Tomato, Beet, and Sweet Potato Yogurt from Blue Hill

Our main grocery store, Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, is doing a major over-haul of their yogurt selections. There are businesses that start with an idea, and then run for the money, and then there are businesses that start with an idea, and then they take that idea even further. Vitamin Cottage seems to have been started with the idea that they'd only offer healthy foods, and they're continually looking hard at the latest research to determine what that really means. Then they act on what they've found. And right now they're taking action in the dairy department.

Natural Grocers is upgrading its guidelines for sourcing ingredients used in dairy products such as ice cream, cheese, and yogurt. The new guidelines will require that milk ingredients be sourced from dairies that provide animals with access to pasture and a natural diet of grass and forage. In addition, milk cannot be sourced from animals raised using non-therapeutic antibiotics, hormone treatments, growth promotants, or feed containing animal by-products such as bone meal, scraps and blood.

 So they've gotten rid of a couple of the yogurt brands that we buy: Brown Cow and Noosa. Rob has been a Brown Cow fan since the days when he used to buy it at Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco back when it was located on Mission Street. (Which is another way of saying, "a couple of decades ago.) Noosa is a local brand, and it's tough not to be supporting a local brand. Then again, I want the best food product for my kids and if the local brand isn't the best, and there are better options out there, I'm open to trying them out.

Vitamin Cottage has been changing out the old brands with new, and some rather unique, yogurts that I'd never seen before. Traderspoint Creamery is served in single serving glass containers and their whole milk yogurt is really delicious. They're located in Indiana. I haven't tried their other flavors yet. We still have a banana mango flavored Traderspoint in the fridge that I'll probably check out tomorrow. I also bought some Dreaming Cow yogurts to taste, but I haven't dug into them yet. They're from Southern Georgia.

But for lunch today I pulled out the three most interesting yogurts and tested them out on the fam. We had Blue Hill's Tomato, Beet, and Sweet Potato yogurts. And wow! They were all much better than I had anticipated.

We started with tomato. I thought it was excellent. It had a subtle tomato flavor and reminded me of when you're eating lasagna and manage to snag a bite that's just ricotta and tomato sauce. Yum!

The rest of the family had the exact opposite reaction of mine. I don't know if it was the knowledge of what they were eating or if it was truly the flavor, but not only did no one else like it, but Rob had one of his characteristic over-the-top responses, which might have affected the kids' perceptions.

Second was the beet. Ironically, I didn't like this one as well in the beginning, but everyone else took to this one better. One of the girls went and grabbed the honey and added some in and I have to admit, that made the good yogurt into a really yummy yogurt.

Third was the sweet potato. There were no strong reactions one way or the other on this one. I suppose it was a bit like eating the filling from a sweet potato pie. I'm not a big enough sweet potato fan to go with this one again. It just didn't do anything for me. But I think I may buy tomato and beet again. I'd love to try them as a dollop of flavor on top of something else... like enchiladas or borscht.

Blue Hill is located in New York.

On the one hand, it's great having a whole new crop of yogurts to try out. Vitamin Cottage's decision to only offer dairy products from grass fed cows is going to open up a new market for small scale artisanal producers. I think that's wonderful.

On the other hand, though only one of the yogurts we used to eat regularly was local, none of these new yogurts are even close to local. I wish there were some options from closer to home. Hopefully more small producers will start taking heart that there is a market for products such as this and step in to fill our local void. (Then again, the argument in the newspaper is that we don't have the grasslands to support the raising of grass fed cows. Which could mean that something like this will never be a local product. I'd be curious to hear from local producers about their thoughts on this.)

All in all it was a fun experiment. As much as my family groaned and whined, I think they enjoyed trying out yogurts that were so unusual. And of course, any chance to roll their eyes at mom is time well spent. 

The Future of Food

Just watched the movie, The Future of Food. It's crazy scary. At one point I turned to Rob and said, "This is a horror film!"

The first half of the film gives a scathing review of Monsanto's actions for the past few decades. The film pretty much agrees with what was said about Monsanto in the movie, Food Inc., but it includes damning documentation from Monsanto itself.

Within the discussion of Monsanto, several overarching issues are also addressed, most especially the patenting of life and the loss of property rights (of farmers). Even when a farmer and his predecessors have been growing and modifying a crop for generations, if even a little bit of Monsanto's patented gene gets cross-pollinated into it, Monsanto can take you to court for patent infringement. In such a case the farmer is required to destroy the seed that his family has been growing and modifying for generations because Monsanto didn't keep its patented seed from intermingling with his family's seed (and Monsanto is not required to keep its seed out either).

The movie then rolls right into the problem of genetically modified foods -- especially as they proliferate outside of the lands where they've been planted. Food allergies are a problem because genetically modified foods are not labeled in the U.S. and therefore can be unknowingly consumed. And there's the problem of a genetically modified organism containing the terminator gene (a gene that renders the next generation of that seed useless for planting) spreading into the world at large. (This is where it started to sound like a horror movie. Can you imagine what would happen if a large percentage of the world's crops got inadvertently crossed with the terminator gene? That would be our last year of those crops. The following year would be one of mass famine.)

Anyone who's concerned with the property rights of the individual, the health of yourself and your children, or the health of the environment, should watch this movie. ... Actually, if you eat, you should watch this movie.

Super Recycle Girl

One day about 2 years ago, I loaded up all our recycling materials and pedaled out to the recycle center about 4 miles away. I felt very self-righteous about not driving out there and I felt even more so when I saw an SUV (the second picture, though it's only half in the shot) drive up by me. So I snapped some photos.

I haven't done it since. So much for my self-righteous self.

These are pictures that have been sitting around in my media locker. While I was working on the movies this past month, I went through the media locker and pulled out a bunch of shots that were in storage that I had lost off my hard drive when our computer crashed (during the move). While I was digging around in there I came across these and thought I'd post them.

A generation of "environmentalists" who rarely walk (or play) outdoors

"...our young people are more aware of threats to the global environment than they are of the natural world in their own backyards." - David Elkind, in his New York Times article, "Playtime Is Over"

Mountains Beyond Mountains

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Biographies & Memoirs
Author:	Tracy Kidder

"We should all be criticizing the excesses of the powerful,
if we can demonstrate so readily that these excesses hurt
the poor and vulnerable." -- Dr. Paul Farmer

Paul Farmer is apparently well known in medical circles for his work in TB and HIV. But I'd never heard of him before our book club decided to read Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a man who would cure the world. We picked the book for two reasons: A great deal of the book is devoted to Haiti - its history and the severe poverty of its people. Given that the earthquake had just taken place when we were choosing books, Haiti was definitely on our minds and we were eager to find out more about what the country had been like before the earthquake hit. But we also leaned toward this book because it reminded us of Greg Mortenson's story, Three Cups of Tea, which we had all appreciated. Farmer, like Mortenson, saw a severe need among a particular people group and he devoted his life toward improving the conditions of those people both directly and through educating others and encouraging them to lend their help as well.

During Farmer's undergraduate studies at Duke in the early 80s, he was keenly interested in current events and at the same time he became intrigued by a branch of Catholicism called liberation theology. [By the way, that's a term that Glenn Beck would probably recommend you run from.] He was particularly impressed by a local Belgian nun who was involved in helping and protecting the rights of migrant Haitian farm workers. She and other "church ladies" as Farmer called them, "were the ones standing up to the growers in their sensible nun shoes. They were the ones schlepping the workers to the clinics or court, translating for them, getting them groceries or driver's licenses." He began to see the disparities between the affluence that surrounded him at the university, and the severe poverty of the migrant workers in the fields not far from Duke.

After meeting the Haitian farm workers, he began to read everything he could find on the country. As Kidder describes it, "To Farmer, Haiti's history seemed, indeed, like The Lord of the Rings, an ongoing story of a great and terrible struggle between the rich and the poor, between good and evil." He first visited the country in 1983, after having graduated from Duke summa cum laude. He spent a year there in which he traveled throughout the country, meeting people, seeing the outrageous results of former American interventions in the country, and being drawn back toward Catholicism -- especially the liberation theology that he had discovered during his college years.

Farmer was accepted into Harvard's medical school but he spent every moment that he could back in Haiti building a medical clinic in Cange, one of the poorest regions of the country. In fact, he often missed classes, making it back to school just in time for exams. But the professors allowed this because Farmer's first hand experience with the medical issues of Haiti often meant that he had more hands on experience than they did.

With the help of a generous donor, Tom White, Farmer's work eventually grew into an international aid organization called Partners in Health, which works largely in Haiti but has branched out into parts of Peru and prisons in Russia. In the 90s, Farmer challenged the WHO's directives regarding dealing with TB in impoverished areas and, through the examples of what had been accomplished by PIH in Haiti and Peru in particular, he was able to convince them to change their policy in order to tackle the drug resistant strains of the illness that the old policy not only wasn't dealing with, but was even strengthening.

Though Mountains Beyond Mountains is a biography of Farmer's life, it is also in large part a discourse on justice. As Tracy Kidder paints a picture of what Haiti was like when Farmer first arrived, and the political upheavals that have taken place over the past few of decades, it becomes very clear that the United States has had a negative impact on the country. The interests of the rich (both in the US and in Haiti) have repeatedly been put ahead of the interests of the poor. And the world, in large part, has mostly ignored the desperate poverty of these people. It was only the Catholic church that refused to turn a blind eye, a fact that was not lost on the people of Haiti. Kidder explains the Haitians take on God's involvement:

How could a just God permit great misery? The Haitian peasants answered with a proverb: "Bondye konn bay, men li pa konn separe," in literal translation, "God gives but doesn't share." This meant, as Farmer would later explain it, "God gives us humans everything we need to flourish, but he's not the one who's supposed to divvy up the loot. That charge was laid upon us."

It was likewise clear to Farmer that the problem in Haiti wasn't God, it was people. He explained that "the fact that any sort of religious faith was so disdained at Harvard and so important to the poor -- not just in Haiti but elsewhere, too -- made me even more convinced that faith must be something good." That's certainly not how most people I know balance the value of faith vs. lack of faith, but it's indicative of Farmer's interests and motivations. He stands firmly on the side of the poor: financially, spiritually, and pragmatically.

This is a book that I can easily recommend. Though it deals with medical issues, it doesn't get bogged down in terminology. It's not preachy, and as a reader I never felt like Farmer or Kidder were trying to convince me that their way was right so much as they want to get the message out to people that something should be done, our help is welcome, and here is a very practical way in which one person has made a remarkable difference in the lives of the poor. Kidder says of Farmer and the others in PIH:

Change the world? Of course they could. He really believed this, and he really believed that "a small group of committed individuals" could do it. He liked to say of PIH, "People think we're unrealistic. They don't know we're crazy."

- - - - -
PIH is currently involved in helping Haiti rebuild after the earthquake. If you would like information on what they are doing, or would like to donate, check out standwithhaiti.org/haiti.

Just got back from hearing Joel Salatin speak

Rob and I first heard about Salatin when we read the Omnivore's Dilemma together (a book by Michael Pollan). I was particularly intrigued by him not only because he's a brilliant farmer, but because he's a Christian who takes great care in his job particularly because he realizes he is a steward of God's earth. More often than not, Rob and I have been in the minority in the churches we've been a part of because we make pro-environment decisions (like driving less, eating organic/local, etc). So it's exciting not only to hear about a like-minded Christian, but to find out about one who is an icon in environmental and sustainable circles. Joel Salatin is leading the way in building a sustainable farming model that grows a large variety of food in such a way that it improves the land rather than degrading it.

I've also seen Joel Salatin on Meet the Farmer (segment 1, segment 2, segment 3 -- if you only have time for one, watch the second, but they're all good), and we recently saw him in the movie, Food, Inc. (which I highly recommend). Though Salatin has been writing and getting the word out for awhile now (he's been publishing articles in Mother Earth News for decades now, I believe), it seems that he's recently been hitting the public consciousness and local food movements are eager to follow his example.  That's why The Front Range Permaculture Institute invited Salatin out to speak on Change We Can Eat. They had originally planned to have him speak in a local church, but the response was so large that at the last minute, they secured a room at the Lincoln Center for him to speak. (Though there were still some open seats, there weren't many. This was a pretty significant turn out considering that Fort Collins (the university as well as the public school system) is on spring break and many people are out of town.)

Joel was, as always, eccentric, hilarious, practical and brilliant.  He wasn't shy about sharing his opinions, even when he suspected the crowd might not agree. And he made some really great points about food in America. He says that we've confused sterility with safety. We believe that the answer to pathogens is sterility rather than growing healthy, sound, safe food that is alive and nutrient dense. Many of the laws regulating food growers (in addition to not making a whole lot of sense) are about controlling market access, not about enabling food safety. 

He talked a lot about metabolizing innovations as well as enabling innovation among small farmers, but I couldn't even begin to do justice to all that he said on those topics. He'd love to see a constitutional amendment allowing for Freedom of Food Choice so that people could buy raw milk, or home made (as in, made in the home) baked goods or jams, without it being illegal and without the food producer having to jump through industrial food corporation sized hoops to sell their food items legally. (It's legal to give a friend or neighbor a home made food product.  But it is not legal to sell that same home made food product to that same friend or neighbor.)&nbsp

Things that he talked about that I'd like to do more research on:

1) Right of Private Contract: He says that in America we have the right to make a private contract with another individual without the government butting in, and that through that right of private contract, we should be able to make baked goods that we then sell to end users.  I don't question this so much as I just know absolutely nothing about it. I think it's time I dug a little deeper. 

2) Monsanto: He mentioned that Monsanto is suing Ojibwa Indians in Wisconsin because they're harvesting the same rice that they've been harvesting for centuries. This sounds a lot like the mentions of Monsanto's activities as described in Food, Inc. I was already thinking of doing some more study on Monsanto because a friend of mine has another friend who works at Monsanto, and when we started talking about the movie Food, Inc. on my friend's Facebook page, she jumped in to say basically that Monsanto was above reproach in that matter.  She gave me some links to check out and I haven't had the time. So I'm hoping to dig a bit deeper into the Monsanto mystery and Salatin gave me an additional path to follow on this. 

Though the folks introducing Salatin waxed rather long (It took them at least 30 minutes to introduce the guy.) his talk was well worth attending. I'm glad we made it back from our spring break misadventures in time.

Talkin' Trash

On average, I/we set out _____ of trash to be picked up each week.

2 kitchen trash sized bags (13 gallon) or less

 13

1 small trash can full (about 3 bags)

 5

2 trash cans full (or one of those larger gizmos the trash companies give you)

 7

I don't use a trash service. I use only public trash cans for all household waste.

 0

None. Period. I don't do trash. I'm 100% compostable. Here, pat me on the back.

 0

I have a dumpster. And I fill it up. HooRah!

 1

Trash was always a big deal in our family when I was growing up. There were rules and carefully outlined procedures that one must follow when dealing with trash. I wrote a paper about it in college. When I showed the A+ paper to my mom, I expected her to protest that I'd overstated how things were in our family. Instead she read it, laughed, nodded and was quite pleased with the extreme type A behavior that I had described.

One of the house rules was: Always get rid of trash at the first opportunity that presents itself. A follow up rule was: If no opportunity presents itself, make an opportunity. My grandma actually got in trouble with the law because she was following rule number 2. She was caught putting a bag of trash in another person's dumpster. I'm the only person I know who's grandma started her police record at the spry young age of 70, and for getting rid of a bag of trash at that.

As far as procedures go, the main rule of thumb was to always put trash into the trash bag the instant it could conceivably be considered trash. In fact, many times items were added to the trash bag long before any of us thought they were really at that "this is trash" level. (My dad had a favorite pair of shoes that became trash in my mom's eyes probably a year before they would have become trash in my dad's eyes.) BUT, and this is critically important, IF IT IS TRASH DAY, then trash is not to be put into the trash bag because that would have already been set out on the curb the night before. No, at this point, you have two options. You can either walk the trash out to the end of the driveway and deposit it there yourself.  Or you could add it to the temporary mini-bag that was set up for this purpose and which would be run out to the trash men at the moment of their arrival. Perhaps a specific example would help make this procedure a little more clear. (This is the example I used in my A+ paper, by the way.) Suppose you have a cold and you need to blow your nose. After blowing, one would usually deposit the tissue into the nearest trash bin. That was the usual procedure. But on trash day, that would be the exact wrong thing to do. Instead you would walk out to the end of the drive-way, no matter how ill you might be, and make sure that tissue was safely deposited where the trash men would get it.

I've diverged from the family path a short ways when it comes to trash. I'm not nearly as type A as my mom or grandma. But there is one way in which I've carried on the family tradition. Despite my family's love of getting rid of trash, we've never been very big on making trash. 

When Rob and I were first married (14 years ago next week), we had two housemates.  Soon after, we picked up a third and not long after that we added three kids to the mix. During that whole time, we never had more than one normal sized trash can. (It was a trash can that we found along the side of the highway once on our way back from a weekend retreat in Grass Valley.) When we moved to Colorado we reduced our number by 3 (since we no longer had the housemates) and the kids grew out of the diaper stage, so our trash accumulation plummeted.  Though I've been able to fill a trash can during a deep cleaning week, in general we seem to average about a bag and a half of trash a week (and the bags aren't packed down at all).

So I was struck recently, when reading the blog of an old youth group friend, that some people produce more trash than that in a week. Joanne (the Simple Wife) is trying to become more frugal and one of the by-products of that has been that their family has greatly reduced the amount of trash that they generate each week.  She wrote, "Since we've cut WAY back on being consumers and stepped up our recycling, I'm astounded at how little trash we have on trash day. This morning, there was only one trash can--and it was only half full. Used to be two full cans every week!" That comment really piqued my curiosity. Two full cans?!!!  What would you be throwing away that you'd have that much trash?  I asked that question in a reply on her post, but I suspect that I might have come across as a bit of a snot (not that that was my intention at all.  I am a bit of a snot at times. And generally I intend to be a snot when I'm being snotty. But this is one of those cases where I was asking a question because I was honestly curious, and the snot must have leaked out without my permission.  All I know is, she never responded to me.)

So, believe it or not, the whole point of this long and convoluted post hasn't been to tell you about my Type A family, nor to introduce you to Joanne. What I want to know is, how much trash does your family produce and what goes into it? Inquiring minds want to know.  ... Well, my mind wants to know.

And if you'd like a twist on what to do with trash, check out Cat's post on her garbage experiment in which, for a short time, she got creative about getting rid of the goods.

blue vinyl: the world's first toxic comedy

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Documentary

A few years back we somehow managed to get on the phone lists of several local window companies who wanted to give us a great deal on new vinyl windows. I hate telemarketers, especially telemarketers who want to sell me something I don't need and didn't ask for. But, being little Meg, meek and mild (stop laughing, Rob), I often listen to a telemarketers schpiel before politely declining. The vinyl window people put me over the edge, though. Not only hadn't I asked for them to call me, but when I politely said no, they started getting pushing. So that's when I pushed back. I would rant and rave about how bad PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) is for the environment. I'd blather on about how it's the worst form of plastic in the world today and that there's no way I'd put it on my house.

But the truth of the matter was that I really didn't know squat about PVC. I'd heard that it was a big baddy, but I didn't know why. So when I saw the documentary blue vinyl at the library, I jumped at the chance to find out more. (We're also going to have to order windows soon, so I figured this would help me decide just how much I really want to go through the drama of avoiding vinyl. Based on what the telemarketers said, vinyl appears to be fairly ubiquitous in new windows.)

Blue vinyl is the story of Judith Helfand and her parent's house. When the wood siding on the house started to rot, they decided to replace it with vinyl siding. Judith, a victim of DES related cancer whose ordeal led her to become hyper sensitive to the issue of toxins and their interaction with humanity, decided to do a little research on vinyl. The documentary covers about 5 years of research and explores not only the problems with PVC (including the number of PVC plant workers that have died from exposure to the product, but also the cover-ups by both European and American companies regarding the dangers), but also the search to find an alternative house siding that would be both affordable, and meet with Judith's mother's approval.

I felt like the documentary was very well done. As a viewer, I felt that I was being drawn into an exploration that wasn't already pre-determined. Though Judith started out with obvious concern about the product, she also started with ignorance as to the dangers, and she walks the viewer through her own thought process as well as through the information that she discovers in a clear and orderly way that helps the viewer feel like a partner in discovery rather than a voyeur in anger (a feeling Michael Moore's "documentaries" always leave me with). In the end, Judith's parents, who were very clear in the beginning that they thought she was being rather foolish to be concerned about the vinyl, decided to take the siding off their house and replace it with something less toxic.

I would definitely recommend this movie. It has it's funny moments, as well as it's tragically sad points. I feel like I have a much better sense of the problems with PVC after watching blue vinyl, and I have a renewed plan to research all-wood windows to install in our house.

Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Nonfiction
Author:	Van Dyke, Mahan, Sheldon and Brand

The creation, including the earth, is not to be well treated because it is sacred or because it should be worshiped, but because God made it and called it good (Genesis 1), and its goodness is independent of human utility.
-- Redeeming Creation

Caring for the environment is a moral issue. How we interact with the world around us, not just with other people but with the stuff of the earth, is not a matter of right, but of responsibility. That, at least, is the premise of the book Redeeming Creation, coauthored by Fred Van Dyke, David C. Mahan, Joseph K. Sheldon, and Raymond H. Brand. The authors believe that without a solid ethical foundation underpinning our behaviors, as well as the policies put in place to police these behaviors, we'll find that we're talking one way and walking another. The book explores various ethical foundations that have been proposed to support environmentalism, then proceeds to test those foundations as well as the logical end points that they lead to. They conclude that the only solid ethical construct is one which includes God as creator, sustainer, and redeemer.

Ethics -- do we Value ecology?

In order to treat the environment as though it has value, one must first believe that it does. What gives it value is at the heart of any environmental ethic.

To get to the root of this issue, the authors drive all the way back to creation. They explore several ancient creation stories, focusing primarily on those of the Near East. They tease out the distinctions between the stories of the Babylonians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, and Hebrews and distinguish the purposes presented in each story for the creation of both Earth and those that live upon her sphere. They also address the more modern creation story of evolution as well as touch upon other spiritual attributions of value (such as those arising from pantheism and pan-psychism).

In the end they determine that many modern day valuation systems put mankind as the determining instrument of measurement, to which they conclude, “The making of humanity into the measure of all use and value must, in the end, be accompanied by a blatant disregard for nonhuman life.” They flesh this out with examples of policy and practice in the National Parks of the United States, showing that what sounds like a reasonable environmental practice at the outset often ends up doing more harm than good.

Theology -- where's God on ecology?

Believing that a Biblical view of God is at the heart of a sound ethic regarding ecology, the authors proceed to flesh out the theology that underpins that ethic. Much of what they have to say carries a distinct flavor of Schaefferian thought (as outlined in Francis Schaeffer's book, Pollution and the Death of Man). The authors neatly and clearly flesh out several ideas that Schaeffer comparatively only glanced across: God is transcendent, God has called all creation "good" (thereby giving it value), humans are inseparably linked to creation, mankind is fallen (and this affects creation), and God has made a covenant of redemption not only with mankind but with all of creation.

Though many ancient creation stories tell of gods who fashioned the earth out of the stuff around them (or in some cases, out of the flesh of other gods), only the Hebrew God created the world out of nothing that had existed before. He remains separate from creation (transcendent), and creation gains value not because it is made of the flesh of god, but because God said it was "good." God ascribed value to creation. God said each part was good.

[As an aside, I'd like to point out that this is critically important theology in terms of getting Christians to think positively about the environment. Many Christians that poo poo environmentalists as a bunch of hippie tree-huggers have an underlying belief that caring for the environment means ascribing value to created things because they have inherent value. In other words, they fear that being an environmentalist means assenting to the belief that plants and animals (etc) have value because they contain spirits themselves (animism) or because they are a part of a greater being (pan-psychism - the Universe is sentient) or because they are spirits in their own right (pantheism). Many Christians refrain from addressing the issue of the environment entirely because they are fearful that these non-Christian belief systems are the only reasons one would care for the environment. Reminding them that God is distinct from creation, but has ascribed value to it, is an essential piece in helping Christians (especially older Christians who lived through the "hippie era") see that environmentalism is a God issue and not a domain reserved only for hippies and tree huggers.]

When God made people, he made them from the stuff of the earth, from the dust of the ground. Humans are inseparably linked to creation, not just because they are created beings along with the rest of creation, but because they were fashioned out of the very earth itself. [Again, notice that not even humans were made from the stuff of God, but the stuff of earth. Even humans don't have inherent value, but rather their value comes from God who said they were "good."]

But, according to the Biblical record, mankind fell; they sinned against God. Because of this, not only mankind has suffered, but all of creation as well. There's an interesting passage in Isaiah that reads, "The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt." (Isaiah 24)

But God has brought about a new covenant, one that not only brings healing to humans, but to the earth as well. God is redemptive and though the Bible is very clear about the redemption brought to mankind, it is also clear that, "God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1) And, the authors point out, God has called his people, who he has redeemed, to be agents of redemption themselves, not only to other people but to all of creation. As stewards of God's creation, they are not to abuse the land and its inhabitants, but as Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, exemplifying for them a servant leadership, so too are God's people to be servants of God's creation, caring for it as stewards for its true owner.

Response -- individual and corporate responses to ecological problems

In order to recommend a response to the environmental ills of our age, the authors first described the problems at issue. They organized these into three main categories: 1) population, 2) consumption vs. sustainability and 3) pollution and waste -- the second two being aggravated by the growth of the first. They explore the Biblical record, the historic record, and the evidence we can see today, all of which point toward mankind being behind many of the ills under which the earth currently groans. And we also suffer, along with the rest of creation, as a result of these ills. The consequences are ecological, medical, economic, cultural, and aesthetic.

From there they address what they believe are appropriate Christian responses at an individual level as well as from the corporate levels of families and churches. They even address a national response, specifically in terms of public policy and private-property law.

As individuals, we need to seek information in order to keep abreast of the issues. We should be interacting with nature in order to keep a personal relationship with it. And we should be willing to take sacrificial steps to deal with environmental issues. As families we can make decisions regarding heating, vacations, and transportation, among other things, that can make a corporate difference. Within churches we can be teaching a Biblical view of creation as well as using our buildings and yard space in a way that is both environmentally sound and physically appealing to neighbors.

At a national level, the authors believe the Forest Service is an important outward expression of public environmental policy. They list several problems within the service in recent years, and challenge forest service workers to put the needs of nature before chances for advancement (in cases when the two are in conflict). And some private-property laws need to be re-addressed, they say, as unfair negative burdens are placed upon the masses while positive monetary rewards are reserved for the private land owners. (A quick example is the rewards to the property owner of a gold mine and the negative affects to all those downriver as dangerous chemicals are dumped into a city’s water supply as a result.)

Redeeming Creation

The authors are firm, clear, and concrete in their arguments. They're honest about some of the abject failures that the church has perpetrated upon the environment, but they are of great hope that only a sound Biblical ethic can address the environmental problems that humanity faces in this day and age.

I was impressed with both the breadth and depth of this book as well as by the rock solid belief these authors hold that a proper Christian ethic towards the environment is the only hope for true restorative change on earth. I've read several books now regarding Christianity and the environment and I’d say that a common theme among them is that the Bible does indeed have something to say on the issue of caring for the earth. But Redeeming Creation goes further. Not only does the Bible have something to say, but God’s plan, as laid forth in the Bible, has never been for mankind only, but has always included all of his creation, from “In the beginning,” to “It is finished.”

Pollution and the Death of Man

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Nonfiction
Author:	Francis A. Schaeffer

Christians, of all people, should not be the destroyers.
We should treat nature with an overwhelming respect. -- Francis Schaeffer

In 1967, two defining articles came out on our modern ecological crisis. The first one, by Lynn White, Jr., laid the blame squarely upon Christian attitudes of dominance over nature. The second, by Richard L. Means, came out 6 months later and not only reiterated White’s idea that Christianity was at fault, but took it a step further in advocating that because the root of the problem was moral, even religious, then the answer should likewise be moral and religious. Means believed that the hippies of the 60’s were on the right track in turning to Zen Buddhism because such a religious shift would lead also to a shift in cultural beliefs concerning the relationship between mankind and nature.

In 1970, Francis Schaeffer took on both White and Means in his book, Pollution and the Death of Man. He argued that though Christians had done a rather cruddy job of caring for the environment, he believed their actions reflected neither the Biblical mandate for mankind to care for the earth nor the Reformation theology that states that God’s redemption begins in the here and now. His book, therefore, not only responds to White and Means, but calls Christians to a more Biblical view of nature as well.

Schaefer's Response to White, Means, and Platonic Christianity

Schaeffer’s first two chapters are in direct response to the articles by White and Means. (Both articles are included in appendices at the end of the book. I’d recommend reading them first before starting in on Schaeffer’s response.) He walks through the articles, almost point by point, giving background on the sources that were used as well as agreeing that there is, indeed, an ecological crisis and religious beliefs do have bearing upon how we relate to nature. But he disagrees that Christianity is the root of the problem and that Buddhism (or Pantheism, as Schaeffer prefers to focus on) is the best solution.

Before getting into what Schaeffer believes is the proper Biblical response to nature in his last three chapters, he addresses the response of what he calls the wrong kind of Christianity. “Much evangelical Christianity,” he says, “is rooted in a Platonic concept,” and this Platonic concept, “does not have an answer to nature.” (This Platonic attitude can be seen in the documentary Jesus Camp when a homeschooling family poo poo's global warming. It is also a concept often maintained by many fundamentalist denominations.) Platonist Christianity spiritualizes nature; in other words, a tree has value in that it reflects God's creative nature, God's beauty or perhaps other things about God. The tree, however, doesn't have any value in it's own right, except to be used up for the benefit of mankind.

A Biblical View of Christianity and Ecology

So what is the "right" kind of Christianity? Schaeffer believes that it all begins with creation. Mankind was created in the image of God, which sets it apart from the rest of creation. But it was also created as a part of creation. Mankind is just as much created as animals and plants. We are, in his words, "equal in origin." We therefore share a unity with the rest of creation. Creation also has value, not because it contains a spirit of it's own (animism) or a bit of the spirit of God (pantheism), but because God made it and said, "this is good." God gave creation value and therefore it is valuable.

God has redeemed not only fallen sinners, but creation as well. This is not only Biblical, Schaeffer posits, but Reformed as well. As the reformers wrestled with concepts such as justification and sanctification, they came to believe that salvation wasn't only something that occurred in the afterlife, but that God's saving powers affected us immediately, sanctifying (purifying) us. Healing was not just a hoped for future, but a substantial part of the Christian's life today. In the same way, Schaeffer believes that a substantial healing of the earth today (not just in the future) is Biblical and reformed.

When mankind was given dominion over creation, it was not to abuse it as we please, but to care for it as one would care for something that is not their own, but entrusted to them by another. The dominion of mankind over nature should be a healing and productive process, not a scarring and destructive one. And of all the people who should be caring for God's creation, Christians should be leading the way. Non-Christians should see in Christians not only a reflection of God's redemptive power in their own lives and in their relationships with others, but in their relationship with the Earth as well.

By not getting our theology right in terms of nature, Schaeffer says, Christians have missed not only "the opportunity to help man save his earth," but we have lost "an evangelistic opportunity" as well "because when modern people have a real sensitivity to nature, many of them turn to the pantheistic mentality" (which was reflected in the recent movie, Evan Almighty, when Evan read that "God is in all things" and therefore he should protect the environment).

Schaeffer Then and Now

Though Schaeffer originally wrote this book in 1970 (under the title A Christian Manifesto: Pollution and the Death of Man), the book was republished in 1992 as the environment was finally picked up as an issue for discussion among wider circles of Christians. I can only imagine how cutting edge this book might have been for the 1970's Christian. Though there are several books on the topic of Biblical environmentalism today, I have yet to find anything else from this same time period on the topic. Schaeffer was clearly pushing the envelope given the state of the church at the time.

That said, I think the average reader today will find this book a bit thin compared to some of the other texts that are now available on the subject. Present day authors often quote Schaeffer, but it is clear that their thinking has grown from the seeds that Schaeffer planted into much fuller and richer concepts. I suppose Schaeffer could be considered, therefore, to be the grandfather of the Christian environmental movement. (Of course, that would make Adam, Noah, and Moses, among others, the great great (etc.) grandfathers of the movement.)

Book Recommendations for This Topic and Where Schaeffer Fits In

Of the books on Christianity and the environment that I have read so far, I would recommend saving God's green earth by tri robinson to any Christian who is new to the study of Christianity and the environment. Robinson's book is chock full of scripture that supports a pro-environment stance for Christians. Unfortunately, when I recommended the book to our church leadership for use in a Sunday school class, they immediately rejected it because of a mention of a "doe with this deep penetrating gaze" which Robinson mentions on page 40. As best I can determine, the reference to the deer struck the leadership as somehow animistic or pantheistic and, despite the fact that that wasn't at all the intention of the author, the book was tossed.

Another book that I'd recommend for those who enjoy deep, meaty theological discussions is Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship. This book is one in which Schaeffer's seeds grew furiously into well thought out, deeply theological bases for environmental stewardship. The authors also do a fantastic job of hitting specific environmental topics, especially land management, without pulling any punches. (In fact, I would urge even non-Christian environmentalists to read the book for this very reason.) But, and I cringe when saying this, I know not to even bother recommending this book to the church leadership, because within the very first chapter the authors mention global warming, and in a church where many people believe global warming is fiction, not fact, I know the book won't get very far.

So in the end, I come back to Francis Schaeffer with great hope. Schaeffer didn't hit specific environmental topics very hard and I don't believe he ever mentioned global warming. He did refer to the Reformation and even used it as a basis of his environmental thinking, firmly eschewing pantheism and animism. So though I think Schaeffer is a bit "thin," at the moment it is the only book I've come across that I think our church might be able to hear. The hope I have is that Schaeffer will provide the foot in the door into this issue for our church.

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Nonfiction
Author:	Michael Pollan

One of the ironies of the era in which we live is that many Americans have pantries overflowing with food and yet are more detached from the origins of that food than ever before. We’re often quite ignorant of the many steps of production that our food endures as it travels from the fields to our kitchen. And as recent news stories involving pet food and toothpaste have shown, sometimes knowing where food has come from and what’s been done to it while it was there can be a matter of life and death: the ultimate dilemma.

Michael Pollan dives mouth first into issues of food in America in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. He starts with a foray into the world of Industrial Agriculture, focusing specifically on a single crop: corn. He then moves on to the organic movement, exploring Big Organic as well as a sustainably run farm in Virginia, PolyFace Farm. The last third of the book explores the world of the present day hunter-gatherers and provides the author's favorite meal of the four he partakes in. Each third of the book ends with a meal, and each meal is representative of the type of food that Pollan has been discussing in that section. As faithfully as possible, Pollan has tried to trace the food from beginning to end, hitting upon relevant topics along the way, and ending with the meal itself -- his final thoughts on the process by which it came about, how it was eaten, and how it tasted.

(You may wonder, if there's three meals for three sections, why it's called a Natural History of Four Meals. Pollan does manage to fit an additional meal into the organic section of the book. But it doesn't get a chapter of it's own, nor complete a section of the book in the way that the other meals do. Still, it's a meal that helps to make a point, in this case a point about Big Organic.)

Industrial Agriculture: Corn

One of the hallmarks of Industrial Agriculture is monoculture, hence Pollan's decision to focus on only the one crop, corn. But through corn, he was able to delve into numerous related topics such as food subsidies, factory farmed animals, processed foods, food safety, obesity, and finally, how the meal (made predominantly with corn) tasted. Though I've read many articles about obesity in America and the problems of processed food, I've never understood farm subsidies very well. But Pollan not only explained how they worked, and why they were instituted, but he walks through the process step by step, describing the affects of subsidies upon the farmer, the purchasers (like Cargill or ADM), the food, and the consumers. It's an eye-opening read. In fact, even when Pollan hit upon topics that I was already familiar with, I found his his step-by-step, beginning-to-end descriptions of the how, what and why of things to be quite enlightening.

According to Pollan, the descendants of the Maya occasionally refer to themselves as "the corn people" or as "corn walking," not because they are trying to identify with the corn in some metaphysical way, but because they eat so much of the stuff that they're literally corn made flesh. Today, thanks to carbon 13, scientists can actually determine the percentage of corn that a person consumes. Pollan spoke with a Berkeley biologist, Todd Dawson, who said, “When you look at the isotope ratios, we North Americans look like corn chips with legs.” In fact, the average American eats more corn than the average Mexican. Granted, the standard Americano doesn’t wrap most of what he eats in corn tortillas, yet his food is still replete with corn. The meal that Pollan concludes the Industrial Agriculture section with includes McDonald’s chicken McNuggets. A chicken nugget, he says, "piles corn upon corn: what chicken it contains consists of corn, ... [since that is what the chicken was fed], but so do most of the nugget's other constituents, including the modified corn starch that glues the thing together, the corn flour in the batter that coats it, and the corn oil in which it gets fried. Much less obviously, the leavenings and lecithin, the mono-, di-, and triglycerides, the attractive golden coloring, even the citric acid that keeps the nugget 'fresh' can all be derived from corn."

Pastoral Agriculture: Grass

While corn provided an avenue through which to explore Industrial Agriculture, grass provides the means of exploring issues of sustainability, locality and the organic food movement. Factory farmed animals are stuffed full of corn (among other things that you really don't want to know about), but the movement in alternative farming circles is to allow animals to feed upon grass (which is actually the food stuff that works best in their system). So the central organizing theme of this section is grass - the pastoral.

This doesn't mean that meat with an organic label has been grass fed. And that, right there, is indicative of a widening crack that is growing along the veneer of the organic movement. Pollan takes a trip through Whole Foods exploring the world of organic food. As he does throughout the book, he then aims at getting to the heart of the matter by going to the farms where this food comes from. He meets "Rosie," the free-range chicken from Petaluma Poultry, and discovers that her world isn't that much different from her kosher and Asian cousins that reside on the same farm (except that she has a small grassy area that she can walk out onto (if she can find the doors, which might not be open), she gets cut up differently than her Asian cousin upon death, and there is no rabbi present when said death occurs. Other than that, Rosie's life is just as cramped and her food the same as all the other chickens.). He also visits Earthbound Farm (think packaged, pre-washed salads). He finds that large scale organic looks much different than the quaint, family-owned farm that often comes to mind when considering the organic movement. In the end, Big Organic leaves Pollan more than a little disappointed. Even the meal was a let down.

But in studying the world of organic agriculture, Pollan stumbles across Polyface Farm in Virginia. He visits Polyface for a week, helping out on the farm and seeing every part of this sustainable bit of agriculture. From grass to bugs to chicken and cows and pigs, Pollan records and explains the process of growth, of life, and of death. He describes a process that adds more to the earth than it takes away. And he describes animals that, though they're still eaten in the end, are allowed to live a happy, healthy life and are treated with respect from birth to death. And to wrap it all up, Pollan found that the meal he served from this world of local and sustainable farming was not only more nutritious than a comparable industrially raised meal, but it was far more flavorful as well.

Personal Agriculture: Forest

The last third of Pollan's book addresses the lifestyle and cuisine of modern day hunter gatherers. He went hunting for boar, picked morels that were shooting up after a forest fire, gathered wild yeast from the air and picked bing cherries from his sister's neighbor's cherry tree. He also harvested salt that turned out to be inedible due to it's toxic flavor. And he hunted for abilone, which he claimed was not only the hardest foraging he did, but the most dangerous as well. (And then he wasn't able to serve the abalone at his grand finale meal because he discovered that abalone had to be eaten fresh and the meal was still several weeks off at the time.)

This section of the book included a rather drawn out (in my opinion) meander through the morality of killing animals for their meat. If you look at the picture of Michael Pollan on the back cover, you'd think of him as the kind of guy that would swat at a fly and then feel guilty about it later. So before killing the boar, he spent a fair bit of time agonizing about it. Though this wasn't my favorite part of the book (get on with it already!), I have to admit that the guy did his best to be thorough by covering not only the hunt, but possible opposition to it as well.

In the end, Pollan admits that though hunting and gathering isn't the most practical way to put food on the table every day, it was definitely the means that he enjoyed most. He found that in hunting and foraging, there was quite a bit of fellowship, not only between humans and nature, but between people as well. In the end, not only did he find that his meal was excellent, but surrounding his table were also all of the people who helped to make that meal a reality. Of all the meals Pollan writes of in his book, this one seems the most to be a gift: a gift from nature and a gift from other people.

This is a well written book, and though the ethics of meat killing made me yawn a bit, the rest was definitely a real page turner. We've already made a few changes to where we get our food from, and we've absolutely forbidden my mother from taking the kids to Micky D's any more to partake of their chicken Mcnuggets (which we had previously assumed were one of their healthier kids meals. That's before we knew TBHQ (an antioxidant made from petroleum) was sprayed on them.).

I highly recommend reading The Omnivore's Dilemma. If you are interested in issues of nutrition, the environment, food politics, or food safety, then you'll appreciate this book. Heck, if you like eating, you might very well enjoy this book, since it is, after all, all about food.

saving God's green earth

Rating:	★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Nonfiction
Author:	tri robinson

Note to my non-Christian friends: Though this book probably won't interest you, the review might be worth the read. If there's a Christian in your life who is anti- or apathetic to environmental issues, this book might make an interesting (maybe even provocative) Christmas or birthday gift. ;-)



“We cannot be excused when we have not at all considered God in His works. He does not at all leave Himself without witness here. ... Let us then only open our eyes and we will have enough arguments for the grandeur of God, so that we may learn to honor Him as He deserves.” -- John Calvin

John Calvin, Martin Luther, Francis of Assisi, even Saint Paul believed that the natural world is a reflection of God’s own nature. In the first chapter of the book of Romans, Paul writes that “God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature” can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” In fact, Paul even suggests that perhaps nature is the greatest evangelist, allowing people who may never meet a missionary to see in nature a reflection of God, just as a mirror shows a reflection of a face -- imperfect, but very close to the original none-the-less.

One might think, therefore, that Christians would be at the forefront of conserving and protecting God’s creation. In fact, the second chapter of the book of Genesis says that “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” One could make the argument that man was made with the purpose of caring for the rest of God’s creation. And certainly there are many Christians who have taken that call to heart. They ask questions such as “What Would Jesus Drive?” and they seek to “Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.” But there are others who feel that environmentalism is either a distraction caused by Satan or a movement started by and for pantheistic earth worshipers (and therefore is something Christians should steer well clear of).

Tri Robinson hits the issue of Christianity and the environment head on. With quotes from many famous Christians (such as the one from John Calvin above) as well as large fistfuls of Scripture, Robinson walks the reader through five key reasons why a Christian should be an environmentalist:

1) God has provided the planet and all that is on it as a resource and provision for humanity. Proper management of this resource must be sustainable, keeping future generations in mind. The planet is a blessing. God made it to be a sanctuary for life and therefore it should be treated with consideration.

2) Nature is "a portrait of God's beauty." In fact, Robinson points out that "it's in nature that we oftentimes see not only the beauty but also experience the real presence of God." To damage this portrait that God has created of himself is to dishonor him and to endanger our own credibility in the eyes of humanity.

3) Caring for the environment can be a means of missions work. Many of those who are hardest hit by environmental degradation are "the least of these." Rather than receiving God's provision through his creation, they suffer without clean water and with ravaged soil -- the results of a misuse of the planet. By restoring the environment, Robinson says, we help to restore "the neglected assurance of God's abundant presence" as reflected in the provision of the earth.

4) Caring for the environment can be a means of evangelism. What environmentalist would take even a moment of their time to listen to the gospel from the lips of an SUV driving, pesticide spraying, disrespecter of God's creation? How much more readily might they be willing to listen when they see that a Christian's faith permeates every area of their life?

5) The renewal of God's creation is the last of a widening circle of renewal that God works in his creation, starting within the hearts of individuals and rippling out through our bodies, our homes, our communities, and the world.

Robinson intersperses each chapter of this book with examples of present day Christians who have felt called by God to take environmental concerns seriously. He understands that there are political and social pressures within the church that can be daunting, but he devotes an entire chapter to encourage the reader to heed God's call to care for the environment. (It's a powerful chapter, in fact, on having the courage to take the first step in obedience to any call which God has placed upon us, not just a call to care for the environment.) The final two chapters of the book provide practical guides for practical responses, first in terms of education and then in terms of taking action.

I have written several short essays on the topic of Christianity and the environment and therefore have given quite a bit of thought to the topic. I was pleased, however, as I read this book that though much of what Robinson wrote was old hat to me, there were also several points that he made and connections that he pieced together that were either new to me, or said in such a different way that they took on a beautiful new nuance. Robinson understands his audience well (He's a pastor of a church in Boise, Idaho.) and is gentle on his reader (who may feel a little panic-y when approaching this topic) and yet he doesn't hold back on his challenge to the reader to take seriously the care of God's creation.

In my opinion, however, this book, while a good place to orient yourself perhaps on *why* you should care for the environment, doesn't go very far into *how* you can care for the environment. Recycling is mentioned several times as well as reusing canvas grocery bags and getting involved in helping the National Forest service in projects. But there is little or no mention of sustainable farming practices, chemical pollutants or reducing our footprint. In terms of what one can *do* to change their lifestyle to make it more earth friendly, there simply isn't that much information. Then again, I don't believe that was the point of the book. As a springboard it's wonderful. As a guidebook from then on out, I'd recommend reading such books as Sidewalks in the Kingdom, Omnivore's Dilemma, or .... well, the list is enormous. (Feel free to add other good books in your reply.)

This book is an easy read and would be well suited to discussion groups. It is full of Scriptural references and may be appropriate therefore for a Sunday School class or Bible Study group.

I strongly recommend other Christians to read this book. If you're not a Christian, but know someone who is (and who isn't environmentally conscious) this might be a great book to hit them over the head with (or you could just get them a copy for Christmas).

Transportation 101

This is another entry from my old (and soon to be expiring) website. I suspect that it's pretty much guaranteed to mess up my formatting since it begins with a large table (that fit fine on my old page, but I'm a little more *pushes out with each elbow* confined over here).
This post was originally made in the Winter of 2001 and some of the cartoons hold a bit more irony today than they probably did back then.

oh, and again, no promises on the links.

			Transportation 101 Transportation Approx. cost to traveler Approx. cost to government Approx. cost to society walking cost of shoes ($50) cost of paving sidewalk positive health benefits increased productivity biking cost of bike ($250) cost of paving bike lane medical costs of people who breath in (minimal) bike tire dust driving cost of car ($15,000) cost of gas cost of auto registration cost of drivers license cost of auto insurance cost of paving streets and highways cost of lights, stop signs, etc. cost of police to enforce speed limits cost of meter maids to enforce parking limits health costs that aren't covered by individuals items to address noise issues cost of legislators to develop laws regarding travel cost of clean up from spilled oil cost of department setup to oversee auto registrations, drivers' testing, etc. medical costs of people who breath in car tire dust medical costs of people who breath in car exhaust medical costs of people who live near auto factories medical costs of people who are affected by spilled oil (not to mention the loss of beauty as the earth gets paved over, etc.) driving + (SUV's, clunkers, etc.) lower mpg leads to greater gas costs ditto greater damage to environment leads to increased medical problems increased risk of a fatality in an accident (leads to lower productivity since the dead guy can no longer work) Medical Effects * Walkers have less incidence of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and other killer diseases. * smog can cause birth defects * living near auto factories creates a higher likelihood of children having cancer * more people are being killed by air pollution from traffic than from traffic crashes each year (and again) (and again) * auto exhaust can lead to respiratory ailments * tire dust can lead to rhinitis (runny nose), conjunctivitis (tearful eyes), to hives (urticaria), bronchial asthma, and occasionally even a life-threatening condition called anaphylactic shock (and again) * tire dust can build sensitivities to latex (and again) * auto traffic stirs up pollens and molds and may therefore worsen asthma and hay fever * ground level ozone can irritate the respiratory system, reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, and/or inflame and damage the lining of the lung (and again) * nationally there are approximately 18.1 auto-accident-related deaths per 100,000 people (and again) * Compared with other vehicle types, utility vehicles experienced the highest rollover rates: 37.8 percent in fatal crashes, 10.0 percent in injury crashes, and 2.5 percent in property-damage-only crashes. * healthier employees are often happier and more productive (and again) (and again) Environmental Effects (which often lead to Medical Effects) * oil spills and leaks destroy the environment and may be closer than you think (more) (still more) (and a little more) * air pollution is causing problems in national parks * auto manufacturing produces great quantities of pollutants * SUV's are allowed, by law, to produce more pollutants than passenger cars * SUV's get crappy gas mileage (compare the gas mileage for cars page to the best and worst of SUV's page)

Sidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Nonfiction
Author:	Eric O. Jacobsen

Suburbs are a fairly new phenomenon. Before cars it was simply silly to consider building housing as far away from business as is the practice today. Most people had to walk or ride a horse drawn carriage to work, shopping, etc. and distances were spaced accordingly. (This is often referred to as building on a human scale.)

Today, however, the automobile has changed the landscape and a group of people called New Urbanists believe that it has been a change for the worse. Besides the environmental degradation caused by this new pattern of development, there are other, more social, issues at stake. Our cities aren't as grand or beautiful as they once where (Do you know anyone who would choose to visit Denver over Rome, or Pontiac over Paris?), they aren't as safe (Current redesigns of cities put fewer "eyes on the street.") and they aren't as conducive to building community. (How many neighbors can you stop and chat with when you're whizzing past in an automobile?)

New Urbanists have been around for over a decade, but for the first time (that I know of, at any rate) a Christian author has looked critically at the arguments that New Urbanists have made and has decided that not only should Christians support them, but should join wholeheartedly in the New Urbanist movement. Eric O. Jacobsen is excellent at stating the tenants of New Urbanism in a very concise, yet readily accessible way. But what I find even more exciting (and this is a step that I hadn't fully followed through on in my own study of New Urbanism) he ties their tenants to Biblical principles. He points out that evangelism, hospitality, even encouragement can all happen more naturally in a New Urbanist environment (as opposed to forcing these things in the suburban environment through programming and increasingly moving toward entertainment as a form of "worship").

I have lived in Colorado Springs (sprawl-o-rama) and in San Francisco (makes New Urbanists smile), and I've seen in my own life that these principals of architecture (of all things!) really do affect relationships. Sprawl is causing the average American to become lonelier, feel less connected, and to relate less often with people who are different than themselves (becoming more segregated than ever). I should point out here, for all those with a "small town" mindset, small towns are generally built on New Urbanist principals. It is easier to develop relationships in small towns not only because they're small, but because of the layout of the town itself. Suburbs, on the other hand, may have the same smaller amount of people, but are laid out such that community is much harder to come by naturally.

As Christians, we should be at the forefront of the New Urbanist movement. We have to have some means of running into neighbors that will lead to our giving of hospitality, making of friendships and sharing of the gospel. (I don't mean that we're accosting them with a gospel presentation every time we see them in front of their house, but passing by and meeting them in front of their house in the first place may later lead to a far more natural means of sharing the gospel later.) Meeting them on the sidewalk as we're walking to work/school/the store is a natural means of getting to know people (hence the title of the book).

New Urbanism doesn't mean that we all need to crowd into cities such as San Francisco and New York City, but it does mean developing our current cities in a more person friendly manner (on a human scale). This is not really a new movement at all, but a call to get back to basics. In Christianese, one might even call it "fundamentalism" in architecture.

Though I consider this a must read for most Christians, non-Christians may also be interested in this book, not only because it'll give them something to bug their Christian friends about, but because Jacobsen really does a fantastic job of synthesizing the issues. I’ve read a couple of different New Urbanist authors and of them all, I believe Jacobsen is the most concise and one of the better authors at getting to the heart of the matter in a way that makes the reader feel like they’ve had an “Ah ha! Now I get it!” moment.

Coming Home to Eat: the pleasures and politics of local foods

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Health, Mind & Body
Author:	Gary Paul Nabhan

While hanging out at a local, independent bookstore in town, I peered toward the "staff picks" table and eyed a book that I thought might be interesting. The book was called Coming Home to Eat. And as I sat in the store's big, overstuffed chair and began to read, I became hooked.

Gary Nabhan helped start the movement to save seeds, not genetically altered or hybrid seeds, but native seeds (as God had originally designed them). With a degree in agriculture, Nabhan has long been interested in the plight of family farms, the use of pesticides, etc. But at some point he began to see the value in eating foods that were grown locally as well as foods that were native to the area where he lived. With that in mind, he set out to eat locally (within 250 miles of his house) for one year. (If 4 out of 5 foods that he ate were local, he was satisfied with that.)

This book is a chronicle of that year. Written in a story format, he explores questions that both his friends and neighbors bring up as well as ones that nag at him personally. He tests the viability of living locally and admits to problems as well as to the overwhelming benefits (especially to the native peoples that live near him in Arizona and Mexico). When his story intersects with a political, social or agricultural issue, he delves a little deeper explaining the problems and possible solutions. He brought out facets of farming, cooking and eating that I hadn't even considered before (even though I've been investigating the organic vs. commercial issue for a few years now). And he brought in elements of food that I believe are true but seldom touched upon (such as the political or spiritual aspects of food and the land upon which it is grown).

Though Nabhan gives no indication of being a Christian in this book (If I had to guess, I say he was "spiritual" without committing to any particular religious affiliation.), he seems to have a far better sense of the ties between God and God's creation than most Christians I know. He recognizes the intimate place that food has in our lives, as well as the value of a connection to the earth. (While reading the book it dawned on me that here in Colorado we might pray for rain to end this drought so that there won't be watering restrictions for our lawns, but how often do we pray recognizing that the weather affects the food we eat? Seldom if ever, I suspect. We have a vague sense that the farmers aren't doing well, but we don't feel it personally, as if our own food resources were at stake... as if we could truly starve without rain.)

Nabham includes a quote from a manifesto produced by the Minnesota Institute of Sustainable Agriculture that sums up the local food issue fairly well, "When we buy local food, we are supporting community health: a network of farmers, food processors and fellow customers who live and work in our community, our regional landscape and our local economy. Personal health... and the health of the environment is at stake: Local foods do not generate the same pollution and waste the same energy as foods that are trucked, shipped or flown in from far away. [By eating locally] we are protecting our wildlife habitats, our waterways, and workers who are also our neighbors."

(why i am) Pro-Life

This is the last transfer from my old site. It was originally posted in the spring of 2003.

I'm personally quite pleased when I see the title of this entry right next to the title of my last entry.

I should add, though, before you read this, that the intended audience for this article is Christians, specifically the "Christian Right." The article is pretty biased (especially about environmental issues) and I think I overstated some issues rather too strongly. But I hope that for my intended audience, the message might come at them in a way that it hasn't been presented before and that they'll be able to see issues that are often considered "liberal" *gasp* in a different (and more spiritual) light.

I should also add that I've modified some chunks of this article. I must have been in a hurry (or very distracted) when I wrote it. Some sentences were so ungrammatical that I couldn't make heads nor tails of them. So I fiddled with them a bit, hopefully enough that you can at least get the gist of what I was getting at.

			(why i am) Pro-Life I like to eat. And when I eat, I don't generally like to sit around thinking about where the food came from. But I'm also pro-life. And it just doesn't make sense to feast on something that may have been sprayed with pesticides, increasing the cancer rates among those who picked the food. I want to eat to sustain my life. A byproduct of my food consumption shouldn't be to decrease someone else's. "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." -- Genesis 9:5 And, because I am pro-life, it makes sense that I am also concerned about bio-diversity. (Bios means life -- life diversity.) To support bio-diversity means supporting efforts to protect species that are endangered as well as to promote means of living which encourage other species (besides humans, their pets and food animals) to thrive as well. Being pro-bio-diversity means to appreciate and live in harmony with all of God's creation, seeing it as something to protect and guard rather than as something to be used up and tossed out. And, as the term pro-life is most often used, I am also in favor of women carrying their pregnancies to term rather than aborting their children. It only makes sense to me that once a woman has made the choice to have sex, that she then stand by her decision, even if it means nine months of discomfort for her. (Granted, there are exceptions that people love to dwell on, such as when the women didn't have a choice in the first place. But exceptions are not the rule, and the general rule I'm addressing is life.) Lifestyle Choices We declare something about our beliefs in choice vs. life through our every day decisions. A person who consciously decides to walk, bike, or drive a small, fuel-efficient car has shown through that decision a belief in life. (Granted, a decision is really a choice. But I'm not the one that came up with these terms. I'm just trying to stretch them into areas that they should logically be stretched.) That belief, shown through such decisions, extend even to moderating one's own convenience and style in order to enable others to live a better life. By choosing to have a low environmental impact in terms of one's transportation, one reduces the chance that someone else might get asthma, cuts down on the chances that another person may be involved in a fatal accident with a vehicle, and reduces the need for our country to go to war over the need for fossil fuels. I've also found that these people (myself included) tend to be rather dogmatic about these lifestyle decisions, believing that they should be adopted by the majority for the betterment of mankind. On the other hand, the person that chooses to drive their vehicle even when they're only traveling a few blocks, the person that chooses to live far from work and thereby requiring a long commute, the person who chooses to drive an SUV or other large vehicle even when they're only using it for small trips (or for a single passenger), is making a choice based on convenience and style to the detriment of others. In general, these people are usually very pro-choice in terms of these sorts of decisions. They feel very strongly that their purchase and lifestyle choice is their decision and they care very little how their decision might affect others. These people tend to be strongly pro-choice. They feel that they should have the freedom to do as they please and they will allow others that same freedom. "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life...." -- Deuteronomy 30:19-20 To choose life, then, means to consider one's actions carefully, both in terms of what it will mean to oneself but also what it will mean to others (even others that one may never come into contact with or know that they are affecting). To choose life means to live responsibly. To support choice, in this case, means to live selfishly. (Granted, we all live selfishly in some area. We may be entirely environmental, but we're selfish with our time. Or we could be generous with our belongings but stingy with our love. And, in fact, more often than not, we are selfish but entirely unaware of that fact. But just because we're all living selfishly doesn't mean that we shouldn't have it pointed out to us once in awhile.) "Every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills." -- Psalm 50:10 "I know, O Lord, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps." -- Jeremiah 10:23 Decisions one makes in terms of transportation is just one example of a lifestyle choice. Whether we choose to eat organic or conventionally grown produce is another example. Choosing to support local business rather than large chains. Eating food grown or raised locally rather than something that was shipped 1300 miles or so to get to us (using up fuel and other energy sources in the process). Even relational decisions such as spending time with an international student or even just with our neighbors can be something that brings life to others rather than leaving us enveloped in a cloud of selfishness. The recognition that our life is not our own, but is God's, affects every decision we make. If my life is my own, then I'll choose to do and to buy whatever makes me happy. But if I realize that I am God's, and that I live on God's earth, then I'll want to nurture the earth and those around me, because in nurturing those things and people I am nurturing God's things and people. Bio-Diversity and other Environmental Concerns Sustainable agriculture is a biblical concept. Its not some pie-in-the-sky hippie dream thought up by a bunch of tree huggers. It is foundational to way that God has set up this planet. Every seventh year the land was to be left fallow. In the law the Israelites were commanded, "For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.... The land is to have a year of rest." (Leviticus 25:3-5) In fact, not only was the land to be given a rest every seven years, but every fiftieth year was called the year of Jubilee in which the land would again be allowed another rest. And these directives were followed by this promise, "Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety.... The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants." (Leviticus 25:18,19,23) If I recognize that the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, then it should be easy to take the next step in reasoning that all life on this planet is valuable. Even the microbes in the soil are God's, and God has given even the microbes in the soil a purpose on this planet. Who are we to determine that one species is any more important than another? "[Thomas] Lovejoy argues that such wholesale alteration of ecosystems is disastrous not only in biological, but also in human terms. He is convinced that failure to protect biological diversity is closely connected with failure to maintain a reasonable standard of living for human inhabitants. The vicious circle of poverty, of overexploitation of natural resources, and of degradation of water and soil must be broken if the unhappy results now observed in nations such as Haiti are not to be repeated throughout the tropics." -- Bryan G. Norton in his introduction to an article by Lovejoy (The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey) 1986) And yet, our global economy is bringing with it global homogeneity. Decisions are being made as to which breeds of animals shall live and which shall be left to eventually die out. McDonalds has a stake in the fact that all of its hamburgers, from Maine to California, taste the same. However, when cows (of many breeds) are raised in different parts of the United States being allowed to graze on the grasses that are native to those regions, the meat is just plain going to taste different (in part because it is from different breeds of cow and in part because those cows are eating different varieties of grass). What to do? First of all, raise only one breed of cow. Then raise those cows in large factory farms, feeding them one variety of corn, and then ship the meat from that central location to all of the McDonalds nationwide. Viola! Every hamburger tastes the same! And in the process, one type of cow thrives while the others die out. And one kind of grain thrives while the native grasses are plowed under. "Our history is rich in examples of highly useful discoveries based on species previously perceived as worthless. Aspirin, as standard an ingredient of most modern medicine cabinets as any, consists of an organic molecule originally derived from a willow; indeed its chemical name, salicylic acid, is derived from the Latin Salix for willow. The recent discovery of a powerful antiviral substance from a sea squirt is another such example. Some discoveries have an enormous impact and some minor. There is nothing about abundance (or, therefore, rarity) that correlates with usefulness. If anything, there are arguments that rare species may be more useful on the average than abundant ones. Much is made of the potential and present contribution of wild species. A recent analysis of the United States economy shows that 10 percent of GNP is derived directly from wild resources." -- Thomas E. Lovejoy "Species Leave the Ark One by One" (from The Preservation of Species) The Bible doesn't deal directly with the issue of pesticides and factory farming, but the principals laid out in the Bible concerning God's land are clear. We are to "take care of" the garden, as God determined for Adam. (Genesis 2:15) Each of the Israelites was given land that was to remain in their family through the centuries. If the family fell upon hard times and had to sell their property to make ends meet, that sale was not permanent. During the year of Jubilee, all land was to be returned to its rightful owners. With this principal in mind, the formation of factory farms would be impossible. Every 50 years the big agri-businesses would have to give back the land to its rightful owners. Jubilee! The land is too important to us, too central to who we are and how we live, for it to be out of the family for more than fifty years. God knew that. He designed us that way. In fact, according to the Biblical story, we were formed from the land. In Genesis we are told, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7) "The most worrisome aspect of the endangered species problem comes from a disturbing observation that exists for the most part independently of the foregoing arguments: those nations which are unsuccessful in maintaining their basic diversity of plant and animal life are also the ones least successful in protecting decent standards of living for their people. Notable examples in the Western Hemisphere are El Salvador and Haiti and the latter is of particular interest in comparison with the Dominican Republic on the other half of the island of Hispaniola" -- Thomas E. Lovejoy "Species Leave the Ark One by One" (from The Preservation of Species) (with more great info. on the countries in particular just following... p. 18-19) It is not our land. It is God's. In the same way, we are God's as we were formed from God's land. This is both a marvelous and a foreboding thought. I am exhilarated to think that God created me to be in such harmony with the world in which he has placed me. And at the same time, I recognize the incredible responsibility we have to the land and to God. It is one thing to mismanage a small plot of land that I rent from another person. It is an entirely different thing to be complicit in the mismanagement of an entire ecosystem belonging to an omnipotent and jealous God! Who are we to try to understand the mind of God? And yet in our deluded human minds, we think that we can look at one animal, plant or bug and say, "this one is valuable," then turn to another and say, "this one is expendable." How do we know that the loss of Black-Tailed Prairie Dog won't have catastrophic affects upon our children's and grandchildren's lives? We don't! But we presume that their loss is no great thing when we support suburban sprawl and fire suppression policies. (The NYT had a recent article about a cactus called hoodia, in South Africa, that Pfizer is hoping to develop an appetite suppressant from. What a perfect description of a nondescript plant, that has been "discovered" before it dies out. --> NYT 1/1/2003) I am pro-life because I recognize that all life is from God. He made dolphins and hummingbirds, cactuses and Spanish moss, microbes and spiders, and he made me. And he didn't make just one kind dolphin or one kind of hummingbird, but he made many, many varieties. God is the author of all diversity. And he set Adam (mankind) in the Garden (earth) to take care of it. What an awesome and marvelous responsibility! Abortion "A person's a person, no matter how small!" "Please don't harm all my little folks, who have as much right to live as us bigger folks do!" -- Horton in Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who! I want to be consistent in my support of life, and therefore I oppose the use of abortion as a method of birth control. I don't, however, think that as a race we can keep procreating willy-nilly and expect this planet to continue to support us. It seems that already Earth is creaking and groaning with the weight of our abuses. As Romans 8 expresses, "the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Opposing abortion does not mean opposing responsibility and sensibility. On the contrary, I believe that far too often, abortion allows us a way out of having to face our responsibilities. And likewise, the knowledge that abortion is an option leads far too many to behave irresponsibly. In my mind, there are far too many options available to women today, for them to rely upon the worst of all options, abortion. Abstinance, birth-control, and adoption are ample tools for behaving responsibly. I find it ironic when I hear environmentalists speak about the harmful affects of pesticides upon unborn babies. Miscarriages and birth defects affect farm workers in greater proportions than they affect those who are not working around pesticides regularly and that is a problem. But to then turn around and suggest that a perfectly healthy baby be aborted is completely contradictory to all that that person believes environmentally. Likewise, for someone who opposes abortion to have no concern for the unborn children of migrant workers is also completely contradictory. We need to examine our beliefs and opinions and attempt to line them all up together lest we earn the label of hypocrite. Perhaps if we, as Christians, spent less time buying into systems of big business and hyper mobility, we could help stop the crumbling of communities. Our loss of communities (through our own self-centered behaviors, our individualism and our greed) and our consuming materialism have led to the destruction of large portions of the environment, to loneliness and depression, and to irresponsible sex and abortions. We can't just blame the loggers and the SUV drivers. We can't just blame the mom's who choose to abort. We need to understand that we are complicit in this system. We need to acknowledge our own culpability and begin taking steps toward choosing life. "The nation behaves well if it treats resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired, in value." -- President Theodore Roosevelt (1910) "In a way, what they're doing [farmers with a penchant for monocultural farming] -- and as consumers, what we're doing -- is homogenizing the landscape. We're losing the special places around us because we didn't see the invisible connections that bind them together." -- Pam Matson In him was life, and that life was the light of men. -- John 1:4 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. -- Romans 8:19-21