data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/842f8/842f8c7cc963a3daea7c7b82758b980be3b32aaa" alt=""
Took the photo from Visual Resistance
Under clothing, for example, apparel is the leading source of environmental damage. The production of these products is surprisingly energy intensive...One reason clothing contributes to toxic water pollution is that the production of synthetic fibers from petroleum products and the dyeing and bleaching of cloth result in substantial releases of toxic chemicals (74-76).And there's more to this section that's both fascinating and horrifying with respect to how big an impact buying new clothing makes on the environment. Yes, we all thought that driving our world-destroying SUVs down to the 7-11 just for a Slurpy and a newspaper was the cause of it all.
He [Schumacher] argues that what the economically impoverished people of the Third World require is appropriate technology, that is, technology consistent with their human and economic resources, cultural traditions, and geographical location. Rather than Western-style hydroelectric dams providing electricity for cities and water for agribusiness, the rural people of Africa need wells and filtration equipment that provide clean drinking water and supplies for irrigating local gardens. Rather than billions of dollars of financing for plants that make products for export with low-cost labor (jobs moved by international corporations from their own nations), the poor of the Third World need small loans to star locally owned businesses and craft industries (46-47).I'm sorry that this post is becoming so long-winded but I am angry that I continue to buy clothing from Target when I know there is the possibility it was created in sweatshop conditions; even if the working conditions are acceptable, it is still adding to the ecological crisis.
The answer to this dilemma: There is strength in numbers. It's daunting to point your handlebars into a stream of traffic and swim among the big fish when you are alone. But imagine if everyone perched on the saddle of a two-legged horse ventured into the streets. Why, it would be a revolution! It would be the cars that would have to adapt. After all, they can't hit everyone.
To interpret the biosphere, I propose a barefoot global change science. Cadres of citizens, schoolchildren, elders -- people from all walks of life -- meet in schools, libraries, parks, and on the Internet, to share stories and data. They pool their observations and expertise so they can track environmental change in their neighborhood. Via electronic communications, they compare data with folks from other places. Professional environmental scientists work regularly with citizen groups and schoolchildren to provide training and guidance. They jointly establish local research projects. Artists draw biospheric murals on the sides of buildings. A special television channel shows global change satellite maps twenty-four hours a day. Every computer is sold with built-in geographic information system software (135).Thomashow says in the next paragraph, "Perhaps this is a naive dream." It's a groovy dream, I say, and one that can happen, we just have to figure out a way to communicate this idea to people that goes beyond exchanging our folk wisdom about bumper crops of acorns spelling a cold winter, and really, really start observing the changes going on in our little part of the biosphere. That's the gist of Thomashow's message, I think.