or cloth the attention it needs.

In the end, learning how to properly wash and take care of your clothes can make them last longer and prevent you from having to buy new garments so often. 

 

References

Bennett, J. (2022, July 10). 7 Common Laundry Mistakes That Can Damage Clothes. Better Homes and Gardens. https://www.bhg.com/homekeeping/laundry-linens/tips-checklists/laundry-mistakes/

Buiano, M. (2023, August 30). 10 Common Laundry Mistakes That May Prevent Your Clothes From Getting Clean. Martha Stewart. https://www.marthastewart.com/common-laundry-mistakes-7853523

Festiva Laundry. (n.d.). 6 Common Laundry Mistakes College Students Make at the Laudrymat. https://festivalaundry.com/resources/6-common-laundry-mistakes-college-students-make-laundromat/

Sanci, E. (2023, September 19). Stop Using So Much Laundry Detergent. Wirecutter. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/stop-using-so-much-laundry-detergent/

 

Most would agree that, within young adults our society has reached a new low in life satisfaction. The rise of mental illness concerns and lack of hope can be contributed to any number of things, a global pandemic during important formative years, high cost of living, an ultra-competitive job market, all leaving the younger millennial and Gen-Z generations with greater levels of stress and mental health concerns than ever. A recent post by the Guardian explored the viewpoints of multiple generations on the state of mental illness in Gen-Z. One psychologist emphasized that Gen-Z is struggling to find things to look forward to. There was undeniably an underlying lack of hope for a stable and satisfying life contributing to increased mental illness and burnout within younger generations. Professionals within the Guardian article highlighted the shift in values of the younger generations to better work-life balance, yet less prospects for anything of the sort to be achieved. 

It seems like an impossible task, curing entire generations of an underlying stress over their future, however I believe the slow living movement may be the societal shift that is vital to the well being of future generations. This movement emphasizes a shift away from the “busy” lifestyle we currently idolize in western society. Instead, it offers one where we prioritize satisfaction and the joys of daily life and community, rather than pursuing the highest salary or the largest home. The simplification of life and the slow living movement offers a way for the newer generations to cope with increasing cost of living, and the subsequent disconnectedness and anxiety that constant movement creates. There’s a strong historical significance of the movement, as before industrialization, most people lived a “slow” lifestyle. We were connected with nature, valued quality over quantity, and were completely “unplugged”. 

This lifestyle offers benefits for mental and physical health, and the health of the environment. DE-Influencing is a trend that has begun to touch on the heart of this movement, emphasizing replacing items when they no longer serve the function they are intended to, rather than buying a new product for the purpose of doing something more efficiently or being aesthetically pleasing. This serves both the environment, as the sheer amount of waste entering landfills decreases, the carbon footprint of shipping and transporting goods is reduced, and natural resources like oil used to make plastics or water used to make jeans is considerably reduced. The slow living movement also emphasizes a connection with nature, suggesting cooking each meal with intention and sourcing food as locally as possible, with the potential to grow part of your own food. The movement away from fast food and time spent in nature gardening pose a variety of health benefits, reducing the risk of diabetes and heart disease while also having proven mental health benefits. Simply seeing the outdoors for an hour a day can have benefits to mental health, and help reduce the disconnected feeling that constant technology and extreme sensory inputs from indoor environments produce. When people are more educated about and connected with nature they almost always place a higher value on the environment, which trickles down into political and social decisions. On a large scale, the slow living movement may help us save not only younger generations struggling with their health, but the environment along with it. 

 

Works Cited 

 

Franco, Lara S, et al. “A Review of the Benefits of Nature Experiences: More than Meets the Eye.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Aug. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580568/. 

Solan, Matthew. “Taking It Slow.” Harvard Health, 1 Nov. 2022, www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/taking-it-slow. 

“What Is Slow Living & How Does It Correlate to Sustainability?” The Momentum, www.themomentum.com/articles/what-is-slow-living-how-does-it-correlate-to-sustainability. Accessed 19 Apr. 2024. 

“What’s up with Generation Z?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Mar. 2024, www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/03/whats-up-with-generation-z.

Carbon dioxide has been known to be one of the most prevalent reasons for climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels, with the concentrations in the atmosphere rising yearly due to human activities releasing more into the atmosphere than natural processes can remove. In 2023, the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 419.3ppm, which is 50% higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution (Lindsey, 2023). This is detrimental because carbon dioxide traps heat and redirects it towards earth, heating up the Earth and contributing to around 2/3 of the total heating influence of all greenhouse gases produced.

 

A way governments are attempting to counter this continuous rise in carbon emissions is by implementing a carbon tax, which is imposing a price on carbon emissions to mitigate the negative externalities created by greenhouse gas emissions (brookings.edu). In carbon pricing, there are two different main forms: emissions trading systems (ETS) and carbon taxes. An ETS is also known as a cap-and-trade system, which limits the quantity of pollution that can be produced, but then is also able to be traded to other entities (US EPA, 2016). This allows there to still be a cap but allows for flexibility for certain industries on their path. The other is a flat carbon tax, which essentially just taxes you based on the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. Currently, around 40 countries have implemented these mechanisms, with more planning to implement them in the future due to their success in reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy.

 

Putting a price on carbon is essential for continuing to reduce emissions, as it helps discourage companies from using fossil fuels, which will in turn help the environment. There is some pushback from certain companies about the implementation of a flat carbon price, but it has future uses other than simply costing more money. It is not only implemented as a climate policy but can also be used as an economic policy. The taxes paid for carbon allow the government to use more funding towards creating clean energy opportunities, helping eliminate the use of fossil fuels, as well as promote and scale other future climate mitigation efforts. Also, these taxes help incentivize companies to reach the United States long-term climate goals, as companies will search for alternatives that are less expensive.

 

A critic about carbon pricing is that the tax is too low to make much of a difference for the major contributors of carbon dioxide. Creating too high of a tax too early could drastically limit major companies’ ability to invest in renewable energy for the future, but implementing a tax too low would not incentivize industries to invest in renewable energy at all. Also, many large companies and people are fighting against the carbon tax, especially consumers. This is because goods and services that rely on carbon-intensive processes such as transportation, energy production, electricity, and heating can all raise in price (Why Putting a Price on Carbon Has Been Fraught with Difficulty, 2023). This leads to a negative public opinion towards carbon pricing. However, the implementation of carbon pricing has statistically proven to reduce the amount of carbon emissions put into the atmosphere (Jotzo & Burke, 2020).

 

 

As shown in the graph above, the countries that had no carbon price in 2007 have majority rising the carbon dioxide emissions growth, while virtually all of the countries with a carbon price show a decrease or equal amount of carbon dioxide emissions growth.

 

Overall, carbon pricing is a valuable tool that the government can utilize to help reduce carbon emissions, while also building a better future for generations to come. While there may be short term detriments, the long-term implications are beneficial both monetarily and environmentally. This pricing would speed up the building of renewable energy and help drastically reduce the effects of climate change in the future.

 

Resources

Jotzo, F., & Burke, P. (2020, September 4). Does carbon pricing work? This is what a new study found. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/carbon-pricing-study-emissions-global-warming-climate-change/#:~:text=Growth%20in%20annual%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions%20was%20about

Lindsey, R. (2023, May 12). Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Climate.gov; NOAA. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

US EPA. (2016, March 16). What Is Emissions Trading? | US EPA. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/emissions-trading-resources/what-emissions-trading

Why putting a price on carbon has been fraught with difficulty. (2023, November 3). Www.ft.com. https://www.ft.com/content/d91d6daa-a5bf-42fd-9a9b-24f86e3fbc6b

Plastic bags have become ubiquitous in our lives, from grocery stores to retail shops. But as convenient as they are, they have become a major environmental issue, contributing to litter, pollution, and a growing waste problem.

 

The numbers are staggering: It’s estimated that over 1 trillion plastic bags are used worldwide each year. [1] Around 100 billion plastic bags are thrown away annually in the United States alone. [2] The rest end up in landfills, oceans, and other natural environments, where decomposing takes hundreds of years.

 

Believe it or not, plastic bags are recyclable. But not in your typical recycling bin. They must be taken to a specialized facility for processing. These facilities are sparse in the United States. Municipal recycling plants don’t take plastic bags due to how expensive it is to recycle them. Many Americans are unaware that these bags cannot be recycled conventionally with the rest of their recyclables [3]. Only 1% of plastic bags end up getting recycled in America. [2] Both inaccessibility to recycling and lack of public knowledge have led to an abundance of bags being redirected from recycling facilities to landfills.

 

Recognizing the environmental impact, some states and municipalities have discouraged plastic bag usage by implementing fees or taxes on single-use plastic bags. For example, California imposes a minimum 10-cent charge for each plastic carryout bag provided by retailers. [4] Similar laws exist in Hawaii, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, and others.

 

The idea behind these charges is simple: By making plastic bags more expensive, consumers will be incentivized to bring their own reusable bags instead. The fees collected can go towards environmental initiatives or efforts to provide reusable bags.

 

But do these fees really make a difference?

 

Initially, the amount of plastic bag waste collected during trash clean-ups reduced. However, the number of plastic bags collected during cleanups has remained relatively flat since 2016. [3] The graph below shows this trend, with a dip in 2021, likely an effect of COVID. The type of plastic was not categorized before 2012.

The efficacy of the tax hinges on consumer behavior and attitudes toward convenience. For many individuals, the convenience of plastic bags outweighs the nominal cost imposed by the tax. Thus, while the financial incentive may deter some from opting for plastic bags, many consumers remain willing to pay a modest fee in exchange for convenience.

Ultimately, plastic bags are just one part of a much larger problem: our society’s reliance on single-use plastics and the lack of proper recycling and waste management systems. While plastic bag charges may help raise awareness and encourage a shift in consumer habits, more comprehensive solutions are needed to address the root causes of plastic pollution. This could include greater investment in recycling infrastructure, incentives for businesses to adopt more sustainable packaging alternatives, and a broader cultural shift towards embracing a more circular economy – prioritizing reusing and repurposing materials rather than disposing of them after a single use.

Even as we strive for systemic changes, individual actions can still make a difference. By making conscious choices to reduce our reliance on single-use plastics and seeking out environmentally friendly alternatives, we can collectively contribute to a more sustainable future. For instance, there is a way you can redirect some of your plastic bag waste here in Greenville. Some stores, such as Publix, accept plastic bags that they send to be processed at their facilities. So, if you forget your reusable bag, you can still clean your conscience. Contribute to the whopping 1% of plastic bags that really are recycled!

Sources:
[1] https://www.earthday.org/fact-sheet-plastics-in-the-ocean/
[2] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data
[3] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-24/whats-the-deal-with-single-use-plastic-bag-bans
[4] https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/plastics/carryoutbags

As I have begun to think more sustainably, a problem that I was recently prompted with was the issue of gift giving during holidays and its implications on sustainability. Gift-giving, especially during the holiday season of December, is such an integral part of American culture. In fact, the EPA estimates that waste goes up 25% during the holiday season (EPA). Growing up celebrating Christmas, I got plenty of gifts every year. I never really questioned this practice; I’ve always embraced it. That was, until, I was confronted with the harsh realities of how harmful consumerism really is for Earth and marginalized peoples across the world. Now, buying and receiving gifts inevitably comes with feelings of guilt. 

I don’t think anyone would deny the joy of giving and receiving gifts. It would be unreasonable, and frankly sad, if we just stopped giving gifts altogether. A shift must be made, rather, in how gifts are given. Upon thinking about this further I came to the conclusion that the two main options we have are as follows: making gifts and/or thrifting gifts.

Thrifting is a great option. Thrifting gifts gives us the peace of mind knowing nothing new is being made, it’s just reusing old stuff. Thrifting is especially relevant in the realm of fashion but it can apply to other items too. One can find empty picture frames, artwork, furniture, electronics, kitchenware, and more at thrift shops such as Goodwill. Goodwill’s manager of sustainability, Brittany Dickinson, claims that Goodwill receives billions of pounds of donations every year, so there are plenty of options to choose from (Chiu 2023)!

Making gifts is also a wonderful option. This year, instead of buying cards from the Hallmark store for Christmas, I decided to write notes with penCIL and paper. I found the process to be more enjoyable and more wholesome, really. In my personal experience, I like to receive notes as well. It’s always more meaningful to get something handmade as opposed to a generic card with a signed name. To me, it’s a demonstration of care. I think I will continue this tradition. When it comes to packaging the gifts I didn’t want to use wrapping paper. Solutions to the wrapping problem can come in many forms depending on the gift(s) you have. Some, like the North London Waste Authority, choose to wrap their gifts in re-usable fabrics using a traditional Japanese method known as furoshiki or opt out of the wrapping process as a whole and send their gift recipients on a scavenger hunt! I got one person a mug and some other small gifts so I was able to fit it all into the mug and the mug acted as a container to hold the gifts. I wrote a little card, folded it up and placed it inside the mug for a cute presentation! I think avoiding waste ultimately comes down to being creative and working with what you already have.

I think many people aren’t even aware of the harm that their shopping and consumerism has on the earth. Maybe upon learning this they’ll be inspired to change, as I was. The main point is that there are alternatives. Maybe not every gift can be thrifted or made but I’m sure out of all the gifts one gives in a year at least a few of them could. Ultimately, our culture as a whole must change, and this is just the beginning of that journey!

 

References:

Chiu, A. (2023, January 4). How to donate clothes without wasting them — and hurting the environment. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/01/04/how-to-donate-clothes-waste-environment/

 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Holidays. Archived from https://archive.epa.gov/students/web/html/holiday.html

 

North London Waste Authority. (n.d.). Eco-friendly Alternatives to Wrapping Paper. Retrieved from https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/article/eco-friendly-alternatives-wrapping-paper

Recently I watched the 2020 movie Sound of Metal. The film follows a metal drummer named Ruben as he battles with hearing loss. Ruben’s whole life is music. He lives in a van and tours the U.S. performing small shows in various cities with his bandmate and girlfriend, Lou. Years of touring and playing with no ear protection has permanently damaged his hearing. After disregarding doctors’ recommendation to stop drumming in order to preserve the hearing he has left, Ruben is left completely deaf. Because Ruben previously had issues with addiction, Ruben and Lou decide to part ways in order to allow Ruben to spend time in a deaf community designed for addicts to recover and become adjusted to their new lives.

I promise this is going somewhere.

As time goes on, Ruben puts in a lot of effort to become accustomed to his new life as a deaf person. He learns American Sign Language and takes on roles as a mentor and teacher in his community. But he cannot ever shake the feeling that he has lost a part of himself. He misses drumming. He misses Lou. He misses hearing. To try to regain these parts of his life, he sells just about all of his possessions in order to pay for cochlear implants. In doing this, he betrays the community he has built. Trying to “fix himself” goes against the community belief that being deaf is not a problem that needs fixing, merely it is a neutral thing that must be adapted to.

The cochlear implants do not work the way Ruben wants them to. They cause distortion in the way he hears sounds, making it easier, but still very difficult, to hear the world around him. Upon meeting back up with Lou, Ruben decides that she is better off without him, and leaves her again. The film ends with Ruben turning off his implants, sitting in a park, and solemnly reflecting on the choices he has made.

This movie is a great exploration of the choices we make, and how we must choose to live with and adapt to the consequences of not only our actions, but also the hands we are dealt in life. As I was watching it, I could not help but see a parallel in Ruben’s arc as a character, and the path we are all headed down in regards to climate change.

For years, he have been drumming with no ear protection. Simulations indicate that if mitigating strategies were done as late as the 1980s, global temperatures would be predicted to rise far less than what is being predicted now (Sanderson, 2020). We now know that climate change is an issue, yet we still continue to drum. As of 2021, none of the world’s largest economies had climate plans in place that aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement, an agreement made by many major countries to try and limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial numbers (Kottasova, 2021). Instead of adapting to the new world we will soon face, we are turning to technology in order to keep things the way we like them. We are constantly being told of technologies like carbon capture, a process that will come to save us all, when in reality, the technology will likely not do enough to solve the problem, with it not even being half as efficient as we had been promised it would be (Anthony, 2022). Much like cochlear implants, these changes will help, but not fully solve the issue like we wish they could. As a result of banking on technology, it seems like we do not really have a plan of how we will live when climate change starts wreaking havoc on our society.

We are at a fork in the road here. We could change the way we live in order to adapt to the challenges we are and are going to face. Continue being a part of the deaf community. Reduce emissions and consumption and live smaller lives. Or we could go get the cochlear implants, trust that technology like carbon capture will save us. We need to change the way we are thinking about our response to climate change. You can’t solve being deaf with technology, you learn sign language and adapt to the new life being deaf brings you. We won’t solve climate change with technology, we must, at this point, live smaller adapt to the new life it brings us.

Anthony, Leslie. “The Truth about Carbon Capture.” Canadian Geographic, Canadian Geographic, 5 Jan. 2023, canadiangeographic.ca/articles/the-truth-about-carbon-capture/.

Kottasová, Ivana. “Not a Single G20 Country Is in Line with the Paris Agreement on Climate, Analysis Shows.” CNN, Cable News Network, 16 Sept. 2021, www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/world/climate-pledges-insufficient-cat-intl/index.html.

Sanderson, B.M., O’Neill, B.C. Assessing the costs of historical inaction on climate change. Sci Rep 10, 9173 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66275-4

As part of the Greenbelt course’s recent lifestyle project I experimented with vegetarianism. Although through the end of the experiment I did not continue with vegetarianism–I did rediscover a permanent staple in my diet: Sweet potato. This particular root vegetable is worthy of our collective adoration for a number of reasons I wish to relate. First, the sweet potato is part of an elite and mysterious group of transpacific edible flora. In fact, there is some anthropological evidence suggesting the sweet potato made the 5000 mile (8000 kilometer) trek from the Andes to the Highlands of New Guinea hundreds of years before Columbus’s voyage, probably by way of Polynesian sailors who (maybe) used the hardy vegetable for sustenance on these long voyages (Doucleff 2019).

“The sweet potato made three independent trips to Southeast Asia. The Polynesians probably introduced it in 1100 A.D. (red). While the Spanish (blue) and Portuguese (yellow) brought other varieties from the Americas around 1500” (Doucleff 2019).

From this evidence–and our own experience–we learn solutions to deeply situated problems of sustainability. That is, how do we reconcile, on the fronts of production and transportation, the simultaneous health crises of overconsumption, overnutrition, malnutrition, and undernutrition. Bovell-Benjamin writes, “Currently, in some developed countries, overnutrition rather than undernutrition presents a major public health challenge. However, from a global perspective, undernutrition, food insecurity issues, droughts, and limited agricultural technologies are major problems. In developing countries, many farmers are highly dependent on root and tuber crops, as contributing, if not principal, sources of food, nutrition, and cash income… The sweet potato… is high yielding and drought tolerant, with wide adaptability to various climates and farming systems.” Moreover, “the roots, leaves, and shoots [of sweet potatoes] are all edible” (Bovell‐Benjamin 2007). Sweet potato is filling enough to prevent its own overconsumption, and nutritionally dense enough to serve as a cheap staple in the diets of millions of people. Cartabiano et al. succinctly note: “Sweet potatoes are a convenient food to be used as a nutritional supplement in the diet of vulnerable people” (2022).

Furthermore, Afzal et al. recommend increased sweet potato production in order to encourage a variety of sustainable development goals. Goals, which importantly, seek to protect some of the most vulnerable people on the planet: [S]weet potato can contribute positively to reducing poverty by creating sustainable income generation opportunities for small farmers. This is due to its profitability, potential for biofuel production as a result of its high starch content, the selling of vines due to their high multiplication rate, low production costs due to low input requirements, and the potential for high yields” (Afzal et al. 2021). Afzal et al. goes on to note that studies of farmers in Uganda, Malawi, and Nigeria demonstrate the success of sweet potato production in increasing income for struggling farmers. Which further increases their access to food, clothing, medication, and education.

Afzal (2021) and Cartabiano (2022) both go on to note how incredibly understudied (and underappreciated) sweet potato is by academia and consumers. For me, I appreciate sweet potatoes for their decadence and sweetness. As individuals dedicated to sustainability, I think it is important that we find sustainable activities, hobbies, and foods that that feel decadent, relaxing, and fulfilling, that don’t also feel sacrificial and laborious.

With the development of technology, it has quickly grown harder and harder to refuse the temptations of products that can distract us from our human experience. Every December I am excited to see my Spotify Wrapped, which tells me how many minutes out of the year I have been trying to tune out the outside world. The past few years, I have listened to music for more than 100,000 minutes out of the year, which is equivalent to 70 days. While I love listening to music, I can’t help but wonder how many conversations or thoughts I could be having without headphones in my ears. I remember vividly listening to music during most high school and middle school classes. Globally, average time spent a week listening to music rose by nearly 10% to 21 hours a week (Yahoo). Music is often enjoyed more at lower lengths of listening, the absence of sound is just as important to the listening experience as the music is itself.

While it is hard to argue that listening to music is “bad”, it is easy to recognize how technology, more specifically, our smartphones have had a detrimental effect on our sense of community. Just walking around campus, half of the people walking around are staring at their phones. Have you ever had a conversation with someone who’s on their phone and you ask them a question and they never respond? It is infuriating. This behavior is normalized in today’s society and is likely a byproduct from the Covid lockdown and simply years being dependent on phones.

The Japanese term yutori is “a state with sufficiency and ease” and many Japanese citizens practice yutori by practicing efficient time management to ensure they will have time to show up early to wherever they are going. Once they get there, they simply grow accustomed to their surroundings and feel a deeper connection to the setting. While the average person spends 3 hours and 15 minutes on their phone, the Japanese spend less than half of this number. This is one thing that is lost in younger generations’ culture. Everyone is constantly stimulated by different forms of technology and this makes me wonder exactly what both the negative effects could be and what we could be missing. (Yamashita) (Exploding topics)

General awareness and lack of stimulation tie in directly with sustainability solutions. A large driver of consumption is convenience and not having to think twice before discarding an item. A lack of awareness also contributes to a disconnection to the natural world: not only the appreciation of beautiful landscapes but also the everyday rhythms of nature like the sun setting, birds singing, or the wind blowing. These things can appear unimportant to the human experience but so much is lost in constantly hindering your senses.

Getting caught up in technology allows us to forget the basic human experience and that all we truly need is food, water, and shelter. A minimalistic approach should always be taken when possible to discourage waste and tie in a deep passion for sustainability and environmental issues. In a world where we are inventing VR masks to deprive of us all of our natural senses, we must remember what it means to truly be a human living in the world.

 

Sources:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/time-spent-listening-music-continues-000100578.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMI3_n30mHtAFigdvTyr4iRybs92AXNVLHzUQbIYgEWJFn1lp3LBJIN1Taui53-q7dC5f-bkadyb9aWXaVpwmaXP1lrgvzsYQC19Pqm-bwPaUspmCkffj2kknclPtrH8_3Nyv_eJl0LMonj7OhrfUinfY8cmabNj9mdvLO6JrIjA

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-5884.00180#:~:text=Accord%2D%20ing%20to%20the%20Japanese,such%20as%20finance%20and%20time.

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/smartphone-usage-stats

When I am told to talk about sustainability, typically, I take the cynical route. Everything’s bad, the government is irredeemable – I don’t regret this, and I think other people should follow suit. But my cynicism isn’t without hope! It is precisely because I have such a shining image of what people can be that I am so critical of the current state of things. My deep despair doesn’t leave me immobilized, but rather pushes me to do all I can to change the world – often to the detriment of my health. But that’s beside the point! I’d like to show you all what keeps me going.
Best case scenario, what does sustainable living look like? Close your eyes and let’s imagine… let’s say, we have all of the big problems solved. The world’s wealthiest, responsible for the vast majority of the world’s environmental degradation (Wiedemann et al. 2020) are taken care of – or at least their wealth is. PPM CO2 is slowly decreasing, and the global average temperature, around 1.4 degrees celsius, is falling with it. Material throughput, a good proxy for ecological pressure, (Hickel et al. 2022), has plummeted, and the remaining economic activity that exists is used to meet needs within the limits of the planet.
The first thing you notice is that you are working less – a lot less. In order to reduce material throughput and carbon emissions, we need to work less. And if we reduce working hours and implement a job-sharing program, a job guarantee with a living wage, and universal services, then we can work less while not sacrificing, or even improving our economic well being (Hickel 2021). If there’s less stuff to do, we have more people to do less stuff – we just have to all share the jobs leftover, and as long as all the work is used to meet people’s needs, then we should be better off than we were before. So, from our perspective, sustainable living isn’t about what you can do, but what you don’t do.
And we can take this lesson with us even today, if you’re willing to open your eyes to our sad world for a second. It’s not about what product you buy, it’s not about what hip green label is on the package – it matters that you don’t buy. And what or how much you do and don’t buy is determined what the thing you buy is made for. If it’s made to meet your needs reliably for a long period of time, then buy it, sure! But if it’s made to sell en masse, then maybe think twice. Before you know it, it’ll break, and the “need” it was made to meet will get you itching to buy it again. If we understand material throughput as the problem, then the issue shifts from how you buy to how much you buy. Imagine a world where our things last longer – is that so radical? Of course, entropy exists, but nowhere in the laws of thermodynamics does it say that our iPhones have to be outmoded every four years. Nowhere in the laws of thermodynamics does it say that if the monitor on your car malfunctions you have to get an entire new car. And the laws of thermodynamics definitely don’t say that single-use anything should come before reusable goods. If things are made to be better, longer lasting, and to meet our needs effectively, then we help ourselves and the planet at the same time. But – this undermines the profit motive. Best-sellers are fragile and addictive – business models that create scarcity win the market. This dynamic is best seen in the tragedy of the Instant-Pot, the product that failed because it was too good, too long lasting, and thus too unprofitable (Mull 2023).
This is why a utopian, sustainable future can be difficult to comprehend for us in our late-stage capitalist lives. A sustainable future is a decommodified future. A sustainable future isn’t a future where we all work the right jobs and buy the right things, but a future where we work less, buy less, and live more because of it.
 

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature communications, 11(1), 3107.
Hickel, J., O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., & Zoomkawala, H. (2022). National responsibility for ecological breakdown: a fair-shares assessment of resource use, 1970–2017. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(4), e342-e349.
Hickel, J. (2021). What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations, 18(7), 1105-1111.
Mull, A. (2023, June 14). The Instant Pot Failed Because It Was a Good Product. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/06/instant-pot-bankrupt-private-equity/674414/

 

Sea glass, with its smooth, frosted, and vibrant appearance never ceases to capture the attention beach goers. You would never think this mysterious beauty was once discarded trash. The “trash” in this case would be glass of any kind; bottles, jars, windows perhaps, etc. Before the environmental movements in the 1960’s, trash dumps were often left exposed to the elements. As much of this trash was left near different types of bodies of water glass (amongst other things) would be carried away. After this, glass would undergo an incredible transformation from natural causes. Waves would sweep away glass fragments as they would slide and roll against the gritty sand underwater. This action caused the sharp edges to become round and soft and eventually creates that clear or frosted look. The environmental impact of sea glass is a double edged sword as it has both positive and negative effects. One the one hand, sea glass can contribute to other litter found on or around beach areas. It can also be seen as a pollutant because the different glass particles can break down into nano or micro-sized glass/materials. The size of these particles can easily get mixed in with our water and food cycle. This can possibly start a movement through the food chain so to speak. The micro particles could contaminate the soil ecosystem, effecting plant life. Then that can contribute to having an impact on different sea creatures which could eventually make its way to be human food. That being said, there currently seems to be a decline in sea glass, as single use plastic materials are starting to take over. There has been a boom in single use plastics an alternative to using glass bottles or other glass materials. This might cause a “shortage” or make it harder to find sea glass in the future which can lead to yet another environmental impact with micro plastics. That being said, there are some positive sides to sea glass. The biggest one being glass can always be recycled! Sea glass serves as a natural, recycled material, creating a wide variety of different uses for it. You will find that sea glass tends to be most popular in the production of jewelry. When jewelers choose to use sea glass they are replacing using new, raw material, that would probably be more harmful towards the environment. This can also reduce the demand for other raw materials such as metals and gemstones. Another use for sea glass can be for decoration or even used in landscaping projects to replace pebbles, gravel, dirt, etc. This also helps reduce the need for raw materials that are not considered recyclable. Sea glass can be have a lot of different uses depending on how it is managed and or used for. Overall, although it has its negative aspects, the positives seem to outweigh them as sea glass is a beautiful recycled material that people love to pick up and keep for themselves, which in turn helps pick up litter!

Citations:

Weeden, L. (2023, September 28). Sea glass, a treasure formed from trash, is on the decline as single-use plastic takes over. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/sea-glass-a-treasure-formed-from-trash-is-on-the-decline-as-single-use-plastic-takes-over-212666

What is the Environmental Impact of Sea Glass? (n.d.). Dejavudesigns.com. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from https://dejavudesigns.com/learn-about-sea-glass/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-sea-glass/

Kumari, S., Agarwal, S., & Khan, S. (2022). Micro/nano glass pollution as an emerging pollutant in near future. Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances, 6, 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100063