Bags of bags...

I just read that it costs San Francisco $4,000 to process (collect, compact, bundle, store, etc.) a ton of old plastic bags, but they can only get $32 to sell that same ton. And I wonder who is buying such a product.  From my years as recycling coordinator in Charlottesville, I know that plastic bottle recycling (milk jugs, water bottles, etc.) is hard enough, that is, costs much more than what little revenue might be generated from selling the 'product.'  And that 'closed loop' recycling - that is, turning old milk jugs into new ones - is quite rare.  Making them into park benches or vinyl carpeting is more common, though the market for these items is pretty limited, and therefore the used container market is also.  At least that was the case in the nineties, but I have seen nothing since to indicate any significant changes.  When was the last time I bought something made of recycled plastic?  And I'm the sort who actively looks for it when I do shop, which is, admittedly, a rare occurrence.

I also read that many of the compacted bag shipments are going to places like India or China with their much laxer, if any, environmental regulations.  Then the bags are incinerated (hopefully, at least, to generate electricity).  I have never heard of 'bag to bag' recycling.  Even from an energy analysis, I can imagine that to wash, sort, shred, melt, and create new bags from old, would be much more intensive than using new resins.  Which are, essentially, already 'by-products' of the fossil fuels we use mainly for energy production.  To a certain extent, making plastics from such 'by-products' is a sort of 'recycling' already.  The main problem comes from the trash produced.  (Well, a case could be made that the bio-toxicity of plastics and their many chemical additives, is an even greater problem, but that would be for another blogger.  Or hey, how about a scientist!  Or a journalist!  Remember them?)

I have for decades tried to do 'the right thing.'  I usually take a cloth bag with some used plastic bags inside for produce to the store with me.  But occasionally I forget, of course.  And in that case, sometimes I'll put my groceries in paper bags, which I then reuse for collecting paper to recycle.  Or sometimes just give in to the plastic bag juggernaut.  Even while limiting and reusing, however, somehow I still amass what seems like huge quantities of film plastic. Partly from forgetting to follow through on the good habits listed above, and partly from all the things that come packaged in bags, or bubble wrap, or other flimsy plastic.  If I were a tad bit more OCD, I suppose I could do a self audit, and track just exactly where all this comes from.

Now the less compulsively eco-fanatic among you might not see much of a problem here, and I respect that perspective.  As long as we reduce what we can, and make sure it's properly landfilled, what's the big deal?  Well, as the sixties adage goes, 'if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.'  This has always spoken directly to me.  And has kind of come to replace or complement the Catholic guilt, or the 'original sin' that I was born into.

Albatross chick

You may have heard of the 'great pacific garbage patch', a floating mass of trash (mostly comprised of plastic).  Some estimate it's twice the size the state of Texas.  (For more information about this modern day tragedy, go here http://greatpacificgarbagepatch.info/  You'll find links to other sites with more info.  For a quick glimpse, look at where our plastics (not just bags) all too often end up (you can look to the right now).

Which is all much ado about something.  And just exactly what to do about plastic seems clear: stop making it.  (As in the famous 'one word' of advice given to Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman) in The Graduate, the future still may be in plastics, but I think if we don't change course soon, not in the propitious way it was understood in the movie.)  For you and me, to stop making it means to stop using it.  Just how to stop is the challenge.  So far, given the multitude of differing plastics, and even the economic and energy costs involved, recycling is really a smoke and mirror side show.  Don't be fooled. However, if you find a pair of shoes, say, which are made from 100% post-consumer recycled plastic, and you like them, they feel good, etc., by all means buy them.  But then wear them out as you traverse the planet (or your little corner of it), while attempting to avoid 'one-way', or single use plastics, whenever possible.  Whereas recycling is not really viable, we can do much to reduce, and reuse whenever possible.

In the meantime, I will continue to dutifully take my bags of films back to the store to 'recycle.'  I know it's bogus, but I think it's worth the effort to show that I, that we, are willing to do such a thing - and more - if it could possibly help the planet.

End of sermon, vade in pace ('go in peace' - not in plastic)...

Update:  Montgomery county (where we live) recently passed a regulation that levies a 'bag tax' of ten or twenty cents.  Some are of course outraged, but generally folks are either wealthy enough not to care, or conscientious enough to support it.  Or even realistic enough to note that the fee is really just a drop in the bucket, and not worth notice.  However, a couple 'scientists' recently came out with concerns about the potential adverse health impacts of reusing bags - which may have come into contact with meat or other germ infested vectors.  To these Ebenezer Scrooges I counter, simply, bag humbug!

Free Tibet!

Yes, an old message this one.

But having read the recent article in the New Yorker (October 4 issue) about the Dalai Lama, it's one that I am feeling very passionate about. Not that the article intended to incite passion or engagement on the issue. In fact, even His Holiness has used terms like 'given up' on the Tibet issue: I find this most disturbing.

And the thing is, China really deserves an 'embarrassing' international movement to restore at least true limited autonomy for Tibet - and allow its leader and people to return (the Dalai Lama is considered a 'terrorist') - what with its bullying economic tactics of late (currency devaluation, etc.) I don't care if they want to keep with their Maoist capitalism, but when they crush ethnic 'minorities' in the sovereign nations they have annexed, I think it's time somebody stepped in. And that somebody is me. Now. Are you with me on this? (Perhaps not quite yet, but read on.) If the Dalai Lama has found a deep sense of peace with his peoples' refugee status, more power to him, he is a remarkable bodhisattva. But I'm not, and I don't think many of us are. 'In your face, China,' I want to shout!

How effective were the Buddhist monk's self-immolations in the lead up to the war in Vietnam? This is arguable. However, the effectiveness of Gandhi's popular non-violent passive resistance is beyond dispute in shaking off the colonial British yoke. And the effectiveness of Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership of African Americans and 'whites' in non-violent struggle against racism in America is also a matter of historical fact.

I think the participation by Caucasion Americans (for want of a better term) in the Civil Rights movement helped to bring the issue to a visceral level for the established. It became less simply a 'negro movement' and more of a struggle for the dignity and rights of all people. White and black shot dead, or hand-cuffed and dragged to the paddy wagon, made clear the hideous face of Jim Crow for all to see. And I think if Westerners and others from around the world were to march arm in arm with Tibet, a non-violent movement could not be stopped.

I attended the 'Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear over the weekend. Were there hundreds of thousands? It felt like millions to me, pushing my walker in search of the ADA seating area. Then I got completely bogged down by the crowd. Never even found my girlfriend who was to join me there. My cell phone was useless: everybody, it seemed, trying to call and meet up. The energy of the crowd was full of goodwill, and once resigned to my place (well out of view and earshot of the stage or a videotron, even if I stood up), I sat on my walker for a little more than an hour next to a small girl in a stroller wearing a tiger halloween costume. Her mom, also dressed as a tiger, was attempting to reach the ADA area, as she was a sign language interpreter. The two of us had soldiered on together for a good half hour before giving up the push through the sardine packed crowd.

Later, watching the event at my sister's after party, on her DVR, I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed. The music was great, but Stephen and Jon just didn't seem nearly so powerful as they do on their shows. I cringed a bit with embarrassment at their Peace-Crazy-Love train shtick. The point was clear, but I think it was overly labored, and I felt sorry for the artists, though they no doubt knew it was coming, and had already signed on. However, I was glad to have attended. Did it help 'get out the vote'? I hope so. Did it take energy away from getting the vote out? I hope not. Sanity or fear: your pick. (Yesterday's election results kind of lean in the favor of fear....)

The New Yorker issue I mentioned above also had an article about the role of new media in politics and democracy today. "The truth about the Twitter Revolution," by Malcolm Gladwell. The article drew a stark contrast between the 'strong-ties' needed to get people out in harm's way to effect social change, and the 'weak-ties' of the new media. He starts with the segregated Woolworth lunch counter 'sit-ins' in Greensboro North Carolina in 1960, and moves on from there. The 'weak-ties' that can be facilitated through Twitter, Facebook, the 'blogosphere,' (dare I draw attention to the 'fourth wall' here?), etc., the author maintains, could never mount such profound social change as seen in the civil rights movement.

He goes on to explore the role of these media in the more recent protest movement following the purportedly stolen Iranian presidential election. He cites how the news media were happy to follow events on Twitter, but in actual fact, such 'new media' were at best helpful on the ground once the 'strong-tie' forces got people out in the streets. He also writes, "the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West." He quotes Golnaz Esfandiari, who wrote on this topic in Foreign Policy that "'There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.'" He quotes further: "'Western journalists who couldn't reach - or didn't bother reaching? - people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English language tweets post with tag #iranelection,' [Esfandiari] wrote. "Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.'"

This is a bit harsh, I feel, and the letters to the editor in subsequent issues took the author to task with some pertinent examples of powerful new media accomplishments. However, I think his basic premise is sound. Yet I think it obvious that both 'strong-ties' and the 'weak' ones can and will be necessary to tackle the bigger issues of the day. The Fear/Sanity rally I think did not rank as such an 'issue' -nor did it claim to - but I think it relied almost entirely on 'weak-ties' to get it going (notwithstanding the strong-ties that bind me to my siblings, other relatives in attendance at the rally, and my girlfriend). As you might guess, I think one issue in need of a full-on 'strong-tie' and 'weak-tie' engagement would be freeing occupied Tibet from its oppressive Chinese colonists. (Of course, you will be quick to point out, there are many other big issues in the world.)

This blog is at best a 'weak-tie' attempt at raising the issue that has been raised so many times before. I'm like a very tiny David, with his even tinier sling, facing a vast and growing Goliath, China. What will it take to get millions of Tibetans, along with Buddhists and human rights activists from around the world to march from Dharamsala to Lhasa? I feel like just one word from the Dalai Lama would do the trick: onward! Book me a flight, let's walk peacefully - with our digicams and 'blackberries' raised in defiance - directly into the spray of machine gun fire!

Mr. D. Lama, we await your call...

Izod, Youzod, we all zod...

It was a This American Life (TAL) story that inspired this American's purchasing choice. I'd long tried to avoid buying clothes or shoes 'made in China.' Unless they are second-hand: my favorite stores being Valu-Village and Goodwill. But it's hard to find affordable new clothes made elsewhere than in our largest creditor nation.

But of course, I love so many things Chinese - the food, the philosophies, the people - but I am not too keen on its government. Especially the way it has annexed many formerly independent neighbors (e.g. Tibet). It has loosened its grip on economic enterprises allowing for tremendous growth, which is kind of a good thing I suppose. But at what costs: environmental degradation, dangerous working conditions, etc.

So Ira Glass, host of TAL, introduced - or told, I can't remember - a story that explained how the Clinton administration had persuaded the government of Cambodia to adopt certain labor standards (such as allowing unions) and perhaps also environmental regulations, in exchange for receiving 'most favored nation' trade status (MFN). Having such status grants countries things like lower tariffs I think. Anyway they did it, and their fledgling garment industry boomed. Then during the Bush administration - big surprise - they lost their MFN status. As far as I can tell, however, the industry is still doing fairly well. And looking at this site, http://www.betterfactories.org/ it seems that unions there are still at work. Or on strike, as the case may be.

Though this concept might smack of social engineering to some, and run counter to the GATT (a treaty riddled with dubious implications), I think it would be fantastic if we could do it for every country - even our landlord's, China.

At Macy's one day some years back, shopping for the boys (and maybe a new shirt for me), I discovered some sale piles and racks of Izod shirts and shorts. And as is my habit, I started looking at the labels to see where the clothes were manufactured. And, as I'm sure you all have been expecting to hear for some time now in this long-winded (redundant) palaver, they were all 'made in Cambodia.' And I liked some of them. As did Eli (then). He's outgrown them, and would likely not care for them now. They tended (in the men's shirts) toward a large lined plaid pattern. At least the few I bought.

Thanks be to Zod, amen. Ahem.