Cash for Clunkers

The "Cash for Clunkers" program started off with a bang yesterday. The idea is that you can take your old car to a dealer and get a coupon for $4500 to be used toward the purchase of a new, energy-efficient car. There aren't that many requirements, except that the old car has to really be a guzzler - to qualify it has to get 18mpg or less. And the car you purchase must get at least 10mpg MORE than that. You can get a coupon for $3500 if you raise your fuel-efficiency by somewhat less than that.

The program is supposed to spur sluggish car sales and encourage the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles. That sounds good. It's also intended to get the gas hogs and polluters off the road. Even better.

But here's the part that worries me: "Dealers must remove the engine and transmission of the cars that are turned in, disable them and take them to a junkyard." That sounds like we're leaving the task of responsibly disposing of tons of heavy objects to used car dealers. Am I the only one who's worried about this?

First of all, is it really better to junk those old cars, adding enormous (possibly toxic) waste to the landfills? And secondly, who will oversee that the process is done in an environmentally friendly way?

I couldn't find any analyses of these questions in my search last night, the day the program went into effect, but I'm going to continue looking. Please let me know if you find anything. I have a feeling we're about to see one of those "cash-strapped, recession-weary consumer" versus "sanctimonious environmentalist" arguments crop up. Like the one where we're all supposed to want gas prices to be so low that people can drive around in SUVs and Hummers, because, hey, that's their choice. As Americans. That really gets my goat. When you point out that in countries where gas prices are high, people drive more fuel-efficient cars, you're called un-American.

What do you think? Is there some way to head off this storm before it happens? Please tell me your thoughts in the Comments section.

Gross National... Happiness?

I read this interesting NY Times article a little while back about how the government of the tiny country of Bhutan in the Himalayas is being judged by the happiness it produces, not the economic benefits.

The prime minister of the Buddhist kingdom blames the current worldwide economic catastrophe on "insatiable human greed" and insists that what's needed is a radical shift in thinking.

To that end, the government aims to produce the conditions necessary for the "pursuit of gross national happiness," paraphrasing the American Declaration of Independence. The Bhutanese are busy working out a system of definitions and standards that can be quantified in concrete way.

Their intricate model of well-being consists of the 4 pillars, 9 domains, and 72 indicators of happiness. That sounds a little complicated, but I love the idea of focusing on happiness over wealth. What's that old saying, "Money can't buy happiness?"

The four pillars of a happy society involve the economy, culture, the environment, and good governance. Sounds like they're onto something. They've even managed to devise mathematical formulas to measure the components that make up the elusive mental state. Maybe we can learn something from this country with a population of just 700,000. The secret to happiness, perhaps?

Click here to read the entire article. What do you think of the idea of measuring Gross National Happiness? Please leave your thoughts in the Comments section.

Update on the Mars Chocolate Relief Act

Last Friday I told you about the Mars Chocolate Relief Act, a giant giveaway of chocolate to the first half million people who go to their website every Friday through September. Mars claims it's an effort to spread joy across America.

But then one of my readers wrote in and alerted me to this article, which details how companies like Mars and Nestle partially rely on child labor from the Ivory Coast in Africa to produce their chocolate. I was disturbed by the article and so I looked into the matter further this week.

First of all, I wrote the following email to Mars through their website:

"I registered for my free coupon last Friday and told my readers about it on my blog. A reader responded with a link to this article: (link from above) How do you respond to charges that you use child labor on your cocoa farms?"

The following day, I received an email that read: "Thank you. We have received your email and will respond to you in due course."

I haven't heard from them yet, but this exchange took place last Sunday, only four days ago. In the meantime, I've done a bit of google research and found that like most things in life, the truth isn't so easy to pin down.

It seems that activists have been pressuring the large chocolate companies about the issue of child labor since 2001. And just last month, Mars announced new sustainability commitments. Reading between the lines, they're basically taking baby steps towards doing the right thing. A spokesperson for the International Labor Rights Forum called it "an important first step toward sustainable cocoa farming, but not enough to ensure workers aren't exploited." You can read the entire article here.

So they're moving in the right direction, but it's still better to buy Fair Trade certified chocolate until they make that commitment. Whether you want to register for the free chocolate is up to you. I'm not going to promote it on my blog anymore, but I'm not necessarily committing to never eating those brands of chocolate again. But I WILL follow this story and I appreciate having my attention brought to the issue. I'm going to try to buy Fair Trade chocolate as often as possible. Oh, and one bit of good news is that Cadbury, my personal favorite, has announced it would seek Fair Trade certification by the end of the summer. Maybe Mars and Nestle will follow suit and we won't have to worry that our pleasure might be causing pain to little children halfway around the world. Not to get too political, but - does anyone really buy the extreme free market line that businesses don't need to be regulated and will always do the right thing? They need to have activists all over them for EIGHT YEARS just to get them to stop using child labor?

If you know anything about this controversy or have any ideas or opinions to share, please leave your thoughts in the Comments section.

Update on free chocolate Fridays

When I told you about the Mars Real Chocolate Relief Act last Friday, I thought I was doing a good thing. Spreading the word about free chocolate, what could be wrong with that? But a reader left me a comment that included this link to a story about how companies like Mars and Nestle use child labor on their cocoa farms. I was very disturbed by this article and since I believe in being a conscious consumer I wanted to bring it to your attention.

I admit I have heard of Fair-Trade chocolate, and it's usually the type I buy when I grab a bar at Trader Joe's, but I don't think I really knew exactly what it meant. I just had a vague idea that it meant the workers received a fair wage.

I certainly don't want to be subsidizing child labor, so I'm going to look into this before next Friday's giveaway and let you know what I find out.

Welcome Frugal Girl readers

I know a lot of you are new readers who were referred to me by The Frugal Girl and I just want to welcome you here. I am always happy to have new readers, because it means more ideas and interaction. The more the merrier!

Every day I'm learning so much about simple living, frugal living, and green living from people all over the Internet. And I'm so thrilled about how democratic the blogosphere is. If you like someone's blog, if there's something there that you can learn from or that you find useful or entertaining, you can go back. If you get annoyed or offended, you don't return.

And it's only in this incredibly open, democratic environment that I could have made these new friends. I would never have met The Frugal Girl in my regular life. She's a Christian, homeschooling mom and I'm an agnostic with no kids. Of course, those are only a few of the things that define who we are. But they're the kinds of things that demographers and marketers use to make us feel separate from each other in all those surveys and polls you're constantly reading about and hearing about on TV.

But through our blogs, we can meet through our shared interests. So it becomes about what we have in COMMON rather than what's DIFFERENT about us. I've had my blog less than four months and been reading hers for maybe two, and I've already learned so many new things from her. And she was part of the reason I've been so inspired to cut back on our food waste and cut our grocery bill at the same time.

So lately I feel like I've been living in a different reality than what the brief glimpses of TV news would have me believe the rest of the world is living. I know this recession is really hard on a lot of people, but I can't help but believe there's a silver lining in putting the brakes on the mass consumerism we've been witnessing for the past several decades. And for me this experiment of Buying Nothing New (The Compact) is turning out to be not about deprivation at all, but about abundance. I feel richer than ever - in friendships, and ideas, and experiences, and even in things. I've really come to believe that there will always be plenty of whatever I need. Because we are all so much more resourceful and creative than the people who want us to be consumers would have us believe.

So thanks for reading my blog, whether you're an old reader from way back in January, or whether you've just come by in the past few weeks. I'm happy you're here on this journey with me. Please leave your thoughts, questions, and ideas in the Comments section.

Stay married and save the planet?

I couldn't help noticing that provocative news headline yesterday. So how does being married help save the planet? According to Senator Steve Fielding from Australia, staying married is better for the planet because newly single people lead more wasteful lifestyles, so divorce makes climate change worse. He says that when people separate they need more space, more electricity, and more water, and that increases their carbon footprint. He says this proves that divorce isn't just a social problem, but an environmental one. According to Fielding, married couples live a more "resource-efficient lifestyle."

Fielding made his remarks at an Australian Senate hearing on environmental issues. I think there are some problems with his assumptions. I'm skeptical of his research and opinion because he's the leader of the independent Family First party and grew up in a family of 16 children. In my experience, at least here in the states, any group with the word "family" in the title is sort of code for "anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-liberal." Also even though I'm married, I was single for many years prior to moving in with my then-boyfriend, and I have lots of single friends. Blaming them for global warming seems beyond ridiculous. Further, there's the emphasis on marriage, when clearly his resource-efficiency argument would work just as well for couples who are living together. And finally, I love children, but surely married couples with children are leaving a larger carbon footprint than any singletons out there.

But he does have a small point, and that is that it's a fact that two can live cheaper, and therefore more efficiently, than one. I just don't think we have to bash singles to make that point. What do you think? Whether you're married or single, chime in with your opinion on how married couples or singles hurt or harm the climate crisis.

Am I unpatriotic?

George Bush infamously asked Americans to go shopping to show their patriotism and jumpstart the economy after 9/11. This morning the AP ran a story titled "Americans save just when economy needs their money." And I have been thinking about this whole question of how economies work and whether I'm going to be contributing to the problem. But it's not an easy questi0n to answer without getting an economics degree. Wait, I do have an economics degree, from way back in 1984, but I don't remember much about it. I wasn't really that interested in it even at the time.

The AP article says American's new frugality couldn't be happening at a worse time. They cite the "paradox of thrift": that what's good for individuals - spending less and saving more - is bad for the economy when everyone does it. But the article continues by quoting economists who say the amount of spending of the past two decades was unsustainable, fueled only by gains in home equity, which was an illusion.

My first thought is that we Americans operate in extremes. We've heard for decades that we don't save enough, and we're drowning in debt. I suppose now if everyone really started saving half their paycheck and not frequenting their local shops and restaurants, that might not be the best thing to get the economy back on track. But that's not going to happen. Wouldn't it be better if more people started saving for an emergency and not buying things they don't need on credit?

There's also the issue of short term versus long term. In the short term, the economy needs to get back on track and maybe we as consumers need to help out with that. But in the long term, we really need to focus on these issues of climate change and environmental damage and how we contribute to the problem with materialism and overconsumption. So I think that long term goal is even more important than the short term goal of fixing the current economic crisis. And I put the burden of that job more heavily on government, banks, and corporations, than I do on myself or consumers.

Finally, just because I'm not going to buy any Gap clothes or Pottery Barn accessories this year, it doesn't mean I'm not going to be contributing to the economy. For one thing, I still have to buy food and I'll still be going out to eat. And we're not giving up wine and beer, so Trader Joe's will be getting just as much of our business. Also, there are plenty of services I'll still be using- I see no reason to give up getting a haircut or going to the car wash occasionally. Going to the car wash uses much less water than doing it in your driveway. So in a way, the title of my blog is misleading. I'll still be spending, just not buying new stuff.

But this is an ongoing question I'll be exploring. My hunch is that the economy would do just fine if everyone cut back and saved responsibly and didn't go into debt. It's the Wall Street bandits and corporations that have been making huge profits that might feel it if people stop buying cashmere mittens and designer kittens. So I say not buying all their crap IS patriotic!

What do you think? Can the economy get back on track if people stop buying new stuff?