Furman Greenbelt Sustainable Living Community

The fast fashion industry is a huge problem in the United States. But what is it? Fast fashion is described as clothes that are trendy for the time but are designed to not last long and fall apart easily so that the consumer has to buy more (L. Payne 40). Sophia Han describes it, saying that “the very purpose of fast fashion is to pump out new designs and get rid of the old, it encourages consumers to abandon products after only a few wears, solely because it is ‘out of style’” (15). There are many problems with this, both environmentally and socially, making this a sustainability issue.

On the environmental side of fast fashion, pollutants are emitted every step of the way in the fashion manufacturing process. Nidhi et al. discuss a few of the environmental problems that fast fashion creates. They write that “the apparel business is acknowledged as one of the most polluting due to its high energy and water consumption, usage of chemicals, and worker abuse” (7). The textile manufacturing process generates chemical pollution, water pollution, and CO2 emissions and as the fast fashion industry becomes increasingly popular, these pollutants only grow, and environmental health worsens.

There are lots of benefits to thrifting. It helps the environment by not buying new clothes and reusing discarded ones and provides affordable clothing to those in need. I personally enjoy thrifting a lot. I now solely buy clothing from thrift stores, other secondhand opportunities, and sustainable sites. It can be difficult to find what you need sometimes, but for general clothing shopping I find it very useful. I also get a little boost of confidence whenever I purchase a thrift that I am helping the environment by diverting something that would be waste. I also do not throw away my clothing at the first sign of wear and tear. Mending clothing and following the tag recommendations of items is a good way to keep clothing intact and with you for the long haul.

Another way to sustainably purchase clothing is to shop locally. This more so tackles the social problems with fast fashion. Fast fashion industries like H&M, GAP, and more famously, Shein historically exploit their workers for the fashion industry. Han explores this exploitation, saying that over 540 workers for fast fashion companies such as H&M and GAP have reported being threatened and harassed in their workplace. Han also comments on the abuse from Shein. “Consumers have found messages embedded in their SHEIN tags, reading ‘Help me,’ ‘Send Help,’ ‘SOS,’ ‘I have dental pain,’ and ‘Need your help.’ SHEIN denies all claims of cries of help by attributing these concerning messages to mistranslations.” (2). Despite these abusive practices, fast fashion continues to be a major industry. Karan Khurana S. S. Muthu also write about the disparity between the price of fast fashion and the wage of the employees creating it. “The Clean Clothes Campaign in their research found that the workers’ wages represent only a fraction of what consumers pay for the clothes” (296). Shopping locally means that the clothes you buy do not have this abuse tied to them. The clothing was made locally and not by low-income communities that suffer mistreatment.

Thrifting and buying locally can easily be implemented in everyone’s life. And if not that, simply looking into how the clothing you purchase was manufactured and how sustainable the process is can contribute to sustainability efforts. It may not be the solution to all the clothes in one’s closet, but if the majority of everyone’s clothing was bought in a sustainable way, the fast fashion industry may become obsolete and could positively impact the environment and social equity.

All the photos feature all clothing that I have thrifted or gotten second hand another way.

Han, Sophia. “Shein: Shady or Savvy?” Teen Ink, vol. 37, no. 7, Apr. 2023, pp. 14–15. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=162986249&site=ehost-live. 

Khurana, Karan, and S. S. Muthu. “Are Low- and Middle-Income Countries Profiting from Fast Fashion?” Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, vol. 26, no. 2, Apr. 2022, pp. 289–306. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.libproxy.furman.edu/10.1108/JFMM-12-2020-0260.  

Nidhi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” International Journal of Applied Marketing & Management, vol. 7, no. 2, July 2022, pp. 6–12. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=161368497&site=ehost-live. 

Payne, Leah. “Don’t Fall for Fast Fashion: PROBLEMS WITH–AND SOLUTIONS TO–OUR SHOPPING ADDICTION.” Alive: Canada’s Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, no. 462, Apr. 2021, pp. 39–44. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awh&AN=149793862&site=ehost-live. 

There is imminent urgency surrounding the environmental crises regarding plastic waste. Plastic waste, stems from either single use products to more complex packaging materials. This has posed as an every growing threat towards different eco-systems and environments such as marine life, and human health. Because of the billions of tons of plastic waste discarded, it leads to contamination of oceans, soil, etc. leading to a never ending cycle of environmental degradation. Exploring different sustainable solutions is important so we can mitigate the plastic waste issue and safeguard our planet. One extremely cool sustainable solution is turning that discarded plastic into shoes!

Have you ever taken a look at the tag in the back of your shirt or on the inside of your shoes? It is somewhat of an ingredient list but for clothes! One of the main ingredients you might find is polyester. Plastic water bottles also happened to be made out of the same substance as polyester: polyethylene terephthalate. This means that manufacturers can create the same type of fabrics they usually would with polyester, but with plastic! The process of this starts with collecting preferably clear plastic water bottles that way they can be dyed into other colors later on. The clear bottles are then cleaned and put through a shredding machine so the plastic can be cut down to about the size of a fingernail. The flakes are broken down even further into a pellet size and melted into filaments. The filament fibers are then spun into thread.

Some might think that since this is such a large, daunting process, that there is no way it could be more sustainable than just using regular polyester. However, the truth is recycled polyester (from plastic) produces 75% fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to trying to make new polyester material. To make new polyester fabric you would need to start with coal, petroleum, air and water. Those materials then have to go through an extremely high heat process to go through a chemical reaction. This uses up a lot of energy and natural resources, as well as adds more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

That being said, being able to use plastic waste (such as clear plastic water bottles) is better for the environment overall.  It takes about 9 water bottles to make one T-shirt and 11 water bottles to make one pair of shoes! This sounds great considering how much plastic waste is around the world. However, people must put their plastic waste into recycle bins instead of their trash or littering. Recycled polyester is a very useful and interesting way of keeping plastic waste out of our oceans, landfills, and other ecosystems. There are several name brand companies that use this method to make their shoes. Adidas and Soala Shoes are a couple of examples of companies who have used recycled plastic water bottles to make their shoes! There are a number of different and innovative ways everyone can make sustainable differences in the world starting with easiest one: recycling!

https://saolashoes.com/blogs/news/plastic-shoes-made-from-recycled-plastic-bottles

https://www.adidas.com/us/blog/639412-how-we-turn-plastic-bottles-into-shoes-our-partnership-with-parley-for-the-oceans

https://www.acs.org/education/outreach/celebrating-chemistry-editions/2022-ncw/bottle-becomes-a-shoe.html

Over the past decades, there has been a large rise in popularity for stadiums. They have become prominent figures across various sports and concert venues. However, the construction of all these stadiums can raise some concerns about the environment and the impact on it. First, the construction of stadiums is harmful, because the harvesting of materials such as concrete and steel causes deforestation, depletes resources, and raises carbon emissions. Also, maintaining stadiums that have fields can also be a tricky issue, and can be the cause of misused water.

However, some of the most important environmental impacts come from outside of the stadium. Before and after events, there is a slow line of cars leaving the stadium, which causes many idling cars to emit unnecessary amounts of CO2. Also, before the game there are many people that are tailgating, where many people fire up their grills. All these factors are detrimental to the air, as the pollutants caused before the game cause pollution spikes that are 20 times over the moderate air quality level. This is a huge issue, which sometimes cannot be avoided due to the size of the stadium and the number of people.

One of the other biggest issues with stadiums is the amount of waste produced. For example, the EPA reported that 50 to 100 tons of waste is produced at an average college football game. While this may seem like a huge amount, you could play it off as there being a very large crowd at these games. However, this is heavily due to the incorrect usage of recycling opportunities and composting. Many stadiums have started learning to implement recycling bins more recently, but waste is still a huge issue within stadiums. Also, many stadiums draw on huge sums of power, as they require large amounts of lighting, and are not very sustainable overall.

While some issues cannot be changed outside of the stadium (car pollution and tailgating), there are big changes that can occur within the stadium. Stadiums should increase their accessibility to recycling, as even recycling bins around the corner of trash cans can help eliminate a large amount of waste. Recently, I was at a football game in Atlanta, and had the pleasure of visiting the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. The Mercedes-Benz Stadium has achieved Zero Waste, which is when they divert 90% or more of waste away from the landfill. They achieved the LEED Platinum Certification, being the first professional sports venue in the entire USA to achieve it. This means its sustainability measure represents the pinnacle of sustainability. While I was there, I noticed that all their concessions sold were only compostable or recyclable, and that the bins shown had very clear signs (as seen below). Also, they have solar panels lined around their roof, canopies, parking lots, and entrances. They provide around 1.6 kilowatt hours of renewable energy a year.

While general environmental challenges will always persist, many stadiums should start implementing sustainable practices such as the Mercedes-Benz stadium has shown is possible. These will help offset the issues outside the stadium and allow for a more sustainable future in stadiums; and it will help mitigate the environmental impact.

CleanRobotics. “The Problem with Stadium Recycling and Waste Management.” CleanRobotics, 18 Nov. 2022, cleanrobotics.com/the-problem-with-stadium-recycling-and-waste-management/#:~:text=EPA%20reports%20that%20an%20average%20college%20football%20game,are%20among%20the%20biggest%20and%20most%20crowded%20places.

Contributor, Guest. “America’s Leading LEED Certified Stadiums and Arenas.” askHRgreen.Org, 23 Apr. 2018, askhrgreen.org/americas-leading-leed-certified-stadiums-arenas/.

Filipeboni. “Understanding LEED Certification Levels.” UGREEN, 9 Aug. 2023, ugreen.io/understanding-leed-certification-levels/#:~:text=LEED%20Platinum%20is%20the%20highest%20level%20of%20certification%2C,most%20innovative%20and%20advanced%20green%20building%20strategies%20available.

Gosalvez, Emma. “Sport and the Environment: What Is the Connection?” College of Natural Resources News, 6 Nov. 2020, cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2020/11/sport-and-the-environment-what-is-the-connection/.

“Sustainability at Mercedes-Benz Stadium: Leaders in Zero Waste.” Sustainability at Mercedes-Benz Stadium | Leaders in Zero Waste, www.mercedesbenzstadium.com/sustainability#:~:text=Mercedes-Benz%20Stadium%20is%20designed%20to%20be%20extremely%20energy,campus%2C%20is%20equipped%20with%204%2C000%20solar%20PV%20panels. Accessed 30 Nov. 2023.

Sustainable cities are the future of urban development, and they hold the key to tackling pressing environmental challenges while ensuring a high quality of life for their residents. According to the NRDC, sustainable cities are built on three core principles: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving resources, and promoting resilience. As we look ahead to the future, it is clear that sustainable cities will undergo transformative changes.

One of the key aspects of sustainable cities in the future will be a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. These cities will prioritize renewable energy sources, such as solar power and wind energy, to meet their electricity needs. They will also encourage the transition to electric vehicles, with an extensive network of charging stations and efficient public transportation systems. By adopting these measures, sustainable cities will not only combat climate change but also improve air quality and reduce noise pollution.

Another crucial element of future sustainable cities will be the conservation of resources. To achieve this, innovative technologies will play a vital role in optimizing resource efficiency. Buildings will be designed to be energy-efficient and equipped with smart systems that monitor and regulate energy consumption. Furthermore, sustainable cities will implement waste management strategies that emphasize recycling and composting, aiming to minimize landfill contributions. Through these practices, sustainable cities will promote a circular economy, reducing waste and preserving natural resources.

Sustainable public transit is a crucial component of a climate-friendly transportation system, as highlighted by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s focus on climate action and sustainability. According to the U.S.D.O.T., investing in sustainable public transit not only helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also offers numerous benefits for communities across the United States. Looking towards the future, sustainable public transit will undergo advancements that prioritize environmental responsibility and enhance the overall transportation experience.

In the coming years, sustainable public transit systems will prioritize electrification. By transitioning from traditional fossil fuel-powered buses and trains to electric vehicles, cities can significantly reduce their carbon footprint. Electric public transit not only eliminates direct emissions from vehicles but also offers quieter, smoother, and more reliable transportation options for passengers. Additionally, the infrastructure supporting these electric vehicles, such as charging stations and smart-grid technology, will continue to evolve and become more efficient. This focus on electrification is an essential step towards achieving a greener transportation system and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels.

Moreover, future sustainable public transit systems will also embrace innovative technologies to improve efficiency, accessibility, and user experience. Intelligent transportation systems will be implemented to optimize route planning, reduce congestion, and minimize travel times. Integration of mobile applications and real-time data will provide commuters with accurate information about bus or train schedules, reducing waiting times and improving overall convenience. Additionally, sustainable public transit will prioritize inclusive design, making public transportation accessible to all individuals, regardless of physical abilities. By considering the diverse needs of passengers, these systems will foster social equity and inclusivity within the transportation network.

U.S. Department of Transportation. “Climate Action.” Transportation.gov, www.transportation.gov/priorities/climate-and-sustainability/climate-action.

National Resources Defense Council. “Sustainable Cities.” NRDC, www.nrdc.org/issues/sustainable-cities#overview.

The concept of a “walkable community” has picked up palpable steam in several channels across the internet recently. While the common or expected reason to reduce the foothold that car-centered infrastructure has on American cities would be the effect on the physical environment, there are a growing number of individuals supporting it for the sake of their social environments. Increasingly, I am seeing a longing for community within younger populations on social media. This led me to the realization that environmental goals do not have to come at the cost of comfort and lifestyle in the way that they are marketed. To achieve more sustainable communities and reduce our footprint on the planet’s environment, it is valuable to build and promote infrastructure that condenses living spaces and increases accessibility to necessary resources.

As the name suggests, walkable communities are places that prioritize the accessibility of goods and services on foot. This can include basic group transportation such as trolleys and buses, but for the most part, the idea is to be able to walk to your needs if able. This style of city holds a number of benefits for the citizens and the environment alike. For the environment, less paved roads and more paved sidewalks improve microclimates that heat cities and raise the need for air conditioning. On top of this, walkable cities minimize land use which leaves more room for animal and plant populations to thrive. For the citizens, commutes shorten, and the entire community is able to live in a much more engaging and vibrant environment including more common use of parks and town squares. Also, they promote more quiet communities as there are fewer automobiles and large vehicles.

College campuses highlight a key example of creating efficient an effective walkable communities. They are required, in most cases, to provide basic necessities to students of all backgrounds. Those without automobiles are encouraged to find other means of transportation. According to some experts, American college campuses can be used as a model for creating and implementing walkable practices.

Since I was born in Atlanta, Georgia, I know all too well the horrors of daily commutes. They contribute to stress and a sedentary lifestyle. I believe that more cities should invest in the walkability of their communities. Between the younger populations that are becoming increasingly focused on building community and the sake of the planet’s environment, these types of cities would improve the economic and mental conditions of this country’s citizens as well as aid it in achieving environmental and sustainability goals. Atlanta, for one, would greatly benefit from less angry drivers.

Steuteville, Robert. 2021. “Ten Environmental Benefits of Walkable Places.” CNU. August 31, 2021. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/08/31/ten-environmental-benefits-walkable-places.

‌Maciag, Mike. 2013. “The Most Walkable Cities and How Some Are Making Strides.” Governing. Governing. 

December 11, 2013. 

https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-most-walkable-cities.html.

https://www.bupipedream.com/author/klee216. 2022. “The Walkability of College Campuses Should Be Mirrored in U.S. Cities.” Pipe Dream. 2022. https://www.bupipedream.com/opinions/133103/the-nostalgia-that-many-americans-have-for-their-college-years-can-be-tied-to-the-walkability-of-college-campuses-compared-to-most-towns-and-cities-in-the-united-states-college-campuses-are-highly-w/.

‌

‌

It’s getting tough to not think we are headed for apocalypse. With meaningful change on a global policy level seeming less and less likely as our political system continues to stall in arguments over whether climate change exists or not, society’s future is looking grim. In a rather pessimistic (but maybe a better term is realistic) for the New Yorker, writer Jonathan Franzen says that: “You have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it (Franzen, 2019). Now, Franzen is no scientist, but he seems to be capturing the narrative that our generation has been fed for years now: Unless we do something about it, everything will be wiped out by climate change.

This is sort of a brutal thing to deal with. In the past year alone, I’ve heard the term “climate anxiety” thrown around almost as much as the topic of climate change. Most of us are terrified of what is coming for us. This anxiety is not encouraged by the world momentarily crossing the critical threshold of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures while I was gathering information for this journal (Ray, 2023). We can’t even really grasp what truly is coming for us. In the absence of legislative change, we are sort of left hoping for a mysterious technological advancement that will save us all. What we are waiting for in the face of the potential apocalypse, is a “deus ex machina”, a literary term describing a plot device that swoops in at the end of the narrative and solves all problems (Methmann, 2012).

What will this look like? It is sort of impossible to imagine what this deus ex machina may look like. Certain movies have tried. Though they are not to be looked at as scientific models for what to do, seeing as they are fiction, there are three movies that come to mind that show technological “solutions” to the apocalypse we may soon face: WALL-E, Interstellar, and Snowpiercer.

First off, there is WALL-E. It is probably not a bas assumption to make that we’ve all seen this movie, as it was one of the defining movies of our collective childhoods. The climate disaster world WALL-E imagines is that of a world filled with uninhabitable amounts of pollution, with humans leaving Earth to board a spaceship in an attempt to leave for a while and come back when the Earth is more livable. Society has vastly changed while aboard the spaceship, with all people being immobile without the assistance of machines, all of them still consuming in large quantities, this time without any of the repercussions. In their place on Earth, a race of robots is left, with their task being to package and dispose of all the waste left behind. Centuries after the humans first left, WALL-E, the last of the earth-roaming robots, and EVE, a robot sent to evaluate life on Earth, to alert the humans aboard the spaceship of a plant that has grown on Earth’s surface, signaling that the planet can now sustain life again. The movie ends with the humans returning to Earth in hopes of re-starting civilization.

Next, we have Interstellar. This film centers on Cooper, a former pilot for NASA who is tasked with finding another inhabitable planet for humans after poor agricultural practices and lack of regard for the environment send humanity into a second, much larger Dust Bowl. The only crop that can be grown is corn, and even this will not last long. Cooper, along with three other astronauts, are forced to leave their lives and families behind in order to find a more suitable home, bringing a civilizations supply of human embryos with them. While Cooper does this, his daughter, Murph, works on a long-abandoned gravity formula that will allow the humans currently living on Earth to continue on the new planet. Due to a combination of love and black hole induced time dilation, the formula is solved, allowing for humanity to continue in tact.

Last on our climate movie watchlist is Snowpiercer. In this movie, in an attempt to combat global warming, world governments released CW-7, a cooling agent, into the air, causing the world to freeze over, killing almost everything. The only people left are those who boarded the Snowpiercer, a train that is fully self-sustaining. The train has a strict caste system set in place in order to “maintain order”. The movie centers on Curtis Everett, a man from the back of the train trying to push his way to the front to establish equality. The movie ends with Curtis deliberately blowing up the train in order to stop the system of injustice. Two children survive, going outside to discover that temperatures are now survivable.

So what can we learn? Well, first off, we have to prevent the apocalypse before it happens, because the worlds of all of these films seem horrific, and should be avoided at all costs. Second, and more important to my point, it seems that the message of these movies is to sort of wait the crisis out, hoping that technological advancement will eventually save us. Whether it’s a shockingly adorable robot, a magic formula for gravity, or a train that lets us wait out the disaster, each of these films has some sort of technology that leads to the hopeful salvation of humanity. These movies however, are all science fiction, and ambitiously unrealistic ones at that. The “wait for technology to save us” approach will not work in real life. There’s no funny robot to get rid of our issues. There will be no convoluted formula about gravity. There won’t be a train that can sustain humanity. We’ve got to do something to stop the climate disaster before it happens. There’s no deus ex machina at the end for us. That only works in the movies.

Franzen, Jonathan. “What If We Stopped Pretending?” The New Yorker, 8 Sept. 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending.

Methmann, C., & Rothe, D. (2012). Politics for the day after tomorrow: The logic of apocalypse

in global climate politics. Security Dialogue, 43(4), 323-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612450746

Ray, Siladitya. “Global Temperatures Briefly Crossed Critical Threshold For The First Time Last Week.” Forbes, 20 Nov. 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/11/20/global-temperatures-briefly-crossed-critical-threshold-for-the-first-time-last-week/?sh=170fa629368e.

My home city of Tega Cay, South Carolina is known for its historical charm and luscious trees. In fact, the city flag depicts a pine tree which represents this reputation. This is ironic to me, as my town has increasingly favored the economy over nature and wildlife. Not to mention, there are more subdivisions than trees. It was not always this way. Several changes have been made over the past few years. While I was not happy with the state of our environmental policies in the past, they are preferable to the current state of things.

Every time I return home, there’s a new policy in place that only seems to take my town backward. Last year, during my first visit, I was met with a particularly distressing change. It is now $10 per month to continue recycling pick-up each week. This was announced on the city’s Facebook page. There were three options presented in a telling fashion. Below is the graphic posted on the city’s page.

The first option listed is to discontinue your recycling pickup entirely. The second is to pay $10 monthly for an entirely new trash can to adjust for the additional recycling waste that now must be thrown away. The third is to continue recycling, for the low price of $10 a month. I find the order of alternative options to be quite telling. The options are listed in order of convenience, based on time and money. It is convenient for people to not worry about recycling anymore. The cost for pick-up recycling is in line with those for Spotify, Netflix, and other entertainment services. Most people would prioritize their own entertainment over recycling, understandably. It is difficult to see any immediate benefit from recycling, whereas subscribing to an entertainment service has a clear and immediate benefit.

There is currently no location other than the Facebook page where you can find information about recycling policy. When navigating to the “Trash and Recycle” page on the city website, you are met with an error message. I find that this reflects the lack of care the city has for both communicating with its residents and promoting sustainable practices.

This problem is not only concentrated in my small hometown. Greenville County is dealing with its own recycling-related dilemma. Currently, recycling is only picked up within Greenville city limits. Citizens cannot pay a $10 monthly fee to get their recycling picked up; they have no choice but to stop recycling or haul it over to their nearest drop-off area. Furman is affected by this county-wide change and has opted to pay an outside contractor to pick up waste. Even with the trash and recycling pick-up in place, Furman still does not accept glass or many types of plastics for recycling. Only products labeled with a 1 or a 2 are eligible to be recycled.

What has been causing environmental initiatives to regress at this rate? The reasons are a lack of money and education. Several areas worldwide cannot afford to advance their current sustainable practices, much less keep them in place. Though, in many cases, the money is there for a city to utilize, leaders just wish to invest it in more profitable ventures (most of which include the destruction of the environment). Dealing with waste efficiently doesn’t have an immediate reward, making it unappealing to many. The idea of sustainability is to preserve what we have in the long term. If more people were conscious of the long-term in decision making, sustainable practices would be more prevalent around the country.

Sources:

County of Greenville, SC. (n.d.). https://www.greenvillecounty.org/solidwaste/CurbsideRecycling.aspx

Signature Waste. (n.d.). Tega Cay Account Setup. Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://signaturewaste.com/tegacay/

Trash and Recycle. (n.d.). Tega Cay South Carolina. Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://www.tegacaysc.org/995/Trash-and-Recycle

Esteemed adventurer and hero Chris McCandless wandered into the unforgiving wilderness of Alaska in April of 1992. Ditching all of his personal items and previous life, McCandless died of starvation in August of 1992. His legacy is frequently debated. Some believe him to be an idol: a brave soul who left society behind to find himself. Others believe him to be a fool: an idealistic, naïve man who underestimated the Alaskan wilderness.

My interpretation of Chris is defined by his conclusions of living off the land. Before his death, McCandless wrote “happiness is only real when shared.” (Azevado 2018) After removing himself from society, living off the land, and rejecting help from anyone else, his main take away was that what he was doing was not the answer to his troubled mind. In a day and age where the current generation is constantly being reminded of how troubled our future will be, these words stuck with me.

First picture shows difference of 18 years in arctic ice (ABC News), second picture shows the difference of 63 years in Alaska (NASA). 

The American Psychology Association (APA) defines eco-anxiety as “the chronic fear of environmental cataclysm that comes from observing the seemingly irrevocable impact of climate change and the associated concern for one’s future and that of next generations.” (APA 2023) My generation is far too familiar with political inactivity, systemic discrimination, and constant environmental degradation. The ignorance of the general public in the face of climate change can be so overwhelming that Chris McCandless’ philosophy of isolation seems enticing.

Although McCandless’ abandonment of civilization was not in light of climate change, it was in light of his resentment of society and the materialistic values of a capitalistic system. Now applying Chris McCandless’ findings to the modern-day context of navigating a world that seems hopeless, we reach the conclusion that the answer is not a hut in the woods. The philosophy of isolationism in this case is selfish and cowardly and the only reason McCandless pursued this life was because—maybe only deep down—he had no intention of returning from the wilderness. What if McCandless lived a life of philanthropy and social connection rather than giving up completely? Would helping and connecting with others not spark introspection and acceptance? 

The only way through the problems we will inevitably face, is to tackle them together. After all, humans are, and always have been, social creatures. We must find a way to be less critical and egocentric, and more compassionate and empathetic to those who live their life in constant struggle.

Personally, as an SUS major, my eco-anxiety is lessened by the knowledge that I will always try my best as an individual to address these daunting and seemingly impossible tasks. One in my position must be able to reimagine and question every aspect of our modern-day life. This kind of positive thinking requires a certain fairy-tale, picturesque imagination that can see past the rigid societal structures to envision a world in which children will not have to have to walk miles for drinkable water, violent storms will not shake the foundations of homes, and coastal cities will not be washed away by destructive flooding.

The eco-cabins serve as a bridge between everyday people and habits that must be adopted to create a sustainable future. It has served as a symbol to the Furman community that we acknowledge the lasting effects of climate change and that we will commit ourselves to do everything we can to create a different life in the future. Most importantly, we do it together, as a community, rather than trying to conquer society’s biggest problems solo. 

Works Cited:

The Cabin we live in has a porch on the outside. Often, at the end of a long week, all I want to do is go and sit on the porch. I might read, listen to music or (my personal favorite) talk with some of my cabin-mates. It’s wonderful – being able to sit and do nothing, having the earned privilege of laziness after working tirelessly through the week. 

When living in South Housing, I didn’t get this opportunity. I remember waking up on a weekend and wishing for nothing more than a chance to just sit and do nothing, but the only option was an inhospitable “backrooms” corridor down the hall that didn’t even have a window, much less access to the open air and a gorgeous view. I would just go to breakfast, but to do that I had to shower, and if I showered I might as well start on my day, get my homework done, or if not, I would go drive to town to spend my time with friends getting food somewhere. Without an opportunity to expend my time uselessly, I fell into the endless cycle of productivity followed by high-energy leisure. 

This isn’t a “me problem.” This is a socio-economic problem. 

Since 1950, global resource use has increased steadily and exponentially (Steffan et al. 2015). The global economic system has pushed itself to an existential extreme, tearing apart the intricate systems that keep our world functioning. This dramatic increase is not strictly necessary for our survival – it is only the most wealthy that are responsible for the majority of our ecological overshoot (Wiedemann et al. 2020). From this it follows that we can feasibly reduce production, redirect existing production towards equitable distribution, and thus increase equality while reducing our global ecological footprint. One of the most popular means by which we can reduce material throughput is something that typical economists would scoff at – work-time reduction and increased leisure. If we work less, we can use less materials for production given the surplus is distributed equitably. 

BUT, it is crucially important that our leisure time is spent doing non-materially-intensive things, and Ryan Gunderson says “there are perhaps no more ‘environmentally friendly behaviors’ […] than idling or doing nothing” (Gunderson 2018). This is where the porch comes in. Common spaces, access to the outdoors, and proximity to others create perfect conditions for social idleness and enjoyable laziness. But why, even when provided these spaces and opportunities, do we still choose to work? On a personal level and on a societal level, why would we rather pursue something that is so destructive?

Georges Batailles, a 20th century philosopher, would argue that this is an economic and existential problem. Our continuous pursuit of growth, he argues, exemplifies the struggle for survival. Even though we have accumulated well more than enough to establish our survival, social and economic atomization reduces the amount of excess that we can use as individuals, whereas the immeasurable excess that society produces collectively could allow us all to live comfortably and joyously. Bataille argues that part of the reason why we choose to focus on survival (or growth), and avoid expenditure is that survival as a goal is provided to us when we are born – it’s easy to fall back on. Expenditure, on the other hand, forces us to confront the existential freedom that we are all faced with and say: “What are we going to make of ourselves in this terrifyingly free world?” (Romano 2014)

So what do we do? Having a porch in a collective living space can help us to firmly, collectively choose – against economic, social, and existential factors – that we have a right to be lazy, and we are going to take advantage of it. 

Works Cited:

Gunderson, R. (2018). Degrowth and other quiescent futures: Pioneering proponents of an idler society. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1574-1582.

Romano, O. (2014). Dépense. In D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (Eds.). Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era. Routledge.

Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81-98.

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature communications, 11(1), 3107.

Since the beginning of last year, I’ve made it my mission to switch as many household items to reusable as possible. It started simple, switching disposable Keruig pods, once I used up what I had, for a few reusable ones and switching out disposable round cotton pads (for your face) for some cloth ones. These were a few of the simple things that were easy to switch to when moving into college for the first time. But as I have moved into the Eco-cabin I’ve learned it’s not just about switching products from disposable to reusable, it’s also about changing one’s habits to a more sustainable one. 

You might be asking yourself ‘How can one change their habits or where would I even start’. Let’s start by talking about what a habit is. Habits are a subconscious repeated manner that helps dictate some of the things we do in our day-to-day lives. Habits can range from small things like looking up when you hear a noise, to looking at your phone constantly when it pings. Habits are formed by four cues: number one is cue, which could be the pinging of your phone: number two is craving, now you crave to check your phone to see the notification: number three is response, now you pick up your phone to see the notification: number four is reward, now you are satisfied after looking into what the message was. These four cues all relate to James Clear’s model, The Habit Loop. 

You now might be asking yourself how this relates to sustainability. Well, to become more sustainable one has to change their habits. For example, looking back at my Keurig example., When using disposable Keurig pods, I always felt guilty about throwing them away when I knew they could be composted and recycled. To fix this, I got reusable Keurig pods to satisfy my craving for having the ability to compost the coffee grounds and, if needed, recycle the Keurig pods. This is an example of fixing a small habit, something easily manageable to do in a short amount of time. But the bigger the habits that need changing, the harder and longer it takes to do. The new types of habits that I want to form require more time and patience, as well as starting to notice when the habits are in effect.

To create a good habit, we first need to know what our cue is. Finding out what are cue is will make it so we know when the habit will trigger into action. The second step is making the craving look attractive enough to break the old hold. The third step is making the response easy to change. Finally, the fourth step, making the reward to be satisfying. Combining all of these steps, from James Clear’s chapter, will allow you to start making new good habits. But with every good habit, there will always be some bad habits that need to be changed.

To make new habits have an effect, we might need to break a few old habits because they might counteract what your new habit might be doing. Like the previous times, we always start with cues and work our way down. To break a bad habit one must make their cue invisible, out of sight out of mind. Second, making the craving unattractive. Third, making the response difficult to do. Lastly, make the reward as unsatisfying as possible. Following these steps that James Clear has set up, will start you on a path to creating new sustainable habits. 

If you having trouble starting new sustainable habits start with something small. For example, eating out less, going thrifting before buying new, buying in bulk instead of in small quantities, etc. Starting out small and seeing what you can accomplish is the best way to try to change some of your habits into more sustainable ones. 

Sources:

Clear, James. Atomic Habits. Chapter 3,  How to Start New Habits that Stick.

https://jamesclear.com/three-steps-habit-change#:~:text=All%20habits%20proceed%20through%20four,the%20same%20order%20each%20time.

Duhigg, Charles. The Power in Habit. What we do in life and business

https://courses.furman.edu/pluginfile.php/760606/mod_resource/content/0/Habits%20book%20chapter.pdf

(Thank you Dr. Allen for showing this resource to SUS 120 last semester)

Image Source:

https://jamesclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-habit-loop-01-e1537283945960-971×1200.png