23rd Day of Lent
In which I read the entire novel "Star Wars: Allegiance" by Timothy Zahn in six hours...because I can and I am on vacation dammit.
In which I also unnecessarily swore in the title of my post because (re-read the second clause in previous sentence again) I am on vacation. And no, I don't think this is inappropriate or out of character for a minister, because a) we are real people, and all real people use curse words and enjoy Star Wars b) science shows you can trust someone who swears to be more honest, and there are important social uses of swear words that wise people would do well to embrace and exploit. No really, Google it. Oh, you're just as lazy as me, here's a starter link that begins to justify my position on it c) I can use swear words that are in any of the Bible's original languages. I'm not going to tell you where to find this particular example, because I don't have to. Pastor's special privileges and all; if you don't believe me, learn Hebrew or Greek. Plus I'm on vacation, so there.
Oh and d) Leviticus 19:12 "Thou shalt not swear falsely by my name" coupled with the big Ten "Do not take my name in vain" means, in my opinion, not to take God's name lightly or for personal use; it does not refer to your regular run-of-the-mill curse and swear words that sailors and other creative types use with gusto. IMHO I think it means G-ddammit and the like is probably the worst you can do, not $h!#, damn or F--k; that or screaming "Jesus!" when you're really surprised, that's probably unnecessary. But given that it isn't murder, or thievery, or any of the other major sins we commit in our heads at least a dozen times a day, maybe it's just not a real priority when you also consider systemic issues like hunger, genocide, greed or environmental destruction...hmmm?
Anywho!
The in-laws visited this week, and contrary to basically everyone's expectation, I adore my in-laws and outlaws, all of them, and it was great fun to have them in the house for 4 days. Plus they cook and clean, they play with my kids, play board games with me, they built a tree fort, and left me two Timothy Zahn books. What's not to love? You should be jealous--hell, I'm jealous of myself! (See what I did there? Keep a tally kids, I'm feeling sassy).
The one draw back wasn't even their fault, but a perfect object lesson in the larger "Lenten Plastics" theme: the effect of guests on my plastics fast...was abysmal.
Now to be fair, this is MY fast, and one that my immediate family is supportive of, but I think it falls into the same realm as vegetarianism and alcoholics: folks are supportive of your decision, occasionally deferential, but this in no way completely alters their own behavior. Case in point: during the first three weeks of Lent I collected 4 large paper sacks of Lenten Plastics--the plastics that we were forced to use despite efforts to reduce. In the course of my inlaws stay alone--4 DAYS--we collected 3 overflowing bags of plastics and a large assortment of plastic grocery bags.
Again, to be fair, I didn't do the shopping nor did I sanctimoniously offer them my unnecessarily large collection of canvas bags with which to do their shopping, I merely sighed with long-suffering when they brought their (free to me!) plastic bags full of groceries home for the entire family's enjoyment. So really, the only ass is me (3!).
Two things emerged from their visit worth mentioning.
1) So
2) Let's review those plastic bags, shall we? I, like most Amuricans, reuse plastic bags because I am too cheap to buy my own small garbage bags for those tiny trashcans, or for filling with cat shit (4!) when you clean the litter box (Aside: If you have ever cleaned the litter box, more power to you, Claim the Name as Shit. I refuse to do this job, as it is always possible that I might be pregnant and not know it, and so I am protecting my future possible fetus-babies from cat-shit and cat-shit-vapors. If you regularly clean the litter box, you rock, and you can call that work whatever you want, but to my mind, it is not ever merely poo, but a special piece of hell (5!) on earth. Aside over).
As part of our fast, we've begun using brown paper bags for our kitchen garbage, and it's worked surprisingly well. Considering that we a) recycle and b) compost and c) use a disposal for wet goopy trash, it's not a bad change. BUT, I received a
Whelp, turns out most plastic shopping bags are plastic #2, many of them, which would seem to be recyclable. Naturally, this is more complicated than that though, as found here:
"Plastic bags typically are made from one of three basic types: high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), or linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE). Those thick, glossy shopping bags from the mall are LLDPE, while grocery bags are HDPE, and garment bags from the dry cleaner are LDPE." Thank you, helpful website! These would normally be recyclable. I...think?
Still, my local waste management recycling company expressly forbids plastic bag recycling: Please do not place plastic bags, wire or plastic hangers, styrofoam, trash, or food into your recycling bin. Also window panes, light bulbs, mirrors or ceramics are not allowed. I have not seen a plastic bag recycling bin in my local stores either, but I admit that maybe I missed it in my haste to get sale-priced clementines.
And then I found this charming PDF, from the helpful folks at the Progressive Bag Alliance, who I'm certain have no monetary interest in you continuing to use as many plastic bags as possible.
I give you the highlights from "TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS"
Myth #1: Plastic bag bans are spreading like wildfire across the country. (Fascinating that you start with this one. I wouldn't have been interested in a plastic grocery bag ban if you hadn't mentioned it.)
Fact: No. In fact, plastic bags have not been banned anywhere, not even in San Francisco. (NOT EVEN IN SAN FRANCISCO?? You must be morally correct as well. Also, you cite things from 2005, and I think you're outdated now, but since you didn't date-stamp your little PDF I can't prove it) San Francisco is requiring that consumers use compostable plastic bags instead of 100% recyclable bags. Contrary to popular belief, there is a growing movement to increase access to recycle plastic bags – not eliminate them. New Jersey, Connecticut, and cities in California have all taken recent action to table legislation that would ban certain types of plastic bags and instead are now looking to implement plastic bag recycling programs. (Golly, if New Jersey can be counted on to table legislation that would directly impact the sales of a major industry, your logic must be right).
Myth #2: Paper grocery bags are a better environmental choice than plastic bags. (This is a complicated myth. How do you define "better?" It's still trees, right? Still petroleum to make the bags right? Why not take on canvas bags, which is what the "REAL" hippies all use?)
Fact: Plastic bags are 100% recyclable (reaaaaally? You get to explain how) and for all environmental impacts related to air emissions, water emissions and solid waste – those of paper bags are significantly greater than that of plastic grocery bags:
- Plastic bags use 40% less energy to produce and generate 80% less solid waste than paper
- Paper bags generate 70% more emissions, and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.2
- Even paper bags made from 100% recycled fiber use more fossil fuels than plastic bags 3
(Hmmm, I see you too know how to use the citations. But then I GO to these citations, and I get this fabulous error message:
"EPA's New England regional office removed the "Paper vs. Plastic bag" Web content several years ago after conducting a periodic evaluation of that content for its accuracy. At the time of our review, the Web pages were already several years old, and as we worked on the review of that content we were not able to confirm several of the statements with reliable, authoritative citations. Therefore, we removed the Web content because EPA has an obligation to be certain that we are providing the public with accurate, reliable information." oops, no citation for you. Go EPA.)
Myth #3:Plastic bags are the largest component of landfills and the primary component of litter.
Fact: (wait, nope, these are now outdated too, or otherwise known as "perceived non-truths" You might call them lies, but that implies intended subterfuge, which I'm sure isn't true).
- The item most frequently encountered in landfills is paper—on average, it accounts for more than 40% of a landfill's contents. 4
- Newspapers alone take up as much as 13% of landfill space. 5
- Cigarette butts, chewing gum, and candy wrappers account for about 95% of all litter in the English-speaking world.6 (Error 404 page cannot be found)
- Education, as well as responsible use and disposal of all materials and products, is the key to reducing litter.
This is total Municipal Solid Waste (by Material) for 2012
251 Million Tons (before recycling)
And then my favorite of the "myths", 4 and 6
Myth #4: Plastic grocery bags take 1,000 years to decompose in landfills.
Fact: Virtually nothing – not paper, food, plastic or even compostable or bio degradable products –
decompose in today’s landfills, because they are actually designed to be as stable and dry as possible. Research by William Rathje, who runs the Garbage Project, has shown that when excavated from a landfill, newspapers from the 1960s can be intact and readable.
So your argument is that nothing ever decomposes in a landfill, so the fact that plastics certainly won't decompose basically ever is irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe part of this conversation should be about how landfills are a terrible, unsustainable idea? Do YOU have a Mt. Trashmore in your community? We do. It's on the highway to my parents house, and some nights you can see the off-gas release valves on fire. I'm not even joking. They actually look like hell, right there, on a hill in Arkansas.
Myth #6: Compostable bags can degrade in backyard composts.
Fact: In order to breakdown, compostable bags must be sent to an industrial composting facility, not backyard piles or municipal composting centers. There are very few of these facilities in the U.S. and where these facilities are not available, compostable bags will sit in landfills because they can’t be recycled. (Wait. Wait. You STARTED this argument with the idea that compostable bags were better than bag bans. Now you're saying the very same compostable bags THAT I HAVE MANAGED TO COMPOST MY VERY SELF, IN MY OWN ROTATING BACKYARD COMPOSTER do not actually do what I think I have seen them do. Interesting. I do not see your citation here. Then again, we don't really need to, do we?
I'm going to stop there, because really, we all have better things to do and I am still on vacation for at least another hour.
Does Jesus care about shopping bags?
Now that's an interesting question. I rather think so, yes, in that we so often don't NEED them, and are using them out of unthinking convenience, and have no care for where they go after our singular use of them. CAN they be recycled in our community? Will they just end up in a landfill for future archeologists to 'tut-tut' over as they explore our apparently galling lack of creativity in materials management? Why not just keep a few cloth bags handy when you need them? (I'm getting preachy now). Of course, cat shit (6!): that's always going to be a problem. And it doesn't seem like using compostable bags for the kitty litter makes any sense because a) I can't compost shit (you're desensitized, it no longer counts), it says so right on the instructions and b) they won't degrade in the city land fill anyway.
Perhaps we should switch to corn or clay litter and flush? Ah, an interesting idea. Pity I never do this chore so I don't get a say-so in its execution.
I think a better question is "Does Jesus care about landfills?"
Unquestionably yes, particularly those that are on fire. Follow me here.
Setting aside the fact that most all (to my knowledge) New Testament references to 'hell' are 1) said by Jesus (weeeeeeell, a few by Paul, but these are an issue unto themselves) and 2) actually the word for hell here is "ghenna", γέεννα, which is Greek and in reference (yes, scholarly arguable) to the trash dump near Jerusalem that was usually also on fire, I think Jesus DOES care about hells-on-earth. And our modern places where the process of nature is stopped, halted utterly, allowed to lie fallow without hope of renewal or re-creation just might be the precise opposite of His work of resurrection. At least in Jesus' Ghenna/hell the fire and decay worked to break down trash into something else. Death really IS allowed to win in modern landfills; microbes and moisture are discouraged from creating rot--the same rot that eventually makes soil and provides the base of the web of life. I mean, maybe I'm getting a little high-falutin' here, but don't you think it terribly odd that we'd take the trash of our collective lives and preserve it in vacuum-sealed mountains offgassing methane, but never returning to the richness of the earth that feeds us? I mean, where is the ashes-to-ashes, dust to dust for our own offal? Where is the cycle of nature that continues to feed through the carbon/water cycle beauty that is life, growth, death, decay, life, growth? Are we really just taking from the earth and stopping the natural processes of decomposition, without putting back what we've used?
Jeeze (Ironic 7!). That's awful.
I'm sensing that I really DO need to go visit city waste management with some questions.
Much love. I hope you get a vacation soon. Kiss an in-law or out-law for me.
Peacefully,
Marie
No comments:
Post a Comment