Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, RETHINK

There have been recent ads featuring a man, perhaps Galen Weston, tossing an empty water bottle towards a recycling bin, only to have it bounce off the rim like Vince Carter’s 2001 Game Seven miss against Philadelphia. Much like the Toronto Raptors, the planet will never be the same.

(A basketball analogy and a contentious embellishment! What an intro!)

At the same time, the University of Winnipeg has become the first university in Canada to ban the sale of bottled water on campus (after the University of Washington did so in the United States), and is slowly phasing out the sale in time for the fall semester. To replace the loss of Aquafina et al. on campus, the school is installing more water fountains and providing each incoming student with a reusable bottle. Similar action is being taken by municipalities around the country, with Toronto and London leading the way, and more expected to follow suit. Any initiative that replaces environmental degradation and irresponsible capitalism with reusable products and communal resources at the expense of the bottom line is bound to be a good one.

We have all heard the arguments against bottled water, so I am not going to dwell on rehashing them too much, but the basic points are: they produce unnecessary waste; oil and other resources are used just to make the bottles; the product must be shipped from its bottling plant creating unnecessary carbon emissions; and they are not any healthier than tap water, and may actually lack teeth friendly additives such as fluoride. Proponents argue that recycling is a viable option, but a brief Internet search led me to figures varying between a twelve to twenty-three percent recycling rate for the bottles, with more sites closer to the twelve side. Of the remaining eighty-eight percent, the best case scenario is a landfill. It is easy to say that the bottles can be recycled, but this is clearly not happening, and it assumed that recycling is actually a positive force. There is also no reason to waste resources creating and shipping a product that already flows cheaply and easily to our homes. When in Italy last summer, we were delighted to find numerous ornate fountains in public squares that could also be used to fill our water bottles (lest we evaporate in the Italian heat).

Proponents of bottled water will argue that they are storing it in case of an emergency that renders tap water undrinkable. This is a reasonable argument in principle, but it is mostly a blatant lie, because nobody that concerned about water reserves would drink their emergency supply. If this were truly the case then people would buy large containers of bottled water to store for such an occasion, which perhaps isn’t a terrible idea. Another option would be a large office-esque ‘water cooler’ with reusable 20L jugs. Furthermore, any notion that bottled water is better for you than tap water is, in most parts of Canada anyways, a deliberate attempt by corporations to mislead consumers into fearfully buying their product. It wouldn’t be the first time, and it will not be the last.

Some argue that the ban by the University of Winnipeg is restricting students’ free will to drink the beverage of their choice. However, the university isn’t banning water, or limiting water available on campus. They are simply expressing their free choice to not sell bottled water, after a resolution was passed almost 3-1 by the students. Let’s hope this trend is extended to further Canada institutions.

We all know the Three Rs (reading TV guide, writing to TV guide, renewing TV guide), but do we really consider them in the proper hierarchy? Reduce is at the top for a reason, followed by reuse, and recycle. Recycling helps the planet much like hybrid cars. All they really are is ‘less-bad’ than the alternative, and yet allow us to guiltlessly continue our destructive lifestyles. By endorsing recycling, corporations are able to get us to continue to buy their (often unnecessary) products which may be doing different and greater harm to the planet than any single bottle in a landfill. The process of recycling uses many resources and produces waste, and while not as harmful as landfills, it is not an ultimate solution. I saw an ad recently that promoted buying a certain brand of diapers by suggesting they will donate a cost of a tetanus vaccine to an underprivileged child. This may seem hunky-dory, but the real question must be why is that child dying of tetanus, and the real solution won’t be found at the bottom of a bag of diapers (a discussion for another day, perhaps). And yet by buying diapers we are able to feel good about our consumption.

I am not suggesting that recycling is a bad thing. There must be a reasonable amount of waste that each person requires to live, especially in today’s Western world. A complete overhaul of our culture and ethic is not necessary; however it is necessary to continue to aggressively question our actions and be conscious of the consequences. Recycling and Green Bin programs must continue to be expanded, and every Monday night I am appalled by Ottawa’s poor recycling (and non-existent Green Bin) program when compared to Toronto and the GTA. These considerations and their results are beginning to be seen in Toronto and London, and the University of Winnipeg, and we need more people to be conscious of and take responsibility for their actions.

Russel MacDonald

How We Are All Destroying the Rainforest in Borneo

In yesterday’s (Nov.23rd) Svenska Dagbladet (“The Swedish Daily Paper” in English) there was an extremely interesting and discomforting article discussing the ravaging of the rainforest on the island of Borneo.

The island of Borneo is governmentally divided between the countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei and is the third largest island in the world. As of today over three quarters of the lowland rainforest, a major source of biodiversity as well as endemic species, have been destroyed through logging, fire and the replacement planting of oil palms.

Mattias Klum, the source behind the aforementioned article and one of the world’s leading nature photographers, has traveled to Borneo a total of 35 times documenting and researching into the destruction of the rainforest. He paints a bleak picture and does not hold any punches titling his article “The Nightmare on Borneo.”

The problem is the ongoing replacement of rainforest by oil palms, trees that provide masses of valuable palm oil, a commodity that can be found in almost anything from shampoo and soap to chocolate, margarine and chips. These trees provide a needed fiscal shot in the arm for the economically challenged economies of Indonesia and Malaysia but also, as Mattias Klum reports, hold massive environmental and ecological consequences.

Klum describes the brutal and devastating way the rainforest is set ablaze, releasing over 1652 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air for each hectare burnt. Multiply that by an area Klum says is equivalent to the size of Switzerland and you have what he calls “One of the world’s biggest environmental problems.”

In the case of the Borneo rainforest it is, as usual, difficult to simply intervene and say “No…Bad!” The problem is that the people have come to rely on palm oil and forestry and would be jobless and living under extreme poverty if it weren’t for the jobs provided by these industries.

Does the reliance on consumption and the consequential environmental destruction necessitated sound in any way familiar? This is in no way isolated to developing countries. Our dependence on the destruction of the environment has become conventionalized and is engrained in the daily lives of people around the world.

The situation on the island of Borneo eerily mirrors the worries presented to the industrialized nations of the world in the recent so called finance crisis. Jobs will no doubt be lost and people will struggle to keeps their homes and maintain the now cliché status quo we call “quality of life.”
In this crisis has anyone stopped to re-think this seemingly universally accepted truism? Scientists have for years beat around the term “sustainable development” and warned that current levels of consumption are not possible to maintain. In a lot of ways the current financial crisis looks like it might act to force us into more sustainable practices. One almost has to wonder if there is a genius environmental activist pulling the strings.

When it comes to the rainforest in Borneo it is not just factory owners and dubious governments that are to blame. Unsustainable consumption and lack of regulation in developed nations is directly fueling the palm oil industry. Despite laws against destructive de-forestation there is, as of now, no way for consumers or manufacturers to know if the oil they are receiving comes from legal, government approved producers or illegal ones.

It is easy to pinpoint problems such as consumption and lack of regulatory bodies, but in what way can this message be relayed to the public and the people who actually have the power to make change?

Weeks after vast brown clouds of pollution settled themselves over parts of Asia providing visual confirmation of the atmospheric suicide we are committing one has to wonder what it will take to bring about change. Is there anyone capable of prompting the type of change needed to make a difference?

It is easy to reject responsibility while issues remain invisible and theoretical, but when these same things become visible they become for many actualized. We are all doubting Thomases and yes, seeing is still believing. In the same way that these perceptible brown clouds brought international attention back to the urgency for change, the pictures taken by Mattias Klum speak an indescribable story.

If we truly want the public and governments to take climate change and environmental problems seriously we need to make them visible for people and Klum does us all a service in this respect.

Once again here is the link to his report and pictures (in Swedish):

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/artikel_2083765.svd