Ok, so the Christmas holidays are really about the consumption of material goods, are they not? There can be stories of Jesus and Santa. There can also be 'shortest day of the year' winter traditions, which involve candles and eating food and other wonderful things. However, the main purpose of the current holiday is to buy a whole bunch of stuff and give it away. Mass consumption that kills our planet... or... joyous gift giving event involving guilt or gravy or graciousness.
I find it interesting to see how different families, who celebrate Christmas, do the present thing. Last year, in an attempt to not over-consume, I limited the number of gifts my children received. And I felt like they were kind of cheated, in a way, because they received fewer gifts that I did as a kid. This year, I copied more of what I received when a child.... and I really felt that I went a bit overboard. So now I am conflicted: I want my kids to have a nice holiday, and receive nice presents, just as I did. However, I recognize that as being excessive. We are not living in 1976, and the environmental implications of insane purchasing decisions are significant. I guess I am realizing that the world today is a different place than it was, and I can make choices for my children that involve gift giving but without the crappy plastic toys made in China that they play with for two weeks and then forget. That is another aspect of gift giving today that is different from the 1970s... there is so much more to choose from and it is so damn cheap! And so these birthdays and Christmas events roll around, and the kids receive a whole heck of alot of toys from friends and relatives. A society of over-consumption is reflected in gift giving.
I continue to not have a solution, as of now, as my kids interact with other kids, and see what they receive at their birthdays. I have tried to encourage small presents, and regifting, but without any success. We do not live in a enviro bubble, but the world is environmentally bad... for now, I am completely stuck on how to approach this issue. I guess that is the contradiction inherent in the two words Suburban and Activist.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Copenhagen .... uhh....
As I observe the climate change talks in Copenhagen, I feel confused, frightened, and at times, optimistic. Perhaps that optimism is completely Pollyana-ish, or perhaps it is based on the fact that so many seem to be participating with serious concern.
Unfortunately, here in the suburbs, it is shocking how many are clueless. I was at work, and mentioned to a colleague I was reading a newspaper article with my students about the climate talks... this was to both inform my students about Copenhagen but also for a reading response. My school is all about anchor charts and word walls these days, completely ridiculous, in my opinion; however, I am obliged to participate as we are having some sort of weird district review as mandated by the Ministry of Eduction. Ugh.
This very fine woman, who I quite like, and has been somewhat political in the past, had not heard of the conference. I was surprised.
And I suppose that is why a global response, and co-ordinated global effort to fight climate change, is necessary. People are a bit clueless, myself included, and are swamped with ridiculous goals and desires that really are, in the grand scheme of things, completely contrived.
Regardless, I heard an interesting interview on CBC's The Current this morning, with James Hansen, professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Studies at Columbia. He argues that it would be better to not have global treaty at Copenhagen as it would be a cap and trade system. This would serve to not reduce global fossil fuel emissions but merely shift them around. He instead argued for a carbon tax, which would tax carbon emissions at the source and then redistribute that money to people so they could retrofit their homes and do other meaningful climate reducing things. I thought that was a profoundly interesting idea, and never really understood the value of such a system as opposed to cap and trade. So, in a way, if the Copenhagen talks fail, and it looks as they may, we may be better off. And I guess that - in a kind of bizarre and backwards fashion - made me feel sort of optimistic. In addition to confused and frightened, key emotions for the first decade of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, here in the suburbs, it is shocking how many are clueless. I was at work, and mentioned to a colleague I was reading a newspaper article with my students about the climate talks... this was to both inform my students about Copenhagen but also for a reading response. My school is all about anchor charts and word walls these days, completely ridiculous, in my opinion; however, I am obliged to participate as we are having some sort of weird district review as mandated by the Ministry of Eduction. Ugh.
This very fine woman, who I quite like, and has been somewhat political in the past, had not heard of the conference. I was surprised.
And I suppose that is why a global response, and co-ordinated global effort to fight climate change, is necessary. People are a bit clueless, myself included, and are swamped with ridiculous goals and desires that really are, in the grand scheme of things, completely contrived.
Regardless, I heard an interesting interview on CBC's The Current this morning, with James Hansen, professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Studies at Columbia. He argues that it would be better to not have global treaty at Copenhagen as it would be a cap and trade system. This would serve to not reduce global fossil fuel emissions but merely shift them around. He instead argued for a carbon tax, which would tax carbon emissions at the source and then redistribute that money to people so they could retrofit their homes and do other meaningful climate reducing things. I thought that was a profoundly interesting idea, and never really understood the value of such a system as opposed to cap and trade. So, in a way, if the Copenhagen talks fail, and it looks as they may, we may be better off. And I guess that - in a kind of bizarre and backwards fashion - made me feel sort of optimistic. In addition to confused and frightened, key emotions for the first decade of the 21st century.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Christmas tree up
When I was a kid, we always had a real Christmas tree. We either went to the woods to cut one down or bought one from the grocery store. My husband always had a fake tree... in fact, right now in his parents living room is the same tree he grew up with. It looks pretty well the same as it did forty years ago when it was first put up.
About ten years ago, when we first started putting up a tree, we went to Canadian tire and bought a fake tree. We called it the "Chinese Pine", as it was made in China and was a coniferous tree (actually, it looks more like a spruce, but whatever). And every year, I would say, next year we are going to get a real tree. And for whatever reason we never would... time and busyness were the major factors.
This year, however, I insisted we get a real tree, which we bought from the grocery store. It looks great, smells great, and memories from my childhood are flooding back.
The tree, though, did not arrive until an (unresolved) discussion about the environmental effects of the Christmas tree industry. I think it is good: trees planted and then used, the tree then mulched or used for some positive environmental project. My husband, though, suggests that using the same tree year after year is better for the environment.....as it is in your basement, no tree is cut down, and it looks like a Christmas tree.
Perhaps the difference is whether the tree has been purchased or not...
Anyway, our compromise: one year a real tree, the next the Chinese pine. Here we are, creating our own Christmas tradition.
About ten years ago, when we first started putting up a tree, we went to Canadian tire and bought a fake tree. We called it the "Chinese Pine", as it was made in China and was a coniferous tree (actually, it looks more like a spruce, but whatever). And every year, I would say, next year we are going to get a real tree. And for whatever reason we never would... time and busyness were the major factors.
This year, however, I insisted we get a real tree, which we bought from the grocery store. It looks great, smells great, and memories from my childhood are flooding back.
The tree, though, did not arrive until an (unresolved) discussion about the environmental effects of the Christmas tree industry. I think it is good: trees planted and then used, the tree then mulched or used for some positive environmental project. My husband, though, suggests that using the same tree year after year is better for the environment.....as it is in your basement, no tree is cut down, and it looks like a Christmas tree.
Perhaps the difference is whether the tree has been purchased or not...
Anyway, our compromise: one year a real tree, the next the Chinese pine. Here we are, creating our own Christmas tradition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
