A Better Way to Wipe

Apparently, people in the United States have delicate bottoms.

According to this article in the New York Times, "Mr. Whipple Left It Out: Soft Is Rough on Forests," Americans have a particular preference for soft, fluffy toilet paper that can only be made using new trees (i.e. non-recycled materials). Many of these trees come from tree farms in South and North America, and some of them come from virgin forests that are home to numerous endangered species. In addition to this loss of trees, the process of making tissue papers from freshly cut trees is also more chemically polluting than when using recycled materials.

If you stop and think about it, this is truly ridiculous. We are cutting down trees, including virgin forests, so that we can have a slightly softer toilet experience. Is this not more egregious than just about any other form of waste in our society? Talk about unnecessary. Future generations will lambaste us (rightly) for this.

But let's not berate ourselves too harshly. After all, the manufacturing process of toilet paper is not something that we learn at school. I didn't really know about all this stuff myself until this morning when I came across that article, and I have Charmin Ultra Soft (very soft, very fluffy) in my bathroom right now. But next time I go shopping, I'm going to buy something better.

For some ideas on what's better, check out this Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide from Greenpeace--which, by the way, lists not only toilet paper, but also facial tissues, paper towels and paper napkins, because it's really all of our paper products that we're talking about here. Is it any less ridiculous to unnecessarily cut down trees to blow your nose, clean up a spill or wipe your hands than it is to wipe your bum softly?

The reality is that most human beings don't use toilet paper at all. (I've traveled in India, and I can tell you that it's really not a big deal to splash with water and then wash your hands afterwards.) But of those who do, most use toilet paper this is partly or entirely from recycled paper.

So let's give up our extra soft and fluffy squares and switch over to 100% recycled products. We have no right to wipe our ass with a forest.

Breathing Earth

This site is very interesting.  It really gives you a sense of what's happening with population growth and co2 emissions on a global scale.  

Also very interesting, seeing the frequency of births and deaths, to sense the stream of life flowing continuously through our world.

http://www.breathingearth.net/

(scroll down on the Breathing Earth page for more information and some great links)

Organic: Good for Earth

Let's look a little bit more closely at how the industrial agricultural system and the organic farming movement relate to the environment.

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), approximately 1 billion pounds of synthetic pesticides are used in the United States every year.  There is a growing body of evidence linking these synthetic pesticides with serious health problems for both humans and animals.  It is estimated that at least 67 million birds are killed each year on U.S. agricultural land from exposure to pesticides.  There also seems to be a link between pesticides and global declines in frog populations.  Ditto for global declines in bee populations.  If we think about it, this makes sense: the purpose of pesticides is to kill--they are quite literally chemicals of death.  So why should we be surprised that putting 1 billion pounds of them into the environment annually causes animals to die?

The USGS also states that 28 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers are used each year in the United States.  A large proportion of that total is not absorbed by the soil and plants but is instead carried by rains into streams, lakes and rivers, from which it eventually makes its way to the ocean.  One example of this is the Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone.'  Each year, spring rains brings synthetic fertilizers from croplands in the American Midwest into the Mississippi river and out into the Gulf of Mexico.  The nitrogen in the fertilizers disrupts the ecosystem of the gulf, starting a chain reaction that leads to oxygen depletion.  The result is a stretch of ocean that is "as barren as the surface of the moon," containing no fish, no shrimp, no crabs, no life at all.  In 2008, the dead zone was over 8,000 sq. miles, which is roughly the size of New Jersey.  Does this not scream that there's something wrong with how we're doing things?

Organic farming offers an alternative to these problems.  While our industrial agricultural system uses 28 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers annually, organic farming uses zero pounds of synthetic fertilizers.  Instead, crops are grown in such a way (crop rotation, composting, animal waste as fertilizer) that the soil restores itself naturally and runoff is greatly reduced.

And while our industrial agricultural system dumps 1 billion pounds of laboratory-created poison onto our fields each year, organic farming uses significantly smaller quantities of significantly less toxic, natural pesticides.  For the most part, pests are controlled by supporting natural ecosystems and the creatures that prey on the pests.  Pesticides become mostly unnecessary.

So what are the criticisms of organic farming with regards to the environment?  Some people, particularly those connected to agribusiness corporations, contend that organic farming is less productive than industrial agriculture and that in order to feed the planet through organic farming, we would have to bring more land under cultivation by cutting down more forests.  I am not a farmer, so I cannot claim to tell you through my personal experiences whether or not this is true.  However, a 22-year study by the Rodale Institute and Cornell University found that "organic farming produces [the] same corn and soybean yields as conventional farm[ing], but consumes less energy and no pesticides." The general consensus outside of the agribusiness community seems to be that organic farming can be every bit as productive as industrial farming in the short-term, and it's likely more productive in the long-term when sustainability issues (such as soil degradation) are taken into consideration.  

So it seems that any way you look at it, organic is better for the environment.  And my common sense tells me the same thing.  In sharp contrast to our current methods of agriculture, organic farming exists in harmony with and strengthens ecosystems.  And it is sustainable and healthy for all life on the planet.  So let's support our natural environments by supporting the organic movement.