The Discerning Brute: fashion, food & etiquette for the ethically handsome man » energy

Shred the Streets Green

JohnHolden — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:41:37 +0000

by contributor John Holden Since 1986 Etnies has been manufacturing some of the most cutting edge skateboard shoes on the market. Now celebrating their 25th year anniversary they are continuing on that path with a new campaign BUY A SHOE PLANT A TREE. For every pair of Jamieson 2 Eco shoes sold Etnies will plant a tree in the rain forests of Costa Rica. The Jameson Eco 2 is not only a stylish pair of shoes but the out soles are made from recycled bike tires and plastic gloves while the laces are made from Pet recycled plastic bottles.

The United Nations Urges Veganism (again).

joshuakatcher — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:24:50 +0000

A new UN report clarifies the message that slowing global warming requires a shift towards a plant-based diet for humans. "A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change," explained the UK's Guardian today, but this will probably, again, fall on deaf (or greedy, stubborn, infantile) ears. Just read the comments! Something tells me we're doomed; when faced with hard facts people are still willing to sacrifice the planet for their palate. The recommendation follows advice last year that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet from Lord Nicholas Stern, former adviser to the Labour government on the economics of climate change. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has also urged people to observe one meat-free day a week to curb carbon emissions.

Ultramarathoning, Whiskey, Donuts and a Prom

joshuakatcher — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:45:40 +0000

• Ultramarathoner Scott Jurek, is changing the world of sports. The New York Times' article yesterday by Mark Bittman outlined Jurek's plans for Thursday and Friday: a "24-Hour Run world championship in Brive-la-Gaillarde, France, on Thursday and Friday. It is a grueling race to determine how many miles runners can complete on a 1.4-kilometer road loop (about nine-tenths of a mile) in a 24-hour period."

Scott Jurek is a vegan, and his diet certainly isn't slowing him down. He holds the fifth-, sixth- and eighth-fastest times in race history on the 153-mile course between Athens and Sparta. He is tall, strong and shows boundless energy - completing training-weeks of 140 miles or more. "He said he needs 5,000 to 8,000 calories a day, “and I get that all from plant sources. It’s not hard, either. I like to eat, and I don’t have to worry about weight management. All I need is a high-carbohydrate diet with enough protein and fat.” Read the rest of this inspiring article HERE. • How I wish Dunkin' Donuts were totally vegan. Too bad they use rotten eggs. Thank your lucky stars that Danielle Konya of Vegan Treats whisks icing with brass knuckles and turns dust into earth-shatteringly amazing donuts. Now through May 21st, you can vote for the next Vegan Treats donut flavor! Time to make the donuts... • Tuthilltown Spirits, my favorite distillery, is embarking on a three year program to exit the Grid by converting all its waste byproducts to fuel. They just won awards at American Distillers Institute Annual Conference. “It’s an exciting time for us. The distillery is really established and our products are well received,” founder Ralph Erenzo said. Economy of scale andrecycling of heat and materials are high on the list of improvements. Brian Lee, the engineering mind behind Tuthilltown Spirits, estimates the distillery could be independent of outside sources of fuel by making use of the waste stream. “We have unpotable alcohol at high proof that burns clean and hot. Our dry distillery grains, grain stalks and chaff can be burned in a furnace to make steam to fire the stills and cookers. “The CO2 created in the fermentation process is destined to be pumped into a greenhouse where we will experiment with starch bearing algae that can be fermented and distilled to be used as fuel. And then there’s cellulosic fermentation of stalks, cobs and other grain parts for distillation to ethanol. Don’t get me started.” Lee is enthusiastic about the prospect of a business without fuel bills. “It’s the way of the future for the agricultural distiller.” All this has a practical side. Virtual elimination of transportation costs for fuel delivery, thereby lowering carbon emissions. Near elimination of dependency on typical fuel sources. No matter what happens out there in the world, says Erenzo, “We’re still making whiskey.” • Go to the Veggie Prom!

• Artwork for this flyer was created by the incredibly talented Michelle Cavigliano.
• Veggie Prom is 8 p.m. Friday, May 14, 2010. It will be at Littlefield in Park Slope: 622 Degraw Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217.
• Tickets are $10 in advance and $15 at the door. 21 and over. Buy tickets here. There is a cash bar, and VEGAN desserts are free! Music will be provided by veg*n DJs Lil Ray and iLan. A raffle will benefit Mercy for Animals. Creative prom attire is encouraged! Couple themes are welcome too! No date necessary to attend!

PARISIAN PIONEER: C-PAS’ Pierre-André Senizergues

joshuakatcher — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:15:34 +0000

Pierre-André Senizergues has a Hollywood story. He went from a Parisian childhood, to being homeless on the streets of Venice Beach, to becoming an international skateboarding champion and then one of the most influential and respected businessmen in the apparel and skate industry, heading-up Sole Technologies, Inc. Now, with over 25 years of revolutionizing skate culture, Pierre is again setting new standards and breaking new boundaries with social responsibility and environmentalism. C-PAS is Pierre's latest personal endeavor, and along with designer Pierluigi Pucci, Senizergues is making menswear from recycled parachutes and tarps, organic cotton, soda bottles, sustainable fabrics, and he is finally addressing the fact that leather can never be sustainable. I stopped by the Soho, NYC studio to try on some of the clothes, and chat about C-PAS, sustainable fashion, and menswear.

Pride and Luxury

joshuakatcher — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:47:01 +0000

Grasp your pearls, for the future of the luxury market is at risk! We saw this video over at EcoStiletto (a special that appeared on The Luxury Channel) and were both intrigued and sort of disgusted by these luxury brands who are finally realizing that their own futures are at risk if the resource-tap they call Earth dries up. With their own mortality in sight, the main question this video raises is, "Does looking and acting rich conflict with sustainability?" Hello? Does a bear shit in the woods? Let's get over the noble idea that these brands actually care about the Earth, right now. It's like the classic case where a Hollywood mega-star get's a disease and then suddenly they're the biggest advocate for finding a cure. They are simply trying to save their own existence, which is not the worst thing. Often it can help, but in the case of an entire market, that means certain sacred cows can not be questioned. Like what? Poverty. Caste and class systems. Money. Materialism. Greed. Hierarchical power structures. Resource access. Viewing the planet as a stockpile of resources. Anthropocentrism. The list goes on. One glaring issue is that companies like Gucci, Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent, Bottega Veneta, Alexander MQueen, and others that rule the world of luxury, who perpetuate images of desirable and unattainable lifestyles, are all addicted to leather, fur, cashmere, wool, and other animal products. We also know that raising livestock is the single greatest ecological threat that exists. So, until these brands convert all their products to be vegan (which is possible), it's all greenwashing and very difficult to take them seriously. Even Stella McCartney, who uses no fur or leather, still uses plenty of wool. Once again, when talking about environment and sustainability, the livestock industry was completely brushed over and left out, although it is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. If we leave it up to luxury brands to define the mainstream understanding of environmentalism, of course extracting things from nature and turning them into expensive products (and the social and political atmosphere maintaining their position to do those things) will not be questioned in itself. If we let luxury brands use their powerful positions to create the mainstream discourse on sustainability, it's like letting a drug addict head up the ATF. I was astounded to hear the list of luxury brands who helped create the documentary "Home" by Yann Arthus Bertrand. Do they not see how drastically they need to change everything about themselves? If the current definition of sustainability is "meeting the needs of the present without undermining the ability of future generations to meet their needs" then I wonder whether these brands could ever be capable of accommodating such an aspiration as that? According to the video, the "I am not a plastic bag" phenomenon reduced plastic bag consumption in England, but is it simply an accessory of mass distraction as The Observer's George Monibiot suggests? My fear is that greenwashing will prevail, not unlike the Canadian Fur Council's "Fur is Green" and Diesel's "Global Warming Ready" campaigns, and they will attempt to capitalize on the market value of "green" as opposed to actually changing industry practices from labor and environmental impact to animal welfare. Heritage is what is at risk for luxury brands. Changing the factories, formulas, and ingredients of their products changes who they are at the core, which is a huge and uncertain undertaking. But if done thoroughly, honestly, and openly, it's more than an opportunity. It's common sense. It's not biting off the hand that feeds them. It's realizing that there is only one Planet Earth, yet many of us live in a way that requires three Earths to sustain the status quo. What do you think? Can luxury brands change their ways? Or is the very nature of luxury in conflict with sustainability?

Solar Empower, Shit Salad, and Sustainable Death

joshuakatcher — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:42:52 +0000

Do-gooder or just a good actor? Damages and Bored to Death's Ted Danson's Interview on GQ left us confused! It appears the handsome, sometimes-vegan is concerned with "industrial overfishing and the toxic acidification of the seas" but then proceeds to order Nantucket bay scallops during his chit-chat. From GQ:

I'd read somewhere that he was a vegan. "Oh yeah, no, I'm an actor. Which means one week I'm vegan, the next I don't know." He scans the menu. "I'll have the California condor," he says, nutcracker jaw lowering slightly to reveal a grin. "Or maybe the gorilla. How is the gorilla here?"

One thing's for sure. Ted likes to flirt with controversial subjects. And since scallops don't have brains or nervous systems, Ted, like Peter Singer, might not find too much objectionable about that. More recently, Singer changed his tune: "... if they do feel pain, a meal of oysters or mussels would inflict pain on a considerable number of creatures. Since it is so easy to avoid eating them, I now think it better to do so." - Peter Singer, Author "Animal Liberation" Matt & Nat is taking 40% off some of our favorite vegan, recycled men's accessories. Blockhead, $141 at mattandnat.com Will Ohio ban their cruelest forms of farming? According to Farm Sanctuary, battery cages, gestation crates, veal crates, downer cows, and effective euthanasia are the subject of a petition submitted to Ohio’s Attorney General in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. These measures seem to be sweeping the nation, and more than 600,000 registered Ohio voters signed the petition. We are keeping our fingers crossed. Think: Christopher Raeburn's Affordable cousin, Worn Again jackets and accessories are made from the upcycled fabric of the Virgin Hot Air Balloon and decommissioned Eurostar train uniforms that would otherwise end up in landfills. There's nothing more satisfying than being a self-reliant nerd. If you've thought about going solar, but you're more of a DIY kind of guy, consider taking an online training course in photovoltaic design and installation from the Solar Living Institute. Start up your own solar business, or simply empower your family or community with a less-devastating energy source. If nothing else, you can become even more of a nerd and know-it-all. What a Shitty Salad. Consumer Reports' latest tests of packaged leafy greens found fecal coliform bacteria that are common indicators of poor sanitation and ...poop. In some cases, these were at rather high levels. Why? Because most conventional farms and even most organic farms use slaughterhouse by-products like blood-meal, fish-meal, bone-meal, and feces to fertilize the soil. Even more reason to check out veganic farming, your local farmers market, and organic produce. And, duh, purchase as far away from the expiration ate as possible and rinse it off before you eat it - never trust those "triple washed" labels. Also, don't blame the veggies! Blame the poop. Prepare for Vancuver Eco Fashion Week in March! If you're up in that area, go to the Eco Fashion Forward Gala on Feb 19th. Buy Tickets. Chocolate just got better. I know, who thought it was possible? Pioneering organic chocolate maker Green & Black's (who has several vegan varieties) announced its commitment to move its entire chocolate range, worldwide, to Fair Trade - including the United States. Fifteen years ago Green & Black's led the Fair Trade movement by launching Maya Gold - the first ever Fair Trade Certified product in the United Kingdom. Still, I think it's bizarre that we have to label the good stuff, as opposed to putting a "warning: this product was made by underpaid, overworked slaves" label on all "conventional" products. . . Are we the only one's creeped out by the greening of the funeral industry? Creating a convenient one-stop shop for eco-friendly home & garden, office and building products, Ellie's Eco Home Store opened its doors for sustainable business in November 2008. Today, Ellie's announces a partnership with Natural Transitions, a local non-profit resource, and Nature's Casket, a manufacturer of eco-friendly caskets made from Colorado beetle-kill pine. "In a typical 10-acre section of cemetery, the grounds contain enough coffin wood to construct 40 houses, nearly 1,000 tons of casket steel, 20,000 tons of vault concrete, and enough toxic embalming fluid to fill a backyard swimming pool, which eventually leaches into ground water, according to the book Grave Matters, written in 2007 by Mark Harris" says Steve Savage, Ellie's President and Founder. I mean, it's a totally valid concern considering that since everyone dies, there is only so much land to go around and eventually the Earth could be one giant graveyard. Is a low-impact death in your future?

Topo Ranch, Nat Geo’s Lies, and Cary Grant Glasses

joshuakatcher — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:23:28 +0000

Topo Ranch makes some cool, organic, cowboy-cut shirts, jackets and tees for you dudical dudes out there who like yokes. You know... yokes? Those diamondy shapes on the shoulders, duh. What's missing from this picture of "The Carbon Bathtub"? National geographic seems to have left out one really important cause of global warming in their latest issue. According to them, 4/5 of greenhouse gas is caused by burning fossil fuels and the rest in from deforestation and other changes in land use. Not a thing mentioned about livestock. Infuriating! Yet this World Watch Institute article says that half of ghgs are caused by the farming industry. Write Nat Geo a nice letter explaining your concern about this oversight: ngsforum@ngm.com This "Sailor" sweatshirt from KOMODO, collaborated on by German designer Kilian Kerner is 100% organic cotton and is simple, rugged, and handsome. Why complicate things? If you get a round to it, you might want to pick up a pair of classic, round glasses or sunglasses. I'd steer clear of the exact John Lennon/Harry Potter wire-frame, and go with more of a "The Thomas Crown Affair" Steve McQueen iconic shape in a thicker frame. Like Cary Grant here, you'll like it. What have you got to lose when everyone has aviators and wayfarers?

Sorry Natalie, Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

joshuakatcher — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:31:22 +0000

The New York Times recently ran a piece by Natalie Angier called "Sorry Vegans, Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too". It was categorized under the "Science" section, with the further distinction of "basics". In other words, the author wants to let us know that making an ethical argument to curtail the science-fiction and horror-movie-like indignities and atrocities that animals endure in exchange for a plant-based diet is flawed because plants want to live - and duh, that's just basic science.

"...plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot."

That may be true, if it's aspirations we're talking about. And following this line of logic, we may as well throw in that lightning does not aspire to illuminate a bulb, a mountain does not aspire to be a car-frame, an island does not aspire to be a tourist destination, and a child does not aspire to get heart disease. Can you imagine if Angier said "plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a woman aspires to be raped"? It is consistent with this line of logic where no one is safe, and one wrong justifies another. When I was four, I learned that two wrongs don't make a right. Eating plants doesn't make eating animals okay (if eating plants were even an equal "wrong" as Angier suggests). The optimal inner-dialogue she wants us to have upon reading her article goes something like this: "well, if plants are that hell-bent on surviving, what's the point of trying to spare animals when clearly they are just as deserving of consideration - and we have to eat something, so we may as well just eat what we want because it's such a big gray area".

"It’s a small daily tragedy that we animals must kill to stay alive. Plants are the ethical autotrophs here, the ones that wrest their meals from the sun. Don’t expect them to boast: they’re too busy fighting to survive."

So let's humor Angier, even though plants are lacking a brain, and even though we know that while someone who is brain-dead (a vegetable), though bio-chemical reactions still persist, does not respond to bodily injury that would typically cause the type of pain most animal advocates seek to alleviate. Let's say that plants can suffer in a similar way as do people and animals. Let's just say that ripping a carrot out of the dirt is along the lines of forcibly impregnating (raping?) dairy cows, then tearing the baby away (which is met by hours and days of a howling, distraught mother), sentencing the calf to a veal crate (where he can not even turn around or lie down) and stealing the milk for ourselves. Does the former justify the latter? I don't want to live in Angier's world where potentially causing pain justifies certainly causing pain. Mustn't that also justify inflicting pain upon people? This is a messy, messy road to go down. I wonder if Natalie Angier is aware of what farmed animals eat? I also wonder if she knows what the ratio of plant-based animal feed converted to meat and dairy is. Or how much land is used to meet the demands of producing animal products? If she did know these things, and she were a vehement "plants' rights activist" she would still be making the most ethical choice by going vegan because the most plants would be spared, instead of being converted into animal protein and graze-land at a losing ratio. How about some clarity? Most animal advocates are talking about actively avoiding causing incredible amounts of suffering, ecological devastation, and health and social problems in relation to using animals for food, clothing, research, and entertainment. This can result in legislation, direct action, grassroots activism, lifestyle changes, and other advocacy with the aim of alleviating preventable suffering, decreasing environmental impact, and improving health and human welfare. Natalie needs a lesson in "basics", herself. Far from the recent, trendy food discourse she invokes exists the response to her confusion, as laid out by philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1789. "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" To frame the moral dilemma in "Killing animals for human food and finery" as being about aspirations is to fail in understanding the agenda of many animal activists. The intention of many vegans I know is not moral purity - yet this consistent misconception isn't responded to as clearly by animal advocates as it should. It is more often a social justice issue involving individual animals who actively dissent by vocalizing and struggling to escape sources of pain and suffering, defending their young, mourning the death of and separation from family and friends, maintaining a preference for complex and communicative social structures, and seeking out comfort when faced with pain. Like many critics who consider animal advocates self-righteous cow-huggers, and whose first response to finding out that someone is vegan is typically "well, what's your belt made out of?", the author of this article exemplifies this misconception about the purpose of veganism. Is it political? Yes. Is it about moral puritanism? Not usually. Nor is it about preventing death. Of course plants strive to live, but everything living eventually dies. It is about preventing preventable suffering. It is about not choosing the duck or the lamb because they have brains and bodies that register suffering in a way with which we can empathize. Angier blabs, as if her audience were the confessional:

"I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer."

If the title itself didn't make it obvious enough that the purpose of the article was to rationalize her whimsical diet and piss off vegetarians who live in the "moral penthouse", as Angier refers to it, then the content itself does the job. Angier neither offers insight into her inability to exert self-control in face of cheese and duck, nor does her artless and callow argument to consider the will-to-live of vegetation on same playing field as the suffering endured by animals with consciousness, brains, and nervous systems have any defensible logic. It is riddled with the anthropomorphizing of plants (something of which animal advocates are commonly accused), and it is creepily reminiscent of the joke website VRMM.

"Just because we humans can’t hear them doesn’t mean plants don’t howl."

Is it valid to point out that plants fight, cooperate, and evolve to optimize survival, like any other living organism? Sure. Plants, fungi, bacteria, and all living organisms are amazing, complex, and have spent billions of years evolving into performing delicate and not-so-delicate dances with everything around them. Whether homeostasis is the Earth's aspiration (as proposed by James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis) or the destruction of everything is the Earth's Aspiration (as proposed by Peter Ward's Medea Hypothesis), or if the Earth or universe even has aspirations are not the issues at hand when we talk about veganism or animal advocacy. Angier claims "This is not meant as a trite argument", yet her purpose in writing the article seems as trite as rationalizing her own, flimsy food choices.