Water brings life. Water is life. Civilization has always depended up on water to grow and flourish. Every great civilization learned to master water, Progress does not mean leaving the past behind; it means taking the best parts of the past and raising them up to be our future. It means shedding inefficiencies and destructive habits in order to promote success and happiness. Water was and always will be essential.
It is universally accepted that safe drinking water will define the struggles of the next century. It is also certain to me that progress will not outgrow water. Instead it will come to define us more as we rediscover the importance of this gift we have so arrogantly abused.
As we become more urban we must transform our cities into communities. We must offer recreation and access to nature not only for our physical health but also our mental and spiritual wellbeing. Every major religion has a sacred relationship with water and so does every single person, regardless of creed or geography.
I suppose it is fitting that as a child in every cartoon or book that I ever read that involved elemental powers I always wanted the power of water. It fascinated me. Something so essential and life sustaining could also be a powerful weapon of destruction and force. Water is both calm and wrathful. It can bring serenity and panic.
The water cycle is beyond fascinating in that water seems to come from nowhere and disappear as well. We only see one part of the river’s flow. And the entire river is only a small part of the global flow. I dream of following the flow of a great river from its origin to the ocean. To see the amazing journey water takes and all the ways it influences the world along the way.
I figured I could follow up my last post about sustainable fashion brand Osklen by talking about another clothing brand that has sustainability at its core, Patagonia. The outdoors company has been selling high quality outdoor gear for over 40 years. Their target demographic is the “dirt bag,” basically the kind of person who is comfortable in the backcountry than in the suburbs. However, over the years their gear has become incredibly popular with those suburban and urban dwellers who don’t quite need the gear for what it is intended for. In the recent Slate article I read they refer this loyal consumer base as the “dog walkers.”
I have to admit, I hadn’t heard of Patagonia until I came to school at University of Richmond, where EVERYONE wears Patagonia. I discovered that just like at my high school where The North Face was extremely popular, Patagonia was a fashion statement here. So it wasn’t long before I ended up with my own piece of Patagonia. I tell myself I deserve to own a piece of Patagonia since I consider myself outdoorsy, or at least more outdoorsy than the majority of people sporting the label.
I purchased these shoes for $20 at the REI garage sale that I attended with members of the University of Richmond Outdoors club. They are originally $65. I absolutely love them. For of those of you who don’t know how REI works, it is an outdoors store that is organized as a consumers’ cooperative. So once you purchase a membership you receive a dividend return for your purchases at the end of the year, free shipping for store pickups, and best of all returns for any reason at all. When customers return their gear it is stored in the warehouse and throughout the year REI stores will hold garage sales where they will sell all returned merchandise at huge discounts. That’s how I got my first piece of Patagonia so cheap, because someone decided they didn’t fit well enough.
This method of acquisition perfectly fits one of Patagonia’s initiatives, the Common Threads Initiative, which encourages customers to only buy new products if they really need them. Instead they encourage customers to shop on EBay, thrift stores, and events such as this REI one in order to limit waste. Patagonia’s products are built for durability as well, so their overall plan for consumers is for them to buy only what they need, and wear it until they can’t wear if anymore. If you decide you want a new Patagonia before yours has reached the end of its lifespan, make sure someone else can use it instead of wasting it in a closet somewhere. This approach is very different from most companies, especially fashion companies whose business model is dependent upon selling new lines every season.
This is why the next time I need a jacket I will be investing in, not purchasing, a Patagonia. Consumers like me can justify the high cost of Patagonia products because they are meant to be seen as an investment. My shoes are no just another pair I might wear if they fit my outfit; they are the shoes I will wear until the soles are gone. I believe that is the difference between the dirt bag and the dog walker. The dirt bag will wear through the soles, the dog walker won’t. I will admit, I’m far from a dirt bag, but that’s the effect that this imagine of Patagonia can have on a dog walker like me. Patagonia might not have set out to change the dog walkers into dirt bags, but I believe that if they continue to stay true their philosophy of durability and sustainability they can have a positive impact through the clothing industry. They can sell for functionality, fashionability, and sustainability all at once.
A few weeks ago I was assigned a website brand presentation for a brand from an emerging market. I ended up profiling Osklen, a high-end Brazilian sportswear company. The brand was started in 1989 by Brazilian entrepreneur Oskar Metsavaht. Metsavaht was a mountaineer who designed his own outdoors gear after noticing a lack of gear being sold in Brazil. Soon thanks to his publicity after becoming the first Brazilian to scale Mont Blanc his brand took off. They began a “lifestyle” fashion line that was inspired by the laid back surf lifestyle of Brazil.
The brand takes the laid-back beach inspired look and makes it urban. They do an excellent job representing Brazil as a beautiful country renowned for its beaches and beautiful people, as well as one of the fastest growing nations that is increasing its global presence every year. Even I could appreciate what Metsavaht was doing with his clothes, and I know almost nothing about fashion. So I was even more surprised while exploring Osklen’s website to discover that they are also extremely committed to sustainability.
Metsavaht created Institutio e, is an institute whose mission is “transforming and positioning Brazil as ‘the country’s sustainable human development’, through the creation and management of a network that leverages synergies between different initiatives and actors in society.” It’s quite an impressive goal, but what does it mean exactly? The organization is working to create an online community of “e-brigaders” to support sustainable development in Brazil through a variety of means, but mostly through empowerment by sharing information through social media (check out their Twitter).
The biggest initiative the institute has undergone is the winter collection for 2012. COLECÃO A21 OSKLEN – INVERNO 2012 was inspired by the 20th anniversary of the Rio-92 Conference, and specifically by Agenda 21 which was signed there. The document, which established the importance of each country to seek solutions to the socio-economic and environmental problems of the world, has been one of the most influential international consensus made concerning sustainable development. The collection will be released before June when the Rio +20 United National conference on Sustainable Development will be held. The collection highlights one of the main focuses of Institutio e, to develop “e-fabrics” by “identifying sustainable raw material for use in the textile and fashion supply chain, creating a culture of conscious consumers.” The e-fabrics displayed in this collection are Arapaima and salmon skin, silk and organic cotton, and canvas eco.
I’m excited to see what Osklen will bring to Rio +20. This is the kind of initiative that Agenda 21 was created to do, to help create eco centered companies to cater to eco consumers and help solidify the triple bottom line and create a truly sustainable world. Clothes are what we live our lives in, so why not live life in a sustainable way?
Two Clemson University architecture students, Eric Laine and Suzanne Steelman, have created a video featuring their revolutionary new idea called LiveWork. The basic premise of LiveWork is to focus on the economics of sustainability instead of just the environment. The pair achieves this by having their housing units also contain commercial space to be used by the owner of leased to another business or franchise. Here’s the video, they explain it much better than I can:
This idea reminds me of an idea featured in the book World Changing: A User’s Guide for the 21st Century by Alex Steffen. In the book Steffen suggests that businesses could share spaces, such as a cafe by day and club by night. This is not a completely novel idea, many businesses change throughout the day, but this idea would involve two completely different businesses using the same space. The point of this idea is to support businesses by cutting back on the cost of leasing their spaces and becoming more efficient with the spaces we have built.LiveWork works much in the same way, fusing residential living with commercial business. Not only is this a great way to maximize space but it also helps create those walkable and livable communities that are dominating the urban planning field currently.
After watching this video I posted it to the Facebook page for my school’s US Green Building Club (USGBC) students club, which I am a part of. I did so obviously because it was a new idea about green buildings that I thought my peers would be interested in, but also because I was intrigued that they did not once mention LEED in the video. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) has become the accepted standard in green building for the US. As I have worked more with the LEED system this semester I have begun to see the downfalls and weaknesses of LEED. LEED helps build buildings that use water and energy more efficiently and maximize occupant satisfaction while minimizing environmental impact, but the system does not really change how we build or use buildings.
LiveWork on the other hand changes the purpose of a building. A LEED building is build for a classic one purpose: housing, offices, commercial use, etc. LiveWork envisions buildings as mix used spaces that help diversify communities and can change how we live. To me LEED is a great way to do what we are doing better, but LiveWork is a way to change what we are doing. Perhaps it is time we take a step back and examine other solutions beyond the accepted standard. LEED is still by far a great tool, but perhaps it should be applied to a new mentality instead of an old one.
So my last post was about fast food chain Chipotle who is doing some really awesome stuff with organic and locally grown foods.Their commitment to creating a healthier agriculture and food system makes me a bit angry when I think about McDonald’s new greenwashing campaign. The guys over at Grist first turned me on to this new campaign. Check out a couple of the videos and read their article:
Grist already tackled the potatoes video, so I figured I’d give my opinion on their beef supplier. Let me start by saying that these commercials are very well done. Not quite as good as the Chipotle video I love, but still very well done. They make it seem like all their beef comes from this nice family run farm where the grandfather teaches his grandsons the family business and your cows roam free and are as happy as can be well until they go into your burger at least. I do believe that this farm supplies McDonalds, but I highly doubt all of their beef suppliers are similar to this. As Grist points out most of the carbon content of fast-food beef comes from corn (check out this Scientific American article). So I suppose documentaries like King Corn and Food Inc. might not be unfair attacks on the fast-food industry.
My problem with this is that McDonalds is basically insulting everything Chipotle is doing by pretending to care about more than the bottom line. Although, it seems like customers aren’t tricked into loving McDonalds after their recent Twitter backlash where the company was abused after trying to create a positive trending topic. Perhaps they got what they deserved, we’re not stupid.
I know that I am a bit late with this video, but I enjoyed it so much that I thought I would share it again. I watched it a few weeks ago when it hit YouTube and became fairly popular. Unfortunately I have to admit that I had never been to a Chipotle before this video. Many of my friends had talked about how much they loved Chipotle but not being a die hard Mexican food or fast food fan in general I never felt the pull to visit a Chipotle. Then I saw the following video.
Beyond how downright cute this video is and how awesome Willie Nelson cover Coldplay’s “The Scientist” was the video stands out for its message alone. I had not realized that Chipotle was so dedicated to organic and local food. So I decided to do some research to see if they were just greenwashing or really making a commitment.
Not only is the company committed to sourcing all their food from local and organic suppliers, but they have now created The Chipotle Cultivate Foundation to work with producers, farmers, and ranchers to expand the production of healthier and more natural foods. I have to say, I was downright impressed with Chipoltl and also disappointed that I have never heard about their sustainability goals until now. Most companies that I look at only approach sustainability from the surface for PR reasons. Well Chipotle has ingrained it in their business model and is working to expand their goals beyond their own company. To me this is an impressive feat that will garner them more support than any greenwashing would have.
Also disapointing me? That I had never tasted one of their supposedly fantastic tasting and good for the environment burritos before. So I set out to rectify that problem, and lo and behold it was delicious. I look forward to seeing what Chipotle does next with its impressive goals, and I look forward to more burritos in my future.
Here’s a few of my favorite articles I discovered:
I hate to be unoriginal with my first post here, but I felt like this would be a great place to start my blog. Last semester I took a class called Green Schools and we focused on looking at sustainability the lens of what colleges and universities can and should do. For the class we had a blog in which we had to discuss sustainability, and the following post is one of my favorite pieces that I have written. I feel like a basic definition is an excellent place to start this blog. So I hope you enjoy.
Sustainability is talked about more and more often these days, yet many people have a hard time defining what sustainability truly is. This is due to varying definitions of the term and a general lack of understanding of the complex factors that go into determining sustainability. Sustainable development, which is closely related to sustainability, is often defined as “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs,” (Cortese 17). The common assumption is that sustainability equals “green,” and this definition is used to support that assumption. This means if you do good things today like recycling, putting up solar panels, and consuming less you will be saving more for the future. However, once you factor in the development aspect you must realize that sustainability is about building a society that can continue to function within the realm of reality and feasibility. The following video may be basic, but it does an excellent job explaining sustainability in simple terms.
The video stresses the importance of including society and the economy into sustainability, not just the environment. Currently in most people’s minds these three things are separate entities, often seen as opposing forces in constant combat. When policy makers and leaders approach issues with this mindset their view is limited, and therefore their solutions are limited as well. Limited and ineffective solutions only exacerbate the problem. To adequately address issues you must consider the health, social, economic, political, security, population, and environmental aspects associated with them, instead of only focusing on one or two (Cortese 18.)
Universities can and must play an essential role in the pursuit of sustainable development. With a rising percentage of the population in both developed and developing countries achieving higher education, the influence universities have over society is increasing (Cortese 19). However, the current academic structure only perpetuates the problem instead of tackling it. Separated academic departments in universities refuse to integrate information across disciplines and therefore retard critical thinking and problem solving. This effectively negates any attempt at effective and sustainable solutions (M’Gonigle & Starke 33). Attempting a simple solution like recycling more or building LEED certified buildings cannot produce a large enough impact to counteract the inherent failures of our society that universities perpetuate.
Over consumption is ingrained in children from a young age, and reinforced in every stage of life. This is because up until now the view of economist has been that grown will always continue and therefore the population can continue to grow and increase its standard of living without negative consequences (M’Gonigle & Starke 32). Obviously logic should prove this assumption wrong, just as science has over the past few decades. Unfortunately, universities do not attempt to address this issue by challenging students to think in an interdisciplinary and critical way. Instead they allow students to feel that they are doing “less bad” by recycling the water bottle they should have never purchased in the first place. Until people are ready to address large scale problems with an integrated and holistic view, simple solutions will continue to give solace to those who continue to live unsustainably.
Works Cited
Cortese, Anthony D. “Chapter 3: Higher Education’s Critical Role in Creating a Healthy, Just, and Sustainable Society.” The Green Campus: Meeting the Challenge of Environmental Sustainability. Alexandria, VA: APPA, 2008. 17-24. Print.
M’Gonigle, Michael, and Justine Starke. “Chapter 2: Genealogy of an Ancient Edifice.” Planet U: Sustaining the World, Reinventing the University. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society, 2006. 21-41. Print.
Welcome to my blog. I will be using this blog to write posts for my Changing Global Consumer Culture and New Media class at the University of Richmond. I have yet to pick a theme for my blog but my main interests lie within the realm of sustainability and the environment. So I will most likely be writing about consumer choices and marketing that is related to sustainability or “green” products and services. Expect more to come soon and I hope you will enjoy.
Taylor's Sustainability Blog 