comments on NPR

Talk of the Nation discussed today the dichotomy between high smoking levels in Europe and low levels in the US.

Some discussion points:
- Those with a higher education level in the developed world smoke at more than 1/2 the rate of those with a high school diploma or less.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but I like to use myself as an example quite often. I am starting to feel ridiculously over-educated, yet I smoke like a chimney. Usually outside of the university building where I work with a whole lot of other graduate students. And diploma or no, the smarter you get the more fed up you feel about the world (non-scientific statistic). Higher stress = more smoking. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

- Eastern Europeans smoke at nearly 2x the rate of those in Western Europe.

Have you ever been to Eastern Europe? That place is kinda depressing. Shit, I'd smoke all the time too.

- Americans are sooo much fatter than the rest of the world.

Of course, cause everyone's addicted to food rather than cigarettes. Yes, cigarettes give you lung cancer. But food gives you a fat ass AND carotid artery stenosis. Yuck.


On another note, cigarettes from outside of the US have those crazy warnings on the packs (and sometimes pictures) that say things like "smoking kills you" and "if you smoke, you will die sooner." I think we should phase these in for entertainment value.

At least if I'm going to smoke, I want my cigarettes to say something that relates to me (and not the small birthweight thing). Maybe it could say something like "no one will love you if you smoke." Or, "we all think you're lame right now."


If my cigarettes insulted me a little more, I'd probably be more inclined to quit.

I Will Simply Survive

While the wealthy may strive for "simple living," the poor try simply surviving

By Elizabeth Chin, Grist Magazine

01 Mar 2006


"Simplifying, for the wealthy, has become a task, a burden, an end in itself. (When I say "the wealthy," I mean nearly every citizen of every wealthy nation.) For so many people in wealthy worlds, simplifying has also become an industry which, ironically, turns out an array of alluring products: toxin-free paint so wholesome it's known as "milk"; clothing woven from hemp fibers; even the fat, glossy magazine Real Simple. But conscious simplicity is not what it appears to be. After all, Thoreau's idyll at Walden Pond was made possible by the fact that someone else did his laundry. Which is to say: for most people, living simply is a luxury, and one that still ends up consuming a great deal -- whether new categories of goods, other people's labor, or both.

While the wealthy struggle to shovel out from under their possessions and prepossessions, the poor must struggle on a daily basis to acquire much of anything of value -- including flesh on their bones. This is most evident, perhaps, in places like Kenya or India or Brazil, where cadres of children scramble over mountains of garbage to find bits and pieces from which they can cobble together the stuff of life. In the U.S., poverty is usually not quite so nightmarishly stark, or indeed so visible. Still, with the official poverty level at a yearly income of $19,307 for a family of four, the environmental problems facing the poor in the United States are vast -- and they don't have much to do with managing the stresses of overabundance."

More stories on poverty & the environment.

___________________________________________________________________

-- What may be most interesting about this story is the inherent elitism that made it possible. In today's "throw away" culture, it is definitely a symbol of status to be able to reject objects, people, and places in favor of a "simple life".

For my thesis, I have been researching environmental attitudes and their effects on electoral attitudes. While I am arguing statistical significance, I can't help but wonder if it has any real-world applications. Since I love numbers, here's some research.

Support for environmental spending Married Not married
Decrease spending .4236 .48
Keep the same .5839 .6379
Increase Spending .7281 .7708

This model, based on 16 different demographic and issue support variables, assumes all other variables are held at their means. Okay, so I did do something a little crazy and include domestic partners in the "married" category. So sue me - give everyone the right to marry for pete's sake.

Anywho...shorthand, someone who's married and wants decreased environmental spending was 42% likely to vote for Clinton in 96, compared to 73% likely to vote the same way assuming support for increased environmental spending. The same variance is visible in the non-married set. What is perhaps more interesting about this is the lack of support for environmental issues visible in the lower income ranges. I'd give you statistics...but that's just too much file opening for one night.

Suffice to say, environmental support does impact voting. But support still tends to be higher in higher income ranges. Perhaps because of the huge costs of being "environmentally friendly" or simple worries about day-to-day income, poor people are just don't find the issue as important.

I see examples of this all the time in my local life. The local organics store is jam packed with rich bougeousie types looking to suppliment their ridiculously healthy lifestyles. At the same time, the local Freecycle group is full of people desperate to simply find items they really need. "Need: wroking refrgrator" read one email header last week. Despite the fact that the grammar and spelling leave something to be desired, it's not that poor people are so stupid that they don't care about the environment.

People just don't have the time.

In the 1980's, a lot of discussion took place over whether a clean environment was something people wanted to "buy" rather than another social issue like women's rights and abortion. Looking around me today, I can't help but completely agree. Working at a local organics store, the staff used to kinda chuckle at the richies with their "all organic, all natural, made by people who were so fucking happy you bought it that they came in their pants" chocolate bars and juice drinks. Sure, we bought organics too, but only with the help of our employee discount and only after sucking down four cigarettes out back in the course of a work day.

More salient examples come to mind as well - Walmart this year announced that it will be phasing in organic and "all-natural" products in thousands of its mega stores throughout the country. Trader Joe's keep popping up all over the white, affluent suburbs faster than I can keep up. Organics is a billion-dollar industry. Business magazines are touting an era of "entrepeneurial environmentalism", or in one of those obnoxious industry buzzword terms, "environeurialism".

For a really simple example, just close your eyes and picture an environmentally-conscious consumer. No, seriously, do it. Chances are you pictured some white guy getting into his Toyota Prius with his bags of all natural food, wearing some appropriately earth-toned turtleneck. Or some crunchy hippie wearing 7-year-old Birkenstocks and picnicking in the lawn. Well, at least that's what I kinda pictured.


Most of the environmentalists I know fit the description of both, fitting somewhere between the hippie camp and the yuppie camp. Yet there are millions of everyday Americans that want cleaner air and water, a better world and to not have to worry about environmental contaminants.

The point?

I think so many "normal" people don't think about the environment because they don't want to have to. They want to do what they do, and go on with things, and raise their kids, and drive their cars, and not have to worry about crazy apocalyptic problems.

Joe and Jane Schmoe just want things to fall into place.

And it will, like things have a way of doing. But environmentalists have to figure out how to shape the discussion, how to make it sexy and easy for today's idiots to be green. They would do well to pay attention to consumer trends and new materialism.

Afterall, it's not really the Earth we're saving. It's our own lame asses.