I heard about it because BikePortland mentioned on Twitter that Jack Bogdanski of Jack Bog’s Blog had made note of the piece. He called the report “sad, funny, or both,” chastising the CCC because they weren’t investigating why racial and ethnic minorities “don’t have job opportunities, or health care, or good schools.” And BikePortland rightly noted that the CCC is a cycling advocacy group; that’s what they DO.

It’s not like the Oregon Food Bank is spending donor money to research cycling among minorities. It’s an organization focused specifically on cycling.  And isn’t this better than spending money only on, say, recreational cycling, which benefits an even smaller group of people?

Also, strangely enough, riding bikes can help people with economic concerns as well.

To have a job, or to attend school, one has to have transportation. A bike is a great way to have transportation and to be independent of both the price of gasoline and the vagaries of Tri-Met budget cuts and fare increases.  That’s the biggest reason why I ride a bike to work. I’m not doing it to be cool. I’m doing it because we really can’t afford to have another car and the accompanying expense of gas and insurance. It helps that I also know it’s the right thing to do for our future. But I don’t know if I’d be that strong if it weren’t also economically necessary.

So, having a bike opens up one’s job opportunities, and can also help one save money in order to get ahead. What are the barriers, then? According to BikePortland, the CCC found that “three main themes emerged as barriers to biking: the cost of bikes and their upkeep, concerns about safety, and the logistics of riding (where to do it, what the rules are, and so on).”

Which brings us to geography. I’ve pointed out before that not so many people cycle out where I live.  Many people of racial and ethnic minorities have been pushed into outlying areas of Portland, where rents are cheaper, and that is exactly where bicycle infrastructure is lacking as well.  Check out the map – my neighborhood is one of the outlined areas.

So yes, we do have both geographical and racial/ethnic inequities in our bicycling system in Portland. And yes, that is important.  Hopefully the city will be able to scrape together money to build up the infrastructure in East Portland and other underserved areas; we are slated for at least one bicycle boulevard/traffic calming project at this time, and we have an East Portland Action Plan Bicycle Subcommittee that’s working with the city on infrastructure and bicycling activities (I’ve been loosely involved with this).

What do you think? If you’re not in Portland, is it like this where you live?

The unchecked striving for more, for endless growth, is a dysfunction and a disease. It is the same dysfunction the cancerous cell manifests, whose only goal is to multiply itself, unaware that it is bringing about its own destruction by destroying the organism of which it is a part.

I say that’s not sustainable. How could it be? How can we possibly expect infinite growth?

But aside from growth being unsustainable in the long run, this mindset can have negative short-term effects.

For example, look at baby formula.  Formula is a good thing when it’s used as originally intended. Without modern baby formulas, babies who can’t breastfeed, for whatever reason, might die or grow up significantly less healthy.

However, baby formula companies haven’t been content to just provide the formula as a resource for those who need it.  From a business point of view, the companies think they need to get more and more people to buy formula, so that their businesses will grow.

As a result, formula is marketed to people who may not really need it.  In the U.S., we now have disclaimers on formula ads saying that “breastfeeding is best.” But in many less wealthy countries, women are still led to believe that formula will somehow be better for their babies, and so they don’t breastfeed, and the babies don’t get the benefits of breastfeeding. And sometimes they use contaminated water to mix formula, and babies die. Or they over-dilute the formula to save money, and babies end up malnourished.

Is there a better way? I wish corporations could be counted on to just do the right thing.  Perhaps shareholders could put some pressure on the formula companies and let them know that constant growth really isn’t necessary in those products.

But meanwhile, you can also donate to organizations that promote breastfeeding around the world:

MercyCorps originally drew my attention to this topic with an appearance on Live at 7, in which they talked about promoting breastfeeding in Indonesia. They’re not currently offering a breastfeeding Mercy Kit, but they’d be a great target for donations.

The International Baby Food Action Network “consists of public interest groups working around the world to reduce infant and young child morbidity and mortality,” and breastfeeding is a big part of that. IBFAN is one of the core partners in the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action.

UNICEF works through its Infant and Young Child Feeding programme area to promote breastfeeding at national, health system, and community levels.

Walmart’s come under fire from the National Labor Committee (a nonprofit organization supporting human and worker rights) for penalizing workers, possibly to the point of termination, for staying home sick. Here’s the scoop from their website:

Wal-Mart has a punitive point (demerit) system that punishes workers who cannot come to work because they are ill or their children need care.  Associates who miss a day due to sickness (or for any other reason) will receive a one point demerit, along with the loss of eight hours wages.  Moreover, employees who “have more than three absence occurrences in a rolling six-month period…will be disciplined.”  (“Attendance/Punctuality Policy (PD-52) New York,” January 2008.)  Workers with four absences in any six-month period—no matter what the reason—will be disciplined.  A fifth occurrence—like a sick day—will result in “active coaching” by management, and a sixth occurrence” will activate a “Decision Day,” when an “associate” can either be terminated or put on a year-long trial period, during which a worker can be fired for any infraction, no matter how insignificant.  During this year-long probation the worker cannot receive a promotion.

One of Walmart’s aims, of course, is to prevent excessive absences. But employees still receive demerits, even if they are legitimately ill, and even with a doctor’s note.

And as far as paid sick leave goes, if an employee does have sick leave available, they can’t even use it for the first day of absence. Employees simply lose a day’s pay if they are absent for one day. If they’re absent for more than one day, and they have sick leave accumulated, they can get paid only from the second day on.

This doesn’t square at all with the Centers for Disease Control’s recommendation (specifically for the H1N1 flu) that sick people stay home until they are fever-free for at least 24 hours, so as not to infect others. Walmart’s policies discourage people from staying home.

MomsRising.org is currently campaigning against Walmart’s sick leave policy. This is an issue of special interest to mothers, since they’re usually the ones who have to stay home with sick kids (also cause for a demerit in the Walmart system). But anyone can help – go to the campaign page and give Walmart a demerit badge! Let them know that their policies are not OK.

And yes, I know that Walmart is only one employer of many. There are other companies that provide little or no sick leave, or who punish employees for being absent.  And there are small businesses that have great difficulty dealing with employee absences (but that’s another issue, really). But if we can get a giant like Walmart (which employs about 1.4 million people in the U.S.) to change, it’s likely to influence other companies as well.

It’s simple, really. People who buy new appliances, like refrigerators, washing machines, or dishwashers, can get a rebate of $50 to $200 for buying the Energy-Star labeled versions. That’s it. You don’t have to trade in or destroy your old appliances. In fact, you can keep your old, energy-sucking fridge running in the garage if you feel like it.

It’s all part of the economic stimulus bill, and the details are being handled by individual states. The federal government is just providing the money. Many states and local utility companies have provided appliance rebate programs before, so this won’t even be anything new.

Energy efficiency is good. Many people can save money by getting rid of an older (10+ years old is a good guideline) refrigerator and replacing it with a more energy efficient model. It also helps us, as a society,  conserve precious energy resources.

If we’re just encouraging people to buy a second refrigerator, though, that kind of defeats the purpose. And we don’t know what customers’ intentions will be.

So, my question is, will this program really help people, or is it just another way of encouraging consumerism in order to prop up an unsustainable economy?

In the case  of appliances, I’m more inclined to think kindly of the program than otherwise. And in my case, I know I won’t be buying any appliances either way – I’m a renter, and appliances are provided.

More info: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2009/db20090821_304909.htm

On Aug. 5, General Mills, Hershey Co, Mars Inc., and Kraft Foods alerted Thomas J. Vilsak, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of their combined forecast of low sugar supplies. These food companies warned that if the Agriculture Department does not allow them to import more tariff-free sugar, “our nation will virtually run out of sugar” and they will be forced to raise consumer prices and lay off workers.

Is this a real problem? Or are the food companies just trying to bully the government into something that will make them more money?

Many countries use a single-payer system, which sounds good. The government collects taxes. The government pays for health care. The people pay nothing (aside from the taxes) or minimal co-pays for health care.  Everyone is taken care of.

However, there’s strong resistance to single-payer health care in the U.S., and I would now question whether it’s financially feasible on a national level.

I think that at some point in the future, health care decisions won’t be made on a national level.  I think what will work is a community-based system.

There are some existing hints of what this might look like.

The Transition Towns movement includes health care as one of the topics communities need to address in the post-peak oil era. A look at plans developed by Totnes and Kinsale in the UK shows that they’ve thought a great deal about what health care will look like and what kind of health care will be needed, but less about how this will be paid for or otherwise made available to the community.

Christian Healthcare Ministries, which I’ve heard about from Jesus-following radical Shane Claiborne, is a medical cost-sharing nonprofit organization.  Members pay a monthly amount into the program, and after a 45-day waiting period, are eligible to submit medical bills to the organization for assistance with payments. Pre-existing conditions are excluded, however (which is one of the problems with our current health insurance system). Members have a “personal responsiblility” amount they must meet each year, similar to a deductible in a traditional health insurance plan. There’s also a $125,000 lifetime limit for cost-sharing.  Could this work on a local level? You might need a certain number of people involved to make it work.

The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain, in addition to operating its cooperative businesses and schools, provides health care for its members, independently of the state.  So, people pay to be members of the cooperative, and as part of their membership benefit, they get health care.  Sounds pretty good! Again, you might need a critical mass of people involved in order to make it work.

The Co-Op Village Foundation has created a model (they hope to build an actual village soon) for cooperative villages which would include medical care for all members.  You can download their free book, which details the entire plan, but here are the basics:

-A group catastrophic health policy would be purchased to cover those who do not have entitlement health coverage.
- The Village might contract with a local medical group for primary health care for self-insurance, with X percent of the fees paid for by the Village and the balance paid by the resident. Over a period of time, the full amount might be paid by the Village.
- A pre-existing medical condition clause may be required to protect the Village from being overburdened by current catastrophic conditions. This clause probably would be required by the insurance provider but might apply to the Village self- insurance as well.

The village would also maintain access to preventative care for members, preferably on-site.  But it sounds like their plan is mainly to pay health care costs for members, rather than maintain their own health-care facilities.

That might work for a while.  I think that at some point communities will probably need to be more self-sufficient and less reliant on outside sources for medical care.  I think we’ll probably need something closer to the cooperative system, in which everyone in the community would chip in (at a level appropriate to their income) to hire medical practitioners for that community.  But that might mean that some communities couldn’t offer much more than food and housing to medical practitioners, which could result in great inequities if the doctors prefer to go where they’ll be paid more.

None of these solutions is perfect, and our future is very much in motion. It will be interesting to see what unfolds.

That’s highly debatable. It could be that it’s really not working. It could be that the federal stimulus is keeping things from being much, much worse. I’m not sure how you’d measure that.

Regardless of this argument, what is clear to me is that we have to start looking beyond the paradigm of jobs and consumerism. Our current economic system is not sustainable. It’s based on people making more money and buying more stuff, and given our limited resources, that can’t go on forever.

It’s also obviously not working, when the top one percent of earners in the U.S. are receiving 20 percent of all income, controlling 33 percent of the country’s wealth, and paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than many in the middle class.

So what’s going to happen? Although I think taking care of people without jobs is the right idea, having the government pour more money into it may not be the right answer.

My husband likes to give a radical answer: Abolish money, and everyone will be forced to take care of each other. Simple and drastic, but I don’t see it happening.

I think that’s part of it, though. Here’s what I think we need:

1. Downshift. Realize that we don’t need so much stuff, and that we can’t base our economy on the stuff. We have to lower our expectations of how we should live and simplify.

2. Community. Yes, we do need to take care of each other, and it’s probably best done on the local level. We can share in making sure everyone has food, clothing, shelter and more — companionship, entertainment, education, etc.

3. Get off the fossil fuels. Not sustainable. Enough said.

This isn’t going to be easy. We will have to either deliberately make sacrifices and change the way we live, or be forced into it by our own actions. Either way will be difficult, and perhaps dangerous. The old ways and old jobs will continue to disappear, and this will hurt. But if we dedicate ourselves to taking care of each other, it will work out. Our lives just won’t be the same as they are today.

President George H.W. Bush once said “The American way of life is not negotiable.”  Well, Mr. Bush, it turns out that the American way of life is not sustainable. It’s time to negotiate for our lives.

RESOURCES

Co-op Villages: The Next Evolution (free PDF book download)

The Simple Living Network

Appropedia: The Sustainability Wiki

Xtracycle

Bicycle-related posts on TechnoEarthMama

Sustainability-related posts on TechnoEarthmama

I also know of several negative issues that lead me not to shop at Wal-Mart. Some of my reasons are personal, and some are more global.

Wal-Mart isn’t very close to where I live. The closest one is 5.3 miles away by car or bike. That’s further than I normally go to shop. I tend to stay within a mile or two of home.

Being inside a Wal-Mart store makes me crazy. They’re crowded, the shelves and excess merchandise tower over you, and the merchandise is often misplaced.  The noise level is high, and the lines are long — even in the express lanes.

Wal-Mart doesn’t pay employees enough. There’s some controversy about this. People in some positions say they are getting paid enough. Others think it’s OK, because these jobs are often filled by students, retirees, and other part-timers anyway.  I do think people deserve to be paid a living wage, but I’m not sure any more how to judge Wal-Mart in this area.  Wal-Mart’s average hourly wage for U.S. workers in 2008 was $10.86.

Wal-Mart sells things too cheaply. What? That’s a problem? But Wal-Mart is providing a service to the community by keeping their prices low.  NO. Sorry. There are several things wrong with this.  How do they get the prices so low? By underpaying employees, by squeezing their suppliers (who are then forced to cut their costs somehow), and by selling merchandise that’s made in other countries where manufacturing and labor are cheaper (even cheaper than Wal-Mart wages).

I’m not OK with getting lower prices on the backs of other people.  Also, people in the U.S. have now gotten the impression that we should always get the lowest possible prices on everything, and that we deserve to have things that are really luxury items at lower prices too.  Remember when some people couldn’t afford TV’s, VCR’s, and video game systems? These things are now almost considered a human right in the U.S.  Give us the lower prices, environment, salaries and human rights be damned! And meanwhile people wonder where all of the good manufacturing jobs have gone.

With all that said, I’m still shopping occasionally at Target (which is closer) for the things I need. Mostly little things, like contact lens solution and laundry detergent.  Because they’re cheaper at Target. I’m told that Target is possibly more unpleasant than Wal-Mart as an employer.  Hypocritical? Yeah. Alternative? I don’t know, is Fred Meyer any better?

SOURCES

Some people have asked me “What’s the ROI of that investment?”, “How many leads do you get?”, “Why don’t you promote Return?” To me, that’s kind of missing the point. The return on investment is that we have a stronger community. And a stronger community will float all boats.

Yes!  We need strong communities right now, and I’m glad to see the Portland tech community leading the way on this.  I was thrilled to be a part of WordCamp Portland last year, and look forward to taking part in more events.

The next free tech event in Portland is BarCamp, May 1-2.  BarCamp is still looking for help, either from larger sponsors or individual contributors.  I won’t be attending BarCamp, as I’ll be on a staff retreat at the beach (poor me!), but I am making a small donation to help the event along.  Can you help the community, too?