Jeans

I live in my jeans. I work from home and often wear jeans every day of the week.

So when all three pairs came through the same washing load recently with irredeemable holes it was a small-scale clothing crisis. I had mended and patched my jeans many times over, but they had gone beyond repair. 

I have been vaguely aware that jeans have many levels of ethical concern. I decided that as this is an item of clothing I rely on so heavily, it was time to research properly and find ethical jeans. 

According to the Shop Ethical website, there are at least six areas of potential concern around jeans: transparency in the supply chain, use of sweatshops overseas, use of underpaid Australian outworkers, forced child labour in cotton production, excessive pesticide and insecticide use in cotton production, and toxic sandblasting in preparing denim. It was quickly apparent that if I wanted to attempt an ethical purchase on all six fronts I would need to purchase from a small operator, almost certainly online. If I wanted to walk into a store and buy jeans over the counter my best option looked like being Jeanswest (pretty good on addressing labour and supply chain issues; not so good on the pesticides/insecticides/sandblasting issues). 

The options I found online that looked reasonably sound were: Kuyichi (from the Netherlands), Nudie Jeans (Sweden) and Monkee Genes (UK). Australian brands Denimsmith and Nobody Denim (both Melbourne) are each accredited with Ethical Clothing Australia. However, this considers workers pay and conditions but not broader environmental considerations.

The only problem was: none of the jeans available through these companies was a style I was prepared to wear. The trend at present is for super slim legs and I am not of a build that takes kindly to skinny styling. Where I could find some looser designs the fabric was artificially 'aged' with fake wear and tear. Having spent plenty of time patching worn or torn knees I can't come at buying clothes with holes in them, however stylishly arranged.

In the end I chose to visit an op shop. There I found jeans in a size and style that suited me. Perhaps they were originally made in sweatshops using cotton doused in pesticides and picked by child slaves, but my money did no support any of those things: it went to the St Vincent de Paul Society, who provide services for the poor. Further, by supporting op shops I am encouraging recycling of clothing, hopefully reducing the demand for the blood-sweat-and-poison soaked clothing of mainstream stores. (Is that too dramatic? Over 10% of the world's pesticides and nearly 25% of its insecticides are used in growing cotton, of which jeans are made; in Uzbekistan, the world's 5th largest cotton exporter, the government enlists children as forced labour to harvest the material; thirteen other cotton-producing countries also use child labour, with children reporting health issues as a result of exposure to pesticides; silicon used in sandblasting denim causes emphysema; in sweatshops throughout Asia underpaid workers are crowded into unsafe conditions to sew Western clothing and periodically these conditions kill them)

Initial Time: researching online took a couple of hours; visiting the op shop took about half an hour. I find the lack of choice liberating: there were only about seven pairs of jeans in my size in the store; three were acceptable so I bought them. Simple.

Initial Cost: Had I been able to find a style that suited me, the online ethical options had jeans from about $100, with a wide selection around the $120 mark. Buying at an op shop is of course a cost saving. However, as I can afford to pay more than $4 for my jeans, I also made a donation to the store above the shelf price. It was still a lot cheaper than buying jeans new.

Ongoing time or cost commitment:

 

It is now over three years since I committed to twelve months of buying only ethical clothing for myself. In that first year I bought one jumper and a couple of bras. In both instances I used the Shop Ethical Guide to check that my purchase wasn't from a company with terrible human rights records, but I didn't got out of my way to chase up the most ethical option. I had some worthwhile conversations with shop assistants about ethics in clothing, raising issues with them that they had never had customers ask before. Those conversations were probably more important than the impact of where my dollars were spent.

Taking action about jeans is an outworking of that earlier commitment and will hopefully lead to other related actions.

Since the first year I have bought a few items from op shops, a few rounds of unconsidered underwear, and some clothes from Kathmandu (a big chain doing pretty well on several fronts: workers' pay and conditions, source of materials, and reducing packaging) and Nomad Gnome Fremantle (a local store personally sourcing from ethical small producers in Nepal). All up my 2013 commitment has, as I anticipated at the time, meant I have spent far less time and money overall on buying clothes. Never a big clothes buyer anyway, my acquisition is down to a trickle. It makes me happy not to be overfilling my wardrobe.

Nomad Gnome shirt with Op Shop jeans

It will be a few years before I need to buy jeans again, but I am committed to having another go next time at finding something ethical that I am also happy to wear, even if it means paying a little more (perhaps fashion will have changed by then). In the meantime I will tell my slender friends about the great online ethical jeans options they have available to them!

Impact: This has mostly been discussed above. I recommend the Shop Ethical Guide's discussion of ethical issues for denim (click arrows for detail on each issue) - this explains things clearly and concisely, so I have not repeated most of it here.

One area not mentioned is packaging. This is a concern of mine with online shopping, as everything seems to come packaged in plastic to ensure it arrives safely. Any store that is not producing on site is likely to use packaging in transporting goods - the more stages in the production, the more rounds of packaging. I put my unwrapped purchases in my bicycle basket to get them home: zero packaging.

And of course the carbon footprint of transporting from farm to fabric production to clothing production to warehouse (usually multiple stages of) to store is not insignificant either. Clothes at Vinnies may have been moved around the city a couple of times from donation bin to sorting centre to store, but its hardly comparable with the way new clothes criss-cross the globe, as raw materials, fabric and finished products. Opting for an op shop meant drastically reduced carbon footprint on transport and almost zero waste on packaging.

Children's birthdays

The world of school has brought us into the world of children's birthday parties.

How do we encourage our daughter to celebrate her friends without having to buy more and more stuff? How do we allow her to have her own birthday celebration without expecting mounds of loot as the main event?

Two years ago I wrote about celebrating birthdays when our children turned one and four. At the time, Eva's friends were still from families that we knew, who understand a little of our values around consumption and waste. Now she has many friends whose families we know only to wave to at school pick-up, and I feared we were opening ourselves to a pink plastic mountain of gifts.

Last year our birthday invitations asked people not to bring gifts, explaining that we were trying to help our children learn to value time with friends without receiving any material items. We took blankets, boxes, ropes, pegs, cushions etc to a local park and had a cubby-making afternoon and picnic.

(Of course if talking about Eva's 5th birthday we have to make mention of Grandad's amazing excavator birthday cake. Retired engineers...)

Saying 'no gifts' made last year's guests a bit uncomfortable, although they respected the request. One mum asked me a bit nervously if it was OK if her daughter made a card to give, which told me I'd come across a bit too hard-line about the gifts thing. 

So this year we opted instead to say:

We are trying to reduce our Global footprint and to help our children to ‘consume’ less, and encourage you to consider recycled, home-made or second-hand gifts, or no gift at all.

I was quite unsure about putting this on the invitations, as I did not know most of the families receiving them. However, the response was very positive. One parent thanked me for getting her thinking, and for freeing her up from needing to go and buy something. Another, who had responded by baking biscuits with her daughter as a home-made gift, thanked me for giving her a lovely activity to share with her daughter. Two families had put their heads together and coordinated gifts, so that one gave Eva some pre-loved jewellery and the other a second-hand jewellery box to keep it in.

The unexpected side effect was that there was hardly any packaging. Second hand items have already shed their useless plastic coatings! Although we had said nothing about gift wrapping, nearly everyone either presented gifts in a reusable bag, or with home-made paper. I can only assume they caught the 'vibe' and applied it to their choices for wrapping also. We continue to wrap our own gifts at home in fabric and ribbons, which we use over and over, or use hand-decorated paper (usually recycled, with random old printouts on the inside).

The actual events were mostly free play, without organised party games (which almost always involve buying prizes to distribute). Kids took home a slice of cake but no party bags. We had encouraged Eva to invite a small enough group of school friends so that she could actually enjoy her guests, and this went very well. There was much leaping on the trampoline. We split celebrations up into a number of smaller gatherings, for friends from different parts of our lives, rather than one big gathering. My experience is that bigger gatherings tend towards emphasising consumption rather than quality time, although I'm sure there are exceptions to that. As noted when I wrote about birthdays previously, we avoided single-use items like themed napkins, single-use decorations or disposable plates.

Trail of evidence suggests someone finished off ALL the fairy bread.

When Eva has been invited to other birthday parties I have gone with the social obligation of sending a gift. I try to ensure I don't give any gifts I wouldn't want to receive, applying my own values to gift selection, such as: encouraging open-ended play; reducing consumption; avoiding plastics; reducing packaging. Several times this has been a kids recipe book. Another time we sent a pre-loved game (in good condition). Eva packaged up her dressing gown as birthday gift for her best friend, because she knew he really liked it.

Best friend arrives for Eva's birthday. Excitement levels are high.

Initial Time: Zero time in requesting low-impact gifts; a little time each birthday to think through gifts and other aspects.

Initial Cost: Zero. We save money by keeping birthday stuff small.

However, saving money is not the main intent and aiming to save money on kids birthdays can lead to less sustainable choices: For example, setting a $5 or $10 gift limit (for yourself, or for others coming to your party) is likely to increase the amount of cheap plastic you give (or receive). And it is hard to see how good quality gifts costing $5 could have been produced in ways that ensure everyone in the supply chain received appropriate pay and conditions for their part in the gift getting to us. For this reason I argued for our kindy 'gift from Santa' to the kids last year to not set a cost limit, but rather to ensure the kids were all given books. Its also a reason we didn't do 'party bags' for kids to take home - because they end up full of cheap trinkets that go almost straight into the bin (or just mounds of sugar).

Ongoing time or cost commitment: Its not so much a time or cost commitment, but by being just a little different we mark ourselves into the future with these school families, putting ourselves out there as 'that family'. I hope in a good way, but its impossible to be sure.

Impact: The greatest impact was probably the conversations we started. We also continue to hope that we are modelling for our children and their friends less consumption-oriented ways to live.

I can't find any data on how much waste is generated by birthday parties, or how many birthday presents get thrown in the bin. Australians generate around 44 million tonnes of rubbish each year (almost certainly much more, as these statistics are nine years old, and the amount had doubled in the ten years before that). Even at the 2006 figures, that is about 2 million tonnes of rubbish for each of us. Every single Australian. A little under one third of the total waste is household rubbish - such as birthday party debris and broken plastic toys.

Happy Birthday lovely girl. Our favourite six-year-old.

Links: If you found this helpful, you may also be interested in my past posts about Christmas: practical ideas; changing the questions; giving things away; Baking Day.

Some other people sharing ideas for sustainable kids birthday parties: one two three

A bit of a rant about how obscene the children's birthday party circuit can be.

If you are a Melbourne person, here's a firm that do zero-waste kids' birthday parties with Trash Puppet Making Workshops.

An idea for gifts: online donation organisation that sends half the money to a chosen charity and the other half to your child, for them to buy one meaningful gift. (Another blog I read described a Canadian tradition of having two donation jars at a party instead of gifts - a gold coin in one, going to a charity; a gold coin in the other, going to the child)

Why we don't have a TV

We don't have a TV.

Why watch TV when you can watch the highlight of 2014 live, right across the road: 'Excavator knocking down HOUSE!'

As we never made a 'sustainability commitment' to not having one, I've not written about this. However, several times when I have presented about our sustainable living efforts it has emerged as a choice people are interested in, so here is my effort to share.

Disclaimer: Let me put right up front that this is not an attempt to judge anyone else's choices about television. If you have negotiated the issues I raise below in other ways, or the benefits of TV out-weight these issues for you, that's great. This is my attempt to explain my choices, not to have a go at yours.
 

Our family grew up without a TV* and, although I resented it many times as a kid, I am now grateful for that. [*We did have one in a box after I was seven, which came out in school holidays and for the Olympics]. When house-sharing, my flatmates often had one and I had patches of watching it. I learned that I am easily addicted to TV programs, especially ones with never-ending plot lines and endearing characters. I negotiated several times for the TV not to be in the main living area of our share-houses, once even buying a suitable wheeled table so it could be moved easily into the room of whoever wanted to watch it. Since Tyson and I have lived together we have never had a TV in the house. We watch a little Iview some evenings after the children are asleep, when we are too exhausted to do anything else (mostly British drama), at most perhaps five hours a week, more often one or two shows in a week (2 hours?). On very rare occasions Eva has been permitted to watch ABC kids TV shows on YouTube when she has been really sick. We also sit with them to watch and talk about clips on YouTube relating to things that interest them (most often excavators, excavators, chickens, giraffes, excavators).

I am not opposed to all TV watching forever, but I am choosing not to own one, and to limit our use of digital TV through the internet. It is a key strategy for us towards ensuring that as much as possible we create a home on our own values, not values absorbed by accident through a screen.

There are a whole range of reasons we don't have a TV. The summary version is: I believe TV primarily disconnects us from each other, sets up unrealistic and unhealthy social norms, and pushes us to be insatiable consumers. To explain a bit further...

How we shape our 'wants' 

I think the biggest problem of our unsustainable western lifestyle is that we want so much. One of the simplest ways to reduce our wanting is to cut out the voices of those suggesting more things for us to want. 

At the most obvious level, this is about not having advertising in our house (we also do not receive junk mail, read our news online so we don't have newspaper ads sitting around, and don't subscribe to the sort of magazines that are padded with ads). This makes a big difference. It was a change for Tyson when we moved in together, and over about the first year of sharing a predominantly ad-free house we both observed a noticeable reduction in the things he was wanting to obtain. Our children know very few brand names - in contrast to an American study that showed children entering primary school could identify on average 200 brand logos.

Of course it is possible to watch TV without advertisements (God bless the ABC and lets raise our voices to protest the budget cuts there!). However, in more subtle ways television as a medium, regardless of the advertisements, tempts us to want more. People are presented in an airbrushed manner (or presented as 'lacking', often by presenters who are clearly not 'lacking' in the same areas), creating a sense that the wonderful, earthy, fallible ordinariness of real lives is inadequate in some way. From the decor of fictional houses to the clothes of documentary presenters, the television world shows us a million things that we don't have, which we could potentially have, which could potentially redress that 'lack'. Yes, popping in to your neighbour's house and seeing their stuff can have the same effect, but it comes with a relationship, a possible story (including the reality of how little impact stuff has on happiness), and the limits of how many people we actually know to pop in on.

Focus of living areas

The way our houses are arranged both reflects and shapes the values we live by. Many Australian living rooms are arranged with seating almost in a line - perhaps a semicircle - focused on a television screen. If you are in a room like this, it can be quite hard to make good eye contact with everyone when having a conversation. The very way we place ourselves within the room reinforces a sense that we are spectators, passive recipients of someone else's agenda. I feel like this occurs even when the TV is turned off, because it remains the visual focus for how the furniture is set out.

In many ways television sets are placed within homes in the way that an altar might be placed within a home where religious observance is part of family life. It becomes a thing we worship. I find it a little obscene that it is considered the norm in Australian house design at present to include a 'home theatre' - a room virtually without windows, designed for people to not interact with each other or the outside world at all, but to be completely in relation to the digital world. This room is generally larger than the size of a whole house in many parts of the world, and uses far more energy and resources to create than those simple dwellings.

Our living room is a circle of couches and armchairs. There is also a piano, sort of at the side, and a toy shelf/play bench under the window, flanked by armchairs. I like that when we sit in this space, the focus is each other. When the children play they are central to our living space. Guests in our home have at times noted how relaxing they find it to be in a space without an omnipresent screen. (When we watch Iview or YouTube we use the office computer. The office, being also the guest bedroom, has a fold-out couch that can be used to watch the screen)

When we go on holidays, accommodation pretty much always provides a TV. We always cover it with a cloth, and sometimes move a couch in front of it.  

Objectification of people

The nature of television turns people into objects. We are watching; they are performing. We consume them. 

This is fairly obvious when, for example, an actor is performing a fictional role for our entertainment, and is not such a problem in that context (not so different from live theatre). However, we don't have the opportunity to see the actors leave by the stage door in their street clothes after the show, as ordinary and wonderful as us. When we do, it is in the context of celebrity-watching: trying to pretend we know these actors because we know something about them (however tenuous), or to pick holes in their presentation, to take evidence of ordinariness and hold it up as a fault, not a gift. Actors become semi-fictional realities that we seek to somehow have some ownership over.

However, objectification is more of a problem, in my opinion, when it relates to non-fiction content. News reporting is the most troubling for me. Other people's life crises become objects for me to watch. People being reported on cease to be people, cease to be 'like me', and become a Thing, a News Item, which I consume.

I believe that spending a great deal of time watching other people as objects, without any relationship with them, imprints on us a sense that people can be treated as objects; A sense that it is OK to think of others in a transactional way, rather than a relational way - where interactions always have a quality of what I give and what I get, rather than who and what we are building between us (with acknowledgement to William Cavanagh for getting me thinking about these things). Once we have made that step - and I think to at least some degree we have all made it - we can partition off some people, some 'objects', as less deserving of our compassion, or attention, or effort. Particularly, in the context of this blog, those among us who are most vulnerable as a result of our unsustainable lifestyle.

Gender representations

Somehow we have made it through five years of this blog without me beating this drum, but here goes:

The presentation of men and women on television is grossly imbalanced. The number of men, particular 'serious' men (in suits) far outweighs the number of 'serious' women, or women at all. Some excellent television drama includes strong female characters, but far more often women are presented within strongly gendered stereotypes. At worst, they are actively violated. More often, they are sexualised props for male-driven plots, with male heroes (sometimes with one token woman to make up the 'balance') and outcomes affirming male dominance. These are not the assumptions of a woman's role that I want my daughter to have imprinted into her (or my son, for that matter).

And men are poorly presented too: male characters, when not being macho aggressive strong-men winning situations by force and speed, are often goofy, a bit daft and easily led astray. Neither inspires my son to grow into a strong, thoughtful, compassionate, relational, confident man ready to take his place as an equal in the world with every other human.

Oversexualisation

Once you add together objectification and gender stereotyping it is no surprise that I have deep concerns about the sexualised manner in which both men and women are represented through television. The way a person looks is paramount to their TV appeal; the rules of what is 'appealing' are set by a narrow understanding of what is sexually attractive. Women are never seen without make-up (the way women actually arrive at every day of our lives, and the way we are known and loved by those we are really important to) or in clothes that might be described as 'shapeless': ie, not emphasising legs, hips and breasts. There is nothing wrong with dressing up and enjoying fitting a particular social norm; there is something deeply wrong with being made to feel unacceptable, to yourself or others, if you don't do it. I also have a problem with people's bodies, male or female, being an object for the gratification of people who don't know them, but watch them.

At the very pointy end of this, objectifying and over-sexualising women makes us vulnerable. Presenting men as either macho strong-men or a bit hopeless makes women vulnerable too. Both contribute to women being abused, and to men staying silent about it (or even encouraging it). 

Many of the things I hope for my daughter and my son are actively discouraged by the gender and body-image social norms that television is a big part of creating. I am helping them learn to navigate these cultural assumptions (yes, even at 5 and 2, and ever more so over the next twenty-odd years) but I am also inviting them to live their home-lives without those abnormal 'norms' constantly surrounding them.

Disempowering narratives

Most television content resolves problems within a viewing period. Perhaps it may take a whole season, but problems will be resolved. The overwhelming dominant narrative is that problems will be resolved by being the strongest/smartest/highest-tech or by straight out violence.

My understanding of the world is that actual, genuine change is slow, often hidden, and generally comes about by the sustained effect of countless tiny acts of love, kindness, bravery, generosity, hope, peace... most of which would not be remotely worthy of being 'viewed'. If you happen to be strong, smart, or equipped with marvels, the dominant narrative puts enormous and unrealistic pressure on you to provide results on behalf of all those ordinary people who are not so 'fortunate' - and it is little wonder that violence is so often the chosen approach. If you are not one of the 'fortunate' (I think it is a very mixed 'fortune'), this narrative either excuses you from having to contribute to our common good, or tempts you to feel hopeless about what you can actually achieve.

For those living within a narrative that is not heading for solution - chronic mental illness, for example, or the death of a loved one, or cyclical discrimination and poverty - the dominant narrative of problem-strength-solution has no place for you. Your grief is not permitted space. Your insights are not welcomed. Your ordinary daily struggles and triumphs are neither lamented nor celebrated - they (and you) are ignored. Perhaps that is its own blessing. It can also be degrading and disempowering.

Limiting children's creativity

I know there is much good children's television produced. However,  the nature of the medium largely makes the child a spectator while someone else does the creativity. Where good children's programming gives ideas for activities children can follow up, this tends to be a particular activity with a particular outcome.

We like to give our children materials and opportunities where they can invent their own outcomes, and often their own process as well. We like to read them books where there is plenty of room for their imagination to work, and the range of books available makes it pretty likely they won't be internalising quite the same mix of characters and stories as any one of their friends. It might be cute to have every girl at kindy playing at 'Elsa' but I am delighted that my daughter has instead played a hundred different characters of her own invention, including many that TV would have suggested to her were boys' roles.

 

Who's agenda?

Television programming can become a household's programming. Its 7pm, finish dinner so we can watch the news; I need to be home to catch the next episode of [insert favourite drama].

This is being somewhat addressed by digital TV-on-demand, but there is still a drive to watch it as it is aired (someone might spoil the ending for you on Facebook otherwise) or to catch it before it expires online. I have had dinner guests go home early because of a TV show they wanted to see; I have myself made choices about staying home to 'catch up' on a show online, and I don't like that.

The value systems implicit (or sometimes explicit) in both televised content and the medium itself are an agenda that I don't want to be run by. I feel TV needs very careful handling if we are to maintain our family agenda of love -  love for each other, love for our wider community, and love for our earth.

What do we support?

Its not so difficult to come up with a list of reasons I am against TV, but the more important question is: what I am for? Some of our priorities are: hospitality; building relationships; compassion; all people being equally valuable regardless of appearance, strength, colour, religion, ability, intelligence, disability, size, age, gender...; community; creative play; imagination; encouraging reading; open-ended play resources; getting into nature; non-violence; celebration of our ordinary bodies and ordinary lives; hope and possibility; genuine, wide-reaching gender equity; sustainable living; simplicity. On the whole, I believe owning a television does not advance these priorities and in many cases it is actually a hindrance to them.

So there you have it. Bless you for reading this far - I hope it is at least something interesting to think about.

What do we do instead? At gremlin hour, between 5pm and 6pm? When the kids wake up early on the weekend? The photos in this post are a few illustrations. We are fortunate that our work situation has meant we very rarely have only one adult in the house in the late afternoon, so one of us can cook and the other give the children 100% attention. Or the children help cook. Or we send them to jump on the trampoline, that magnificent child-minding device. They do get up early and they mostly find toys and activities without us. Mostly lego or craft, but I can see that when Eva learns to read it will be books, books, books.

Initial Time:  zero

Initial Cost: zero

Ongoing time or cost commitment: Not having a TV is both a time commitment, and a gift of time.

It is a time commitment, because without TV to mind the children they need more of our attention, patience and creativity.

It is a gift of time because I have available to me the hours I might otherwise spend watching TV to do all manner of other things. Things like writing this blog, being on the kindy parent committee, reading books, having really good conversations with my husband, hosting various groups in our house, playing Scrabble, writing in my journal... Sometimes I wonder how people who regularly watch TV fit anything else in, as my days and weeks are generally full to the brim without it.

Impact:

I believe I learned to be a more imaginative and creative person by not having a TV as a regular part of my childhood. I am hopeful to pass this gift on to our children.

A plethora of studies about the impact of television on child development suggest links between TV watching and aggression/violence, and long-term lower academic outcomes for children with high TV exposure. Here's a well-referenced article on potential impacts of TV on child development that goes into these and other issues in more detail. We are hopeful that our TV choices are having a positive impact on the sort of people our children are becoming, their views of the world and their ability to creatively navigate the challenges of their lives. 

 

Its not just about the children, though: I think limiting my adult TV viewing has a positive impact on the sort of person I am becoming. The people I admire and aspire to be like are people shaped by influences outside of the world of TV.

I think as a household we 'want' less than is considered 'normal' for our culture. There are whole cultural trends I genuinely know nothing about, or very little (loom bands? Frozen? Game of Thrones?). I know this will shift as we get deeper into school years, but Eva has not been in complete isolation - the last two years she has been part-time at kindergartens; she attended daycare; we are part of a church community; we have a wide network of friends and family, many of whom do not share our tentative approaches to certain cultural norms. We talk about things together, including advertising. We try to ensure birthdays and Christmas celebrations are not all about getting more stuff (see previous posts one two three four five).

Energy savings are not listed above as a reason we don't have a TV, because I have never been motivated in this choice by electricity use, but it is an energy saving to not operate a TV. The average Australian child in the 2-10 age bracket watches between 1 and 2 hours a day of TV (not including other screen activities), and more on weekends (the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010 recommended no more than two hours TV a day, but various American studies estimate kids in the USA are watching closer to 30 hours a week of TV). Australian adults on average watch TV about two hours a day. So, if we were 'average' our household might watch about 25 hours of TV a week between us. The other 143 hours of the week nearly all Australian TVs are on standby, which also uses electricity. How much energy your TV uses depends on many variables: how much it is turned on, what sort of technology it is, how big the screen is, how bright you choose to have the settings. Here is more detail on TV energy use, including a TV-energy use calculator (scroll way down). Apparently, most TVs use between 80 and 400 watts. Older models can use up to 15% of this when on standby, but newer models often have efficient standby settings that draw as little as 1-3 watts. If we had a super-efficient 80-watt TV and watched the average 25 hours a week, we might use around 2kWhr (units) per week watching and another 143Whr in standby: a total of 111.5 kWhr per year (at current rates this would cost $34.55). If we had the 400-watt inefficient model, and allowed for 15% standby, 25-hour viewing weeks would result in an annual usage of 966.2 kWh (nearly half of which is standby usage) - a cost of $299.51, so not exactly 'free' entertainment for your children! Using these calculations, running a TV in Perth creates between 91.43 and 792.28 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - more, if you have an inefficient model (plasmas are particularly bad) and watch more than average amounts of TV. Plus there are the issues of embodied energy I discussed recently in relation to washing machines.

Perhaps the greatest impact for me personally is that when I don't watch any TV I am happier. I would like to give this gift to my children.

Ethics in fundraising

I have made a commitment to work towards ethical options for fundraising in organisations I am involved with, and I'm delighted to share a current buy-local fundraising initiative I have arranged.

Last year, Eva's three-year-old kindergarten did a book fundraiser and bought all the books online. It was cheapest (they claimed). I suggested using our local independent specialist children's book store (Westbooks); the fundraising committee declined, despite the store offering a substantial bulk-order discount.

Later in the year toy catalogues were sent home for two online stores that give a percentage of sales to the kindergarten. I used my catalogue to browse for ideas then took it into our local independent toy store (Toys in the Park) and asked the manager, Jan, to order in a few items for me.

And of course there are the ubiquitous chocolate-sale fundraisers. Twice last year (two different groups) we were asked to sell Cadbury fundraiser chocolates. Both times I politely but firmly declined, on the grounds that I thought it was unethical to raise money to benefit my own children using products known to frequently be produced with the slave labour of other children. Both times I suggested using fair trade fundraising options (coffee or chocolate). One group got so far as to ensure their boxes included plain dairy milk blocks, the only Cadbury fundraising line that is certified Fairtrade, and noted this as a fair trade option in their promotional material.

This year, at Eva's four-year-old kindergarten (McDougall Park Community Kindergarten), I joined the kindy committee. The committee has opted for no fundraising chocolate drive at all. When the topic of online toy catalogues was raised I tentatively suggested approaching local businesses to see if they could offer us a similar deal and was given the go-ahead to at least try.

Both Toys in the Park and Westbooks agreed to assist with our kindy fundraising. I am even more pleased that our kindy committee decided to go with these offers and not send home the toy catalogues at all. (If you would like to participate, details of our fundraisers are at the bottom of this post).

Initial Time: Each time the issue comes around, there is a bit more research, a few emails and conversations, and for the buy-local initiative a bit of extra time in emailing and talking. Maybe an hour or two a couple of times a year?

Initial Cost: Zero. Buying local does not necessarily cost more, especially when the wider economic benefits to the local community are factored into the price. For example, some studies suggest local businesses spend twice as much of their income in the local community as chain-stores do (never mind online purchases, which don't have a local community at all!)

Ongoing time or cost commitment: As above.

Impact: Many, many sources show the social and economic benefits of shopping from local, independent stores: community well-being, healthy local economies, product diversity, better service, local employment, reduced environmental impact (transport costs etc). For books, buying local also supports the Australian publishing industry. For toys, buying from an independent generally means more thoughtfully chosen stock, less plastic rubbish and better quality items.

As for supporting fair trade, I will just refer you to the Fair Trade website, which says it comprehensively. In brief: my lifestyle should not be at the expense of the workers who provide it to me. For a clip on what might be in your chocolate if its not Fairtrade, see Heart of Chocolate.

If our thirty-one kindy families each spend $50 at both Westbooks and Toys in the Park during the promotional month (details below), that would be $3,100 spent locally instead of going into multinational pockets, and $465 worth of books and toys for a fantastic local community kindergarten. Some families are planning their whole Christmas shop to line up with our fundraiser; others won't participate at all; this is a guesstimate! I'll try to post in the comments later in the year what the actual numbers are.

Even when my actions didn't change the fundraising that was undertaken, raising the issue was an eye-opener for most of the people involved in the committees behind the decisions. On chocolate, in particular, most of those involved in choosing to sell chocolates had no idea child slavery was an issue in chocolate production and were grateful for having been informed. I am hopeful this might influence their future choices.

Links:

- Three slightly different but overlapping lists of reasons to shop local: One Two Three

- A similar list but with every item referenced to studies providing evidence of the claim (with an emphasis on local vs Walmart)

- Article arguing for supporting Australian independent book stores

- Independent Toy Specialists of Australia Co-op Ltd 

 

Get involved:

In October, shop at Toys in the Park (403 Albany Hwy Vic Park 08 9470 3981 - featured in all the pics on this post) either in-store or online and mention McDougall Park Community Kindergarten and 10% of your sale price will be put towards a credit account for the kindy to purchase resources. If you order online, send an email through the contact form to ensure the kindy benefits from your purchase.

In November, try it at Westbooks for kindy to get 20% of the sale credited (although you may need an appropriate bit of paper in your hand - I am still working on details with the store, who are currently moving premises - contact me in late October if you would like more info)