This summer, I found a great blog at This Magazine. The webpage (supported by folk such as Margaret Atwood and David Suzuki) tells me that it's the leading alternative Canadian magazine of politics, pop culture, and the arts. The Earth Archives has some very well written posts - including this one, that I have tried to insert below - about how doing lots of small sustainability-motivated acts won't really help us that much. The author, Graham F. Scott, is probably right. But, the question is whether these acts end up enabling much larger actions - such as, changing our views on ironed clothes on a large-scale. Why's this large? Well, I am very fed up with being in meetings full of people dressed in well-pressed clothes. I do not iron on the principle that it's a waste of energy (all round). We also need to stop washing stuff so often. I insist that when we rent very small cars for field work, that my local Hertz gives us dirty cars - they're never going to be as full of mud as they end up with us. If this all sends a message to industry (as in, we could boycott companies where staff are forced to dress inappropriately in ironed shirts and blouses, and in wool suits in hot summers), then small acts COULD lead to big changes.
Dawn R. Bazely - dressed below right, in an outfit that I would happily wear to a boardroom meeting, to make a point, bug shirt and all.
"January 08, 2009
Rinky-dink ink tinkering isn't the answer
Posted by Graham F. Scott at 11:57 AM ET | Comments (0)
A Dutch design firm has released a new computer font, Ecofont, that they say uses less ink, and can therefore reduce the e-waste that results from depleted toner cartridges. It's a regular-looking font except that it's riddled with holes, and the firm, Spranq, claims this reduces toner use by up to 20 per cent.
Their hearts are in the right place, but this is clearly public-relations bunk. (And I realize I'm playing into it by linking to them.) There are plenty of environmental problems in the world, and technology waste is some of the most difficult to deal with. But the real effect of this font is statistically insignificant, and no one should be fooled into thinking it's a real solution to any of our pressing environmental problems.
This kind of "environmental" measure is increasingly common — easy to implement, emotionally gratifying, socially acceptable, and totally ineffectual. You would be better off turning on the ink-saving features now available in every modern printer; even better would be choosing not to print that two-line email in the first place.
This morning on Twitter I linked to a new advertisement from the World Wildlife Fund that makes a crucial point: consumers and end-users are being constantly scolded to change their behaviours and reduce their environmental footprint while government and industry continue to allow damaging beahviour to go unchecked. Individual efforts like installing compact fluorescent lightbulbs and downloading an "Ecofont" are fine, but they won't get us where we need to go unless the biggest and baddest polluters are brought to heel."
