Food waste, and food in landfills, is a significant problem, in many ways, and an easy path towards more sustainable living is to reduce or eliminate food going to landfills. Composting is a great alternative and is commonly done in many places. This has traditionally been done in a variety of ways, including, among others:
city or municipal compost pick up ie where compost is put into a bin, which is picked up weekly, the same as recycling bins or other items that might be put into this type of system.
However, for many people, none of these options are available, or easy to use. There is now a transformative new way to deal with food scraps and other compostable items, all from the convenience of your kitchen!
Looking for other ways to make simple switches towards greater sustainability? Check out the website for more great options, including plant-based foods, zero-waste replacements for common items and so much more! Know others who might be interested? Please share with them as well – thank you!
For the next while, we will be focusing on sustainable holidays. There are a lot of decisions/plans etc to make around the holidays, and not all decisions are easy, clear or straightforward. For today, we’re looking at holiday and year-end donations, although these guidelines apply to all year-round giving, as well.
If you are anything like me, your email inbox is getting overloaded with asks from various NGOs, political parties, faith groups etc, asking for a year-end donation (in addition to phone call asks for money etc.) Sometimes, it’s easy to sort out how to manage all of the requests, and sometimes it can get a bit muddy. So, today, we’re going to talk about some of the red flags and how to make sure that the projects you are donating to are deserving of your donation. In general, these will show up more often in really small organizations, but big organizations can have challenges, as well.
So, here’s a quick (but not exhaustive) list of things to check for before sending off a donation, using an email request (one of many) that I received recently as a case study (in this case asking for funds for an extremely large capital campaign, from a very small organization):
Email received – Check how often the org emails me, and how often they are asking for $.
Answer: Only a handful of short emails per year, and all are asking for $.
Result: Fail
What to Look For: Regular communication and updates on programming etc, going well beyond asks for $.
Website Check – After reading the email, I checked the website.
Answer: The website has not been maintained in any way. Basic pages are up, but most/all pages are basically empty, because the website has not been maintained. Given that the org is asking for donations for a very large capital campaign, this is very problematic. If the org can’t even maintain a basic website, how can they handle large sums of money? What does this gap say about their ability to run effective programming?
Result: Fail
What to Look For: Well designed website, appropriate for the size of the org and the projects being funded. Clear, concise info, easy to navigate.
Overall Transparency and Financial Accountability: With the website and other checks, I’m also checking for accountability and transparency
Answer: There are no budgets, annual reports or any other transparency/accountability measures shown anywhere. It appears that funds received are not accounted for, to the public in any way.
Result: Fail
What to Look For: This piece is really important, and often undervalued in poorly run orgs. (Note: For orgs that are not registered to give tax receipts or acting as a charitable org etc, naturally, some of these rules are a bit different). This, in my opinion, is a significant red flag that funds should not be given.
Contact info and Org Structure: In addition to the basic website info, I’m looking for easy ways to get in touch with senior leadership, board etc. to help ensure that the org is accountable to the public.
Answer: Nobody other than the Exec Director is listed on the website. Given that the website is poorly maintained, the board and others are not named, and the other issues, it does not give confidence that contacting the ED through the website would result in a meaningful and timely reply.
Result: Fail
What to Look For: Senior Leadership, staff, board etc named and with contact info (eg an email address associated with the org). Reasonable term limits etc are also important. Watch out to see if the same person(s) is in a senior position for 15-20+ years at a time, especially in a small org (instead of transitioning by 10-15 max) – as that’s a red flag for other challenges. The org is at high risk of not successfully managing the transition to the next director, and may end up closing down in the relatively near future, which has implications for your donor dollars.
Others – This is not an exhaustive list, but is a good start for evaluating end or year (or anytime of the year) support for orgs (particularly small orgs) that might be asking for help, whether financial, volunteer time or other.
Summary: Naturally, in this case, I will not be sending a donation to this organization. I would advise them, if I were their consultant, to drop the large capital campaign and spend their time building up a well-designed website, developing a clear and consistent communications plan with a strong senior leadership team, ensuring that the basic work of transparency and accountability happens every year (eg annual reports, budgets etc), creating a meaningful fundraising plan with an appropriately sized donor base and so on. It’s much better to have a well-designed program in a smaller building than a huge building with poorly designed organizational structures. Ultimately, donors give to support impact first, not for a shiny new building.
………………………
Online Store: There are new, sustainable items being added to the online store every day! Check out the website for more details!
…………………….
How to Support Menno Adventures: All of the resources that we share here are free, and we do not charge for access to anything (except for consulting services, naturally.). If you find that these tools and resources are valuable, and would like to support this work, any donation, large or small, is greatly appreciated. Details on the website. Thank you!
After a bit of a break over the summer, things are moving along quickly here again – and Sept is being launched with a new addition to the online store! Mellow compostable phone cases are now available, along with all of your other favourite, sustainable and zero waste items!
(NOTE: Due to some tech issues, there may be delays with sharing this to IG. Apologies in advance. We hope to get it sorted out soon!)
Whatever you are looking for as we start another year, the online store has it!
Tech
Zero waste items
Clothing
Kitchen Items
Plant-based food
Bathroom and Laundry Supplies
and more!
Not sure what you are looking for? Browse through the store and see what is available. There might be a sustainable solution that you didn’t even know was an option!
This is a fascinating (if also slightly depressing) bit of research from the Guardian, with implications that go far beyond luggage design. and well into how we live sustainably – with each other, and with the planet. So, it turns out that wheels on suitcases – as obvious as it seems as a design – was held back, for far too long, because of negative gender stereotypes. Short answer: men are strong enough to carry a suitcase themselves, and women will only ever travel somewhere if there is a man with them (husband or other) to carry their bags for them. Therefore, the theory goes, there is no reason to have wheels on bags, since they would only be used by women who are travelling without a male… Seems that the goal was not to make it easier for women to be independent, and, in fact, the goal seems to have been pretty openly opposite – or at minimum, along with other items, was seen as an unworthy use of time/resources etc.
Two assumptions about gender were at work here. The first was that no man would ever roll a suitcase because it was simply “unmanly” to do so. The second was about the mobility of women. There was nothing preventing a woman from rolling a suitcase – she had no masculinity to prove. But women didn’t travel alone, the industry assumed. If a woman travelled, she would travel with a man who would then carry her bag for her. This is why the industry couldn’t see any commercial potential in the rolling suitcase. It took more than 15 years for the invention to go mainstream, even after Sadow had patented it.
From this starting point, the research goes on to point out countless other ways in which the contributions (and preferences) of men have dominated society – even when it’s detrimental, not just to society as a whole, but directly to the men impacted by their individual choices.
For example, many of us may have heard that EVs were designed long ago, but gas powered vehicles became more common, leading to a long period of dominance for gas over EVs. The part that was new to me, in this research, is that there was a gendered component to this, as well.
The rolling suitcase is far from the only example. When electric cars first emerged in the 1800s they came to be seen as “feminine” simply because they were slower and less dangerous. This held back the size of the electric car market, especially in the US, and contributed to us building a world for petrol-driven cars. When electric starters for petrol-driven cars were developed they were also considered to be something for the ladies. The assumption was that only women were demanding the type of safety measures that meant being able to start your car without having to crank it at risk of injury. Ideas about gender similarly delayed our efforts to meet the technological challenges of producing closed cars because it was seen as “unmanly” to have a roof on your car. (Bold mine)
As the author goes on to point out, this tendency in society, to give preference to things which are actually not in our own – collective – best interest, manifests in countless ways. We know that this is our history – and often part of our present. So, know that we know it’s an area where we tend to slip up (fairly catastrophically, at times), the next step is to own our mistakes, admit that we need to do better, and work hard at creating active, positive change.
What might that look like, for different people/circumstances?
switching to a (partly or fully), plant-based diet
getting rid of the gas-powered vehicle (as soon as is reasonably possible) and switching to other options
using legs, bikes and public transit more, and a personal vehicle less
buying/owning fewer consumer goods and being content with less
using zero waste products, instead of single use alternatives
downsizing to a smaller living space
less overtime at work (when financially possible) and more time with family/friends/community/volunteering etc (NOTE: This is in reference specifically to working unnecessary overtime to maintain an expensive, high end house/lifestyle etc. eg if you could downsize your house/lifestyle etc by 25-50+% and still have plenty of room for everyone, this one might apply to you…)
flying less, even when pandemic restrictions open up and allow greater opportunities
Other?
The sustainability of our planet, and how we care for each other, locally and globally, is critical – and far too important to get overtaken with outdated and gendered notions of what good choices look like. We can do better, together. 😃
……………………………
Looking for sustainable, plant-based or zero-waste info or items? Check out the MennoAdventures website and online store!
CBC Keith Baybayon says he struggled with self-acceptance as he reconciled his sexual identity with his Catholic faith. He says flying the Pride flag at his school will help LGBTQ students feel more included and safe. (Jared Thomas/CBC )
Although this is only a small step in the right direction, it is worth celebrating. At the same time, there is still a shocking level of resistance – within the Ontario Catholic system and in other places, to a move as modest as flying a flag to demonstrate inclusion. For the record, the “faith-based” resistance to full acceptance of our LGBTQ+ members is not new, and it’s not something I am going to use space articulating here (but it is cited in the article, above). I’m sure that we’ve all heard it before, and the focus here is on how to move forward, more positively, not on giving space to outdated and discriminatory ideas.
So, in order to help transform the conversation from negative, to positive, I (along with countless others that are working for more inclusive faith groups), would like to suggest the following as a reframing of how we view our faith and actions, for ourselves, and others:
Instead of the too-often used, traditional, inaccurate and discriminatory stance:
“My faith tells me, based on centuries old (mis)understandings of gender and sexuality, that you – and your basic core identifiers, or what you do with your body – are wrong, and I am right. For me to live true to my faith, I need you to change who you are, in order for me to tolerate you.”
Let’s switch to:
“My faith tells me to love my neighbour, so I am called to accept and embrace the diversity (including gender, sexuality and many other things) that we all bring, without judgement or prejudice.”
“My faith tells me to be a good neighbour, so I am called to serve others, instead of demanding that others change their core identity to appease me.”
“My faith tells me that if I own two coats, and my neighbour has none, I should share – so therefore, I am called to give up my big house and move somewhere smaller, live simply, share my wealth, support a universal basic income and work to end wealth inequality in the world.”
“My faith tells me to care for creation, so I am called to stop eating animal products, use zero waste instead of single use products, switch away from my gas vehicle as soon as possible, and vote for governments that take the climate crisis seriously.”
My faith tells me to not kill others, so I am called to actively support peacebuilding instead of militaries, not own a gun, ensure that I am not glorifying war or weapons in any way, and actively vote in governments that show love to our global neighbours instead of engaging in war.”
“My faith tells me to live at peace with others, so I am called to learn the history of racism and discrimination in the world, locally and globally, and actively work to deconstruct any misperceptions I may have about systemic racism in our world. Likewise, I am called to actively welcome refugees and other newcomers with open arms.”
and so on…
Or, in the super-simplified form…
“My/our faith calls me/us to be better global citizen(s), and to serve others, without discrimination. One of the worst things we can do is latch on to the misguided idea that all we need to do is force someone else to change who they are (“be straight instead of LQBTQ+”, “don’t get an abortion”, “don’t be a refugee”…) and then that will be our ticket into heaven. Over and over, in countless faith traditions, we are called to change our own actions (giving up our own wealth, serving the poor and refugees, giving up our own power and status) instead of forcing change on others, especially on aspects of core identity, that break modern anti-discrimination laws in many countries. God calls us to give up our own privilege and wealth, (which is very hard to do), instead of demanding that others change who they are to appease us.”
So, with that, let’s get Pride Month going!😀
More info:
Taking a stand for her father and her family, she’s raising the Pride flag at her former Catholic school – CBC
…………………………………..
Looking for zero-waste, plant-based or sustainable items? Check out the MennoAdventures online store! There are always lots of great deals to be found, with our many amazing partners! Happy browsing!
Some of you may remember hearing parts of his story several years ago. Now, Hassan Al Kontar has written a book about his experience, since he was welcomed into Canada as a refugee. I haven’t read the book yet, but it is on my e-reader, waiting for me to start (hopefully soon!)
Here is a bit of an update – and his perspective on what he has learned, as a refugee, and in a pandemic.
A group of volunteers, headed by Laurie Cooper of Whistler, B.C., learned about Al Kontar’s plight and organized on his behalf.
Cooper dubbed herself Al Kontar’s “Canadian mom.” She crowdsourced money for him, helped him navigate the asylum system, lobbied the government and co-ordinated with air travellers around the world to hook him up with food, money and supplies — including, of course, his much beloved coffee.
“They restored my faith in humanity,” he said.
……………….
“That’s why my story is not only the Syrian war story. It’s also [about] a country called Canada and people called Canadians,” he said. “Because of them, I am now permanently safe.”
In addition to working on and speaking on refugee related issues, now that he is safely settled in Canada, Al Kontar has also spoken with the CBC of the impacts of the pandemic, and the related restrictions, especially as they started relatively soon after he had arrived in Canada.
The key to resilience and survival, he says, lies in having empathy for others. During the first couple of weeks of the pandemic, Al Kontar opened his door to find a bag of snacks that an anonymous person had left for him. He took this as an inspiration to volunteer at a food bank.
“If we are going to manage to beat this virus it’s through this kind of behaviour,” he said. (Bold mine)
It is imperative that we change our systems (including ending wars, actively and seriously addressing our climate crisis etc), so that people are never forced to flee their homes, and make difficult choices. At the same time, there remain countless reasons why people may want to – or need to – leave and resettle somewhere else. It is, without a doubt, our job to welcome others with open arms, every time. It is the right thing to do, and we need to find ways to be welcoming and inclusive, every time. 😀
More details:
BBC Hassan al-Kontar: Who is the man trapped in an airport helping now?
Globe: I was a Syrian refugee, trapped in an airport. Now, Canada is my home – and this is what that means to me
…………………………………..
Looking for zero-waste, plant-based or sustainable items? Check out the MennoAdventures online store! There are always lots of great deals to be found, with our many amazing partners! Happy browsing!
The Guardian: ‘Not anti-beef but pro-planet’: recipe website reveals it secretly took cows off the menu.
Interesting update here from a food/recipe website. (Full disclosure – I am not specifically familiar with this food website, and have not specifically tracked their work in the past, although it appears to have a fairly extensive catalogue of recipes, and a significant user base.) They stopped adding/promoting recipes that contain beef – although some older recipes will remain visible for the time being.
The food website Epicurious will no longer feature beef in its recipes, in an effort to help drive more sustainable consumption.
The decision to cut cows from the menu was announced on Monday, but the organisation is confident readers will not miss the meat – because it actually made the change a year ago and has not published a beef recipe since.
……..
“We know that some people might assume that this decision signals some sort of vendetta against cows – or the people who eat them. But this decision was not made because we hate hamburgers (we don’t!). Instead, our shift is solely about sustainability, about not giving airtime to one of the world’s worst climate offenders. We think of this decision as not anti-beef but rather pro-planet.” (Bold mine).
One of the interesting pieces with this change is that it was made a year ago, without an announcement, and they have been watching the results, which have been positive over this test period. Their conclusion: people want great recipes – regardless of whether they have red meat in them or not. Not sure if they are planning on testing this theory further, but I would guess (and would love to see the data) on what would happen if they continue to shift their focus toward vegetarian and vegan recipes – which appears to perhaps be in their future.Some hints on their website appear to suggest that dairy may be the next to get cut, but that is only speculation, at this point.
If their followers simply love great recipes, what might they (and countless other recipe websites) offer if they switched – either further or completely – to plant-based recipes?
Exclusive: documents seen by Guardian show companies fought clean-air rules despite being aware of harm caused by air pollution Guardian
As with the climate crisis, further documentation has emerged that demonstrates that the fossil fuel industry knew – at least 50 years ago (before I was even born) – that their products cause significant negative health impacts. Despite that, they have spent decades not only continuing to produce something that is known to be harmful, but actively fighting against regulations.
The documents, which include internal memos and reports, show the industry was long aware that it created large amounts of air pollution, that pollutants could lodge deep in the lungs and be “real villains in health effects”, and even that its own workers may be experiencing birth defects among their children.
But these concerns did little to stop oil and gas companies, and their proxies, spreading doubt about the growing body of science linking the burning of fossil fuels to an array of health problems that kill millions of people around the world each year. Echoing the fossil-fuel industry’s history of undermining of climate science, oil and gas interests released a torrent of material aimed at raising uncertainty over the harm caused by air pollution and used this to deter US lawmakers from placing further limits on pollutants.
And yet, despite the overwhelmingly negative impacts of fossil fuel use -for people and the planet – not only are we not doing everything in our power to end the fossil fuel industry’s damage, nationally and globally, we are still actively subsidizing the very industry that is causing so much damage. So, things need to change – and this is not a “tweak around the edges” kind of change, but rather a complete, top to bottom systems change. Fossil fuel producers know that they are causing harm, and are actively taking massive public subsidies (direct and indirect) to continue to do things that cause harm. Essentially, we, as taxpayers, are paying them to cause harm, and then paying again to clean up the mess that they made. A radical systems change is needed (and should have started 50+ years ago, when the harm was first known.)
Among other changes, one of the most basic is to stop paying others to harm us, and require that companies (and others) pay the full price for their pollution, while actively supporting more positive options.
Clearly, pricing the negative consequences of fossil fuels, especially carbon dioxide, is critical. “If fuel prices had been set at fully efficient levels in 2015, estimated global CO2 emissions would have been 28 percent lower, fossil fuel air pollution deaths 46 percent lower, tax revenues higher by 3.8 percent of global GDP, and net economic benefits (environmental benefits less economic costs) would have amounted to 1.7 percent of global GDP,” according to the IMF report.
I firmly believe that we can’t fix what we don’t acknowledge. Denying the scale and scope of a problem does not help us get to a solution. In this case, fully understanding the scale to which some governments and major corporations are actively working against humanity is the first step towards positive change. With this info, we are now better equipped to:
take individual action to reduce our own carbon footprint
work in our communities and groups to collectively reduce our carbon footprint
actively work to elect governments that are serious about tackling the climate crisis at a national and global level.
All problems are solvable, and we can do this, too, if we work together to create the positive future that we all want for future generations.
Further reading:
Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion: We can’t take on climate change without properly pricing coal, oil, and natural gas. But it’s a huge political challenge. VOX
The Guardian: UN secretary general urges all countries to declare climate emergencies.
BBC News: Climate change: ‘Default effect’ sees massive green energy switch.
…………………………………..
There are always lots of amazing deals on sustainable, zero-waste items in my online store! Check the website for details!
Out of the many tragedies that have emerged from this pandemic, one of the few silver linings is the possibility that, once we have demonstrated the ability to completely shut down and restart our societies, we will, collectively, use that towards restarting in a manner that is safe and sustainable, for people and the planet. The power to do so is in our hands – all we have to do is make the choice, individually and collectively. The data could not be more clear – we know what we need to do, and we know how to do it.
US urged to cut 50% of emissions by 2030 to spur other countries to action Guardian
Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals – study Guardian
NYTimes: Volvo Plans to Sell Only Electric Cars by 2030 NYT
Carbon dioxide emissions must fall by the equivalent of a global lockdown roughly every two years for the next decade for the world to keep within safe limits of global heating, research has shown. (Bold mine).
Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6bn tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1bn and 2bn tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement.
Changes of this scale, as with the pandemic, are multi-faceted, including individual actions (eg wearing masks, staying home when needed to protect ourselves and others), governmental (eg clear public health orders, income support as needed), business (eg switching to curbside pickup or work from home, where applicable). Likewise, for the climate crisis, we need all levels and sectors involved, doing everything possible to get us to where we need to be.
So, in the most immediate term, reducing our emissions by 50%+ over the next few years (and then further after that) is not a small task. How are we going to get there, and what actions can we take, starting today, to get us there, in each sector?
Reducing the size of our home by 50% will reduce our heating/cooling emissions in half (as a rough estimate, simply because we have less space to heat/cool). If, by extension, we also own less stuff, there are emissions reductions (and other gains) to be found there, as well.
Switching from an animal-based diet to a whole-foods, plant-based diet has a significant impact (exact % depends on what you were eating before, and whether you switch fully or partly to plant-based etc)
Living in a higher density area helps reduce driving-related emissions, as more day-today trips are within walking distance (as does using public transit or an EV when you aren’t walking or biking)
Significantly reducing or eliminating flights will take out a significant emissions source, depending on how much you were flying before and how much you reduce. Before flying, consider whether the flight is essential or not.
Electing governments that are serious about tackling the climate crisis
Supporting businesses that are working to tackle the climate crisis (zero waste and others) instead of business-as-usual
Countless others – far too many to list here. 🙂
Naturally, different people will tackle things in their own order – and for someone who already lives in a small home in a high density area, downsizing is obviously not the place to start. However, most of us have room to improve, and places to start. What changes have you already made? Which are you interested in trying next? Which are you most curious about? Which do you think will be easier or more challenging?
We’re all in this together, so let’s help each other out, and build a better future for everyone!
…………………………………….
There are always lots of amazing deals on sustainable, zero-waste items in my online store! Check the website for details!
It is shocking (and quite disturbing) to me, that some faith groups still believe that they are called to a mandate of exclusion, instead of inclusion, on any of a wide number of otherwise protected identifiers, including gender and sexuality. Over and over, to the best of my knowledge, faith group and their major texts call for love of neighbour, welcome of the stranger, living simply and service to others. Nothing in that suggests, or allows, discrimination based on who we are at our core, or an acceptance of destruction of creation. And yet, some faith groups still fight for the right to discriminate, and avoid talking serious action on the climate crisis – and it must end.
Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide
At a time when we are facing multiple global crises (including a pandemic and a climate crisis), faith groups should be leaders, setting an example of how to care for all of creation – including all people, animals, and the environment. Instead, some groups still put their energy into excluding others, and denying women the right to a full range of reproductive health services, as though that is the way to a better world for everyone.
A justification that I sometimes hear from others is that something can be found somewhere in one’s ancient texts to justify discrimination. In response, I would suggest that many people only take texts literally on things that are life-limiting for others, without requiring us to change ourselves. I’m suggesting a different approach (along with countless others).
Want to take the Bible or other ancient texts literally? How about focusing on the countless times that we are told not to accumulate wealth? Living simply requires a lot more from us than telling someone else how we think they should live their lives.
Think swapping out “My faith says that you should be straight” and replacing it with “My faith says that I should be less wealthy, live in a smaller home, eat more lentils, help others more, create less garbage and drive less often.”
Likewise, the admonition to not kill or steal features in many faith texts: how about putting our energy into banning militaries and the theft of natural resources (and extreme wealth discrepancies, locally and globally) that is contributing to climate change? The list could go on and on…
For faith groups to be relevant into the future, we need to, collectively, move beyond this idea that we can live our own lives as we wish, while excluding others, and destroying the planet. We can, and must do better, together. We can do it. 🙂
