Month: September 2022

“What happens to poor people is never divorced from the actions of the powerful… control of lives is related to control of land, systems of production, and the formal political and legal structures in which lives are enmeshed.” – Harvard graduate, medical and poverty anthropologist, Dr. Paul Farmer.

The same political and social systems that continue to pollute the earth with unethical development and rampant demolition are simultaneously responsible for perpetuating an economic hierarchy that disproportionately damages poor communities for the benefit and comfort of the affluent (Brady 2017). 

Despite the frequent hegemonic portrayal of poverty as a consequence of laziness, in actuality, poverty is the result of numerous deliberate efforts to perpetuate the absence of power that initially forces a person into poverty. One out of every 10 people in Greenville, South Carolina live in poverty; Greenville is also in the top 10 places in the country with difficult or no economic mobility (United Way of Greenville).

The impacts of burning fossil fuels as the primary source of global energy disproportionately expose low-income, disadvantaged communities to hazardous waste and pollutants, despite the low proportion of energy that is consumed in those same areas. Anthropogenic air and water pollution starts and ends in poor communities, both within local city-level settings, and globally such as in Yemen and southeast Asia (Al-Ariki 2006). The poor citizens of every nation are at the greatest locational risk for disaster and adverse health consequences (Hekmatpour 2022).

Exposure to neurotoxic chemicals in early life and prenatal environmental conditions can cause permanent changes in brain structure, chemistry, behavior, and development (Weiss 2006). In addition to an array of confounding factors, the most significant risk factor for developing cancer, obesity, heart disease, and asthma is simply being poor for extended periods, due to the various consequences of food instability and prolonged stress on immunicity (Cellini 2009). Poverty is also the most significant indicator of childhood health complications, childhood mortality rate, and rates of childhood injury – both unintentional and intentional.

Furthermore, a recent Alabama study indicates that the likelihood of dying from these illnesses, in addition to all medical conditions, is much greater for poor individuals. In some cases, the mortality rate difference among children was more than 30% with an additional 9% increase for every 20 miles further from treatment locations (Hoppmann 2022).

 

“Where you live should not determine whether you live or whether you die” – Activist and philanthropist Paul David Hewson

As of 2020, the childhood poverty rates were as follows:

16% of children in America (US Census 2020), 

22.1% of children in South Carolina (Children’s Trust of South Carolina, 2020),

14.6% of people in Greenville (South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office 2020). 

Childhood malnutrition is a severe but frequent consequence of persistent poverty. In a biomedical study of the effects of poverty, Weiss, et. al indicate that malnourishment can make children more prone to worsened mental and functional health, and also contribute to lower academic receptiveness and retention (Weiss 2006). A 1994 study found that the health and educational disparities of poverty are correlated with cognitive deficits in children and an average of 3% lower IQ (Herrnstein and Murray 1994). However, this is not to be misconstrued that poor people are naturally not as smart as their affluent counterparts are. But rather, the physical inability to regularly meet health and safety conditions impacts their ability to perform within systems that are already pre-designed to disadvantage them. 

In fact, the Public American Education system policy of funding school districts via local property taxes demonstrates that it is not designed to support the socio-economic mobility of lesser-educated and disadvantaged students. This is why entire states, including South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama consistently rank poorly on the scale of National Education Standards. This is an example of the so-called “poverty trap” as described by a political science and public policy professor at Brown University (Allard 2019).

However, the impacts of poverty are not limited to the families and individuals actively experiencing it, but rather our current socioeconomic system will inevitably be the detriment of the Earth’s ecological and geographical health (Rohr 2022). Citizens are not able to take care of the earth until they are confident in taking care of themselves, and thus global sustainability is not achievable without the eradication of poverty.

But what exactly can be done to stop and reverse these centuries-old cycles of poverty? The answer is surprisingly simple: the implementation of sustainable alternatives are a powerful tool of poverty alleviation, starting with the improvement of home efficiency (Paul 2021). 

Rather than forcing significant lifestyle alterations or offering financial supplements, community outreach and activism should work alongside poor households to empower them to decide what sustainability efforts are compatible with their pre-existing lifestyle choices. Programs such as Furman’s Community Conservation Corps have proven highly effective at mitigating the elevated base costs of living that prevent economic mobility, especially within the common household. Offering a series of non-invasive sustainable implementations, such as weatherized insulation and high-efficiency light bulbs, would be most beneficially impactful without uprooting the preexisting traditions and lifestyles of these people (Lane 2018). 

A prevalent question of concern is: Who are we expecting to pay for these sustainability efforts? Well, the affluent are notorious for their elaborate investments and passive income methods, and yet, they fail to see the social profitability of investing in people and the ethical obligation to lessen the immediate consequences of their actions and choices. 

Nonetheless, with the economy in mind, the Ecological Modernization Theory (EMT) evaluates the potential costs of environmental and social crises in comparison to the cost of adopting more sustainable environmental and social systems (Filho 2021). They also evaluate the opportunity costs of employment sectors to conclude that after ecological and social crises have been relatively resolved the economy will be capable of growing without further widening the wealth gap.

Simply, poverty is unstainable. Poverty is not a mere lack of money, but rather a perpetual system established to prevent socio-economic mobility and reinforce cultural-political hierarchy. The worsening global climate conditions are only exacerbating the impacts of poverty, and these consequences are no longer conceptual or hypothetical. People are dying from being poor on a geo-political Earth that was not designed to allow them to live.

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is enough.” President Emeritus of Compassion International, Dr. Wess Stafford

 

References

Al-Ariki, A. 20 Mar. 2006. Environment, poverty and sustainability. Yemen Times (Sanaa, Yemen), sec. Health,  NewsBank: Access World News, infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=AWNB&docref=news/1107E218E0581338. Accessed 22 Sept. 2022.

Allard, S. 2019. Pathways: Poverty Traps. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways_Winter2019_Poverty-Traps.pdf 

Brady, D, Finnigan, R, & Hübgen, S. 2017. Rethinking the risks of poverty: A framework for analyzing prevalences and penalties. American Journal of Sociology, 123(3), 740–786. https://doi.org/10.1086/693678 

Brookings. April 2022. Lessons from the Village Enterprise development impact bond and beyond. Global Economy and Development. https://www.brookings.edu/events/breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty-through-innovative-finance/

Cellini, S, McKernan S, Ratcliffe, C, et. al. 2009. The dynamics of poverty in the United States: A review of data, methods, and findings. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(3), 577–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20337 

Children’s Trust of South Carolina. April 2022. Greenville County Child Well-Being Data Profile. https://scchildren.org/resources/kids-count-south-carolina/child-well-being-data-county-profiles/ 

Filho W, Lovren V, Will M, et. al. 2021. Poverty: A central barrier to the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 125, 96-104, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.020.

Hekmatpour P, Leslie CM. 2022. Ecologically unequal exchange and disparate death rates attributable to air pollution: A comparative study of 169 countries from 1991 to 2017. Environ Res. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113161. 

Hoppmann, A, Dai, C, Daves, M, et. al. September 2022. Persistent Child Poverty and Mortality in a Cohort of Children with Cancer in Alabama. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-0353. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36129811.

Lane, J, Kendrick, D, & Ellwood, D. April 2018. A Locally Based Initiative to Support People and Communities by Transformative Use of Data. USA Partnership on Mobility from Poverty. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/data_paper.pdf

Paul, D. February 2021. Merging the poverty and environment agendas. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/merging-poverty-and-environment-agendas 

Rogalsky D, Mendola P, Metts TA, et. al. August 2014. Estimating the number of low-income Americans exposed to household air pollution from burning solid fuels. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306709. 

Rohr J, Bakhoum S, Barrett C. et. al. August 2022. A planetary health solution for disease, sustainability, food, water, and poverty challenges. Gale in Context: Ecology, Environment & Conservation. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A713837653/GRNR?u=furmanuniv&sid=bookmark-GRNR&xid=8a105d65. 

United Way of Greenville. September 2022. Greenville’s Economic Mobility Model. https://www.unitedwaygc.org/impact/economic-mobility/

Weiss B, Bellinger DC. October 2006. Social ecology of children’s vulnerability to environmental pollutants. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9101. PMID: 17035129; PMCID: PMC1626436.

When we think about sustainability, it’s easy to let our minds jump to impressive, large-scale solutions like solar panels or massive environmental cleanup projects—and while these are all great things, I want to focus on something a bit smaller and closer to home: your kitchen. Although it may seem like changing how you prepare your meals might be insignificant, when considered on a large scale, people’s individual cooking practices actually have the ability to make a sizeable impact on our society’s sustainability, making this an area we should absolutely be focusing on. 

This impact largely comes down to the issue of food waste. The EPA reported in 2018 that the residential sector alone generated about 25 million tons of food waste, of which 66% was sent to landfills, contributing to rising levels of methane and other greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, solutions like composting diverted just 3% of that waste stream, which, while disappointing, nevertheless presents great potential for future improvement. 

Reducing food waste can be broadly divided into two categories: 1.) minimizing excess food purchased/cooked, and 2.) dealing sustainably with any remaining waste. 

First, to lessen the amount of extra food you might buy, consider making a detailed meal plan each week, including the specific amounts of ingredients you’ll need—this will help you avoid waste from preparing too much food. This is especially important for perishable items like fruits and vegetables, which often spoil if you don’t use them quickly. However, for more shelf-stable foods, such as flour or sugar, plan to buy these in bulk, cutting down on cost and minimizing your use of disposable packaging. You can even reduce the amount of food you need to buy in the first place by growing a small herb/kitchen garden, growing your own green onions, or making your own sourdough starter. 

Second, composting and similar strategies offer a great way to reduce the amount of waste, both food and otherwise, that you generate while cooking meals. Some waste is obviously unavoidable, but by composting food scraps, spoiled vegetables, tea bags, paper, and other biodegradables, you can decrease that waste stream significantly: a small compost bin is easy to maintain, and in addition to handling most biodegradable kitchen waste, it also produces nutrient-rich compost that you can use in a small garden like the ones mentioned above. Similarly, by using reusable containers for storage and leftovers, you can reduce your non-compostable waste as well—the more single-use plastics you can replace with multiple-use items (think glass, metal, and ceramic), the fewer items will ultimately end up in landfills.

Sustainable practices extend to even our smallest everyday activities, and because of this, you can make a difference simply by changing a few things about your normal routine. Start composting, grow a garden, or even make your own sourdough starter: plenty of helpful resources are available online, and although the changes you make may be small, you can make your lifestyle significantly more sustainable—all from the comfort of your own kitchen.

https://www.epa.gov/recycle/preventing-wasted-food-home

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2018_wasted_food_report.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#Landfilling

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-food-waste-infographic.pdf

Disclaimer: In my ten or so years of knitting and crocheting (mostly knitting, although these pictures are of recent crochet projects), I have not intentionally thought about the sustainability of these crafts until moving into the Greenbelt. By no means am I an expert, but I am slowly making adjustments in my practices. Most of the pictures I have included are crafted from acrylic yarn, although it was purchased from thrift stores or donated to me and I hope to improve this in the future.

Knitting itself is rather sustainable because it is a way to opt out of the unsustainable system of fast fashion. Fast fashion is a term that applies to cheaply manufactured clothing imitations of current—fleeting—fashion trends (Joy et al.). A quick Google search of the advantages and disadvantages of fast fashion raises concerns over water use, chemical pollution, CO2 emissions and textile waste (Niinimäki et al.).

By knitting, you can circumvent the frequently sub-par labor policies of fast fashion companies. Among the plethora of issues with the labor force in the fast fashion industry is child labor. Globally, an estimated 170 million children are somehow involved in fast fashion’s labor force (Buzzo and Abreu).

Another advantage of knitting is that it often allows us to decrease our environmental footprints by infrequently hand washing and line drying projects. This minimizes our water and electricity usage and the release of microplastic and/or fiber fragments into the water system and eventually the environment during washing, drying, and wearing (​​Periyasamy and Ali).

Aside from the built-in sustainable aspects of knitting, there are a variety of choices we can make to make our craft more sustainable. Be kind to the environment and choose a few of these ideas which easily mesh with your knitting styles to begin incorporating into your daily life. And remember, individual sustainability is all about finding green practices that can realistically fit into your routines, so be kind to yourself!

1 Source your knitting needles from thrift shops. If you cannot find what you are looking for there, then opt for metal or bamboo knitting needles, which last longer than plastic options. If you do not already have a set of circular knitting needles, consider investing in an interchangeable needle set. They can be quite pricey, but are an investment that means you will use less resources.

2 Use the yarn you already have in your stash before purchasing more. Frog* the WIP** that has been sitting on your shelf for the past few months and repurpose the yarn. If you have an outdated blanket you no longer use, frog it too. If—like all good little knitters—you do gauge swatches***, reuse the yarn. When you finish a project, save those yarn scraps for a beautiful scrap blanket or other mix-and-match, scrap-friendly projects. I cannot wait until I have enough scraps for a blanket!

3 Head to the thrift store to get some yarn on the dime while giving new life to something that might otherwise go to a landfill. In addition to finding second-hand skeins of perfectly usable yarn, you can frog thrifted sweaters to repurpose the yarn. Read about how this practice can become a side hustle here. You can also easily upcycle old t-shirts, bed sheets, and plastic grocery bags into yarn as well, although these will not work for all projects. If nothing else, swap yarn you do not plan on using with fellow knitters or arrange community yarn exchanges.

4 If a project requires first-hand yarn, then research the advantages and disadvantages of yarn fibers first. Eco-Stylist’s A Guide to the Most and Least Sustainable Fabrics is a helpful starting place. It can be difficult to get to the true ecological footprint of yarns because there is not a hard and fast rule. After choosing a sustainable yarn fiber that will suit the needs of your project, research the practices of the company before making a purchase. Explore EcoCult’s The Best Sustainable and Ethical Knitting Yarns For Your Next Project for a brief overview of reputable yarn sources. Remember, organic does not always mean environmentally-friendly or ethical; be skeptical of greenwashing. If you can afford to, then buy locally and participate in the slow yarn movement. Slow yarn is any yarn that has been handmade, hand dyed, or in some way embellished by a real person rather than a factory machine.

5 Look for opportunities to replace disposable products with knitted alternatives. For example, Swiffer covers, shower scrubbies, shopping bags, and gift wrapping can all be easily knitted to minimize resource waste. Spend a few hours scrolling through Pinterest for inspiration or swap ideas with your local knitting community. I hope to begin phasing out disposable products and replacing them with knitted alternatives during my time here in the Greenbelt and beyond to life after Furman.

6 Gift, donate, raffle, or sell finished objects that you do not use. Like all knitters, I am guilty of keeping far too many “love it too much to part ways” projects lying around. While living in the Greenbelt, I hope to make progress in this area by experimenting and embracing a zero-waste business model as much as possible.

This is by no means an extensive list, but hopefully gets those creative juices flowing on how we can tweak our knitting habits to become more sustainable and encourage our fellow knitters to reflect on their practices as well.

 

 

For those unfamiliar with knitting terminology:

*Frog- Ripping out a project.

**WIP- Work in progress.

***Gauge swatch- A square piece of knitting completed before beginning a project that is meant to standardize the size of the finished product since knitting tensions, needles, and yarn interact uniquely.

 

 

Works Cited

“The Best Sustainable and Ethical Knitting Yarns for Your Next Project.” EcoCult, 6 Dec. 2021, https://ecocult.com/the-best-sustainable-and-ethical-knitting-yarns-for-your-next-project/.

Buzzo, Aline, and Maria José Abreu. “Fast Fashion versus Fair Trade and Labor Practices.” Fast Fashion, Fashion Brands and Sustainable Consumption, Springer, Singapore, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1268-7_1. Accessed 16 Sept. 2022. 

Gray, Kaitlyn. “A Guide to the Most and Least Sustainable Fabrics.” Eco-Stylist, 4 June 2022, https://www.eco-stylist.com/a-guide-to-the-most-and-least-sustainable-fabrics/.

Joy, Annamma, et al. “Fast Fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands.” Fashion Theory, vol. 16, no. 3, 21 Apr. 2012, pp. 273–295., https://doi.org/10.2752/175174112×13340749707123. Accessed 16 Sept. 2022. 

Justus, Evan. Blue Granny Square Blanket on Tractor. Accessed 16 Sept. 2022. 

Justus, Evan. Scrap Yarn Collection. Accessed 16 Sept. 2022. 

Justus, Kara and Carter Carter. Multicolor Granny Square Bandana. Accessed 16 Sept. 2022. 

Niinimäki, Kirsi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature Reviews: Earth and Environment, vol. 1, no. 4, 7 Apr. 2020, pp. 189–200., https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9. 

​​Periyasamy, Aravin Prince, and Ali Tehrani-Bagha. “A Review on Microplastic Emission from Textile Materials and Its Reduction Techniques.” Polymer Degradation and Stability, vol. 199, May 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109901. 

Singh, Rupa. “Sustainability Side Hustle: Q+A with Recycled Yarn.” Honestly Modern, 24 July 2022, https://www.honestlymodern.com/sustainability-side-hustle-recycled-yarn/.