Hello friends of the Environment Report! Yesterday afternoon, the New York Times blog Dot Earth (written by reporter Andrew C. Revkin) covered our very own Kyle Norris's story on Buddhist dumpster diving. You can read his post here.
So, if you ever thought twice about dumpster diving, now is a great time to try it! Don't know how to dumpster dive? You can get great tips here. And don't forget to read Kyle Norris's story on the Environment Report website.
Share your stories with the Environment Report by commenting on this blog. Have you ever been dumpster diving? If so, what's the best thing you've discovered? What's the weirdest thing you've found? Tell us about it!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Friday, August 3, 2007
Diapers!!
O.k. - this is the week. My colleagues have been on me to produce a story on the environmental impacts of diapers. Partly because I have two little ones at home and partly because I trend toward the scatological beat. Oh, and partly because I said I would do the story THREE YEARS ago! And they have never let me forget it. So here goes - (isn't this going to be great?!) - the long awaited, and long avoided 'diaper diaries' coming up on the E-Report! One reason I've avoided this story is that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer. Which is better? Disposables or cloth? - most say it's a wash. Which do you prefer?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A Natural Longing for Nature?
The title of this post comes from an old New York Times article of the same name that you can read here. Inspired by Kyle Norris's story that you can find right now on the Environment Report website, (and always, in the ER story archives) I wanted to find out if there was more to this nature lovers in the city thing. And as it turns out, yes, there is! Awhile ago, scientists began to hypothesize that humans have a genetically-based emotional need to be in the presence of nature, be it going to a zoo, having a pet, or just looking out the window at some trees in your backyard.
Apparently, the emotional need goes deeper still. Scientists fear that this so-called "biophilia" might not be activated in people who live in urban settings. So why is this a problem? Well, they say that the lack of biophilia could mean emotional deprivation or just indifference to nature...or in the worst-case scenario, outright hostility towards nature, at a time when conservationists need sympathy the most.
Maybe this has already begun. Don't you know a few people who are pretty hostile towards nature? People who would rather get a root canal in the safety of their dentist's office than go camping, even in their own backyard? People who bemoan the occasional bug in their house, or even on their patio furniture? People who blame nature for all the extra time and money they must spend on shoveling snow or cleaning up their basements from a heavy rain?
Granted, most people take all of this as a given...a price we pay for living on Earth. But are some people becoming more resentful? If so, do we need to force these genetically-challenged people into zoos, or buy them puppies and kittens as presents until that biophilia gene kicks in? Thoughts? Anyone out there feel like they're not as sympathetic to nature as they should be, given its important (or annoying, as the case may be) role in our lives?
Apparently, the emotional need goes deeper still. Scientists fear that this so-called "biophilia" might not be activated in people who live in urban settings. So why is this a problem? Well, they say that the lack of biophilia could mean emotional deprivation or just indifference to nature...or in the worst-case scenario, outright hostility towards nature, at a time when conservationists need sympathy the most.
Maybe this has already begun. Don't you know a few people who are pretty hostile towards nature? People who would rather get a root canal in the safety of their dentist's office than go camping, even in their own backyard? People who bemoan the occasional bug in their house, or even on their patio furniture? People who blame nature for all the extra time and money they must spend on shoveling snow or cleaning up their basements from a heavy rain?
Granted, most people take all of this as a given...a price we pay for living on Earth. But are some people becoming more resentful? If so, do we need to force these genetically-challenged people into zoos, or buy them puppies and kittens as presents until that biophilia gene kicks in? Thoughts? Anyone out there feel like they're not as sympathetic to nature as they should be, given its important (or annoying, as the case may be) role in our lives?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Yay, a blog!
Welcome to the new Environment Report blog! Come here for all the latest behind-the-scenes scoop, story extras and updates, more musings and insight from the ER staff on environmental news, and a chance to let the world know what YOU think about our stories by posting comments. Feel free to vent your frustrations, inquire about stories, or just share your thoughts.
Here's something to get you started: I've been thinking a lot lately about how trendy environmentalism has become. And it's not just your typically crunchy granola types that are paying attention. A-list celebs and people who never gave the environment a second thought are also succumbing to the fad. This year's Emmy's featured a "Green Room," filled with organic goods, and eco-organic swag bags appeared at Sundance instead of traditional giveaways. Not to mention the fact that celebs drive Priuses like they wear Marc Jacobs and Chanel.
But the overwhelming sentiment seems to be...don't go out of your way! Don't do TOO much! This is exemplified perfectly by John Mayer's idea of "Light Green," which you can find here on his blog. According to Mayer, getting worked up about the environment just isn't necessary: "No thinking about 'offsetting your carbon footprint'. No rallies. No brow-beating people who think the Earth just has a fever. Pick one thing to change this year, and keep the rest of your life the same."
Okay, so what do you think? Is this "light green" approach better than nothing at all or is it just one celebrity crooner's easy way out? Is it a way to give a nod to those fearful of climate change without having to change much yourself? Give us your thoughts right here on the Environment Report blog!
Here's something to get you started: I've been thinking a lot lately about how trendy environmentalism has become. And it's not just your typically crunchy granola types that are paying attention. A-list celebs and people who never gave the environment a second thought are also succumbing to the fad. This year's Emmy's featured a "Green Room," filled with organic goods, and eco-organic swag bags appeared at Sundance instead of traditional giveaways. Not to mention the fact that celebs drive Priuses like they wear Marc Jacobs and Chanel.
But the overwhelming sentiment seems to be...don't go out of your way! Don't do TOO much! This is exemplified perfectly by John Mayer's idea of "Light Green," which you can find here on his blog. According to Mayer, getting worked up about the environment just isn't necessary: "No thinking about 'offsetting your carbon footprint'. No rallies. No brow-beating people who think the Earth just has a fever. Pick one thing to change this year, and keep the rest of your life the same."
Okay, so what do you think? Is this "light green" approach better than nothing at all or is it just one celebrity crooner's easy way out? Is it a way to give a nod to those fearful of climate change without having to change much yourself? Give us your thoughts right here on the Environment Report blog!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
