Sustainability for the Community

TogetherYes - Sustainability for the Community

Reading Moral Ground

Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril. Kathleen Dean Moore & Michael P. Nelson, Editors (Trinity University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-59534-066-5) Review by Susan Clare

Moral Ground is not an “entertaining” book, but it is a very important one. It is as serious as the topic demands;  parts of it are downright frightening, while others lend some hope that we can possibly keep Earth from becoming uninhabitable. We don’t feel good while reading it, but we can take solace in the knowledge that the writers are working on behalf of us and of our planet. More importantly, we can be changed by its words.

This collection of essays comes from well-credentialed and varied philosophers, writers and artists, ethicists, environmentalists, economists, physical and social scientists, activists, world leaders, and clergy of diverse faiths. These people should be the illuminati of the movement to save Earth, yet they barely get our attention when we listen to radio, watch television, or read the newspapers. We have to seek out their teaching and inspiration, we have to study them, and we do that by reading this book (as well as publications recommended in their essays).

The essays are brief and are organized into chapters according to reasons for a moral imperative to address the degradation of Earth. Kathleen Moore and Michael Nelson are the finest editors I’ve encountered in some time. Although the powerful essays speak for themselves, the overall effect is magnified by the editors’ well-tailored preface and afterword to each section. One is aware that they believe in, and are passionate about, the essayists’ messages. The editors are integral to this book and have permitted themselves to become a presence in it, an unusual but effective approach in this instance.

The book has a rhythm, thanks to brilliant editing, and should be read chapter by chapter, in order. Begin each chapter by considering the editors’ challenge, and end it on a hopeful note with their call to ethical action. A truism, not ancient, but fast becoming venerable, is Activism breeds optimism.

Written for the lay reader, the essays are not overly technical in nature. Although the facts and figures included are already known to many of us, they are presented to support a new interpretation, a new perception, of available information. How to think about and make sense of information is something we continue learning as we mature, and these writers are good teachers. If one essay doesn’t lead you to a eureka moment, the next one will.

Sometimes making us uncomfortable just as we are congratulating ourselves on recycling our many plastics, the authors urge more. They make the case for our personal involvement, often inspiring us and providing us with arguments we can use when discussing the matter of Earth’s sustainability. More critically, our own habits, desires, and wills can benefit from what we are taught in these essays.

At the beginning of the 21st century, scientists began using a new term for the current geologic era of profound human impacts on the Earth, its systems, and its life forms. Now, great thinkers are addressing the possible end of this Anthropocene Era due to a great extinction of biological life on Earth. Thich Nhat Han says, In my mind I see a group of chickens in a cage disputing over a few seeds of grain, unaware that in a few hours they will all be killed. [NOTE: quotes from essays appear in italics, for smoother reading]

Moore and Nelson clearly lay this extinction at the feet of mankind. The unique and morally outrageous thing about this sixth extinction event is that it was caused by a single species, a single species who knew what it was doing, a single species who could have chosen otherwise but did not. . . The failure to act on behalf of the Earth is . . . a cosmic cutting-off-the limb-you’re-sitting-on-stupidity.

Too late in preventing severe climate change, we may be able to survive it and make future life on Earth possible. According to F. Stuart Chapin III, Recent emissions of carbon dioxide already commit the planet to at least another half-century of rapid warming, which will strongly shape our lives and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Robert Michael Pyle agrees, stressing that we must get small, get local. With luck, the smart and humble adherents of the small and the local may survive to have another go after the larger collapse, may even thrive under the uncomfortable and inconvenient conditions to come. But I doubt very much that the culture we know will long persist, absent truly radical changes in the way it works.

If so much damage is already unretractable, why should we burden ourselves with correction? According to Bill McKibben, a fellow new Englander, We must accept the fact that the world we have known is going to change in hideous and damaging ways–and we must nonetheless work as hard as we can to limit that damage, to keep it this side of complete catastrophe, to save as many options for our descendants as are still possible.

This book contains hard-hitting diagnoses and prescriptions for what we face, beginning with our economic practices and including a bit of history: Any notion regarding our responsibility to maintain natural capital for future generations or to advance economic and technological progress with a sense of stewardship was not present in the 18th-century designs that still drive so much of our economic thinking. (Michael M. Crow)

Our economic mismanagement may well mean the end of us, according to Paul Hawken. At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it “gross domestic product.”

No matter how you look at it, politics-as-usual ties into economics. Nearly everyone has complained of various elected leaders being “owned” or of “big-money running the government,”  and such complaints have some basis in fact.  James Gustave Speth neatly summarizes the issue. Economic growth may be the world’s secular religion, but for much of the world it is a god that is failing today . . . The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy undermines families, jobs, communities, the environment, a sense of place and continuity, even mental health. It fuels a ruthless international search for energy and other resources, and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that is not meeting the deepest human needs.

As Americans, we are justly proud of much of our history, but the well informed among us are becoming aware that some of our more jingoistic beliefs need examination. In the words of Terry Tempest Williams, We have made the mistake of confusing democracy with capitalism and have mistaken political engagement with political machinery we all understand to be corrupt.

It’s pretty well accepted in Western culture that mankind is intended, by nature or by God, to hold a position of dominance over the world. If there is an interest in our part as stewards of the Earth, write down these words from Marcus J Borg: The good Shepherd is not one who devours all the sheep.

And if we wish to continue consuming at our current rate, we can at least be honest with ourselves, as exhorted by the editors. Even as you lead an unjustifiably consumptive life, it will be gracious to acknowledge that not only are you taking more than your fair share, but your lifelong history of taking more than your fair share has in fact exponentially increased the undeserved suffering of others.

According to Sally McFague, and her information can be learned from many reliable studies,  If all people on Earth were to live as North Americans do, we would need four more Earths to produce sufficient energy.

But we can’t even survive–much less mitigate our effect on the world–if we don’t pull together. New habits lead to new ways of seeing, and it may be that we can discover the reality of our dependence on the living world around us only by practicing mutual dependence with others of our species. (Mary Catherine Bateson)  It is critical to examine our social system and our often-blind adherence to maintaining it as is. Robert Michael Pyle says, As we saw in the recent economic implosion, the entire social system suicidally depends on perpetual growth.

We have an imperative to imagine how our society, AND the world society, might respond to our ongoing rate of consumption and flagrant disregard of suggested remedies. Again, from Pyle: As the world’s resources of non-renewable fuels– coal, oil, and natural gas– are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence among men.

Wangari Maathai states, A degraded environment leads to a scramble for scarce resources and may culminate in poverty and even conflict. With all simplicity, we each must ask: faced with hungry and desperate people at my door will I feed them or shoot them? It is a scenario that I hope can remain in our imaginations, but people are not going to peacefully watch their families suffer and die when there’s food to be had, even if it requires theft and violence to obtain.

Sally McShane says that . . . these are threats that people who work in national security are already concerned about and taking very seriously. This is not new information. I have read in other well-documented books that our military has been considering how to protect us from neighboring countries, and from one another, when water becomes scarce.  My grandson, asking about the “end times” he hears about in movies, seems to accept my explanation that when we draw our first breath as newborns, we are living in end times, as our sojourn as humans on Earth is finite. The thing is: we don’t know when the end times will become the end. We must live carefully and well, to see that we don’t bring on that culmination ourselves. I think we’d best begin sharing now, and that beginning begins with lessening our own consumption.

The subtitle of this book does mention ethics, and even those of us not schooled in philosophy are capable of examining our own. A basic question-and-answer is presented by Derrick Jenson: When most people in this culture ask, “How can we stop global warming?” That’s not really what they’re asking. They’re asking, “How can we stop global warming, without significantly changing this lifestyle [or deathstyle, as some call it] that is causing global warming in the first place?”

That addressed, we might look to the satisfaction of such personal sea change. . . . Much more catastrophe is on the way unless we learn that sustainability has less to do with developing more efficient ways to exploit nature, and more to do with learning to be happy with consuming less–a happiness that would rise from being held by a sense of wonder toward nature. (John A. Vucetich)

And how do we begin living toward this philosophy? We attend to the world; we embrace a land ethic proposed by frequently quoted Aldo Leopold; and we meet the needs of the entire Earth, not just homo sapiens. M. Scott Momaday says, We must live according to the principle of a land ethic. The alternative is that we shall not live at all.

We cannot do this unless we deeply and permanently feel that we are not separate from nature, that how we treat her is how we treat ourselves. J. Baird Callicott states that The ethical paradigm that meets the challenge of global climate change must shift the emphasis in moral psychology from reason to feeling.

Having begun an internal discussion of our ethics with regard to Earth (which, remember, includes humanity), we looked for direction in our behavior. “To do nothing is to do something”—namely, to assent to existing trends and entailments. (Ernest Partridge)

We have to act with humility before our interdependence with the rest of the natural world, to . . . cultivate moral dispositions of gratitude, humility, and solidarity. These dispositions are at the core of an ethic of radical dependency and interdependency that must supplant historical models of anthropocentric authority without accountability. (Courtney S. Campbell)

However humble, however strong our solidarity with nature, we do have to act. . . . with all the world at stake, it’s foolishly and reprehensibly irresponsible to rely on some miraculous transformation we all know won’t happen. We need to act, and we need to act decisively. The miracle we’re waiting for is us. (Derrick Jenson)

I’m afraid adequate action does not rely entirely on the intentions of our forefathers or our own good heartedness, valuable as these are. It rests, at this stage of our ongoing deconstruction of Earth, with our actions. It is not enough to “go greener.” We must save the Earth and its inhabitants, from amoeba to human.

I promise that there is hope in the book, as well as a tearing away of the veils of habit. Jonathan F. P. Rose says, We live in an interesting time in history, when the world’s economy is rapidly in decline, when many are reducing consumption to what they need rather than what they want, finding that the reduction is giving rise to a new sense of value and values.

While admitting the severity of what Earth must endure, Bernd Heinrich pleads for optimism that we can make the difference. . . . sudden, sustained, and unrelenting disruption of this scale has not been seen on Earth before. You can’t go back or backward, we are told. Yes, we can. The question is only whether we will. Will we do it slowly and deliberately, getting it right along the way? If not, it will come upon us later, and calamitously.

Curt Meine, lamenting what’s come to pass, places the responsibility for hope on us. From time immemorial hope has been a joyful human response to geological, orbital, and environmental flux. Now hope must become more and more a human creation.

Certainly, Earth will survive, but will it remain capable of supporting biological life? We are destroying a symbiotic relationship here and we haven’t the right, as we are doing so for all life, not just ours. Moral Ground is a lengthy book (478 pages), though mercifully divided and organized for orderly reading. I wonder, though, if it’s doomed to be read only by the already converted. Will a busy person read a book that is slow going and calls into question his morals as well as his daily practices? Will the person struggling to get ahead, or even maintain a lifestyle, let himself in for a book that doesn’t validate his practices?

Life’s hard enough? Well, it’s going to get harder. For nearly every biological life form except the few very rich humans who will be protected, at least until the rest of the people, animals, and plants can no longer support them as we’ve been doing with such dedication.

I think of myself as teachable, and so find the essays in Moral Ground worthy of study. I didn’t read fast and I didn’t read straight through in a few sittings, but I did begin to feel changes in my worldview. The most poignant perception came after reading essays on the beauty and utility of what comprises my world. I looked out my suburban window at a large oak tree, acknowledged its aesthetic and practical usefulness, its nature-given right to survive and do its work in nature.

Surprise! I began to feel, yes feel, that the tree and I are living in the same reality. We are together in it. And, I am not inherently ugly in form or purpose any more than the tree is, though I am easily accused of neglect where Earth is concerned. This I will remedy, refining the ethics of my practices as I go.

“Put e’m Up!” book review

I want to eat slow food, to eat more sustainably, but I face two challenges even as I think about it. I have a small budget, and I live in New England where the growing season is short. Summer and autumn yield a bounty of affordable and healthy produce, but winter does follow.

An answer to my financial and nutritional concerns is nicely laid out in “Put ‘em Up! A Comprehensive Home Preserving Guide for the Creative Cook (from Drying and Freezing to Canning and Pickling)” by Sherri Brooks Vinton: Storey Publishing, 2010. The text is accompanied by appealing photographs (Kevin Kennefick) and illustrations (Elara Tanguy).

I have never dried produce, have always lived with small freezers, and haven’t seen canning done since I was the child step-and-fetch assistant to my mother. Vinton’s book is setting things right for me, and I’m ready to put up produce against the winter as soon as my beets and beans come in. I’m in touch with local farms and orchards where I can affordably buy produce I don’t grow in my community garden plot, and I am getting ambitious, with the optimism that brings. I can’t fail, because I now have easy-to-follow instructions, explanations, and recipes.

It is gratifying that Vinton frequently mentions why and how putting food up is a sustainable practice, from protecting our own bank accounts to the effects on Earth and its inhabitants.

Home food preservation is planet-friendly. Preserving locally grown food reduces reliance on imported produce, so it minimizes energy-intensive shipping. Locally sourced foods are more likely to come from small, biodiverse farms that do not require the chemical applications that are commonplace in large monocultures. Supporting local agriculture protects open space. Canned and dried foods are shelf-stable, so they don’t require the energy for storage that frozen foods do. Even home-frozen foods don’t require the energy-intensive industrial processing, refrigerated shipping, and storage of their commercial counterparts. (p. 13)

Vinton addresses food safety, including the chemicals in store-bought produce, the necessary attention to correct acidity and sealing of canned foods, and even how to deal with the bisphenol A (BPA) found on canning lids. She looks to avoid most plastics, and preaches the small-and-local theme persuasively. We can assume she knows what she’s talking about, as she is the founder of FarmFriendly LCC, as well as member of the Northeast Organic Farmers’ Association.

This 303-page book takes a friendly tone, but it is thoughtfully organized for our use. Storey Publishing has given us something we can lay open on the table as we cook, spilling sauces around the edges and writing margin notes as we go. This is a working book, and cheap production is never Storey’s bottom line.

Opening with a discussion of methods and the necessary equipment for each, Put ‘em Up! explains how to use refrigeration, cold cellars, and freezers, as well as how to make infusions (oils and vinegars), dry, can, and ferment. Addressing the economy of food preservation, Vinton says:

            …home food preservation is an exercise in economy, not consumerism, so you shouldn’t have to invest a lot of money in new, single-use-gadgets to get the job done. …You don’t need state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line anything to accomplish these recipes. Human-scale BTUs will do just fine. (p. 17)

There is a trouble-shooting section, and we are admonished to follow recipes exactly as to amounts. The chemistry of food preservation is critical to safety and to appealing texture, color, and taste. Once we are convinced we can do this and have noted the few pieces of equipment we will need, we move into the heart and delight of the matter: the recipes. Organized alphabetically by each fruit or vegetable, the recipes start with a brief description of how the food can be served/used. No meat preservation is included, and that’s in keeping with my own efforts at sustainability. I shouldn’t be eating enough meat to require more than the occasional purchase of carefully chosen meat. My health is at stake, and I can’t ignore the effect our U.S. meat production has on the world food supply.

Within each section, recipes are followed by suggested preservation methods, along with considerations specific to that produce. When I look at a recipe in any book, finances and time constraints cause me to scan the list of ingredients before reading further. A lengthy list tells me that, however tempting, I will never get around to that one. Vinton holds to her promise of simplicity and feasibility, and her ingredient lists are satisfyingly brief. I will follow through.

With all the economy and simplicity of food preservation as taught by Vinton, some methods just take time. Adjusting to this slow-food practice is up to me, but throughout the book, I have encouragement, well wishing, and justification for the attempt. I am left with an understanding that I’m not doing this alone. All over the world, people are preserving food. Some have done so all along, while many of us are returning after long absence during which we included our food among the sacrifices made to support the GDP and to make time for wage-earning so we could keep up that effort.

Granted, most critical steps toward sustainability for ourselves and for Earth will have to be addressed at the national level (and that only upon our demand, when enough of us finally decide to pursue it), but it seems to me that a reasonable starting place is on our own supper tables. It is worth considering that sustenance and sustainability share the same (Latin) root.       Susan Clare

The Economics of Happiness

Last week, I attended a screening of “The Economics of Happiness” (ISEC, 2011), sponsored by Together Yes at the Morrill Memorial Library. About twenty minutes into this film I felt like David against Goliath. Even if I became the No-Impact Woman of my dreams, the efforts of my entire life would probably be negated in a single day by the current practices of world economics, food production, transportation, and unimpeded development. But after the movie had some time to simmer, I came to two happy conclusions: my personal emotional angst about saving the world can chill occasionally, and this film is a great educational tool. Some of what I learned that we’ve done to our planet and its people struck me as ludicrous, and during the past week I have liberally shared this information with family members, workmates and friends.

The central theme of the movie is that globalization has rushed the citizens of the world down a path toward unhappiness, strife, economic dependence, stress and disconnectedness, and has left us in a disgustingly polluted environment with a food shortage looming. Bigger is NOT better. Through interviews with experts across the world, the film refutes common thought about Western responsibilities to the Third World, the viability of super seeds, the real costs of “free” trade, and the international devastation wrought by monoculture farming.

Narrator Helena Norberg-Hodge, Director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), brings us through the negative aspects of globalization, followed by the ways that localization can restore what we have lost. Rather than using the GDP as the indicator of a country’s economic success they recommend a new indicator, the Genuine Progress Index (GPI). Wikipedia explains GPI as “an attempt to measure whether a country’s growth, increased production of goods, and expanding services have actually resulted in the improvement of the welfare (or well-being) of the people in the country. GPI advocates claim that it can more reliably measure economic progress, as it distinguishes between worthwhile growth and uneconomic growth.”

There were several compelling pieces to the film and they helped me understand why the current economic system is so incredibly broken. In the globalization section, I learned that apples are sent from the UK to South Africa to be washed and waxed, then shipped back to British supermarkets, and that tuna caught off the coast of North America, is flown to Japan for processing, then flown back to the US to be sold. In India, globalization has pushed famers off their lands and out of work, resulting in 100,000 Indian farmers committing suicide. In the localization portion, the documentary illustrated that some local governments, universities, and communities are making a big difference. In San Francisco, the city government now requires all public institutions, such as schools and prisons, to acquire locally produced foods. I was also happy to discover that biodiverse farms produce 3-5 times more food than single-crop farms.

While the film ends on a hopeful note, it does not wrap up neatly with a pretty bow. The filmmakers want to leave us with some unresolved discomfort, some reasons to change habits. They remind us that we must solve this problem together. You can learn more about the ISEC and this film by visiting    Nora Zaldivar


I watch a lot of films and read a lot of books and magazines. I have to. I study sustainability, and am president of an organization that promotes sustainability. There is admittedly more to learn than I can handle.

The topics are not new; people in the know have been studying, predicting, writing, making films for years now. Some of us are just beginning to listen, feeling the creep of dread as each news story of cataclysmic weather and each demonstration and each economic crisis comes to our attention.

One easy and entertaining way to get information fast is to watch Annie Leonard’s “Story of …” videos. Each is only about 7 minutes long, and provides a basic explanation of the issue being illuminated. Her first such video was “The Story of Stuff,” but I discover she’s gone much further. There are now short videos on: Story of Broke, Story of Citizens United vs. FEC, Story of Electronics, Story of Cosmetics, Story of Bottled Water, Story of Cap and Trade. Leonard is optimistic, obviously believeing we can make the changes necessary to save our necks.

These videos are cut-down, fast-moving, and cover just the basics, giving me a framework to understand what assaults me daily in my reading and viewing. I have “favorited” the site, and watch a video or two each week. It’s a nice break from the usual. Here is where you can find them. You will be able to click on each movie from the top menu bar, MOVIES.


Gasland: Can You Light Your Water? A film by Josh Fox (International WOW Co. 2010)

Gasland is not a long film, nor is it replete with orchestral music and expert cinematography. However, this is a change-your-mind sort of documentary that does its job.

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for natural gas is largely unregulated, and the companies doing it are expanding their reach. Already, areas of the southern, western, and southwestern US have been fracked, and the companies are now at work on the Delaware River Basin. They pretty much go where they want and use the means they need to achieve results.

Hydraulic fracturing by natural gas companies is almost what it sounds like: fracturing underground rock layers with powerful blasts of water to permit natural gas to move where it can be captured for use.

But I said almost. Over 500 chemicals are injected along with the water, and some are hazardous to biological life (plants, animals, and us). These do not all stay underground. Some escape when the companies spray liquid into the air so it can evaporate (they have to get the liquid back out of the fractures so the gas can move in). Some liquids from fracking are brought to ground level and let sit in pools called flowback pits. The companies, knowing there’s far more there than simple water, call this “produced water.” Groundwater often becomes contaminated and affects people’s wells with chemicals including glycol ether (an antifreeze) and benzene.. Furthermore, the buildup of gas can cause explosions in the wellbores and in water lines

The history of regulation of fracking is nasty and way too light; Fox’s recap of it is borne out by other research and investigative reporting.

Reading long reports containing numerous technical terms is not everyone’s cup of tea. This film is an easy way to get the basic information. Fox is a likable man whose land has been targeted for gas company fracking. He tours areas of the United States where fracking has already occurred, interviewing landowners. We see more than one person able to ignite creek water as well as water from their kitchen taps, people who have become chronically ill. One woman is freezing the carcasses of wildlife expired around a pond near her home in hopes that some authority will autopsy them to identify the chemicals at fault. So far, no one has taken her up on it.

While few federal agencies appear interested in what might lead to regulation of fracking, some US states and counties have banned the practice.

Never mind how close the Delaware River Basin gets to home here in the Northeast, as the results from fracking may be in our refrigerators right now. Fracking is carried out on ranches and farms, and the livestock are getting sick. Think milk, eggs, steak, and pork chops.

Can fracking be carried out more safely? Apparently, it can. But also apparently, it may not be, without more stringent federal regulation. Some EPA staff have testified to the dangers which, by the way, include possible earthquakes, but the gas companies have been granted exceptions to some important (to our safety) environmental and land constraints already in place, and new regulations seem to get quashed.

Fox shows a touch of black humor now and then, making clear that the people affected by fracking are real human beings, helpless before corporate machinery. In one brief scene, he stands in an area replete with toxic air, playing cheerful country music on his banjo and wearing a gas mask. We laugh a moment before realizing this is no exaggeration, as some people living in fracking areas are afraid to go outdoors without protection. Certain fracking chemicals can cause asthma and irreversible neurological damage.

I’m not getting up a group to march on Washington here, but I am advocating self-education. A number of the folks suffering the consequences of fracking were unaware of the risks, were assured of fracking’s safety, and were paid for the rights (contracts they can’t get out of). They now hope their experience will warn others of the dangers. Certainly, we should at least hear them out.

This film is not available at our local library, but it can be requested there on interlibrary loan, thanks to our membership in the Minuteman Library Network.   Susan Clare