Exclusion of the poorer folks

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The greatest problem, in my opinion, with eco-friendly products, goods and services, as well as taking things for recycling, etc., is that the costs of most of those things puts them well beyond the reach of the poorer strata of society.

Let us not even talk about the poor in countries not as “rich” as the USA, the UK and Western Europe in general, or Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

It is nigh on impossible for those that do not have a car, for instance, to bring glass, cans and such to the recycling centers and there is also no real incentive for anyone to do so in the UK. If there be payment on the other end for bringing in the glass bottles and jars, the cans, and what-have-you, as there is in the USA, as an example, then just maybe but. Nor do many of those poorer people in the Western societies have a way to, say, compost food waste, without incurring the cost of, for example, buying an indoor composting unit. Then again, if they do not have a means to compost food waste they more than likely also do not have a way to make use of such compost produced.

Other eco goods and services are also, basically, unfordable to those in the lower and poorer strata of society in our developed world, e.g. the working class and even the lower middle class. Now, with the “credit crunch” biting this is going to be even more so the case.

While there are things that we all, I know, can do without it costing us really anything, the so-called green habits and the green mindset (we shall talk about that in due course – the mindset, that is), others are just well out of reach of those groups; financially that is, for those that are on a low and fixed income.

All of us can turn off the lights in the house when they are not in use and not needed. Does the landing light really need to be on when no one is using the landing and everyone is in the lounge? Or the lights on the stairs when no one is going up or down them? Same with any other light in any other location. If you do not need it then turn it off. It saves money aside from emissions and whatever else and is therefore good for wallet and Mother Earth.

The same is true as regards to turning down the thermostat of the heating by a couple of degrees to say 18 Celsius. This alone makes a great saving for oneself as well as for the Earth. Who needs to have the heating on in the house at 25 Celsius or even higher. That's fine for a sauna but for the living room and even bedrooms it is not funny.

Turning off appliances instead of leaving them on standby is another thing we all, rich and poor alike can do and it will make us just a little richer if we do, due to the savings that we can make. The same is true for turning off or unplugging that charger for this or that device. When nothing is being charged by them what are they doing turned on. They still are running even then and are wasting, needlessly, electricity, and, in the end, you money.

On the goods side, however, and the side of green services, it is a definitely appears to be a class thing as most products and services are well out of reach of those on the lower rungs of the income ladder.

If we do not wish environmental and eco concerns and the execution of same to be a class thing, and possible only to those with the financial means to do so then we must, by needs, make things more affordable and also, and this very important, be enablers of those on the lower level so that they can be, as I am sure they would with to, part in this endeavour to help this our Planet, and in the end humankind, to survive.

So far it definitely is still a class thing, however, when, as I said, it comes to green goods and services and those in the poorer strata of our society are not able to fully participate in this and thereby are also unable to reap any financial benefits from this, such as cost reductions in electricity and heating usage, though using energy efficient light bulbs (still rather expensive compared to the incandescent Edison bulb) and other such things.

I do know that CFLs have come done in cost considerably over the last number of years but to someone who has to turn a penny over a couple of times before they can think of spending same such CFLs are still rather pricey compared to the Edison bulb that can be had for 10% of the cost. And, I must say, I have, although I use a fair number of CFLs, have not found the incandescent ones to have a short lifespan. I have bulbs running here that have been here for years and years. That is how those that have to live within rather limited means look at things. While they wish to do their part, if they but could, they have to look how to feed their families rather than as to whether they can save a little money by buying CFLs that are lot more expensive than are the old style bulbs. The problem is that, in due course, they will no longer be able to by the Edison bulb (at least not in the UK, and also not in the USA, so I understand) while the CFLs will not come done to the level of the Edison bulbs in cost, of that I am sure. So, we are forcing people to go green even though they cannot, maybe, actually afford it.

Reliable wind-up flashlights too have come down in price and some are cheaper now that are good ordinary battery powered torches, but “Energy Star” white goods, for example, are those that are the most expensive, it would seem, and someone who has to watch the money, so to speak, will hardly pay double for “Energy Star” when they can get the same type of appliance without that rating at a much lower price. Personally, I must say that I cannot and do not blame them.

The same is also true for many recycled goods. Those are the most expensive on the market often. In some instances you can now even get money for old rope, as long as you can dress it up as “recycled” in a crafts item.

Trying to be “green” is not being made easy, that is for sure, to those of the poorer sections of society in the developed world. As I indicated before, I do not even want to talk about and make mention of those (poor) living in the developing world; that part of our planet that was once referred to as “Third World”. Most people there do not stand a chance even in that respect.

It is a disgrace also that recycled goods produced by such poor people in the Third Wold countries, such as Africa, India, the Philippines, South America, etc. often in small crafts co-ops, and such, are being sold in the countries of the developed world at horrendous prices when the producers and makers only get a very tiny proportion of that in return for what they do.

Those buying “green”, and this includes those buying such goods, always want to also be seen as ethical shoppers. If that is so then we must vote with our pocketbooks in such instances and look for the products elsewhere and maybe buy them, if we so much want them, from those producers and makers that sell direct or via agents who do not charge the world for the products but just a percentage.

In conclusion, my question is, to a degree, how do we enable the poorer strata of our society to be able to be a part in this? If we do not, then we will leave them in the cold, literally even, maybe, and if it comes to the forced introduction, as we can see in the UK already, of this or that, such as the fact that no more incandescent light bulbs will be allowed to be sold and used, and also that people will be forced, as in legally forced, to insulate their roofs, install energy efficient glazing, and other such measures, then those that can least afford it will first of all see it as a definite class thing and secondly they will rather resent it all, instead of getting enthused about all things “green”.

© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008

Post Title

→

Exclusion of the poorer folks

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/exclusion-of-poorer-folks.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing, one for the middle classes and those higher up only?

This is, in my opinion, a very valid question. Is the concept of being “green” and “environmentally conscious” a middle class thing? “Green is the new black” scream some headlines. Yes, it definitely is trendy to be “green” and it is generating lots of interest.

Many of the tabloid newspapers for definite try to make being “green” out to be a middle class thing, but personally I doubt it to be just a middle class thing. Then again, how do you define the “middle class”?

Yes, it is true that many of the environmentally friendly goods and gadgets cost lots of money and you would need some spending power to be able to buy all those white goods that are A rated for less energy consumption to replace your old energy guzzlers with. It also would appear that, for some unknown reason, all those energy efficient white goods are the most expensive ones to buy. To be perfectly honest, and I believe I have mentioned this peeve of mine already elsewhere, the so-called environmentally friendly goods and all that are often so much more expensive than others and making it a more than a little out of the reach of the lower classes to do their bit on that level.

As far as the above mentioned white goods are concerned my question would be as to whether it is really better to replace the older washing machine or fridge or freezer with new A rated ones for less energy consumption or whether the replacement and the then required removal and safe disposal of the old goods does not have a much greater impact on the environment than me continuing to use it until such a time that it will, eventually, need replacing because it has, finally worn out and come to the end of the day.

Too many people do that with their computers because of the Microsoft Windows inbuilt obsolescence. Most older PCs do not need replacing; all they need is to be given a new lease of life with Linux.

You can spend a fortune on solar powered heating, lighting, double glazing, energy efficient light bulbs (oh, BTW, you cannot, or soon will no longer be able to, buy incandescent light bulbs any more) and assorted gizmo's; the list goes on, but not everybody can afford the cost of such items. Does that, therefore, mean that you can only care for the environment if you have the money to do so?

Not at all!

In spite of all the misconception that living sustainably requires independent wealth, and lots of it preferably, there are plenty of things anyone can do to make a real difference that will cost next to nothing.

Small changes are important. Recycling, composting, line drying, using cloth nappies switching off appliances when not in use, showering rather than bathing, car sharing are to name but a few. All these options can actually help to save you money as well.

Then there is a good old “make do” that also helps you to do you bit for the environment and at the same time saves you dough.

Regardless of the danger of repeating myself I shall say again that before you even think about the trip to the recycling bin with this or that item think as to whether there is not a way that you, or someone else you know (or even someone you do not, as yet know), can make use of that item, whether a box, a tin, a glass jar, or whatever, or you or someone else may be able to re-work and re-craft the item into something else useful.

Think “REUSE” before recycle.

This once upon a time was the way of being frugal. Bottles, in those day, you did not have to think about recycling; they were reused. All you had to do was getting them back to the store and get money for it while you were at it. Many a street urchin and countryside munchkin made his pocket money by collecting discarded bottles and bringing them back to the store for the deposit money. Why is no one talking about getting this system back in use. Glass is infinitely reusable and, when it finally breaks, well, then you can recycle it into a new bottle or glass jar.

Some years ago Neal's Yard in London was a company where you could go to get you peanut butter, your tea, your beans, your rice, etc. loose. You brought your own jar for the peanut butter and they filled it for you. The same with the other goods. You brought your own container and it was filled there.

When I was a child every grocery store did just that. There was no such thing as blister packs and today very often it is a blister pack within a blister pack, as with, for instance, with replacement toothbrushes for those electric one such as the Braun ones. Two individually and hygienically packaged brushes in another big blister pack. Why precisely?

Marks and Spencer have had a highly publicized campaign not so long ago about recycling plastic bags and will now charge 5p for their bags in future.

A new study by the Local Government Association, however, has cast much doubt on those green credentials.

The report has found that a typical shopping trip generated an average of 714g of packaging – and M&S was second from the bottom of the pile just ahead of Lidl, with 807g, and a lower percentage of it recyclable than any other retailer. Plastic bags seem rather beside the point when their packaging seems to be a much greater problem or at least one as great as plastic bags.

There was the suggestion ones, and I believe it is legal, basically, to do so on the Continent, such as in Germany, to actually remove all unnecessary packaging and leave same at the checkout.

My generation and the one immediately after me and definitely the ones before me seem to have been raised with the with the belief that the bounty of the Earth was inexhaustible, but it is not. Our children and children's children have had to learn this and that it needs to be guarded with care.

I have to say that the ethnic background of mine has taught me different from childhood and we never saw the resources of Mother Earth as infinite. To the Romani the Earth always was sacred and he only took as much as was sustainable to take, whether it was hazel rods for the making of pegs, or osiers for baskets, or what-have-you.

Mother Earth will recover from whatever we choose to do to it, of that I am certain. We only need to look at what She has survived the past. She has survived the Ice age, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami, and whatever else. Mother Earth will survive and recover. Humankind, on the other hand, cannot survive if we continue to use up and squander our resources at the rate we have been and that we are still doing.

We need to reduce our use of the resources. We need to rediscover the simpler pleasures, so to speak. We also need to learn how to cook from scratch again instead of “ping” meals and such. There are so many things that we must do and living a more sustainable life is what, in the end, we must do.

It is small steps that, in the end, will lead us all to a new way of living, to a sustainable way of living, a way of living in harmony rather than enmity with Mother Nature. This is the only way for the humans to survive and thrive on this planet of ours. We only, folks, have one earth. This is, as far as we know, the only inhabitable planet suitable for human life and living. Let's not destroy it.

We have done enough damage to it already. However, we may be able to reduce and reverse it, to some extent. I do not, however, believe that we can reverse so-called “global warming” aka “climate change”. First of all the “warming” has stopped, according to research from Australia and the temperatures have plateaued out and have not risen, not even by fractions, for the last 4-5 years; a fact that the head of the IPCC had to admit to when challenged by the Australian scientists. However, “climate change”, I am certain, will continue, simply because, as it would appear to me, from the research that I have conducted, a cyclic phenomenon through which the earth goes every so many centuries. We will have to prepare and get used to the fact. This does not mean, however, that we should abandon the “green” agenda. Far from it. We must do more and more recycling, reusing, and re-crafting. The earth's resources are but finite.

If, as I believe, “climate change” is here to stay and it will get worse before it will drop down into a cold to very cold period – if this follows the standard pattern this cycle of the earth has always run – then we must do all those things and we must prepare for severe changes in our lives.

We also must get off our dependency on oil. How this can be done is another question and, probably, not one that we will answer in this essay here.

Being “green” is not and must not be a class things and something that people believe only those in the upper areas, from middle/upper-middle class upwards can do. Being “green” is not about spending money on green gadgets and gizmos but it is about a mindset, a way of life, a sustainable way of living.

© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008

Post Title

→

Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing?

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-very-concept-of-being-class-thing.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Taking notice of the invisible wasteful things

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The most frequently discussed and mentioned way to go green is changing habits. To do this, instead of that, we are told and such. However, much less do we here mention of one as important if not more important than changing habits and that is “changing the mindset”.

Habits are one thing; put the empty glass bottle into the recycling bin for glass, the waste paper into the paper recycling bin, and so on, instead of simply chucking those things into the garbage can, which then ends up, more often than not, in the landfill. Changing the mindset is where things must get to and that is much more important and much more difficult, I think, for most. Me must develop, the older generation as much as the younger generation, a “green mindset”.

So, how does this mindset look in practice? In fact, I think we must look at this further in a separate essay, so I shall just go on like this here for the moment.

For many of us, especially the younger people, what is considered normal is in fact very wasteful indeed.

We are, so to speak, surrounded by invisible wasteful things. They are not really invisible, obviously, but they might as well be since we do not notice them.

What we are talking about here are things like individually wrapped cheese slices, small boxes of food staples that could be bought in bulk, bottled water, disposable paper plates, and much, much more. And that's just for the kitchen!

There are many other areas of life where it's just as bad, like jumping in the car to go somewhere that is in walking distance, throwing away a computer or cellphone after a couple of years, etc.

Computers, especially, do not have to be thrown after just a few years, unless they really are no longer working because of a fault that cannot be fixed (easily and cheaply). They do not get obsolete just because Bill gates tell us so and makes it so in that the new version of the software require ever more powerful machines and such. If the PC has problems with an old version of Windows because no more updates for it, no more programs that want to work on it, then it is time (well, it is anyway) to ditch Windows and find a comfortable Linux version.

All of these things might seem fairly benign on their own, but when they are added all up together, then it is obvious that this is a massive waste.

Not to mention that we too often forget to count how a thing was made: A paper plate is small, but think of all the trucks and chainsaws that went out to cut down trees, transport them for processing; think of all the energy and chemicals required to turn it into cardboard, and then package it and ship it to a store. And then you would use it a few minutes and throw it in the trash?

The same is true, however, also with other items. The glass jar, for instance, that once contained jam, pickles or peanut butter; you finish with it, you throw it into the trash. We all, most of anyway, do that. What did, however, our grandparents and maybe even parents do with empty glass jars? They would reuse them umpteen times for storing leftovers, or for storing buttons, nails, screws, etc.

The old homesteaders and frugal farming folks used old tin cans for a variety of jobs and also recycled them into scoops, lanterns, and many other things.

There are better ways to do things, and once you change your 'lens' and start seeing waste that was previously invisible to you, these better ways will become apparent, especially once each and every one of us applies the “Green Mindset” (look out for the essay to come).

© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008

Post Title

→

Taking notice of the invisible wasteful things

Post URL

→

https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/taking-notice-of-invisible-wasteful.html

Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection