Hey Everyone. Here's a pretty long article by Wendell Berry about the way farming is done. I found it awesome (maybe because I'm from a farm). Comment on what you think about the article!
Renewing Husbandry
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Two Shades of Green
Point of View- Comment Magazine
Two shades of green
November 14, 2008 - David Greusel
Without a doubt, "green" has become a major trend in recent years. It is hard to pick up a magazine or newspaper without seeing one or more articles on global climate change, green living, or sustainability. North American Christians have seemingly been of two minds on the topic, which I will caricature broadly. One group, which we might call traditional evangelicals, believe global climate change to be another leftist excuse for world government, and tend to be dismissive of the green movement. The other group, associated with younger and "emergent" congregations, have grabbed hold of environmental stewardship as one of many important causes that the traditional church has overlooked in its singular quest to save souls.
My view is that both camps are partly right, and both partly wrong. I am going to attempt to sketch a picture of an appropriate, Christian response to the issue of environmental stewardship, recognizing that this view will seem skewed to perhaps a majority of readers. I am not going to address the issue of global climate change per se, because I am not an expert, and because even experts disagree.
The green movement, as commonly understood, embodies one idea I believe Christians should heartily endorse, and one I believe we should equally heartily reject.
Read the rest here.
Two shades of green
November 14, 2008 - David Greusel
Without a doubt, "green" has become a major trend in recent years. It is hard to pick up a magazine or newspaper without seeing one or more articles on global climate change, green living, or sustainability. North American Christians have seemingly been of two minds on the topic, which I will caricature broadly. One group, which we might call traditional evangelicals, believe global climate change to be another leftist excuse for world government, and tend to be dismissive of the green movement. The other group, associated with younger and "emergent" congregations, have grabbed hold of environmental stewardship as one of many important causes that the traditional church has overlooked in its singular quest to save souls.
My view is that both camps are partly right, and both partly wrong. I am going to attempt to sketch a picture of an appropriate, Christian response to the issue of environmental stewardship, recognizing that this view will seem skewed to perhaps a majority of readers. I am not going to address the issue of global climate change per se, because I am not an expert, and because even experts disagree.
The green movement, as commonly understood, embodies one idea I believe Christians should heartily endorse, and one I believe we should equally heartily reject.
Read the rest here.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
From No Impact Man (a secular guy who blogs about the environment) a blog post about evangelical Christians
Environmental resources for conservatives and evangelical Christians
I'm going to be on Laura Ingraham's conservative talk show at about 11:15 AM EST today. Call in and participate in the show by calling 1-800-876-4123).
I'm hoping we'll have a lot of visitors here on the blog from conservatives and Christians who are concerned with the stewardship of this great planet we have been blessed with (Welcome!). Treating our home with care and respect is neither a liberal nor conservative issue.
Creation care is a sanctity of human life issue.
Read the rest of the blog here
I'm going to be on Laura Ingraham's conservative talk show at about 11:15 AM EST today. Call in and participate in the show by calling 1-800-876-4123).
I'm hoping we'll have a lot of visitors here on the blog from conservatives and Christians who are concerned with the stewardship of this great planet we have been blessed with (Welcome!). Treating our home with care and respect is neither a liberal nor conservative issue.
Creation care is a sanctity of human life issue.
Read the rest of the blog here
Monday, February 9, 2009
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs--A Thing of the Past?
Fans of L.E.D.’s Say This Bulb’s Time Has Come
J.R. Krauza
When the Sentry Equipment Corporation in Oconomowoc, Wis., was considering how to light its new factory last year, the company’s president, Michael Farrell, decided to try something new: light emitting diodes, or L.E.D.’s.
Michael Nagle for The New York Times
“I knew L.E.D.’s were used in stoplights. I wondered why they can’t be used in buildings,” Mr. Farrell said. “So I went on a mission.”
What Mr. Farrell found was a light source that many of the biggest bulb manufacturers are now convinced will supplant incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent bulbs.
By lighting all of the building’s exterior and most of its interior with L.E.D.’s, Sentry spent $12,000 more than the $6,000 needed to light the facility with a mixture of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. But using L.E.D.’s, the company is saving $7,000 a year in energy costs, will not need to change a bulb for 20 years and will recoup its additional investment in less than two years.
“I’d do it again,” Mr. Farrell said. “It was a no-brainer.”
L.E.D. bulbs, with their brighter light and longer life, have already replaced standard bulbs in many of the nation’s traffic lights. Indeed, the red, green and yellow signals are — aside from the tiny blinking red light on a DVD player, a cellphone or another electronic device — probably the most familiar application of the technology.
But it is showing up in more prominent spots. The ball that descends in Times Square on New Year’s Eve is illuminated with L.E.D.’s. And the managers of the Empire State Building are considering a proposal to light it with L.E.D. fixtures, which would allow them to remotely change the building’s colors to one of millions of variations.
The nation’s Big Three of lighting — General Electric, Osram Sylvania and Royal Philips Electronics — are embracing a new era of more efficient technologies, like halogen, compact fluorescent and solid-state devices. Encouraged by legislation and the rising cost of energy, as well as concerns about greenhouse gases, consumers are swapping out incandescent bulbs.
The switch is forcing a fast change in strategy, as companies reposition their manufacturing lines. General Electric, for instance, said earlier this month that it was spinning off its unit that makes bulbs.
The bulb makers face a tough problem. Their businesses were built on customers who regularly replaced light bulbs. How do you make a profit when new lighting may commonly last 50 to 100 times as long as a standard bulb? Compact fluorescents, which use less than one-third the power and last up to 10 times as long as standard bulbs, have replaced incandescent bulbs in many homes and offices.
In some types of commercial buildings, L.E.D.’s are rapidly replacing older products. The industry seems convinced that new lower-cost L.E.D. bulbs, with their improved efficiency, will eventually become the chief substitutes for incandescent bulbs in homes.
L.E.D.’s, including new bulb types and applications, dominated the exhibits at Lightfair, the lighting industry’s annual trade event held in May in Las Vegas. Traditional tungsten bulbs were largely absent. L.E.D.’s were shown for street and parking lot lighting, under-counter lighting, residential bulb replacements and office lighting. They are being used in commercial refrigerators, as substitutes for fluorescents and for illuminating the outside of buildings, allowing for easy color changes. Television production studios are installing L.E.D.’s to save money and eliminate the need for climbing in the rafters to change bulbs or filters.
The problem, though, is the price. A standard 60-watt incandescent usually costs less than $1. An equivalent compact fluorescent is about $2. But in Europe this September, Philips, the Dutch company dealing in consumer electronics, health care machines and lighting, is to introduce the Ledino, its first L.E.D. replacement for a standard incandescent. Priced at $107 a bulb, it is unlikely to have more than a few takers.
“L.E.D. performance is there, but the price is not,” said Kevin Dowling, a Philips Lighting vice president and past chairman of the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance, an industry group that works with the Department of Energy. “Even at $10 to $15, consumers won’t buy L.E.D. bulbs,” Mr. Dowling said.
The L.E.D., a type of semiconductor, generates light when an electric current is passed through positive and negative materials. Energy is given off in the form of heat and light. Different colors and greater efficiency are created by altering the composition of the material. Typically, a compact fluorescent bulb uses about 20 percent of the energy needed for a standard bulb to create the same amount of light. Today’s L.E.D.’s use about 15 percent. Next-generation bulbs still in the labs do even better.
While compact fluorescents are beginning to replace standard light bulbs in many homes, lighting executives see those as an interim technology. They say the large size of the bulbs, the inability to dim many of them, the unpleasant color of the light and the five milligrams of mercury in each bulb will limit their appeal.
Philips is working to decrease the penetration of compact fluorescent bulbs. “We are not spending one dollar on research and development for compact fluorescents,” said Kaj den Daas, chairman and chief executive of Philips Lighting. Instead, the bulk of its R.& D. budget, which is 5.2 percent of the company’s global lighting revenue, is for L.E.D. research. Philips is betting the store on the L.E.D. bulbs, which it expects to represent 20 percent of its professional lighting revenue in two years.
Not everyone is sanguine about the technology’s future.
"L.E.D.'s will gain dominance in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting," said Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "I do not see a major step toward change in general illumination without transforming the infrastructure. To say L.E.D.’s will change everything, I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it is hype.”
Mr. Rea noted that work in the lab on compact fluorescents is creating versions that have improved color, start instantaneously and operate in cold temperatures.
Paul Gregory, the president of Focus Lighting, a New York-based lighting design firm, sees possibilities with L.E.D.’s that other technologies do not offer. He used L.E.D.’s to light the exterior of the Marcus Center in Milwaukee, recreating the look of a Georgia O’Keeffe painting, with continually changing colors.
“The Marcus Center lighting will require no maintenance for 15 years,” Mr. Gregory said. “That’s a dream for a lighting designer.”
But he does not expect standard bulbs to disappear totally. Just as the invention of the light bulb did not completely kill the candle and kerosene lamp markets, Mr. Gregory said, “there will always be a need for incandescent bulbs. They will never totally go away.”
“The way an incandescent bulb plays on the face on a Broadway makeup mirror,” he said, “you can never duplicate that.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 1, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about advances in light-emitting diodes paraphrased incorrectly from a comment by Mark Rea, director of the lighting research center at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, on the future of L.E.D.’s. Mr. Rea said he expected L.E.D.’s to take a dominant position in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting, though not in general illumination. He did not say he expected “limited success” for L.E.D.’s.
J.R. Krauza
When the Sentry Equipment Corporation in Oconomowoc, Wis., was considering how to light its new factory last year, the company’s president, Michael Farrell, decided to try something new: light emitting diodes, or L.E.D.’s.
Michael Nagle for The New York Times
“I knew L.E.D.’s were used in stoplights. I wondered why they can’t be used in buildings,” Mr. Farrell said. “So I went on a mission.”
What Mr. Farrell found was a light source that many of the biggest bulb manufacturers are now convinced will supplant incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent bulbs.
By lighting all of the building’s exterior and most of its interior with L.E.D.’s, Sentry spent $12,000 more than the $6,000 needed to light the facility with a mixture of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. But using L.E.D.’s, the company is saving $7,000 a year in energy costs, will not need to change a bulb for 20 years and will recoup its additional investment in less than two years.
“I’d do it again,” Mr. Farrell said. “It was a no-brainer.”
L.E.D. bulbs, with their brighter light and longer life, have already replaced standard bulbs in many of the nation’s traffic lights. Indeed, the red, green and yellow signals are — aside from the tiny blinking red light on a DVD player, a cellphone or another electronic device — probably the most familiar application of the technology.
But it is showing up in more prominent spots. The ball that descends in Times Square on New Year’s Eve is illuminated with L.E.D.’s. And the managers of the Empire State Building are considering a proposal to light it with L.E.D. fixtures, which would allow them to remotely change the building’s colors to one of millions of variations.
The nation’s Big Three of lighting — General Electric, Osram Sylvania and Royal Philips Electronics — are embracing a new era of more efficient technologies, like halogen, compact fluorescent and solid-state devices. Encouraged by legislation and the rising cost of energy, as well as concerns about greenhouse gases, consumers are swapping out incandescent bulbs.
The switch is forcing a fast change in strategy, as companies reposition their manufacturing lines. General Electric, for instance, said earlier this month that it was spinning off its unit that makes bulbs.
The bulb makers face a tough problem. Their businesses were built on customers who regularly replaced light bulbs. How do you make a profit when new lighting may commonly last 50 to 100 times as long as a standard bulb? Compact fluorescents, which use less than one-third the power and last up to 10 times as long as standard bulbs, have replaced incandescent bulbs in many homes and offices.
In some types of commercial buildings, L.E.D.’s are rapidly replacing older products. The industry seems convinced that new lower-cost L.E.D. bulbs, with their improved efficiency, will eventually become the chief substitutes for incandescent bulbs in homes.
L.E.D.’s, including new bulb types and applications, dominated the exhibits at Lightfair, the lighting industry’s annual trade event held in May in Las Vegas. Traditional tungsten bulbs were largely absent. L.E.D.’s were shown for street and parking lot lighting, under-counter lighting, residential bulb replacements and office lighting. They are being used in commercial refrigerators, as substitutes for fluorescents and for illuminating the outside of buildings, allowing for easy color changes. Television production studios are installing L.E.D.’s to save money and eliminate the need for climbing in the rafters to change bulbs or filters.
The problem, though, is the price. A standard 60-watt incandescent usually costs less than $1. An equivalent compact fluorescent is about $2. But in Europe this September, Philips, the Dutch company dealing in consumer electronics, health care machines and lighting, is to introduce the Ledino, its first L.E.D. replacement for a standard incandescent. Priced at $107 a bulb, it is unlikely to have more than a few takers.
“L.E.D. performance is there, but the price is not,” said Kevin Dowling, a Philips Lighting vice president and past chairman of the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance, an industry group that works with the Department of Energy. “Even at $10 to $15, consumers won’t buy L.E.D. bulbs,” Mr. Dowling said.
The L.E.D., a type of semiconductor, generates light when an electric current is passed through positive and negative materials. Energy is given off in the form of heat and light. Different colors and greater efficiency are created by altering the composition of the material. Typically, a compact fluorescent bulb uses about 20 percent of the energy needed for a standard bulb to create the same amount of light. Today’s L.E.D.’s use about 15 percent. Next-generation bulbs still in the labs do even better.
While compact fluorescents are beginning to replace standard light bulbs in many homes, lighting executives see those as an interim technology. They say the large size of the bulbs, the inability to dim many of them, the unpleasant color of the light and the five milligrams of mercury in each bulb will limit their appeal.
Philips is working to decrease the penetration of compact fluorescent bulbs. “We are not spending one dollar on research and development for compact fluorescents,” said Kaj den Daas, chairman and chief executive of Philips Lighting. Instead, the bulk of its R.& D. budget, which is 5.2 percent of the company’s global lighting revenue, is for L.E.D. research. Philips is betting the store on the L.E.D. bulbs, which it expects to represent 20 percent of its professional lighting revenue in two years.
Not everyone is sanguine about the technology’s future.
"L.E.D.'s will gain dominance in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting," said Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "I do not see a major step toward change in general illumination without transforming the infrastructure. To say L.E.D.’s will change everything, I don’t buy it. I think a lot of it is hype.”
Mr. Rea noted that work in the lab on compact fluorescents is creating versions that have improved color, start instantaneously and operate in cold temperatures.
Paul Gregory, the president of Focus Lighting, a New York-based lighting design firm, sees possibilities with L.E.D.’s that other technologies do not offer. He used L.E.D.’s to light the exterior of the Marcus Center in Milwaukee, recreating the look of a Georgia O’Keeffe painting, with continually changing colors.
“The Marcus Center lighting will require no maintenance for 15 years,” Mr. Gregory said. “That’s a dream for a lighting designer.”
But he does not expect standard bulbs to disappear totally. Just as the invention of the light bulb did not completely kill the candle and kerosene lamp markets, Mr. Gregory said, “there will always be a need for incandescent bulbs. They will never totally go away.”
“The way an incandescent bulb plays on the face on a Broadway makeup mirror,” he said, “you can never duplicate that.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 1, 2008
Because of an editing error, an article on Monday about advances in light-emitting diodes paraphrased incorrectly from a comment by Mark Rea, director of the lighting research center at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, on the future of L.E.D.’s. Mr. Rea said he expected L.E.D.’s to take a dominant position in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting, though not in general illumination. He did not say he expected “limited success” for L.E.D.’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=LED%20bulb&st=cse
Monday, February 2, 2009
It's on us now
Iowa's green energy policy struggle
By Scott Simon
BBC News, Iowa
The presence of prairie winds and rich soil makes Iowa literally fertile ground for developing alternative energy sources from wind turbines and biofuels.
But the landscape is also a reminder that achieving energy independence is a formidable challenge and making an agricultural economy green is not easy...
Full story.
By Scott Simon
BBC News, Iowa
The presence of prairie winds and rich soil makes Iowa literally fertile ground for developing alternative energy sources from wind turbines and biofuels.
But the landscape is also a reminder that achieving energy independence is a formidable challenge and making an agricultural economy green is not easy...
Full story.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Global warming threatens forests, study says
by: Azadeh Ansari 22 January 2009
Forests in the Pacific Northwest are dying twice as fast as they were 17 years ago, and scientists blame warming temperatures for the trend, according to a new study.
The study, to be released Friday in the journal Science, is the first large-scale analysis of environmental changes as contributing factors in the mortality of coniferous forests.
The data for this research was gathered by generations of scientists over a 50-year period at multiple sites in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and southwestern British Columbia. Seventy-six forest plots, all more than 200 years old, were monitored by scientists doing some of the most rudimentary research -- counting trees.
"It's not a happy story, but, an important one," said Phillip van Mantgem, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and the lead author of the study. "These are beautiful places. They do change and respond to their environment, sometimes quickly."
"If in your hometown where you live, the death rates of your friends and neighbors doubled and there are no compensating birth rates, wouldn't you want to figure out what's going on?" said Nathan Stephenson, research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the authors of the report.
The study primarily focused on three types of coniferous trees: pines, firs and hemlocks. Older-growth forests -- some up to 500 years old -- have trees of all ages, and researchers found that mortality rates have increased for all age groups. Since mortality rates went up across the board, scientists ruled out a number of other possible causes, including ozone-related air pollution, long-term effects of fire suppression and normal forest dynamics.
In the end, California had the highest tree death rate. Of the three types of coniferous trees studied, pines were found to be dying at the fastest rate. Ultimately, higher tree mortality may lead to significant shifts in forest structure and function, the report states.
"Much of the world's population in North America, Europe, most of China and large portions of Russia live near temperate forests, so what happens in these forests has global importance," said Jerry Franklin, a professor of forest resources at the University of Washington whose work was instrumental in maintaining the research plots.
"My guess is that forest loss has the potential to greatly exceed forest establishment," he added.
The new findings concern scientists who see the study as further confirmation of the harmful effects of climate change on ecosystems.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific intergovernmental body, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now at their highest levels for at least 650,000 years. Scientists on the panel say the increase began with the birth of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago.
The new research also suggests that as trees die, they actually emit more carbon than they absorb. Trees are key players in regulating climate because they convert carbon dioxide, which they store in their trunks and roots, to oxygen. Changes in climatic conditions or various diseases can cause the gradual dying of plant shoots.
"The concern here is that these might be early warning signs of dieback," said Stephenson.
Some scientists say that tree species unable to tolerate warmer conditions might just re-establish themselves in cooler areas. Given the speed at which warming appears to be occurring, it's not clear whether tree species will be able to migrate fast enough to survive, said van Mantgem of the U.S. Geological Survey.
"Warmer temperatures cause earlier summer droughts, less snow pack, and cause ideal breeding grounds for invasive species and pathogens," he added.
"One hypothesis is that warmer climates can make it easier for invasive species to reproduce and grow in these temperate forests. If the trees are already under a lot of environmental stress, they are more prone to serious insect attack," he said.
Scientists say forests in the Western U.S. have been increasingly damaged in recent years by invasive insect species such as the bark beetle -- a sign that rising temperatures are having an adverse effect. Bark beetles are known to attack trees already weakened by other environmental factors.
"Many of these beetles can only survive in cold temperatures, and it's getting warmer," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. Barnett authored a research paper linking drought conditions in the American West to increased human activity.
"It is perfectly reasonable to assume that this problem is going to get worse, not better," he said.
Forests in the Pacific Northwest are dying twice as fast as they were 17 years ago, and scientists blame warming temperatures for the trend, according to a new study.
The study, to be released Friday in the journal Science, is the first large-scale analysis of environmental changes as contributing factors in the mortality of coniferous forests.
The data for this research was gathered by generations of scientists over a 50-year period at multiple sites in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and southwestern British Columbia. Seventy-six forest plots, all more than 200 years old, were monitored by scientists doing some of the most rudimentary research -- counting trees.
"It's not a happy story, but, an important one," said Phillip van Mantgem, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and the lead author of the study. "These are beautiful places. They do change and respond to their environment, sometimes quickly."
"If in your hometown where you live, the death rates of your friends and neighbors doubled and there are no compensating birth rates, wouldn't you want to figure out what's going on?" said Nathan Stephenson, research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and one of the authors of the report.
The study primarily focused on three types of coniferous trees: pines, firs and hemlocks. Older-growth forests -- some up to 500 years old -- have trees of all ages, and researchers found that mortality rates have increased for all age groups. Since mortality rates went up across the board, scientists ruled out a number of other possible causes, including ozone-related air pollution, long-term effects of fire suppression and normal forest dynamics.
In the end, California had the highest tree death rate. Of the three types of coniferous trees studied, pines were found to be dying at the fastest rate. Ultimately, higher tree mortality may lead to significant shifts in forest structure and function, the report states.
"Much of the world's population in North America, Europe, most of China and large portions of Russia live near temperate forests, so what happens in these forests has global importance," said Jerry Franklin, a professor of forest resources at the University of Washington whose work was instrumental in maintaining the research plots.
"My guess is that forest loss has the potential to greatly exceed forest establishment," he added.
The new findings concern scientists who see the study as further confirmation of the harmful effects of climate change on ecosystems.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific intergovernmental body, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now at their highest levels for at least 650,000 years. Scientists on the panel say the increase began with the birth of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago.
The new research also suggests that as trees die, they actually emit more carbon than they absorb. Trees are key players in regulating climate because they convert carbon dioxide, which they store in their trunks and roots, to oxygen. Changes in climatic conditions or various diseases can cause the gradual dying of plant shoots.
"The concern here is that these might be early warning signs of dieback," said Stephenson.
Some scientists say that tree species unable to tolerate warmer conditions might just re-establish themselves in cooler areas. Given the speed at which warming appears to be occurring, it's not clear whether tree species will be able to migrate fast enough to survive, said van Mantgem of the U.S. Geological Survey.
"Warmer temperatures cause earlier summer droughts, less snow pack, and cause ideal breeding grounds for invasive species and pathogens," he added.
"One hypothesis is that warmer climates can make it easier for invasive species to reproduce and grow in these temperate forests. If the trees are already under a lot of environmental stress, they are more prone to serious insect attack," he said.
Scientists say forests in the Western U.S. have been increasingly damaged in recent years by invasive insect species such as the bark beetle -- a sign that rising temperatures are having an adverse effect. Bark beetles are known to attack trees already weakened by other environmental factors.
"Many of these beetles can only survive in cold temperatures, and it's getting warmer," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. Barnett authored a research paper linking drought conditions in the American West to increased human activity.
"It is perfectly reasonable to assume that this problem is going to get worse, not better," he said.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Fashion and stewardship
COMMENT MAGAZINE
POINT OF VIEW
Will it last? The good of well-crafted clothing
January 9, 2009 - Christina Crook
The word fashion likely conjures images of "heroin chic", glossy magazine covers and towering runway models. We live in an over-consuming culture. Much of the fashion industry exists at the pinnacle of frivolity in this culture.
But I would like to speak in fashion's defence. Fashion can be about stewardship—the choice to care about quality clothing.
It is understandably difficult to care about well-tailored slacks in a society where everything is disposable, but I believe in this uncertain economy, it serves us well to ask a simple question: "Will it last?"
It's a lesson my mother taught me at the spry age of fourteen on our semi-annual mom-and-daughter shopping trip. Late in the afternoon, we began our search for our final item: a camisole. In my mind's eye, six nice tank tops for the price of one would be the ultimate find. Sensible Mom, however, a woman who'd spent decades crafting homespun garments and selling fabric to the best of Vancouver's couturiers, was looking for just one long-lasting piece.
As we wove through the hordes of mall-goers, my eyes would jump from one sale to the next, not unlike a college student on a shoestring budget: a pair of jeans for $30, five T-shirts for $15, and so on. The key to any shopping trip is to maximize your dollar, and to my teenage self, more was best. When my mother tired of my picking through brightly coloured bins of cotton tops, she announced: "Enough! You're coming with me."
I followed her out of the store, and we walked back through the mall until we stood in a doorway I had never yet dared enter: the gateway to Canada's haughty home of haute couture, Holt Renfrew. As I gingerly stepped inside, the scent of Chanel and Givenchy perfume overwhelmed me. Handbags dazzled and sales associates scurried about as we climbed the escalator to our final destination: hosiery.
I stood bewildered as my mother spoke to a saleswoman, who disappeared for a few minutes before reappearing with a handful of items. She laid out several tank tops in respectable colours to try on—cream, and white, and the one on which I settled, a midnight black.
I glimpsed the price tag in the changing room. This single camisole would cost the same amount as a dozen of the ones through which I'd browsed earlier, together. I mentioned this to Mom, who responded in a tone to be heeded, "You will have this camisole for ten times longer than any other. When you pay for quality, that's what you're going to get."
Mom was right. Every brightly-colored tank met its end the following summer, but the black camisole my mom bought me over ten years ago remains a staple piece in my closet looking as new as ever. A reminder that, indeed, what you pay for, you get.
POINT OF VIEW
Will it last? The good of well-crafted clothing
January 9, 2009 - Christina Crook
The word fashion likely conjures images of "heroin chic", glossy magazine covers and towering runway models. We live in an over-consuming culture. Much of the fashion industry exists at the pinnacle of frivolity in this culture.
But I would like to speak in fashion's defence. Fashion can be about stewardship—the choice to care about quality clothing.
It is understandably difficult to care about well-tailored slacks in a society where everything is disposable, but I believe in this uncertain economy, it serves us well to ask a simple question: "Will it last?"
It's a lesson my mother taught me at the spry age of fourteen on our semi-annual mom-and-daughter shopping trip. Late in the afternoon, we began our search for our final item: a camisole. In my mind's eye, six nice tank tops for the price of one would be the ultimate find. Sensible Mom, however, a woman who'd spent decades crafting homespun garments and selling fabric to the best of Vancouver's couturiers, was looking for just one long-lasting piece.
As we wove through the hordes of mall-goers, my eyes would jump from one sale to the next, not unlike a college student on a shoestring budget: a pair of jeans for $30, five T-shirts for $15, and so on. The key to any shopping trip is to maximize your dollar, and to my teenage self, more was best. When my mother tired of my picking through brightly coloured bins of cotton tops, she announced: "Enough! You're coming with me."
I followed her out of the store, and we walked back through the mall until we stood in a doorway I had never yet dared enter: the gateway to Canada's haughty home of haute couture, Holt Renfrew. As I gingerly stepped inside, the scent of Chanel and Givenchy perfume overwhelmed me. Handbags dazzled and sales associates scurried about as we climbed the escalator to our final destination: hosiery.
I stood bewildered as my mother spoke to a saleswoman, who disappeared for a few minutes before reappearing with a handful of items. She laid out several tank tops in respectable colours to try on—cream, and white, and the one on which I settled, a midnight black.
I glimpsed the price tag in the changing room. This single camisole would cost the same amount as a dozen of the ones through which I'd browsed earlier, together. I mentioned this to Mom, who responded in a tone to be heeded, "You will have this camisole for ten times longer than any other. When you pay for quality, that's what you're going to get."
Mom was right. Every brightly-colored tank met its end the following summer, but the black camisole my mom bought me over ten years ago remains a staple piece in my closet looking as new as ever. A reminder that, indeed, what you pay for, you get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)