We are 2 days into packing and the boxes are all but lining the perimeter of our condo. 3 and 4 boxes high, we may very soon have to begin a second interior wall. (I had planned to include a picture of this, but the camera’s battery charger seems to have gone missing.) We emptied 5 bookcases, a linen closet and about 1/2 of the kitchen so far and have a ways to go. I ventured into the storage locker yesterday and after dutifully locating some boxes and taking a brief inventory, ran back out rationalizing that I would deal with it “after later,” a phrase our son Ben has recently invented.
We are not “savers” and do not tend to hold on to stuff (except books) and yet we seem to have gone through what seemed to be a never-ending stack of boxes – a set from our last move and a second set that I picked up from a post on Craig’s List. Tomorrow we will go seeking more. We figured out that between us, we’ve logged 15 moves in the last 20 years. Many of mine were conducted with the support of friends and the promise of pizza at the end of a long day hefting futons and crates of cd’s. Over time, it seemed like a luxury to hire movers. Now I’m beginning to wonder if we haven’t earned the right for packers. Ahh. The luxury of not having to make a decision with each and every item that gets picked up. Should I pack it/donate it/throw it away? And then each of those decisions requires additional thought and energy. Organizing items for Brown Elephant (our local resale organization) or the often ensuing guilt that follows a decision to toss something. Undoubtedly the process would have been far easier had we not purchased the items to begin with.
I’ve been thinking a great deal about a NYTimes article from a few weeks back (Buying into the Green Movement) by Alex Williams that discussed the notion of consumerism as being the ultimate nemesis of our environmental problems.
Consumers have embraced living green, and for the most part the mainstream green movement has embraced green consumerism. But even at this moment of high visibility and impact for environmental activists, a splinter wing of the movement has begun to critique what it sometimes calls ''light greens.''
Critics question the notion that we can avert global warming by buying so-called earth-friendly products, from clothing and cars to homes and vacations, when the cumulative effect of our consumption remains enormous and hazardous.
''There is a very common mind-set right now which holds that all that we're going to need to do to avert the large-scale planetary catastrophes upon us is make slightly different shopping decisions,'' said Alex Steffen, the executive editor of Worldchanging.com, a Web site devoted to sustainability issues.
The genuine solution, he and other critics say, is to significantly reduce one's consumption of goods and resources. It's not enough to build a vacation home of recycled lumber; the real way to reduce one's carbon footprint is to only own one home.
Williams goes on to the describe the phenomenon as a "Snackwells moment" wherein people having found an alternative to full fat cookies, binge guiltlessly and end up consuming a far greater number of calories than they intended. One group called Compact dedicated to the notion of minimal consumption vowed to make only necessary purchases (food and medicine) for one year. While I do think that we try to be conscious and limited in the purchases we make (often for financial reasons), I am intrigued by this concept. I can only speculate that in our minds, the notion of “necessary” could be easily rationalized, particularly as we are looking at make some fairly hefty purchases in the near future to get our home up to snuff. Maybe next year...
Hi,
Nice blog entry. I love Ben's "after later." I often want to say that, too.
I know what you mean about buying less. I am reading Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" and she is in much the same vein. Good luck.
Mom
Posted by: Priscilla Yeager | July 23, 2007 at 07:28 PM