Is your Mac a friend or foe of the environment?

Would you have bought your precious iBook if you knew Apple was one of the worst performers when it came to addressing and reversing climate change?

According to Climate Counts, a climate conscious consumer organization, when it comes to action on climate change, Apple ranks the lowest among 12 leading producers of electronics. IBM and Toshiba actually take the top spots.

Climate Counts is a collaborative effort to bring consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. Each year, Climate Counts “scores” companies based on their measured climate footprint, their impact on global warming, their support (or lack) for progressive climate legislation, and their publicly disclosed actions.

Spend a little time on their website and you’ll be surprised (as I was) by the companies that are truly making strides against climate change. For instance – Nike has one of the highest scores of the almost 100 companies scored by Climate Counts.

Ideally, people would use a company’s score to influence where they spend their consumer dollars. As an environmentally conscious consumer, my McDonald’s hamburger tastes a little better because I know McDonald’s is striving higher than Wendy’s when it comes to climate change.

I am happy to report (as are other Mac users) that Apple's score increased from a 2/100 to a 11/100 from 2007 to 2008. While, a score of 11 still pales in comparison to IBM's 77, a quick visit to Apple's website verifies Apple should see a significant increase in their score in 2009. In the past year, Apple has taken significant strides to improve their climate consciousness.

Power to make significant progress in the climate battle exists in our wallets, purses, and piggy banks. If we seek to support companies who support the environment, we can raise awareness, change behavior and move markets to promote sound solutions to the climate crisis.

Choose Both

Would you rather…

You know the game, right? I hate it. But here I am, asking the question. So get ready. Squirm. Giggle. Feel awkward. Be nervous (really nervous). You can do whatever you want, but ultimately, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, there is no choice but to play.

Don’t worry. This time the question has nothin’ to do with eating gross things or kissing a hoary librarian. If you were responsible for solving the world's environmental woes would you start at the global scale and work your way down to local communities or would you rather start on the ground and work your way up?

Does the question sound familiar? I hear references to it a lot; its pretty engrained in the conservation community. There are a lot of folks, including myself, who feel pretty strongly one way or the other. But maybe we need to stop thinking about it in such polarized terms. Does the debate really have to be modeled after a game intended to humor forth graders?

Sure, large-scale conservation, touted by TNC et al, certainly has appeal. Who doesn’t want to “preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive”? But the large-scale approach isn't flawless. A lot of resources have been poured into lofty initiatives and reports like the Millennium Goals and the Ocean Blueprint. And the intent is great (amazing actually). But have these visions translated into results? Have they concluded anything that we didn't already know?

On the other end of the spectrum is small-scale, local conservation. Community conservation, at its best, is about empowerment and diversity and creativity. It centers on the conviction that everyone has a role and if we all take ownership, global problems will be resolved. I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for small-scale.

I love the concept of grassroots organizing and the idea that we're in charge of our world. But it’s a bit naïve to ignore the obvious. Small-scale often equates to disorganization, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness. And obviously if we're too focused on small-scale we might outright miss the big picture all together.

So where does that leave us? What would you rather?

A year ago, maybe less, I would have said small-scale is the key. But it's not so black-and-white. Small-scale action is embedded in the large-scale context. They can't be separated, and maybe we shouldn't try. There's no reason we can't choose both.

The China Syndrome: One (or Two) Babies, Please!

Most people are aware of China’s population policy permitting each couple to have only one child in order to control the population explosion.

Recently, Jonathon Porritt, who chairs Great Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission suggested to a London Newspaper, “Curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.” Porritt also mentioned that he thinks we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.

Without a doubt, the contemporary clash of worldviews regarding children, contraception, abortion, and now the environment comes quickly to mind.

Albert Mohler, a conservative, Christain radio talk-show host reacted to Porritt saying, “Christians must be reminded that we do bear responsibility as stewards of God's creation. But we cannot be faithful in that stewardship if we adopt the logic of the Culture of Death. Human beings cannot be reduced to any cold economic or ecological value. Each human being is made in God's image, and each can be part of the fulfillment of our stewardship.”

As a religious conservative, I do not support the idea of including abortion as a population tool in any kind of policy. I also understand the crudeness of putting an economical or ecological value on a life. However, before all of my conservative counterparts quickly agree with Mohler’s statement, I’d like to take this opportunity to raise some valid points about population. A real concern does exist over the relationship between population growth and resource depletion. When we talk about population’s effect on the environment, we are not necessarily talking about the birds and the trees and the abstract environment. We are mostly referring to the environmental resources that our lives depend on every day, like clean water and clean air.

Just like we learned in high school biology, the supportable population of an organism, given the available food, habitat, and water within an environment is known as the carrying capacity for that organism. For the human population, more complex variables such as sanitation and medical care are sometimes considered as part of the necessary infrastructure. If the carrying capacity is exceeded, the quality of life for the entire population will decline. If our population continues to grow at our current rate, we will have a hard time coming up with the natural resources our lives depend on. We may not feel it in the United States the way other developing countries will (and already do.)

In Great Britain, the country at issue in Proitt's remarks, population density is the issue. Increased population density puts added stress on infrastructure such as sewers and water distribution systems. While the world may not need regulated family planning, people should be mindful of their consumption and realize that our resources are not endless. Some will argue that by considering population limits, economic prosperity and a high standard of living are being valued more than life. This argument is crude because most people want to avoid putting a monetary or physical value on a life, but the truth is, exploding populations will create for those on the margins of society (most commonly the rural poor) a decrease in standard of living so severe that it actually threatens the standards which are necessary to live.

An Elephant and the Environment

There’s a story about seeing an elephant. It goes something like this…

In the early days hundreds, perhaps thousands, of families loaded into canvas covered wagons and set out for the west. Can you imagine their sense of anticipation? Can you imagine their sense of discovery and potential? It must have been amazing. Amazing and epic.

The epicness is where the elephant comes into the story. It’s a long way from Jamestown to the Pacific. Anticipation, prospect, and hope can certainly fuel movement, but not forever. The slog westward was draining.

Of course some (the brave, the strong, the crazy) made it to the other side. But a lot of folks didn’t. At some point they paused and looked out across the infinite horizon and were overcome by the magnitude of their journey. They were swallowed by the vastness. And so they stopped; overcome by the endlessness of their journey. This, they said, was "seeing the elephant."

I’ve been thinking about this elephant recently.

What can we, as conservationists, learn from this story? To what extent does the elephant pose a problem today, as an obstacle to conservation and change?

Our scientific and technological capacity to analyze, model, measure, and quantify the world has expanded our understanding of the environment and environmental problems. And as a result we are more aware of the enormity of the problems we face then ever before.

Understanding is obviously important. We need to understand the science behind things like climate change. But our new awareness is a double-edged sword. Who hasn’t heard someone say, “It’s too late now,” or “We’re all screwed anyways"? Is this the same reaction some early settlers had?

This isn't the time to stop.

“I’M NO TREE-HUGGER”: PERSISTING STEREOTYPES PREVENT THE FULL-ON ‘GREENING’ OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

What comes to mind when someone says ‘environmentalist,’ or the oft synonymous word ‘tree-hugger?’ For many, these words conjure up a particular stereotype that has been traditionally associated with fringe groups. This has the unfortunate effect of marginalizing the idea of a ‘green’ way of life, and creating a perception among some groups in society that environmentalism is only for certain types of people.

But in this day and age, environmental problems exist on scales never before seen (e.g. climate change) and solving them will require that everyone adopt the ethos of the ‘hippie environmentalist,’ to some degree – a philosophy of harmony with nature and a low impact lifestyle. Regrettably, some major media outlets continue to perpetuate this stereotype, even as ‘going green’ becomes the new trend in American society.

Environmental issues have moved to being discussed in the sectors of business and finance, and the door has opened for a new type of environmental consciousness in the form of so-called ‘green consumerism’ – still the American consumer we know and love, but with a mind to making environmentally responsible choices with their purchasing power.

But the real challenge isn’t in getting people to buy ‘green,’ it’s in getting them to think ‘green.’

The question is: How do you go about changing people's perspectives?

The way to bring about large-scale, lasting change is to make environmental consciousness a truly mainstream phenomenon. When it becomes the norm for everyone to ‘think like an environmentalist,’ all sectors of society will change fundamentally...

...and we might finally see that being 'green' should be for everyone.