#
#
In This Issue... From the Editor…………………………………………………………….2 Point/Counter-point: The Environment…………………………………….4 Carbon Trading: The Market’s Way to Reduce Climate Change…………..6 SHC Talent Show!.......................................................................................10 Some Things to Ponder When It Comes to the Environment……………..11 Cleaning Our Your Mental Environment……………………………..…..12 I Think………………………………………………...…………………..13 Nasco Anti-Oppression Camp!....................................................................15 Report from the Board……………………………...……………………..16 Non-traditional Recycling…………………………………………………16 Co-op-wide Work Weekend!........................................................................17 Gen Y: The Millenials……………………………...……………………...19 Fun Event in East Lansing………………………………………………...20 Next Issue………………………………………………………………….21
From the Editor... Dear Friends, What is the environment? It’s water and land, plants, climate, but it’s also biodiversity, scarce resources, the cars we drive, the carbon dioxide we exhale, and ourselves. We are, of course, inextricably tied to the environment. And the environment is political. Environmental policy is extremely partisan. Big oil interests have distorted the scientific data on climate change and politicians who are not, shall we say, environmentally friendly, use this to their advantage. International environmental policy is even uglier, with developed countries and developing countries pit against each other due to competing priorities and national interests. But somehow, in the midst of all this environmental chaos, progress is slowly being made. Countries have come together to address issues such as biodiversity, poverty, global climate change. But countries are not the only ones working for and making change to protect our environment and live sustainably. At the grassroots level, in our own houses, we have already made a difference. Through this issue, I have rediscovered that our community cares deeply about taking care of the environment and living sustainably. This Issue of the Pine Press not only addresses many of the key environmental issues facing our global community today, but importantly, also provides solutions for our lives to work toward a healthier world. With Love and Squalor, Laurel Koenig
#
Lansing Premiere — An Advance Benefit Showing Celebration Cinema Lansing
Thursday, June 29, 2006
#
Point/Counter-point: The Environment. Good or evil? Should we trash it or treasure it? Tommy Simon and Corey Beckwith debate.
Point: Pro-Environment By Tommy Simon, Vesta I am here to fight the good fight, though maybe not the easy one. My opponent’s argument is difficult to counter, I admit, but I would like to begin my argument with a story. I was backpacking the Appalachian Trail in the spring of 2003 with my two friends the great Quem and Paul. Paul acted as our brute strength, chopping wood and carrying a 70 lbs. pack, and the Quem led us in our spiritual understandings. I was rather terrified personally, the ranger told us right before we entered how to react if we saw a bear, I realized that the thought of crossing a bear that could kill me had not crossed my mind. I was trying to feel one with nature when we came to a fast flowing river that was four feet deep or so and the only way to cross it was to jump from one rock to the other. The Quem and Paul both made it, easy and dry, but I choked and slipped, before ever even taking my first jump and fell in, I wasn’t too reassured the guys were looking out for my best interest when they dove in the river and choose to first save my pack because I was carrying a majority of the food because it was light weight, and then once my pack was safe Paul came in after me. We hiked about 15 – 20 miles a day, and I remember thinking how much it would suck to have to be in a war like Vietnam where the soldiers had to walk around for miles and miles a day through unknown forest with packs twice as heavy as mine. The Quem then reminded me that they also had the added fear of bullets that could kill them at any moment. I began to wish I was somewhere in the south at a beach with half naked people running around me drinking and not doing shit. Once, and I don’t think I imagined this, two very attractive young ladies crossed our path, they were the only people we saw the whole trip, they were heading the opposite way, we all said hello. Paul and the Quem were always about 50 feet ahead of me on the trail, I’d fall behind, which was good luck at this moment because I could talk to these two on my own for a second. But they walked right past me, I don’t think I looked as impressive as I usually do with sweat from head to toe carrying two walking sticks trying to keep my legs straight and completely hunched over in order to hold the 50 lbs. bag on back. Considering also that they were on the same trail and seemed unaffected by the difficulty of the terrain, they were not impressed
#
Point: Pro-Environment By Tommy Simon, Vesta I am here to fight the good fight, though maybe not the easy one. My opponent’s argument is difficult to counter, I admit, but I would like to begin my argument with a story. I was backpacking the Appalachian Trail in the spring of 2003 with my two friends the great Quem and Paul. Paul acted as our brute strength, chopping wood and carrying a 70 lbs. pack, and the Quem led us in our spiritual understandings. I was rather terrified personally, the ranger told us right before we entered how to react if we saw a bear, I realized that the thought of crossing a bear that could kill me had not crossed my mind. I was trying to feel one with nature when we came to a fast flowing river that was four feet deep or so and the only way to cross it was to jump from one rock to the other. The Quem and Paul both made it, easy and dry, but I choked and slipped, before ever even taking my first jump and fell in, I wasn’t too reassured the guys were looking out for my best interest when they dove in the river and choose to first save my pack because I was carrying a majority of the food because it was light weight, and then once my pack was safe Paul came in after me. We hiked about 15 – 20 miles a day, and I remember thinking how much it would suck to have to be in a war like Vietnam where the soldiers had to walk around for miles and miles a day through unknown forest with packs twice as heavy as mine. The Quem then reminded me that they also had the added fear of bullets that could kill them at any moment. I began to wish I was somewhere in the south at a beach with half naked people running around me drinking and not doing shit. Once, and I don’t think I imagined this, two very attractive young ladies crossed our path, they were the only people we saw the whole trip, they were heading the opposite way, we all said hello. Paul and the Quem were always about 50 feet ahead of me on the trail, I’d fall behind, which was good luck at this moment because I could talk to these two on my own for a second. But they walked right past me, I don’t think I looked as impressive as I usually do with sweat from head to toe carrying two walking sticks trying to keep my legs straight and completely hunched over in order to hold the 50 lbs. bag on back. Considering also that they were on the same trail and seemed unaffected by the difficulty of the terrain, they were not impressed by me. We talked about those girls all night once we set up camp. The Quem, Paul, and myself. I thought about them the rest of the trip. I realized then being in natural environment one feels natural instincts take over. For Paul it was the chopping of wood, for the Quem it was his understanding of where we are in the world and where we are going. I figured out my place in the trio, I wanted to get laid. The three of us represent humans in our natural environment. Without the natural environment we would not be able to continue our survival, our spirituality, and our pleasure. Then Quem reminded me that reproduction could replace pleasure just as easily. So, unless you choose celibacy (and even if you do while understanding the importance of non celibate people), then you must be pro environment.
Counter-point: Anti-Environment By Corey Beckwith, Vesta “...destroy trees” - John Muir The father of modern American naturalist thought, John Muir, eventually came to realize, it would seem, that trees, and the rest of this so called “environment”, are evils with which we must battle to the bitter end. Friends, in this publication you will undoubtedly be subjected to a barrage of ultra-liberal, patchouli laden, pro- “environment” propaganda. I feel it is my duty as a rational human being to give you the cold, hard facts. I will pose a question that seems oft overlooked in these sad days of tree hugging and toxic waste spill prevention; What is so great about the “environment”? I know what you're saying - “there's a lot great about the 'environment'”. Well, guess what hippy, you're dead wrong. In fact, I've seen nothing but harm come from this “environment” that everyone seems so gung-ho on
#
Carbon Trading: The Market’s Way to Reduce Climate Change By Brandon Knight, Vesta
"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today -- more serious even than the threat of terrorism." With this warning to an international science meeting in February 2004, David A. King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government, brought the issue of global warming into sharp focus.
A
s the front page of a recent version of mainstream magazine says, Climate Change is becoming a
threat that is as big as terrorism. Human contribution to Carbon Dioxide emission levels is building up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels combining with natural factors to produce environmental degradation. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change caused by human activity. Some of the effects on the planet include melting polar ice caps, changing ocean currents, rising sea levels, changing ocean pH levels, more sever weather and flooding and droughts. The effects of global warming also wreak havoc on economic systems, as disruptions lead to economic failure. Many of the habits prevalent in America are causing these problems. In the United States, there is one automobile for every 1.3 persons. With transportation accounting for one-quarter of world energy use, and motor vehicles accounting for 80 per cent of that total it is clear that the habits of the people of the United States are adding to the problem. As pointed out in the book Natural Capitalism, the total hidden economic, ecological and social costs of driving, which contributes to global warming, “total nearly $1 trillion, including expenses such as building and repairing roads, economic losses due to congestion, ill health caused by air pollution, and medical costs for the victims of the 2 million accidents each year (57).” North America uses more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region and are the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, because of high energy consumption. One concept has emerged out of the financial markets as a possibility to let economic forces limit the amount of carbon dioxide emissions: carbon emission trading. Carbon emission trading would open up regulation of emissions to market forces. The hope behind emission trading would be for the market to set up an efficient level of emissions. As Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C, states in the article, Trading Atmosphere, “Trading is going to make the costs of reducing emissions cheaper and easier. That’s what markets do best and forward-looking companies are realizing this (35).” Today we face a world where emissions need to be reduced in order to negate the effects of global warming. Carbon trading could be one of the solutions to the problems by including governments and companies to act on the problem. In this system, carbon dioxide is commoditized and bought and sold as if it were a barrel of oil or a ton of coal. There is a fundamental difference between trading in CO2 and more traditional commodities; what people are selling is akin to a right to emit carbon dioxide. Typical sellers expect to emit less CO2 than they
#
A
s the front page of a recent version of mainstream magazine says, Climate Change is becoming a
threat that is as big as terrorism. Human contribution to Carbon Dioxide emission levels is building up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels combining with natural factors to produce environmental degradation. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change caused by human activity. Some of the effects on the planet include melting polar ice caps, changing ocean currents, rising sea levels, changing ocean pH levels, more sever weather and flooding and droughts. The effects of global warming also wreak havoc on economic systems, as disruptions lead to economic failure. Many of the habits prevalent in America are causing these problems. In the United States, there is one automobile for every 1.3 persons. With transportation accounting for one-quarter of world energy use, and motor vehicles accounting for 80 per cent of that total it is clear that the habits of the people of the United States are adding to the problem. As pointed out in the book Natural Capitalism, the total hidden economic, ecological and social costs of driving, which contributes to global warming, “total nearly $1 trillion, including expenses such as building and repairing roads, economic losses due to congestion, ill health caused by air pollution, and medical costs for the victims of the 2 million accidents each year (57).” North America uses more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region and are the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, because of high energy consumption. One concept has emerged out of the financial markets as a possibility to let economic forces limit the amount of carbon dioxide emissions: carbon emission trading. Carbon emission trading would open up regulation of emissions to market forces. The hope behind emission trading would be for the market to set up an efficient level of emissions. As Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C, states in the article, Trading Atmosphere, “Trading is going to make the costs of reducing emissions cheaper and easier. That’s what markets do best and forward-looking companies are realizing this (35).” Today we face a world where emissions need to be reduced in order to negate the effects of global warming. Carbon trading could be one of the solutions to the problems by including governments and companies to act on the problem. In this system, carbon dioxide is commoditized and bought and sold as if it were a barrel of oil or a ton of coal. There is a fundamental difference between trading in CO2 and more traditional commodities; what people are selling is akin to a right to emit carbon dioxide. Typical sellers expect to emit less CO2 than they are allowed, so they may sell that unused right to emit to someone who emits more than their allocated amount (Carbon 360). Carbon trading presents an opportunity for the market to have a role in carbon sequestration. Carbon trading can allow companies that can’t reduce emissions to trade with companies that can. Carbon trading would increase abatement technologies, such as, reforestation. Carbon trading can also be part of a plan to achieve the Kyoto Protocol, emissions reductions targets of at least 5 per cent by 2008-2012 from the baseline 1990 (Owen and Hanley 49).. Emission trading is one of the prime examples of using a market-based mechanism for environmental protection. The rationale behind emission trading is to ensure that the required overall emission reductions take place where the cost of the reduction is lowest, thus lowering the overall costs of combating climate change (Carbon 360). If a hypothetical program was to be implemented based on the cap and trade programs it would act like the 1990 Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program that set a cap on the total amount of pollution allowed from all sources of a particular type in a particular geographic region. The total amount of pollution is fixed then allocated as emissions credits, they are then free to be traded creating a market for carbon (Ukeiley 45). It does not impose a particular type of technology or set rigid limitations on how much can be emitted. Emissions trading gives companies the flexibility to meet emission targets according to their own strategy - thus offering the most cost-effective way for energy-intensive industries to meet their obligation to reduce emissions. All companies with activities which may lead to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are given a quota, permitting them to emit a certain number of tons of CO2 per annum. If a company emits more than its quota it will have to pay a fine. If a company knows that it is likely to emit over its allowance, then it can purchase unused quota (in the form of certificates) from other companies with surplus. Likewise, if a company believes that it won't emit up to the full level of its allowance, then it may sell some or its entire surplus (carbon 360). By creating a market, the government or regulators can set emissions at a target rate and fine companies for going over that rate. The fines can be used to offset the carbon put into the atmosphere. Another key point of carbon trading is that companies may also invest in abatement, or carbon
#
A
s the front page of a recent version of mainstream magazine says, Climate Change is becoming a
threat that is as big as terrorism. Human contribution to Carbon Dioxide emission levels is building up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels combining with natural factors to produce environmental degradation. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change caused by human activity. Some of the effects on the planet include melting polar ice caps, changing ocean currents, rising sea levels, changing ocean pH levels, more sever weather and flooding and droughts. The effects of global warming also wreak havoc on economic systems, as disruptions lead to economic failure. Many of the habits prevalent in America are causing these problems. In the United States, there is one automobile for every 1.3 persons. With transportation accounting for one-quarter of world energy use, and motor vehicles accounting for 80 per cent of that total it is clear that the habits of the people of the United States are adding to the problem. As pointed out in the book Natural Capitalism, the total hidden economic, ecological and social costs of driving, which contributes to global warming, “total nearly $1 trillion, including expenses such as building and repairing roads, economic losses due to congestion, ill health caused by air pollution, and medical costs for the victims of the 2 million accidents each year (57).” North America uses more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region and are the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, because of high energy consumption. One concept has emerged out of the financial markets as a possibility to let economic forces limit the amount of carbon dioxide emissions: carbon emission trading. Carbon emission trading would open up regulation of emissions to market forces. The hope behind emission trading would be for the market to set up an efficient level of emissions. As Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C, states in the article, Trading Atmosphere, “Trading is going to make the costs of reducing emissions cheaper and easier. That’s what markets do best and forward-looking companies are realizing this (35).” Today we face a world where emissions need to be reduced in order to negate the effects of global warming. Carbon trading could be one of the solutions to the problems by including governments and companies to act on the problem. In this system, carbon dioxide is commoditized and bought and sold as if it were a barrel of oil or a ton of coal. There is a fundamental difference between trading in CO2 and more traditional commodities; what people are selling is akin to a right to emit carbon dioxide. Typical sellers expect to emit less CO2 than they are allowed, so they may sell that unused right to emit to someone who emits more than their allocated amount (Carbon 360). Carbon trading presents an opportunity for the market to have a role in carbon sequestration. Carbon trading can allow companies that can’t reduce emissions to trade with companies that can. Carbon trading would increase abatement technologies, such as, reforestation. Carbon trading can also be part of a plan to achieve the Kyoto Protocol, emissions reductions targets of at least 5 per cent by 2008-2012 from the baseline 1990 (Owen and Hanley 49).. Emission trading is one of the prime examples of using a market-based mechanism for environmental protection. The rationale behind emission trading is to ensure that the required overall emission reductions take place where the cost of the reduction is lowest, thus lowering the overall costs of combating climate change (Carbon 360). If a hypothetical program was to be implemented based on the cap and trade programs it would act like the 1990 Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program that set a cap on the total amount of pollution allowed from all sources of a particular type in a particular geographic region. The total amount of pollution is fixed then allocated as emissions credits, they are then free to be traded creating a market for carbon (Ukeiley 45). It does not impose a particular type of technology or set rigid limitations on how much can be emitted. Emissions trading gives companies the flexibility to meet emission targets according to their own strategy - thus offering the most cost-effective way for energy-intensive industries to meet their obligation to reduce emissions. All companies with activities which may lead to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are given a quota, permitting them to emit a certain number of tons of CO2 per annum. If a company emits more than its quota it will have to pay a fine. If a company knows that it is likely to emit over its allowance, then it can purchase unused quota (in the form of certificates) from other companies with surplus. Likewise, if a company believes that it won't emit up to the full level of its allowance, then it may sell some or its entire surplus (carbon 360). By creating a market, the government or regulators can set emissions at a target rate and fine companies for going over that rate. The fines can be used to offset the carbon put into the atmosphere. Another key point of carbon trading is that companies may also invest in abatement, or carbon
#
A
s the front page of a recent version of mainstream magazine says, Climate Change is becoming a
threat that is as big as terrorism. Human contribution to Carbon Dioxide emission levels is building up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels combining with natural factors to produce environmental degradation. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to climate change caused by human activity. Some of the effects on the planet include melting polar ice caps, changing ocean currents, rising sea levels, changing ocean pH levels, more sever weather and flooding and droughts. The effects of global warming also wreak havoc on economic systems, as disruptions lead to economic failure. Many of the habits prevalent in America are causing these problems. In the United States, there is one automobile for every 1.3 persons. With transportation accounting for one-quarter of world energy use, and motor vehicles accounting for 80 per cent of that total it is clear that the habits of the people of the United States are adding to the problem. As pointed out in the book Natural Capitalism, the total hidden economic, ecological and social costs of driving, which contributes to global warming, “total nearly $1 trillion, including expenses such as building and repairing roads, economic losses due to congestion, ill health caused by air pollution, and medical costs for the victims of the 2 million accidents each year (57).” North America uses more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region and are the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, because of high energy consumption. One concept has emerged out of the financial markets as a possibility to let economic forces limit the amount of carbon dioxide emissions: carbon emission trading. Carbon emission trading would open up regulation of emissions to market forces. The hope behind emission trading would be for the market to set up an efficient level of emissions. As Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C, states in the article, Trading Atmosphere, “Trading is going to make the costs of reducing emissions cheaper and easier. That’s what markets do best and forward-looking companies are realizing this (35).” Today we face a world where emissions need to be reduced in order to negate the effects of global warming. Carbon trading could be one of the solutions to the problems by including governments and companies to act on the problem. In this system, carbon dioxide is commoditized and bought and sold as if it were a barrel of oil or a ton of coal. There is a fundamental difference between trading in CO2 and more traditional commodities; what people are selling is akin to a right to emit carbon dioxide. Typical sellers expect to emit less CO2 than they are allowed, so they may sell that unused right to emit to someone who emits more than their allocated amount (Carbon 360). Carbon trading presents an opportunity for the market to have a role in carbon sequestration. Carbon trading can allow companies that can’t reduce emissions to trade with companies that can. Carbon trading would increase abatement technologies, such as, reforestation. Carbon trading can also be part of a plan to achieve the Kyoto Protocol, emissions reductions targets of at least 5 per cent by 2008-2012 from the baseline 1990 (Owen and Hanley 49).. Emission trading is one of the prime examples of using a market-based mechanism for environmental protection. The rationale behind emission trading is to ensure that the required overall emission reductions take place where the cost of the reduction is lowest, thus lowering the overall costs of combating climate change (Carbon 360). If a hypothetical program was to be implemented based on the cap and trade programs it would act like the 1990 Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program that set a cap on the total amount of pollution allowed from all sources of a particular type in a particular geographic region. The total amount of pollution is fixed then allocated as emissions credits, they are then free to be traded creating a market for carbon (Ukeiley 45). It does not impose a particular type of technology or set rigid limitations on how much can be emitted. Emissions trading gives companies the flexibility to meet emission targets according to their own strategy - thus offering the most cost-effective way for energy-intensive industries to meet their obligation to reduce emissions. All companies with activities which may lead to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are given a quota, permitting them to emit a certain number of tons of CO2 per annum. If a company emits more than its quota it will have to pay a fine. If a company knows that it is likely to emit over its allowance, then it can purchase unused quota (in the form of certificates) from other companies with surplus. Likewise, if a company believes that it won't emit up to the full level of its allowance, then it may sell some or its entire surplus (carbon 360). By creating a market, the government or regulators can set emissions at a target rate and fine companies for going over that rate. The fines can be used to offset the carbon put into the atmosphere. Another key point of carbon trading is that companies may also invest in abatement, or carbon
#
#
Some Things to Ponder When it Comes to the Environment By Jennifer Lieb, Hedrick
E
veryone has heard it multiple times from possibly the media, classes and friends that the
environment is a fragile thing and global warming is just not a theory it’s a fact. I thought I would write about a few things one as an individual can do to better the environment. Many might not realize it, but everyone can be an environmentalist. According to Wikipedia the definition of an environmentalist is a person that supports any goal of the environmental movement, an information-based perspective on appropriate use of technology to prevent adverse effects on the environment. By doing as little as turning off the water while brushing your teeth or by taking shorter showers you are doing your part.
One step one can take to be more eco friendly is to reduce the amount of meat one consumes. Some might not realize how energy costly it is to sustain beef cattle and produce the meat we as Americans consume on a whole. A diet consisting of plant based foods requires a lot less land and resources as well as promoting a healthier lifestyle. Now not to knock all you meat lovers out there, I myself still like to eat Chicken or turkey once in awhile, usually require less energy and resources so next time you decide to order a steak think avian instead. Many markets now sell organic free-range chicken that is produced by organic and sustainable farmers. By buying local as well, one is not paying for mostly the packaging and transportation of the produce but instead one is supporting local farmers and is guaranteed more fresh items. It supports the local farmers and community, furthermore one is not paying for produce spent in mostly transit en route from Florida, California or Washington for about 14 days or more. Might I suggest the Lansing City Market located at 333 North Cedar or the East Lansing food co-op on Grand River just past Harrison Road both offer locally produced
#
T
here is a lot of bullshit that gets thought about the environment, our relationship to it, and
the duties we have towards it. For instance, last year my father joined the Roman Catholic Church and I attended the confirmation service and the dinner afterwards. One of the prayers which the priest offered up had to do with God protecting the environment and helping us do a better job of caring for it as well. Now, at the dinner most of the dishes were served on plastic and paper plates, and drinks were served in plastic cups. While they save on washing dishes, they’re mostly a big waste, and even though almost everything made of plastic is marked as recyclable, most centers reject any marked 4 or higher. 1 So even if the church had recycling bins, which they didn’t, the plastic and paper would probably have ended up in a landfill anyway. A lot of recyclable material is thus thrown away because the fucking recycling centers don’t accept them, and even had they been recycled there are limited numbers of everyday products which are actually made from recycled glass, paper, or plastic. As those ads on TV say, if you don’t buy products made from recycled goods in the first place, there is no point in recycling at all. Compounding the mess created by such hypocrisy is ignorance and laziness. Speaking merely about Phoenix, I’ve seen liquor bottles, pop cans and bottles, etc in the garbage here. In addition, we have several leaky showerheads and a refrigerator which doesn’t seal properly. 2 While the bottles and cans can possibly be over looked, the refrigerator has apparently been like this for at least a year, and just one of the showerheads adds at least 200 gallons per month to our water bill. For those who aren’t familiar with any of the house constitutions, go online and check them out at www.msu.coop. One of the items which makes Phoenix unique is that environmental awareness and the reduction of our negative impact on it are specifically mentioned. And yet this bullshit with the showerheads, bottles/cans, and refrigerator continues. Keeping in tone with Julia Herzog’s letter several issues ago about the emerging uncooperative nature of SHC and primarily of its members who trash houses, don’t clean up after themselves, are inconsiderate to others, and who aren’t interested in taking part in a people- and earth-friendly community, I hereby declare shenanigans on us all. 3 If this is the best we can do, I hope that evolution comes up with H. sapiens 2.0 before we create a system crash.
"Humanity has the option to become successful on our planet if we reorient world production away from weaponry - from killingry to livingry. Can we convince humanity in time?" ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Check out www.cityofeastlansing.com to see what does and doesn’t get recycled locally. 2. Aside from soiling food faster, it also increases our electricity bill.
#
I Think… By Jenny Albert
The environment is a really good idea, I mean really what would we do if we didn’t have the environment, we’d like all die or something because oxygen is made by the air you know or the trees I mean, so its not like a man-made thing we could make if there was no outdoors, basically if there was no environment I think the world would be like all metal and concrete, and trees would just be big metal boxes that you might mistake for a big ugly mailbox really and the beach would be cement or actually no I bet we could make a fake sand, I mean its just really small bits and I am sure we could make a machine to make really small bits of something like really small bits of old park benches (because there wouldn’t be anymore parks if there were no more environment) and so in that way we would be recycling although it seems like it’d be kinda pointless to recycle I mean if there wasn’t an environment to save so maybe ooh ooh that could be like a PSA a big ugly concrete and metal world and sad dogs with no place to pee except mailbox/trees and then cut to a black screen and have some big message like “recycle or else you could be living in a world with no environment” and ohh it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it, I have got to
#
#
Mark your calendars! NASCO’s second ever Anti-Oppression Camp is scheduled for August 20th through 24th, 2006. The camp expands on the fall Institute by offering educational workshops and participatory activities that build upon one another throughout the entire week. The Anti-Oppression Action Camp provides intensive trainings on privilege & antioppression work and interactive fun for leaders and active members of housing co-ops, worker collectives, and other democratically run communities. Participants are trained to take action upon returning to their co-ops; together, participants and faculty develop programs and strategies for transforming community specific to their own cooperatives. Camp graduates are able to return to their co-ops with concrete ideas and strategies to work against racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and other dimensions of oppression in their communities. Training sessions are facilitated by co-op leaders and radical anti-oppression trainers, using techniques from Augosto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. Activities will range from group games and dialogues to theatrical, artistic, & poetry exercises, and specific planning for proposing changes at the organizational, community, and individual level for home co-ops. Training sessions are facilitated by co-op leaders and radical antioppression trainers, using techniques from Augosto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. Activities will range from group games and dialogues to theatrical, artistic, & poetry exercises, and specific planning for proposing changes at the organizational, community, and individual level for home co-ops. The camp is located in the rural setting of the California Sierras, at the UC Berkeley Forestry Camp. Workshops are interspersed with time to play in the local swimming holes, hike the trails of pristine wilderness, or share a drink at the tavern down the road. Accommodations consist of a number of 10-person (two people per room) dormitories. Rustic two-person cabins are also available. Beds and mattresses are provided, but campers must provide their own bedding and pillows. Meals are provided by a cook and staff hired for the summer, though all able participants will be required to do workshifts to help run the camp. The registration fee for NASCO members for the 5 days is $350. Scholarships are available. Want to know more? The Anti-Oppression action camp website will be up and running in May. Check for registration forms, scholarship applications and more information: www.nasco.coop/camp. Email questions to: info@nasco.coop.
#
Report from the Board By Laura Western from the fabulous house that is New Community T h e
v a s
t
y
m a j o r i t
o f t h
e
t m
i
e
s p e
n
#
Co-op Wide Work Weekend June 24 & 25, 2006 Bower & Toad Lane By Barbara Ebel, EVP
T
he first day of the summer co-op wide work weekend was a big success! In one afternoon, we managed to build a 20’x10’ patio at Bower, weed and mulch a large flowerbed there, and clear out lots of brush and small trees at Toad Lane. Turnout was great, and everyone seemed to be having a good co-opy time. In total, 4 people worked at Toad Lane, including residents Jack Langdon and Kat Roltsch, as well as Matt “Show” Showalter and Mike Langdon, both from Phoenix. Their goals for the day were (1) to clear out some tall brush adjacent to the ground-floor windows, as a general security measure, (2) to cut down a few small trees growing in the middle of the yard, and (3) to turn over the compost and move it away from the house’s foundation. After finishing up at Toad Lane, the crew came to Bower to help out some more. By this time, the crew at Bower had already finished most of the patio border and was filling it in with gravel. We’d had to dig out a large area in order to provide a space for the gravel. We used the extra dirt to reinforce the first tier of the hillside garden. About 14 people showed up to help for various stretches of time between noon and 6PM, generally for about 3 hours each. The Toad Lane crew helped with hauling gravel up from the driveway to pour on the patio. Then we all did some rather tranquil Zen-style raking before moving on to the flowerbeds. First, we took turns lounging in Bower’s two lovely hammocks. Those not on lounging duty busied themselves with pulling weeds and trimming branches in the large flowerbed nearby. Once finished with weeding, we spread mulch in the area and ended up with a very pretty flowerbed. At that point, we stacked all the tools under the picnic table and called it a day. Many thanks to all who came to help, especially the Toad Lane crew (Jack, Kat, Mike, Matt) and Brian Cooke from Hedrick. A particular shout goes out to Jack Langdon, whose birthday we celebrated with unlimited pizza and Pabst after the work weekend dust had settled. Due to publishing time constraints, this article will be submitted Saturday night, before the Sunday work crew arrives. Photos and a summary of Sunday will be published in the next Pine Press. Hope to have seen you there!
#
T
he first day of the summer co-op wide work weekend was a big success! In one afternoon, we managed to build a 20’x10’ patio at Bower, weed and mulch a large flowerbed there, and clear out lots of brush and small trees at Toad Lane. Turnout was great, and everyone seemed to be having a good co-opy time. In total, 4 people worked at Toad Lane, including residents Jack Langdon and Kat Roltsch, as well as Matt “Show” Showalter and Mike Langdon, both from Phoenix. Their goals for the day were (1) to clear out some tall brush adjacent to the ground-floor windows, as a general security measure, (2) to cut down a few small trees growing in the middle of the yard, and (3) to turn over the compost and move it away from the house’s foundation. After finishing up at Toad Lane, the crew came to Bower to help out some more. By this time, the crew at Bower had already finished most of the patio border and was filling it in with gravel. We’d had to dig out a large area in order to provide a space for the gravel. We used the extra dirt to reinforce the first tier of the hillside garden. About 14 people showed up to help for various stretches of time between noon and 6PM, generally for about 3 hours each. The Toad Lane crew helped with hauling gravel up from the driveway to pour on the patio. Then we all did some rather tranquil Zen-style raking before moving on to the flowerbeds. First, we took turns lounging in Bower’s two lovely hammocks. Those not on lounging duty busied themselves with pulling weeds and trimming branches in the large flowerbed nearby. Once finished with weeding, we spread mulch in the area and ended up with a very pretty flowerbed. At that point, we stacked all the tools under the picnic table and called it a day. Many thanks to all who came to help, especially the Toad Lane crew (Jack, Kat, Mike, Matt) and Brian Cooke from Hedrick. A particular shout goes out to Jack Langdon, whose birthday we celebrated with unlimited pizza and Pabst after the work weekend dust had settled. Due to publishing time constraints, this article will be submitted Saturday night, before the Sunday work crew arrives. Photos and a summary of Sunday will be published in the next Pine Press. Hope to have seen you there!
#
#
#
#
#
#