This Sustainable Life
298: Is polluting child abuse?
[EDIT: moments after posting this episode, I found my first example of someone else posting on this idea only two months ago, Environmental Pollution: An Invisible Kind of Child Abuse, which got a positive response. I'm sure there's more.]
After my third TEDx talk a few days ago, spoke to a couple that told me how much they reduced waste but wouldn't consider anything more. People love considering the biggest things immune from consideration, like flying or heating their homes to 70 degrees in the winter and cooling them to 60 in the summer, leaving the air conditioner on while they're out just so it's cool for thirty seconds when they get home. Or getting take out when they have vegetables in the fridge, most of which they throw out in a disgusting display of entitlement. My TEDx talk is about how after you act you'll be glad you did and wish you had earlier.
I say people don't want to do small things, they want to do meaningful things and that when you act on something you care about, you may start small you may start big, but since you like it you'll do more, so as long as you keep working on things you find meaningful, big is inevitable.
They said they loved my talk but he said, “I don't see how I can live my life without flying.”
Actually, people keep asking me, what can I do. Everyone knows polluting behavior of theirs, from bottles and take out containers to vacations beyond the imagination of emperors before that they consider entitled to, to eating unhealthy amounts of meat and food flown around the world while local food they don't even consider buying while local farmers go out of business.
The experiential, active learning educator in me wants to say, figure it out come back to me, and you tell me. It's not like millions of web pages aren't telling you. You can change plenty, most improvements as you cut out eating junk and other pure life improvements, before you have to challenge yourself. Generations ago nobody threw anything away. Now I have to help pay billions of dollars a year just to haul junk nobody wanted out of the city to landfills.
Changing your life is the point! You're addicted to flying. It pollutes. If you want to change the outcome, you have to change the cause: your beliefs and behavior.
My point is that you'll be glad you changed and no matter when you do you'll wish you had earlier. Nobody believes me. Well, you're not abstractly hurting people. You're hurting people and generations will suffer for your jaunt to Macchu Piccu.
You have to change your life if it relies on behavior that hurts billions of people. No amount of dreaming for some deus ex machina invention like a plane that runs on rainbows will change that you're paying to pollute now. We have to change our behavior. Even if you think governments should change or corporations should change, every one living unsustainably will have to change too. You can't keep living the way generations of scientists have said will create the results we're already seeing and that we've seen nothing compared to what will come.
So much I've said before. You're hurting future generations who are helpless to defend themselves.
I started wondering, how different is neglecting to try to live sustainably from child abuse.
First, not physically in the moment assaulting someone.
But the similarities are strong. I wonder if there's something to this angle.
For one thing, I'm not a parent so imagine some would react strongly, however accurate.
Asked friends their thoughts. They surprisingly easily agreed. One pointed out how much people will defend themselves. If they don't stop, they'll rationalize why what they do is good and reinforce doing what they've done, filing the claim under groundless attack.
I suggested targeting the message at children, who don't need to fly for work. For them to call out what older people are doing to most of their lives.
A friend suggested changing beliefs so much might not be possible.
I pointed out how we changed drunk driving from something sometimes okay to tantamount to murder. In my lifetime, you could say, “one drink calms me down. I drive better that way.”
Or cigarettes. My high school principal smoked a pipe in the school building. Now people would view doing so as giving children cancer and addictions.
My friend also suggested creating an alternative. An alternative to smoking is not smoking. For drinking and driving, we created designated drivers and programs to get rides home. If we don't create alternatives, people may feel they can't act, resulting in reinforcing beliefs that sustain polluting behavior, like that they can't do anything about it, which is a lie, I'll comment on now.
There's plenty of low-hanging fruit in the form of leisure travel, especially in the US where you don't need to fly but there's beautiful land everywhere. A friend and I rode bikes from Philadelphia to Maine and back when we were 16 years old. The less fit someone is to do it, the more they'll benefit. Most people are near a coast with a beach.
Most business travel is low hanging fruit easily cut in favor of not meeting or meeting by video.
Anyway, the big difference, why this idea sticks with me not as shrill yelling or name-calling is that nobody suggests stopping child abuse by taxing it or raising its cost a few percent as a way to deter it. If a helpless child receives a black eye from a parent or is emaciated, we have decided as a culture that justice can go as far as taking a parent's child away, possibly the greatest execution of justice short of execution.
And we consider it appropriate. We do almost anything to protect a child from harm.
How about no future for billions of children facing starvation, disease, wars over resources, billions of climate refugees, and so on?
How about an adult that takes pleasure in abusing the child? Do you also feel another level of revulsion? How about adults that fly first class to Acapulco, or India to pick a place nearly half way around the world, many for some meditation retreat or to see something they consider exotic? I take a bus to a meditation retreat. So can they, but they prefer to get their pleasure with tens of tons of CO2, maintaining a military to maintain the supply lines, destroy communities with the misfortune to live over the fossil fuel extraction site, and destroy the land and see there too.
Should we add animal abuse?
This recording is my first publicly sharing the idea, so it may need refinement. Maybe it needs rejection. I'm not proposing adopting it, but considering it. I wasn't abused. Would someone abused feel hurt or empowered? How would that feeling change as disasters accumulated? Might it not be strong enough?
I also think they people who would share it would be children. I fear for my future and many of them face 40 years more of what scientists have predicted for generations and the adults who could have acted didn't. How justified or not would you consider children facing most of a life of a hellscape not of their making?
How bad would it be for children to levy the charge at adults? Might it lead to fast change?
When I hear an adult say they love how younger people are taking responsibility, I hear an adult trying to shirk responsibility—tragically a responsibility that he or she would consider improving his or her life to change. Well, how about when they children point out what you're doing?
Could we move from merely taxing and making slightly more expensive to making many behaviors illegal, maybe with penalties on the scale of penalties we give child abusers?
How is heating the planet, poisoning its air and water, using up nonrenewable resources, and not trying to change not abusing children—billions of children?
What do you think of the perspective? If you see problems, can you think of ways to improve it? That is, if it did work and help, what would have had to change from what I shared to what worked well?
I wonder if anyone has pursued this view before. I haven't heard it regarding the environment, though smoking and drunk driving campaigns seem to have sounded similar.
How about a social media campaign showing pictures of people polluting with a hashtag #childabuse?
View all episodes
722. 722: Michael Forsythe: When McKinsey Comes to Town57:37When I started business school at Columbia, I hadn't heard of McKinsey. The Firm recruited heavily there, so I found out about them, but little, since they were so secretive. I learned more from my classmates, that the business world held them in high regard. People wanted to work there.I interviewed and learned I got high reviews there, but I had entered business school to improve as an entrepreneur and stayed on my path. Several friends worked there and at its peers Boston Consulting Group and Bain, as well as other consulting firms like Deloitte.I heard about Michael's book while I was reading books on colonialism, especially Heart of Darkness and King Leopold's Ghost. Leopold crafted a public persona of a benevolent philanthropist helping end the Arab slave trade in the Congo while creating a huge, cruel slave state he profited from. Given what I knew about McKinsey, I read several reviews and watched videos of the authors. They showed a company crafting a benevolent philanthropic image while profiting from others' suffering---promoting tobacco, opiates, dictatorships, and, most relevant to sustainability, oil and petroleum states.Maybe I was looking for patterns that weren't there, but they made me wonder how much McKinsey and its peers had become a modern King Leopold. The book presents some devastating finds. It's well researched, as you can imagine how anything it revealed wrongly could prompt lawsuits. Beyond McKinsey's work with the world's most polluting corporations and nations, many McKinsey people transitioned to help run some of the world's most polluting companies, including previous guest and three-time Global Managing Director Dominic Barton.In our conversation, Michael reviews some of the book and shares back stories into how he and his coauthor Walt worked. We treated many areas of McKinsey's work, but focused on sustainability-related ones.Michael's column at the New York TimesHis book When McKinsey Comes to TownIts review in the Times: Book Review: “When McKinsey Comes to Town,” by Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe
721. 721: Jim Burke, part 1: The Most Beautiful Street in New York City?01:10:09After reading about 34th Avenue in Queens and watching the video linked below, I had to ride to see it. Over a mile of a once congested street was transformed into safer, quieter places people enjoyed, especially kids. There are three schools along the route. The kids can come out and play.I met Jim there, felt inspired to do something similar near me, and invited him to the podcast. He talks about what made it possible, what's happened since it started, resistance, celebration, and more.After we recorded, we walked around my neighborhood and he showed what streets would work best to start the program with. I'm already starting to act.Before we overbuilt streets for cars, people did fine without cars. Once built, people adjusted their lives, forgot how things worked before, and claim they have no choice to drive. They act like this privilege and addiction helps the poor it impoverishes or people who can't walk everywhere whom it traps.The answer is to change our environment so cars aren't so necessary. People can adjust back.Please listen to my episode with Jason Slaughter of the video series Not Just Bikes for more advanced city changes. The U.S. is sorely lagging.Queens’ 34th Avenue Shows What Open Streets Can Do for People34th Avenue Oral History on Jim BurkeDesigning Open Streets video
720. 720: Maya Van Rossum, part 2: You Don't Have a Right to a Clean Environment. You Have to Work for It.01:09:23Do you think government should protect people's life, liberty, and property? What if it turned out it didn't, if it said other people could destroy your life, liberty, and property, and would help them do it?That's what pollution does. A lack of a clean environment means that someone polluted it and hurt you, your children, your loved ones. You don't have a right to a clean environment if you are an American, or likely anyone. Instead, others have the right to destroy your life, liberty, and property.Three states have amendments where you can sue for it, but it's hard and the nation doesn't overall.What would you do if you lost your right to free speech? Would you not work like hell to restore it? Wouldn't you recognize that others would figure out ways to profit from limiting your speech, maybe charging you for it, as a bottled water company would charge your for water? You'd act fast to prevent them from eroding your lost rights more and holding them from you.Maya is doing that work for your potential right to a clean environment. We start with this perspective, then consider how serious it is, what you can do about it, and how important it is.In short, you would much prefer life with the right to a clean environment at the constitutional level, as much as you want all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
719. 719: David Blight, part 1: From Abolitionism to Sustainability51:55Regular listeners and blog readers know my developing abolitionism as a role model for a sustainability movement. I've hosted several top scholars on the history of abolitionism in England and America, as well as the relevant constitutional law.Today's guest is a top historian and I found our conversation fascinating. He knows the history like an encyclopedia and can analyze it to answer my questions immediately.We talk about anti-slavery politics, abolitionism, Frederick Douglass's interpretation of the Constitution over time and in comparison to William Lloyd Garrison's and slave owners', and more.The big question we pursue is can we use the Constitution to make our nation sustainable? If so, how?You'll hear I'm narrowing in on answers. David and I will speak again. This conversation sets the groundwork. I believe it's history in the making, in that it's leading to political solutions for our environmental problems caused by our culture.David's home pageDavid's page at Yale
718. 718: Albert Garcia-Romeu, part 2: Psychedelics and Appreciating Nature Where You Are01:06:19I couldn't help asking question about the field of psychedelics research beyond our last conversation. He's a professional at the top of the field and well-connected. I started by asking him about comedy and psychedelics, after reading a funny piece in The Onion about it. He responded seriously, after all, there's a lot of humor in psychedelics.Then he shared about the growing communities of professionals and non-professionals. We both talked about trends in tourism, psychedelics, and sustainability. A lot of people are flying around and doing other things that lower Earth's ability to sustain life in the name of helping. They're achieving the opposite of what the marketers sold them on. Others are homogenizing and assimilating cultures in the name of promoting and protecting them.We talked about his experiences with his commitment from last time, including appreciating nature where we are, not feeling we have to drive or travel to find it.
717. 717: Pamela Paul: Writing on Controversial Subjects With Confidence47:52I met Pamela Paul after she mentioned previous guest John Sargent in a piece, There's More Than One Way to Ban a Book. I found her column covered issues others shy away from. I was curious what motivated her.We talked about what motivates her to write, how she chooses her columns, and how she writes. I was looking for encouragement to take on difficult topics with confidence, since I'm doing it in my book. I'm concerned my book could be maybe not banned but attacked for taking on topics people tell me to shy away from.She gives an inside view of an industry and vaunted institution. She also encouraged me a lot. If you're interested in exploring your boundaries, I expect her words will help you too.Pamela's opinion column at the New York TimesHer home page
716. 716: Arnold Leitner, part 2: How much energy and power do you need to be happy?01:04:32How do we affect others and how does it relate to what brings meaning to life? I'm surprised it took this long for one of my conversations to cover the meaning of life, but I'm not surprised it came with a fellow physicist. Being able to talk quantitatively about nature comfortably, from lots of practice, lets us understand patterns of what's happening.Arnold can also talk with integrity for living by the values he talks about. We see the challenges similarly, though I focus on changing culture and he focuses more on technology.Talking about culture and meaning comes later in this conversation. First we talk in numbers about the patterns he sees in power use, then we expand to reducing battery needs overall, though mostly in houses and transportation.We also talk about most likely outcomes for humanity. He sees similar results to what I expect if humanity continues business as usual, which isn't pretty. I think we can do more than he can, though I recognize few people think hundreds of millions of Americans can reduce their overall impact something like ninety percent in a few years. I didn't think I could until I did.Listen and find out why I looked up the lyrics to 99 Red Balloons and watched the Matrix for first time in at least a decade.Arnold's company YouSolar
715. 715: My mom, Marie Spodek, part 3: Starting a food coop and making ends meet as a single mom in a food desert with three kids01:09:42I've written about how people act like food coops don't work for people without resources like time and money or who have kids. It took me a long time to realize they didn't see food coops being started because the people starting them didn't have time or money and had kids. When my parents couldn't make ends meet, then after they divorced and struggled more to make ends meet, forming cooperative groups was their way out of poverty.Luckily nobody told them they couldn't do it! Likewise with the people behind Drew Gardens in the Bronx, Harlem Grown, my credit union, or countless other results of community organizing.I wrote about it in If you think food coops cost more or complain that some people don’t have access to them, you don’t know what you’re talking about and are exacerbating the problem, but my mom was there. In this episode we talk about how they helped organize a group of families to save money and time to buy higher quality food. Later that group folded into Weavers Way coop, which is one of my favorite parts of my childhood. I didn't recognize it as such as a child, though.
714. 714: Adam Hochschild, part 3: King Leopold's Ghost01:02:53Adam's book Bury the Chains inspired me to see British abolitionism as a role model movement for sustainability. The writing was simple and clear. The subject inspirational and relevant. We talked about it in our first episodes, which I recommend.At last I read his most renowned book, King Leopold's Ghost, which we talk about in this episode. I came to it after reading Heart of Darkness, which it complements. Regular readers know how much I've found imperialism, colonialism, and slavery. King Leopold's Ghost covers the case of Belgium's king pulling it off while cultivating a philanthropic reputation. It's shocking and more relevant than ever, given the continuing imperialism, colonialism, and slavery in Africa today, now for our cell phones and electric vehicles. They aren't clean, green, or renewable.Adam shares the highlights of the story. Again, the writing is simple and clear so I recommend the whole book. Start with our conversation. King Leopold's Ghost is as relevant to today as any book. If you're concerned about the environment and how corporations and government can promote themselves as green while behaving the opposite, I can't recommend it enough.Adam's page at UC Berkeley's Journalism School