Challenge 7: Nothing New in your Shopping Cart

Here is the story that will appear in Saturday's paper (written by me.) It's about one of my neighbours who I've written about before -- the ever-inspiring Mary-Margaret. I secretly think she's turning into too much of a media prostitute though and might have to cut her off soon. (Her two children appeared on the front page of The Saturday Star recently for a story on homework, of all things.)

Skip to the bottom, if you want to get right to the challenge.

Not counting ingestibles, this is all Mary-Margaret McMahon bought last month: stamps, heat packs for her purple, throbbing fingers, and a book on garbage she uses to teach children in schools about composting.

Her friend Karen Ingham has her beat. The only thing she purchased, shiny and new? A cane. “Does that count, since it is a medical device?” she asks in a confessional e-mail.
They’re part of a dozen east-end friends who pledged to not buy anything new for all of February.

No new dresses. No body lotion. No Valentines Day cards.

“The motto was `less stuff, more fun,’” says McMahon, a mother of two known affectionately as the “eco-witch” of her Danforth-Woodbine neighbourhood. “Consumption is terrible for the planet. All this stuff uses a lot of energy — creating it makes pollution, selling it, then using it and disposing of it. Do we really need it? Does it make us happy?”

The neighbourhood posse of mothers is part of a growing movement around the world that’s unplugging from the consumer grid. Instead of buying green, or buying recycled, they’re just not buying.

The idea started around a San Francisco dinner table three Christmases ago. After the discussion turned to how most Christmas gifts end up in the garbage, the group decided to participate in a social experiment. They would spend a year not shopping for anything new. At all. With a few obvious exceptions – food and drink, health essentials like medication, and safety musts, like new bicycle brake pads so coming to a stop didn’t mean diving for grass at every stop sign.

They called themselves `The Compact’ after the Mayflower Compact, signed by the pilgrims arriving to New England more than three centuries ago bent on building a new pure community. But that was tongue-in-cheek. What motivated most of them was the idea of living a less cluttered, more compact life. (As in trash compacter.) And contributing less to their country’s ever-growing landfills.

“It’s not easy for me to shop and feel good about it – engaging in mindless consumption,” says 27-year-old Rachel Kesel, one of the original Compacters who two years later, is still not shopping.

The idea hit an international nerve. From that dining room, the group found themselves on the Today Show and Good Morning America – deflecting criticism of their small plan as unpatriotic. And a movement was born, with new recruits joining their small on-line Yahoo group. Today, more than 8,000 people from as far as Australia and Taiwan have joined and committed to the same principles.

The idea’s appeal, says Kesel, is it's easy portability – anyone can do it. It’s also a one-stop shop for addressing global problems – sweatshop labour, climate change, deforestation, mining, she says. “People have a lot of anxiety about the future of the planet,” says Kesel, a professional dog-walker. “The compact allows you to address your own anxiety.”

Every week, Torontonians chucked more than five kilograms of garbage each in 2006. That’s not counting all the waste we recycled and composted. Over a year, that adds up to more than 280 kilograms of trash – on average – each. Across the country, each of us fill 30 green garbage bags a year with our garbage, according to Statistics Canada.

And for every garbage bin we pack, another 70 were packed to produce all that stuff we’re throwing out. That’s right: 70. A single gold wedding ring gleaming in a store window has a trail of 20 tonnes of mine waste, according to Annie Leonard.

She’s an environmental activist who spent 18 years digging through dumps and factories in places like Bangladesh and Haiti researching the international dumping of garbage for environmental groups like GreenPeace and Health Care Without Harm.

After three years of lecturing on the destructive nature of the disposable consumer culture, she condensed her talk into a 20-minute free on-line video called “The Story of Stuff” which is has become an underground hit – averaging 15,000 new views every day.

In it, Leonard shows how most stuff we buy is made to break or seem run-down and old fairly quickly, in order to keep us buying more. She calls it planned and perceived obsolescence – terms coined first by U.S. industrial designer Brooks Stevens in 1954 — and she reveals how it’s been enshrined not only in North American culture, but economic policy since the 1950s.

“It was a combination of the government and industry groups that decided to push excessive consumerism as the defining force in American culture, which includes where people gets their self-fulfillment,” Leonard says in an interview from her office in Berkeley, California.

But instead of fulfillment, North Americans are decidedly more miserable than they were 60 years ago, she says – trapped in a culture of trying to buy shiny new versions of happiness predestined to break.

Is not shopping the answer? Most compacters say it has given them more free time.
“It’s amazing how much time it takes to buy stuff,” says Judith Levine, a New York journalist who spent a year signed off not only stores, but movie theatres and restaurants for her book Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping. “You can spend three hours searching for a new printer part.”

Leonard says instead of requiring more work, her experiment with the Compact was relaxing. “I felt like I just got rid of a part-time job. I didn’t realize how draining it was to pay attention and stay engaged in the work-watch-spend treadmill. It’s exhausting,” says Leonard, who lives in a neighbourhood that shares ladders, yard equipment and even a pick-up truck.

Many say the unexpected benefit was feeling more connected to a community.
Less time shopping means more time in parks and libraries. It also means more borrowing, which requires getting to know your neighbours.

McMahon’s experiment proved exactly that, she said. She wanted a toilet seat for a presentation on recycled toilet paper. She put out an e-mail to her group of friends and voilà, she had two. When one member of the group needed special cake pans for a photo shoot, they were offered up by a neighbour. A request went out for Velcro stickers. Sure enough, they arrived.

“None of us are deprived. We’re living very well,” says Kesel, who sports second-hand rain gear for her wetter walks. “You can even find an iPhone used now. The fact that people are throwing things out at such a rapid rate is one of the reasons we found we could do this.”
There are times you have to get creative, she admits. For McMahon, it was a birthday party her 10-year-old son Liam was invited to. Instead of buying a present, she baked a lemon-poppy seed cake, the birthday boy’s favourite. And she sent along vouchers for nine others like it.

Next year, she hopes to convince her posse to extend the consumer fast to a whole season or even six months.

“It’s made all of us more mindful,” she says.

Starting today though, she’s free to shop new again. What does she plan on buying?
“I don’t really need anything,” says McMahon, 41. “Maybe a haircut.”

  The Challenge: Join the Compact for a week.
Motivation: Watch The Story of Stuff. It's a free 20-minute online video that will open your eyes to the damage of our disposable consumer culture.
Process: Don’t buy anything new – other than food, medical supplies or safety essentials. You can shop all you want at Value Village or the Goodwill, though.
Cost: Perfectly nothing.
Savings: It depends on how much of a shopaholic you are. Over the year she spent abstaining from shopping for her book Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping, New York journalist Judith Levine paid down her $8,000 credit card debt.

If you think this is hard-core, check out No Impact Man. He spent a year not only not shopping, but not driving, not using electricity, not even taking the subway.

-- Catherine Porter

On Patricia's sage advice, here is the webiste for Freecycle in Toronto -- it's a kind of free Craig's List.

Comments

[Patricia]

In addition to Value Village and Goodwill there are many other opportunities to reuse items. I have given away a lot of stuff that had a useful second life via Freecycle and FreeTOreuse (both are yahoo groups dedicated to this purpose.) I just post a message describing the item and then select the recipient from the email responses I get. (I could also post a request for an item I need although I haven't done that.)

[Kyra]

I live the concept already for the most part, but what about things like underwear, sporting goods (running shoes, swimsuits), school/office supplies (notepaper, agendas), toothbrushes and the like?

While I'm here, might as well throw out a plug for the Diva cup to replace tampons/pads.

[Aaron]

While I applaud the intentions of the "compact" and their goal of reducing their impact by buying less, or ideally none, one has to wonder what these people do for a living? obviously none of them are employed in the manufacturing sector, that would be highly hypocritical, but what then do they do? are they all financial analysts? teachers? writers, actors, musicians? all of these professions, arguably all forms of employment rely on consumption of a product. The "compacters" admit even to borrowing products that have been purchased by others, that hardly seems fair. And one has to wonder what they were going to do with the photos from that photoshoot? Sell them? how about a year of not selling things as well? You write a "green" blog, yet you are also an environmental reporter for a newspaper, a throw away product made from the "lungs of the planet" as some have put it. Again, not to take away from their good intentions, but like most extremists (and undoubtably they are) they have pushed an issue past the point where it makes sense. Push extremes on the public and the public resists, the way forward is through appropriate change, effective change, not by simply dropping out to live on some commune.

[Ron]

I fail to understand this "Don't Buy New" philosophy as if it is some brand new take on life.

I guess my wife & I have unknowingly been forward thinkers
For the past 25 years.

We have 6 figure incomes, yet are not enamored by keeping up with the Joneses. Our house is a 50 year old bungalow; I drive a 16 year old van & my wife drives a 5 year old Civic. Our TV is 12 years old and most of our furniture is at least 25 years old.

I have not bought new clothes for at least 10 years. I finally broke down and bought a new pair of shoes for this winter. I wear my teenage son’s Castoffs including shoes and my wife wears my daughter’s unfashionable togs.

Don’t get me wrong, we are not cheap by any means. We only travel in a 5 Star Manner and eat in the best restaurants.
We just believe in value for our money.

The only problem with your philosophy is that; if everyone in the country followed this mantra, the economy would collapse. Our So Called Way of Life is dependant on rampant consumerism.

[lucille]

We are a single income family and have four children. We recently moved to be within walking distance to my husband's job and children's school. (In rural Ontario). We rarely put gas in our vehicle. I hang clothing out to dry (except for these very freezing past few days). I make most meals from scratch. Our clothing is not 'in style'. The kids are happy with hand-me-down clothing. Our furniture is old. We don't watch tv much. I often go to the library for books. Our town is small and we can walk to everything. My carbon footprint is 4.3. I shop only for necessary items such as food etc. New items at end of season when they are marked down a lot.

[Nancy Lyons]

Forget being for or against the philosophy this woman is passing along. Just say to yourself "How can I consume just a little less" for starters. Better to make some sort of effort than to disregard the whole concept. Some people could jump right into this whole idea, while others need to be eased in. I started by refusing to buy water bottles. We refill our own. To the people with negative attitudes, just open your mind and pick one thing!!!

[Myrna Brayford]

I spent 6 years on a Gulf Island in BC. They sure know how to be GREEN! I have continued in that venue, the only difference now is I don't have the money to spend (I'm raising my 14 yr. old son on my own). So in terms of shopping/buying - I just don't. We're always thinking of ways to save money, look at what you spend and try to reduce it. A few years ago, I needed a $100 more a month to buy another car, I quit buying coffee/bagels in the morning and ate at home. I found the $100. My son has used the same analagy to buy an amp for his Band, think before you buy - do I NEED it or just WANT it!

[Mr. Vert]

>"Consumption is terrible for the planet. All this stuff uses a lot of energy — creating it makes pollution, selling it, then using it and disposing of it."

Excessive and disposable consumption is a problem but the fundamental problem is population, both absolute numbers and growth. It's not a China problem or an India problem or a Western problem; it's a global problem. When the caribou herd gets too big for its territory, there'a a natural cull through either disease or starvation.

[Janice]

In response to Aaron, who thinks that the compact is extremist: Have you ever thought that maybe the shopaholics, who think a trip to the mall is fun, and spend money on crap they don't need, buy new clothes every single week, etc are actually the extremists? Having to have the 'latest' and keeping up with your friends/rivals is much more extreme than living a simple life and sharing little used items within a community. The things that were shared within the compact community were items that not everyone uses every day. Do you use a step ladder every day? Do you use every item in your home every day? Rampant, mindless consumerism is destroying the planet, and society. Yes, there will be an adjustment period in the economy if we all start living sane, non-consumer lives, but we will adjust. If we buy less, but buy good quality when we do make a purchase, we will foster manufacturing of QUALITY goods, where the workers are paid a decent salary for their craftsmanship, who in turn will be able to afford to buy QUALITY items, repeating the cycle. People will be happier because their work will be valued and they won't be hating everyone who has a newer version of the latest toy or designer clothes, and the environment will benefit from not having shiploads of cheap, useless garbage imported from sweatshops in China and other third world countries. Returning to a simpler, more fulfilling way of life where we cooperate with our neighbours instead of competing with them in a ridiculous game of one upmanship is not extreme. We're the healthy ones Aaron!

[john hall]

Hi Catherine and Peter,
here's what i am doing regarding the green movement AND other worthy causes: I have developed a television show called Make That Change! It is currently being pitched to CBC, Global and CNN. It challenges ordinary individuals to do extraordinary things within the context of a 10 episode reality-based t.v. show. Each contestant has a particular vocation they already support, like Free the Children for example. Each week, each organization is featured including the organization's celebrity founder as contestants compete in real-life challenges that these organizations face every day. The winner wins a paying, full-time job at the organization of their calling, representing the organization as its good-will ambassador.
The organizations represent green issues, hunger, 3rd world development and even "helping prostitutes off the streets" (see PEERS). All very noble organizations all of which need constant awareness and money.
I started pitching this show about 18 months ago, long before Oprah's "the big give". interestingly, the response by many programming "experts" at major networks is that it is too "goody-goody" for its own good. (Tell Oprah that).
So why I am telling you all this? So you can give this show idea the support it needs to convince the programming and development execs at the above networks that they don't have to worry about such an idea being "too good for its own good". (translation: no one will watch it). You better than anyone knows how big the silent majority is on this issue.
If you don't agree with me, please respond to this and tell me why-I need to know your opinion.
If you agree, then it is consistent with your efforts and you should want to support the cause in any way that can catapult it over the network wall of resistance: by making it a public issue.
thanks,
John Hall
executive producer, Make that Change!
Gone in 30 Entertainment

[Edward W. Stanley]

"Consumption is terrible for ............... When the caribou herd gets too big for its territory, there's a natural cull through either disease or starvation.

Consumption is not terrible. Bad and unsupported science is terrible. RE caribou, its utter nonsense. Humanity has 'managed' the caribou since we learned how to hold a spear.

Regarding our 'territory', It's a huge planet. We only occupy 7 - 10% of the 'good land' on this planet and since our population with not likely ever double there always will be plenty of 'good land' and lots of places for the reindeer to play their reindeer games. Eco footprints do not mean anything, they are part of a) the increasing amount of, who cares if it changes something it must be 'bad', because change is i'm guess consistantly bad and b) a formula of some weak premises. Anyone with a science background would roll their eyes at the increasing margins of error issues alone.

If any of you ever read the business section of this paper you would realise the only current shortages are gold, rare radioactive isotopes used in medicine, and common sense.

We are insects to this planet.

The authors should be embarrassed, maybe one of them should drive so that they can spend more time with their child and take responsibility for the 'additional eco footprint they created'.

Yes your child is an additional eco footprint, not a person, not your family, not your pride and joy.

See, how nice it is when you refer to child or person as a eco footprint. It lends to taking away ones concern for ones fellow person, let alone family when one speaks in these terms.

In my opinion.
If you can afford new things, buy them. The jobs they create will put food on someones table and roof over their head.

Give your old stuff away to those low 'eco foot prints' who live on the street. You will feel much better.

Edward

[Marcie]

Reuse, use it up, make do or do without is my reality as a single mother. Almost all of my purchases are for necessities such as food, health and safety products. I cook from scratch, bring my lunch, mend clothes and replace only what needs replacing. I see the excessive and unnecessary consumption practices of others. While I'd love to be able to splurge on a few things I'm satisfied knowing I have what I need and am not contributing to excessive waste. I guess there is alot to be said being a 'have not'.

[Laurie Lacey]

Hi,

Thanks for the interesting article.

It's good to see this movement and hopefully it'll
continue. I think the best way to advance and sustain
this educational and awareness approach to the pitfalls
of consumer society, is to avoid extremes. You are not
going to change behaviour overnight -- take it easy
and educate the public by example and a soft sell.

Little by little we can make major changes, and the
world a better place in which to live.

All the best,
Laurie

[Sean]

This is a fascinating and important challenge, thanks.

[Jim Calvert]

1. David Suzuki flies all over the world for huge bucks to tell other people to clean up their act. I asked him about this at Ryerson one time...he declined to answer. Instead he said Steven Harper has his head up George Bush's Anus?
Very mature, and totally relevant to the question....

2. Purchasing Carbon offsets is a joke. Al Gore consumes $10k in hydro at his compound but it's ok because he pays someone else to behave for him. He's obviously rich enough that he doesn't need to conserve. He too flies all over the place to tell other people how to behave. Problem is teleconferences don't draw the same number of bucks as live conferences.

3. How many trees died today to produce printed newspapers at the star that seem to be available online or on television. Maybe we should ban newspapers?

4. Maybe we'll fire up the old two-stroke snowmobiles and go for a ride. It's ok, we live outside Gravenhurst on 25 acres of (mostly) environmentally protected land which takes care of our carbon footprint. Guess we'll stay home for march break as the nearest public transit is 40 miles away.

[Patrick Hebert]

Well said!

I think something that has been overlooked in recent years also is the idea of fixing up and making do with what we already have.

My grandmother is 78 now and likes to remind me of the days when she was little in the 1930s - days when mustard sandwiches (stale bread with mustard in between) and ketchup soup (ketchup & water in a bowl).

I respect her generation greatly because of what they had to live without & how they had to use ingenuity & creativity to find solutions without resorting to buying something else.

[shopping cart]

Hi

It is a very intresting and nice post and i like it.