Earth Mother in the Classroom

~ Setting ~ 

Kindergarten Classroom in a Madison, WI Public Elementary School

  8:35 AM.

After six-year-olds have thrown jackets in their lockers, put their lunch card in the right slot, and grabbed a book for the first few minutes of the day, their teacher sings out an instruction to gather on the carpet.  All sit "criss-cross applesauce".  

The morning greetings move around the circle.  Ms. R. sits among them and starts welcoming students, one by one. 

       "Good morning, Melanie."  
       "Good morning, Melanie," repeats the whole class.
       "Good morning, Samir." 
       "Good morning, Samir," chimes the class.
       "Good morning, Labrea."
       "Good morning, Labrea."

This continues around to all who are present.  But, at one point in the recognition of young names, the teacher makes a shift:

       "Good morning, Mother Earth."
       "Good morning, Mother Earth," respond the kids.

Up on the wall above one side of the circle hangs a poster of a photo of our planet.  As part of the natural routine of wishing all a good day, Mother Earth is included between two other smiling kinders every morning.  No big fanfare; simply a daily nod within the greetings of the class individuals.  A simple observance of Gaia as a natural member of the class.

Regardless of elementary grades' natural science curricula, or higher grades' concepts of Earth's finite status and natural resource depletion, this group of eighteen 6-year-olds is making a personal connection each morning to our planet. This is huge.

We adults take so much of our good fortune for granted every day and often pass the accompanying global ambivalence along to the young ones as well. A common generational reference now is that we must consider what an unhealthy planet holds for our own children and grandchildren.  These are the very souls who currently enjoy their kindergarten mornings each day. [See "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen] 

Beyond climate change issues, callous use of water and specific population numbers this planet can sustain, a simple and affectionate morning lash-up with Earth Mother is critical for future resiliency. 

Thanks, Ms. R.

The Many Definitions Of "Sustainability"

I've been skeptical of terms as they come and go. (earlier post) Sustainability, again, is one of them. Yup, cultural definitions evolve and morph. But when the tag for the future dynamic of Earth jumps all over the map, we need to take stock of what exactly is at stake. 

The following definitions were compiled and distributed recently by a conference session here in Madison. They represent some current versions of sustainability. I'm taking the liberty to comment. Others?

• Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own needs.

Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment & Development)

Is sustainable development an oxymoron?

• Sustainable design is the set of perceptual and analytic abilities, ecological         wisdom, and practical wherewithal essential to making things that fit in a world of microbes, plants, animals, and entropy. In other words, (sustainability) is the careful meshing of human purposes with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world, and careful study of those patterns and flows to inform human purposes.

David Orr, Ecological Literacy 

Philosophically sound if humans follow suit with patterns and flows. 

• Sustainability is the ability to achieve continuing economic prosperity while protecting the natural systems of the planet and providing a high quality of life for its people. Achieving sustainable solutions calls for stewardship, with everyone taking responsibility for solving the problems of today and tomorrow-individuals, communities, businesses and governments are all stewards of the environment.

 Environmental Protection Agency

This government agency has two sides to its mouth: economic prosperity vs. stewardship.  Paradox.

• Sustainability is asking ourselves today: How much do we really need? Then, not taking more from the earth than that.

Alliance for Global Sustainability Principle Investors

Huh…?

• A transition to sustainability involves moving from linear to cyclical processes and technologies. The only processes we can rely on indefinitely are cyclical; all linear processes must eventually come to an end. 

Dr. Karl Henrik-Robert, MD, founder of The Natural Step, Sweden

True.

• Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of wellbeing, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensions.

Wikipedia (Jan 2011)

The first sentence is true, which is why resilience may be a better overall concept than sustainability.

• Sustainability occurs when human activity does not adversely affect the quality of the environment and resource base available for future generations of living things on the planet.

Alliance for Global Sustainability Principle Investors

Many resource bases have already been altered beyond future availability.

• Sustainability is equity over time.  As a value, it refers to giving equal weight in your decisions to the future as well as the present. You might think of it as extending the Golden Rule through time, so that you do unto future generations (as well as to your present fellow beings) as you would have them do unto you.

Robert Gilman, Director Context Institute

Yes.  ["Why should I do anything for future generations. They haven't done anything for me." Groucho Marx]

• Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do.

Paul Hawken

True, but already unattainable. 

• A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Aldo Leopold, A Land Ethic, from Sand County Almanac

Simple and wise…

• Clean air, clean water, safety in city parks, low-income housing, education, child care, welfare, medical care, unemployment (insurance), transportation, recreation/cultural centers, open space, wetlands... 

Hazel Wolf, Seattle Audubon Society

Finally getting to the social justice?

EnvEd Standards Have A Snit-Fit

“Hellooooo?? Anyone in this meetin' hall??  It's dark out there…hello?? 

“Is this on...?”

“...This is a poisonal message from the Wisconsin’s Model Academic Standards For Environmental Education. (We go by EnvStds for short cause our creators were a wordy bunch.)  

“We come from that little brown booklet with the Greater Yellowlegs on the cover? (that’s a bird) Remember? ...I’m getting some glazed looks, here...!

“Anyway, we’re celebrating our 13th birthdays and adolescence this year, and for the most part it’s been a proud if lonely existence. (Except for 

B.4.7Drawasimplehydrologiccycle. She insists that because of something called a FOSS, she gets a lot of requests.) Otherwise, we’re kinda disappointed with our work calendars.

“Ya know?... lots of great people who really valued our collective resumes put us into that booklet back in 1998. I think they were old hippies. Some were from Madison! (...that island of reality down by the Yahara Watershed?) We all had a good conference call that day and rubbed our hands waiting to get to work.

“Well, we hate to complain or nothin', but if education standards represent what is a prioritized list of student skills and proficiencies, then why aren’t we now more front and center, huh? (A.4.2Collect-informationmakepredictionsandofferexplanationsaboutquestionsasked wrote that last sentence…)"

“Frankie, (C.4.2Applyideasofpastpresentandfuturetospecificenvironmental-issues), informed us at last Sunday’s reskilling meeting that we are actually supposed to be what is called interdisciplinary. (He thought that meant we all got yelled at together in the detention room after school.)  But really, it means we have to fit into all classrooms and not just one of our own. Ya know, we’ve always wondered why there’s no EnvStds sign on them doorjams!  Am I right?" 

CROWD: “What the..............?”

“Can you believe it!? Chemistry gets its own sign. So do English and Geography and Art. And we’re just supposed to show up quietly into every room and somehow make a presence?? That’s never played well here at this meeting hall! No wonder our calendars are sparse! And know what else? DPI will be adding a new group of Sustainability Standards to us pretty soon!  Now, exactly where are THEY expected to go??"     

“Lemme have that mic! Gimme the mic! …….That’s it!”

“What’s it, D.4.6Developaplaneitherindividuallyorinagrouptopreserve-thelocalenvironment.?”

“Report cards! I’ve never been on a report card! I thought it was my deoderant..., but we rarely ever get the chance to toot our own horns! Parents must think we’re just weenies who maybe hitch rides onto those Writing and Math snobs! Worse yet, parents may think we just don’t rate!"

CROWD: “Oouuch!!!”

“I yield the floor to the B EnvStds.”

“Peak Oil. Earth Systems. Climate Weirding. Population Overshoot. Clean Water Availability. Coal Pollution. Consumer vulgarities. Political/Social Aggressions. 2020 Foresight. Ethics!”

“Thank you, B’s, for that rousing rendition. We all share your enthusiasm and leadership!  All those in favor of lobbying to get our sign on all classroom doors...?”

“Duh!!”

“Adjoined.”

Which Is It? Sustainability Or Resiliency?

I'm having a semantics conflict.

Is “sustainability” going down the same path as “green” and “eco-friendly?”  

On the one hand, cultural buzzwords come and go. They start as enlightened concepts, become overused, then tedious, then meaningless. If product marketing gets ahold of them, they become twisted and their meanings gutted. Even George Zens, publisher of the Sustainability Times in the Madison area, brought this up recently in an article under his Sustainability 101. Regarding sustainability:

“...there is a real danger that its significance is in the process of being diluted to the point where it is nothing more than an empty shell...”

On the other hand, I am not convinced that we use sustainability correctly to begin with. This concept implies a level of continued living standard and stability even though energy resource availability and distribution may (will) diminish.

Technically, sustainability is defined by phrases like: to hold up, to endure, to keep it going, to keep from giving way, to bear up from below. To be sure, it is a most positive sentiment of strength. But I am not sure it's the best definition for the future dynamics of life on Earth.

A level of maintained stability is not possible for world cultures in the coming decades. This is especially so for our country and our “developed” buddies. You know the culprits: population overshoot, peak oil, climate changes, economic crises, political conflicts over resources, etc. Collectively, there is no rational way we can overcome these global elephants in the room without simplifying and living with much less. 

So, then, at which level do we strive to sustain? Is it the business-as-usual level per our present year? Do we, then, have the option to reset the stability dial backward during 2020, if necessary? When the cultural lifestyle levels of 2020 cannot be maintained, do we recalibrate? Stepping down the rungs of a cultural contraction ladder is not sustainability. Sustainability implies staying at the same rung from...well, now. Today. And, that can’t happen. Can one recalibrate sustainability?  

A more promising concept?  Resiliency. 

[This term will really, really, really be the best one!]

As Americans acculturate to the requirements of less carbon emissions, less oil and tighter community dependence they will need a positive sense of retooling as the life standards change. We can’t dig in our heels and refuse to relinquish. We may not be able to sustain, but we will be able to adjust, rebound, and recover: Resiliency.

The resilience component does not imply that we don’t work hard nor work together for the best and fairest of living situations. It is certainly not a weakness. It does imply a feel of flow, a buoyancy. It is meeting the stability level of the moment in a fluid manner. Riding the surface of events, not simply “treading water.”  It is a positive preparedness; a fishing bobber.

       Enough water metaphors.

Resiliency in our lives gives us the permission to adjust to realities and to work with others to do the same. The Transition Culture movement, begun in the UK, is a leading citizen-based proponent of resiliency. It focuses on one’s immediate community, the lessening of transportation needs, use of local food, and reskilling. It underscores positive and flexible behavior habits of change: Resiliency.

The Lorax: A Second Reading

Theodor Seuss Geisel.  At a young age he was involved with humor publications at Dartmouth and became a talented political cartoonist during WWII for the New York City newspaper PM.  Geisel was a strong advocate of the war and the president. He could be very biting in his satire, especially at those with isolationist sentiments.  His charicature drawings of world leaders in that day were often unflattering. One recognizes, in retrospect, some of the whimsical cartoon creatures he drew and became famous for in the world of children’s books; the Dr. Seuss we all know and love.


It was not at all unreasonable, then, that Geisel wove threads of social comment into his books of the 1950’s, ‘60’s and ‘70’s.
  

The Lorax was one of his later books. It is, seemingly, straight forward with the commentary about natural resources and commodities.  But, you know there can be distractions from this story line when reading aloud to young audiences.  Both reader and listeners get caught up anticipating the rhymes or visualizing very fictitious animals.  

“…And with great skillful skill and with great speedy speed, I took the soft tuft.  And I knitted a Thneed!”

“You’re glumping the pond where the Humming-Fish hummed!  No more can they hum, for their gills are all gummed.”

It is easy to get sidetracked from the themes when the tongue-twisted word play and wonderful Seuss-ian drawings are all so much fun.  


But, read it to them again.  


Why? Because our current 10-year-olds will need to be fully versed in precisely these themes. So many contemporary scenarios can already be explained using Seuss’s paradies. Worldwide. These scenarios (below) are scheduled to multiply and multiply as we are all forced to shirk oil and energy. We will be challenged to scale back our lives filled with “stuff” and adapt to the enveloping climate changes. The Lorax becomes more and more timely 40 years after its release.  Theodor Geisel is still pointing the way.


Cast of Themes:
       *Over-extraction of nonrenewable natural resources 
       *Pollution as a product of energy production 
       *Imbalance of ecological webs and cycles 
       *Bottom line economic growth

The Lorax Cast of Characters become metaphors for the world of our consumer culture.

Enter: Stage Right.

The Once-ler tells the whole story to a curious boy.  He recounts his enthusiasm in the development of his Thneed industry. The Once-ler is never revealed: he is a faceless exploiter; reclusive; behind the scenes; a carpetbagger. His goal? Greedy richness. AKA, continued economic growth.

The truffula trees represent a natural resource with an untapped opportunity for exploitation. They are soft and colorful and inviting. They ”smelled of butterfly milk.”  The truffulas are integral to the ecology of the land.  The last tree is cut as the biosphere of the land is disappearing.

The thneed - the product of only one part of the truffula tree - the tuft- which appears to be a nonrenewable resource. This perfect product is adaptable to many uses: "You can use it for carpets. For pillows! For sheets! Or curtains! Or covers for bicycle seats!" It really doesn’t matter, in other words, what the product is, as long as it was a product. This was also a product which, being new to the market, would be purchased by those wishing to have something unique regardless of the usefulness or how it was made or resources used. (Enter gullible public)

The thneeds are mass-produced as the truffulas are chopped down. Mechanization takes over in the forest and now multiple trees are chopped at once. Faster and faster. The original home industry model gives way to a smokestacked factory with an assembly line pace.

Thneeds are then marketed further afield, using higher transportation costs and relying on further natural resource extraction.
"I went right on biggering...selling more Thneeds. 

And I biggered my money, which everyone needs."  

Money is the end-all.  But when the last tree is cut the factory closes down. The workers simply move out of the region, leaving devestation behind.

Exit, Stage Left  

Ecological components:

Swomee-Swans: Bird and sky representatives of the story; happy and singing; affected by smoke and smog in the industrial air. They were sent off by The Lorax to survive elsewhere.
Brown Bar-ba-loots: Animal/mammal representative of the story who were sustained by truffula fruits. They became hungry when trees disappeared and were sent off by The Lorax for food elsewhere.
Humming-Fish:  Fish and water representatives of the story; happy at first; victims of water pollution from industrial sludge. ("their gills are all gummed") They were sent off by Lorax to find healthier waters elsewhere.
Lorax:  Yes, finally, The Lorax.  He responds early in the story to the cutting of trees and continues to protest the Once-ler at every step of the manufacturing operation.  Yet, he, too, leaves in the end; banishing himself.

"I speak for the trees!"  


Who is this guy, anyway?  A political correctness? A collective global citizen consciousness? A nagging subconsciousness of industry? Mother Nature herself? The spotted owl?

The answer is linked to the one word The Lorax leaves behind: UNLESS. Unless what? Unless who? The boy! It's the curious young boy who is ready to catch the last truffula seed on Earth.  The seed is thrown down to him by the faceless establishment that had too much momentum to halt its own destruction. Hindsight consciousness. Too much economic growth; too late for sustainability.  


When Lorax was written back in 1972, it is said, Dr. Seuss was referencing the battle in the Northwest between loggers and those attempting to save habitat for the spotted owl. He was appealing then to the next generation to take the seed of preservation and plant it.  That was two generations ago. Now the stakes are so much higher. 



Philosophy For Children
The Lorax Project 
Dr. Seuss

Modifying Behaviors One Blue Moon At A Time

We finished this year with a blue moon. I watched this full moon rise into clear cold skies while driving from Chicago to Madison on New Year’s Eve. The snowy fields below glowed.  

The blue moon has a number of symbolisms. The most popular defines it as the second full moon within a calendar month. Our lunar months, of course, roll past in 28 day cycles. So it is rare when a second full moon sneaks itself in - every 33 months or so. 


I believe it auspicious that we had this blue moon on a New Year’s Eve, a time for resolutions and thoughts about the coming year. And because “once in a blue moon” implies a longer time period - longer than your typical New Year’s resolution- it’s timing gives us a chance to think even further ahead on our global citizenly responsibilities.

Ecologically, what would we like to have personally accomplished three years from now? How will we have reduced our carbon footprint or use of natural 

resources? What would we like to be able to report to our students in 33 months about changes we have made to become a better steward of Earth?  What will we model?


I'm not referring to the simpler green actions such as switching out light bulbs or turning off the tap while brushing teeth or using our own mug at coffee shops. These are, for sure, all necessary parts of the range of small acts that point us collectively to resiliency.  

However, we need to begin changing our behaviors at a higher plain. That is the level where it takes more thought and personal re-tooling to achieve results.  It takes some life-style changes over time- maybe even up to the next blue moon.

For instance:

*  EcoDriving:

 Regardless of the car we drive we save fuel, cut emissions and feel more relaxed by driving easy.  It involves, among other techniques, slow accelerations, anticipating lights, feathering the gas pedal on grades, and planning a little more time to reach destinations.  This takes quite a change in driving habits. Simply driving the posted speed is a huge start.  Driving easy may often be frustrating as others roar on around us as if perpetually late. Be patient.

* Composting:  

Throwing kitchen scraps into a compost bin in the back yard yields lots of rich soil supplements and decreases the power and water needed to run our garbage disposal. Old habits die hard on this one. It’s so easy to throw egg shells and lemon rinds and slimy vegetables from the fridge “down the drain.” Yes, we need to have a container on the counter that fills with waste. Yes, we need to frequently -including winter - take this container outdoors to the bin. But the composting habit will reward us with recycled organics and savings in resources.

 * Water Harvesting:  

It is amazing how much water rolls off the roof during a storm.  Fifty-five gallon barrels fill quickly when the gutters and downspouts do their jobs as feeders.  Free, clean water.  Ready to be used on the garden, washing the car and filling the bird bath.   

True, using tap water and the hose is convenient, but this is expensive and precious water.  It has been pumped and purified and pumped again by the city to get to your tap.  Using rain barrels to catch roof run-off preserves ground water resources and the expenses necessary for delivery.  

If we commit to ever greater resilient behaviors in our own lives we'll be better prepared to pass them along to the kids who will need them in the coming decades.

One blue moon at a time.

Thoughts On Population Carrying Capacity

Our current era seems to be filled with either too little or too much.  We have too much CO2. We have too little potable water. Our planet has a need for far more natural balances.  But imbalance seems to be the name of the game. 

The crux of this era’s complex puzzle may lie with people.  The number of people.  Too many.  Too many consumers.  Consumers of space, of food, of transportation, of heating and cooling, of water, of any product we need or think we need.  

Carrying capacity was generally used to assess the amount of land necessary to graze livestock.  Given X number of acres with X amount of grass, you can graze X number of animals in a sustained way.   Adding animals to this area would result in imbalance: grass would not get a chance to regerminate, trails and tracks would become rutted, erosion would carry away soil, stressed animals would compete and for ever more meager nourishment.  This is not a sustainable situation required for farming.  The farmer would need to either cut back on the herd or supplement feed and rotate animals from field to barn.  Costs in dollars and time would rise. 

All biological systems strive for a balanced carrying capacity: sustainability.  It’s not surprising, therefore, that humans must be included in this model. We’ve all seen the charts and heard the dire warnings about population numbers.   Scientist Thomas Malthus became concerned about the carrying capacity of humans on Earth way back in the 18th century. Demographers since then have been wary of the growing numbers of our species and its ability to be sustained.  

Malthus couldn't have conceived how the timeline for population "overshoot" might extend itself. He could not have envisioned the extent of developing industrialization.   The 19th and 20th century would encourage cultures to assume the carrying capacity of Earth could be expanded.  And it was expanded, artificially, with the help of oil.  Oil-run industry was able to promote a limitless sense of a modern lifestyle.  It promoted growth.  "Growth was good."  Those of Earth’s cultures who were able, jumped on the evolving growth bandwagon.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell,” maintained the blunt Edward Abbey.  In the 1960’s he was speaking as a defender of the natural environment that was being swallowed by development.  More people were taking more land or degrading natural landscapes at alarming rates. Precious resources, such as fresh water, were becoming even more scarce.

Environmentalist cries like Abbey’s were often taken with a grain of salt back then. Societies were accustomed to the feel of growth and the confidence that technology and fossil fuels would handle all comers.  Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other petro-chemicals were providing increased food production.  Interstate highways were built and cars with single passengers commuted from new suburbs.        

How did we get onto the treadmill of growth for growth’s sake?  What exactly is a sustainable population?  How do the numbers crunch?  Are we back to the concept of finiteness?

Thoughts without graphs...