A few years ago I read a book by Charles Mann, The Wizard and the Prophet. Mann proposes two competing theories of environmentalism, theories which have gone on to shape every environmental movement or policy for the past 50 years in one way or another.

The Wizard refers to Norman Borlaug whose innovative farming and breeding practices dramatically increased crop yields in both corn and rice. It is not an overstatement to say that Norman Borlaug provided food for an additional billion people on the planet. Borlaug refused to believe that famines were inevitable and that the resources on Earth could be so easily depleted. He combined on his agrarian upbringing and his academic research to drastically change the way human beings thought about farming altering Earth's perceived carrying capacity in the process.

The Prophet, William Vogt, was an ornithologist who began his career studying bird populations in South America. Quite the opposite of Borlaug, Vogt believed that the growth in the food supply was linear while population growth was exponential. And at a rapidly approaching point Earth would reach its carrying capacity leading to global catastrophes.

It should be noted that neither of these men considered themselves wizards or prophets, and frankly they did not create these ideologies, or likely even think much about the other (although almost contemporaries Borlaug gained much of his recognition after Vogt died). Mann just uses both world views as an illustration for the broader pull in modern environmentalism.

On the one hand we have wizards who drive electric cars, install solar panels and are interested in off-shore algae farming. On the other hand there are those who believe that the only solution is to stop growth, to put the breaks on capitalism, to embrace a vegan diet and save the earth by elimination rather than innovation. Wizards are not conservationists by nature, rather than hitting the breaks the wizards are frantically figuring out how we can extend the runway or put wings on the car before we hit the cliff, and so far they've been able to sort it out. But as I've already written eventually the cliff growth can not be constant.

Both view points have a lot of appeal, and when I read the book I went back and forth between optimism of the Wizards and the pessimism of the Prophets, but I kept landing on the side of the Prophets. As I read the chapters on wind, solar and nuclear, energy I found myself agreeing with the Wizards. But then I realized that natural gas was part of the energy solutions the Wizards gave us. Borlaug was the father of what is called the "green revolution" which fed billions but left behind a legacy of over fertilization, destructive algae blooms and an ever increasing cycle of depleted soils. I don't say this to detract at all from Borlaug he was an amazing man who perhaps more-so than anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but it is important to realize that while we can stretch our resources, there are always consequences. With that realization also came the clarity, I was firmly in the prophet camp.

The choices I had already made before reading the book put me strongly in the prophet camp. A vegetarian diet is, by definition, a Prophetic diet. I've since moved to a vegan diet. This year, this experiment, this blog is the epitome of Prophet thinking. Wizards don't "consume less" they consume smarter. This resonates with me, I do think we can make more sustainable products, I do think we can feed more people with less land but I also think that we can't do any of that moving in the direction we currently are at the speed we currently are. We can't continue to eat meat with every meal, have two SUVs in every driveway (frankly even having a yard with a driveway is asking a lot) and give 10 billion people a good standard of living. We need to make a drastic u-turn and fast. This viewpoint is inherently that of a Prophet.

The Wizard and the Prophet is worth a read, and frankly the problems our planet faces will be solved by a combination of Elon Musk type Wizardry and Greta Thunberg like prophecy. In the end we are all on the same spaceship but it is important to realize, ideologically where you stand.

A large part of this blog is to hold ourselves accountable.  In that vein, I'm writing to give an update on the bank switch.  Earlier this year I committed to switching away from RBC. I was dismayed to find that my bank, RBC, is Canada's largest financier of oil and gas projects. They have shown a wanton disregard for both the climate and aboriginal rights by continuing to fund pipelines. Since I initially wrote about this bank switch back in February RBC has released a laughable set of climate action items, that I've already noted, deal more with how RBC plans to profit from the climate crisis rather than fight it.  

So how did I do?  Tomorrow is Earth Day, did I make it in time?  The short answer is no.  Regrettably, I am still an RBC customer.  However, I have opened checking and savings accounts at a tiny credit union called Kindred that prides themselves on ethical lending. I have applied to have my daughter's RESP transferred from RBC to Kindred.  I've switched our family credit cards over to accounts with Kindred and have drained the bulk of our funds at RBC.  

The big holdouts at this point are the RESP, and my payment situation (my employer is a small US company that transfers money into a US RBC account which I then bring up to Canada via RBC). I expect the RESP to be resolved any day now, the payment situation may still take a month or two but I am actively looking for a solution.

Switching banks is a massive hassle, but unlike the other hassles I deal with (being April, taxes come to mind) I felt something pushing me forward as I called multiple credit unions sent letters to RBC and filled out applications. My impact leaving RBC is a small one, but every day more and more people are making the switch, every day there is more and more pressure for RBC to reconsider and it won't stop tomorrow. The 2021 Bank Switch was a goal to move away from large oil and gas funders by Earth Day but this is really just the beginning, like almost every other industry there is going to be a reckoning in banking and this is just the beginning.  I would strongly encourage you to look into the projects your bank is willing to fund and consider switching to a green bank.

Lead image is from a protest I attended back in July of 2019 petitioning banks to defund oil and gas projects. They don't really listen to customers unless they leave.

I've been thinking about this challenge for sometime, years actually, but made a firm resolve in December.  Being COVID, perhaps I let myself off the hook a little bit Not much for online shopping,  going out less naturally means less exposure to things to buy.  However, I thought this year would be opportune; optimistically, I was hoping for a vaccine and a chance of getting out a bit more. Wanting to be the change I wished to see in the world: rather than going back to our old patterns of mindless consumerism I thought it would be good to start with a clean slate valuing creation over consumption.

Three months in things haven't been difficult at all. Most of our purchasing has been spring/summer clothes for our daughter all of which has been thrifted (per the rules).  I purchased a proper office chair in February, and buying used is the way to go in that department (I saved some $600). Aside from these few items we haven't needed anything, let alone anything new.

That's always the case though, we don't really need much of anything, and even less of it new. Once you hop off the treadmill you begin to realize just how rich life can be without a price tag.

photo Crawford Jolly

I've banked with the Royal Bank of Canada, RBC, since I first got a bank account, about half my life.  The service has been exceptional and the product offering has fulfilled all of my needs which, as a frequent border hopper/resident can be somewhat more complex than the average banking needs. However, this year I have started switching all my banking services over to a tiny credit union called Kindred.  Why?

A few months back I was made aware of a movement called the BankSwitch which aims to send a message to Canada's largest banks, who all score horribly on the Rainforest Action Network's climate funding report.  None of Canada's big five banks have good marks but RBC is the shameful leader of this pack.

RBC is Canada's largest contributor to oil and gas pipelines and they have made it painfully apparent that they are not going to voluntarily defund the fossil fuel industry.  So, once again, as a consumer it is on us to send RBC a message: if you don't care about the future of the planet then we will not support you.

I've contacted the ombudsman as well as customer support, and they supplied me with all the talking points you would expect from corporation that cares about the changing climate only as much as in impacts their bottom line.  

"We believe that capital can be a force for positive change, clearly demonstrated by a new business target: $100 billion in sustainable financing by 2025."

-RBC Climate Blueprint.

On paper this sounds great, but it lacks the required counteraction of ending loans to fossil fuel companies.  In reality all RBC is saying with this statement is, "we realize there is a market so we'll invest and make money from that too." Investing in renewables without defunding fossil fuels is tantamount to simultaneously funding the NRA and March for Our Lives.

Further RBC admits:

"RBC faces direct climate risk from emerging regulatory and legal requirements, disruptions to our operations and services, the products and services we provide our clients and the credit impact of clients’ exposure to climate risk"  

-RBC TCFD Report.

This has nothing to do with actually creating a sustainable future and everything to do with preserving their own bottom line.

It's no doubt RBC will someday be a leader in investments in sustainable energy, it makes good financial sense.  The problem is that they have already proven themselves a laggard in divesting from fossil fuels.  

It's 2021, we don't have time for laggards.  We need to act now, and if RBC, and other large banks, are unwilling to act we as customers have to shoulder that burden until our voices are loud enough they can not be ignored.

To learn more about switching banks please check out BankSwitch.

In our capitalist system there is a myth of constant growth.  It is based on the assumption that growth can be constant and that it is good.

While financially speaking the stock market has been a good investment over the course of the last 100 years this idea of constant growth comes at a cost. In order for a market to continue to grow the companies in that market must capture more customers, failing to do so they must offer a broader range of products. A great example of this, and the dangers that come with it at least on a somewhat micro-scale is Facebook.  

Facebook is a good example because the timeline of events is incredibly short and the impact on the world is rather large. Facebook started as a place to connect with friends, specifically other people who went to your Ivy League university.  Within a matter of months it had spread outside of Harvard and unto other campuses, soon teenagers around the country started signing up and within a few years Facebook had blown past the hundred million user mark and within nine years they had over a billion registered users.  As of 2019 there were 4.5 billion internet users and almost 2.5 Facebook users.* Facebook stock has done well because their user base has continuously grown and therefore the value of the information they gather and the ads they sell. Yet, even with this growth Facebook has consistently butted up against an inevitable wall. There are only so many people on earth and in Facebook's case it's attracted a good number of them to the product and it's unlikely to continue at this growth rate much longer.  They know this, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus and dozens of other less flashy purchases have helped Facebook slurp up an even larger slice of the pie. By acquiring, expanding and broadening the offering a company only kicks the can so far down the road but eventually growth stagnates.

Facebook is only a kind of meta example because of course the 2.5 billion users aren't actually customers but it's an illustrative example of a company that has rapidly grown from a modest sustainable business to an eight headed monster eager to gobble up any and all competition in the never-ending elusive quest for constant growth.

By definition constant growth is not sustainable in almost every meaning of the word. It is not sustainable from an economic standpoint, an environmental standpoint or a social standpoint. Chasing it only results in a net harm. This is only hastened by quarterly earnings reports which create extremely shortsighted incentives to inflate earnings any way possible. Sometimes this is by decimating the environment with new pipelines, new mines or clearcut forests. Sometimes it's by artificially inflating the value of a product or service as was the case with Enron or Theranos Labs. The worst part is in the case of a publicly traded company these decision makers are tasked with what is called a "fiduciary duty",  the financial responsibility one has over the assets of another party. The search for constant growth leads to short term gains for a small number of people and long term detrimental effects for everyone.

In a purely theoretical exercise, one company could out maneuver, out preform, buy out, steal and run out of business all competition. Becoming the very antithesis of what so called "campions of the free market" so loudly decry but privately seem to encourage with a subtle wink: a massive all encompassing monopoly. A Monolith Corporation. Having achieved this status the Monolith Corporation could raise prices to whatever economic point made the most sense, driving whatever portion of the population couldn't afford to pay into abject poverty overnight. And still, growth would grind to a halt because resources on this planet are largely fixed.

The Monolith Corporation would never occur in practice but so many companies attempt it in their own industries, because of the myth that continuous growth is good.

Is growth actually good? Growth is more relative than good or bad.  Studies have been done† indicating the relative happiness that increased wealth brings. Up to about $75,000 or $80,000 every salary increase brings greater happiness however after $80,000 the happiness tapers off. As our essential needs are met our joy in the money we earn decreases and we have to start looking outward for increased happiness. So one could argue that salary growth is good up to about $80,000, and there is room in there to go further even a lot further, but at some point the accumulation of more money moves the needle so little that the costs really aren't worth it.

It is the same with business, if a company can't pay its founder then growth up to the point where the founder can make a full time paycheque is good. Even hiring employees, expanding, becoming renowned for producing a great product in a city or state all this could be considered "good" but why is there a need to grow beyond that? As stated above only so much happiness can come from accumulating more wealth, and it is the same with market share.

Growth at all costs creates an incentive to cut corners, to harm people and the planet, to ship inferior products faster and to more people. A far more sustainable model is simply trying to be good at what you do build products that respect customers and the environment.

*Statista

†Time

In order to hold ourselves accountable and create some guidelines we have outlined the following 6 rules:

• We will not buy any new consumer goods
  • Used goods are ok: thrift stores, garage sales, Kijiji, Craigslist
• Consumables such as food, toiletries and cleaning supplies are not consumer goods and are not counted
• Non consumable supplies such as paints, guitar strings, will be considered on a case by case basis
• Tools for repairing household items and appliances should be borrowed or purchased used any new purchases will be considered on a case by case basis and accounted on this blog
• Gifts are allowed*
• The period will last from January 1, 2021 to Jan 1, 2022

*Initially gifts were not allowed but we have people in our life who are likely to get us things regardless so it makes sense to be allowed for things we will actually use.

Anything within these rules does not need to be explained, however anything outside the bounds of these rules will be reported on this blog. This is largely for accountability and to illustrate how hard this challenge is.  Even with, admittedly, fairly loose rules.

Travis and I are forever discussing the climate crisis, plastic waste, consumerism and other topics that are depressing and frustrating. I feel like every time I buy something I'm angry that the box it came in was stuffed with styrofoam or that I didn't consider how much of the item was not recyclable or I can't find anything that seems to be built to last for more more than a few years, sometimes months. I get annoyed at others for putting their bananas in plastic bags, for not using reusable grocery bags, for consuming too much meat, for buying a new winter jacket seemingly every year, but despite all of the things others are doing to contribute to this enormous problem we're facing I'm also a part of the problem. We've all been brainwashed into thinking that buying more will make us happier, that shopping is a great way to relieve stress or feel better about ourselves, but this is a destructive idea. The planet cannot sustain this lifestyle so I'm going to try to not buy anything for a year and see how it goes. I know buying a banana from thousands of miles away is also problematic, but one lifestyle change at a time.

I watched a documentary on fast fashion a few years ago and I can't get it out of my head. I think it's because I had never considered the incredible amount of waste generated by the shopping that millions of people engage in. I suppose I thought of clothing as mostly made of cotton, which makes it biodegradable and thus didn't "count" as part of the huge piles of garbage. These days we don't make clothing exclusively out of cotton, wool or other degradable materials. A lot of clothing is made out of plastics which washes out of our clothes and enters ecosystems as microplastics. Not to mention the greenhouse gases involved in creating the products and shipping them around the world to be sold.

I feel disheartened when I think about the amount of waste there is in the world, so many products made and shipped and then discarded almost immediately (dollar stores, I'm looking at you). So many products are bought as a gag, or as a cheap stocking filler, or as a gift for someone you feel compelled to get something for but you don't really know them. Sometimes we buy things because it looks great in the store but when we get home we realize it's actually kind of crappy, but we don't have the receipt or we've left it in a corner for too long to return so we chuck it. This is such a loss. There are too many people suffering in the world from not having enough, and many other people suffering from the effects of climate change. I hope that there is more action taken by those with the power to do something, but I don't know that they'll do anything without people making a stand against the status quo and that's what I'm trying to do here.

In the past few years I've become concerned with the amount of stuff in my life. Specifically, the things I accumulate, it's never really enough. It's not that I don't feel unfulfilled in what I have and what I get, but no matter what I get there is always another mountain to climb. If I lived in a closed system this wouldn't be a huge problem but buying things has consequences in both directions, the extraction of raw materials, the production of goods and ultimately the disposal of those goods. It's a cycle that has always existed in some form but in the industrial age we can do it on a scale never before imagined and advances in the past 100 years have made products far less likely to decompose any time soon (not to mention less repairable).

We are heading towards an ecological cliff at full speed. The doors are locked, the radio is on and everyone seems to be having a great time but a few people have seen the cliff and they are sounding the alarm. I realize that my individual actions have a minor impact, insignificant in fact.  Nevertheless, I don't have to be a part of the problem. What I can do is to remove myself from the pool of potential consumers, and so can you. When you choose to not buy you are still voting with your dollar.  In fact you are stretching those dollars in a different way; helping the environment (however marginally it may be) and you are also telling producers that you don't want or need more junk.

This year is an experiment, how hard is it to go a year without buying anything new? At the beginning of this post I noted that I probably consume more than I think I do, but how much do I actually consume? The only way to know for sure is to cut out consumerism all together and see how drastically your life is impacted. I know for myself, and I suspect for everyone reading this life is going to change.

I have four main goals this year:

1. Reduce my overall footprint by consuming less
2. Gain a greater apprecieation for the things I already have
3. Acheeve greater satisfaction from the people in my life rather than the things
4. Send a message to large corporations that their current offerings are not in harmony with people and the planet

If you are interested in following along Vivian and I will be updating this blog throughout the year.  If you are interested in participating please reach out to us we'd love to hear from you.