The Story Of Stuff

A friend of mine sent me a link to an apparently highly-regarded little online video by Annie Leonard called, "The Story of Stuff", wondering what I would make of it.  Its stated purpose is to explain the evils of the entire consumer process (i.e. the 'materials economy'), from the initial harvesting of natural resources to the landfill.  I watched the video, unsuccessfully refraining from yelling at my computer screen all the while, and dove headlong into a rebuttal.

To my friend and anyone else who's seen this little environmental shock-and-awe ditty, here's what I think.

First of all, let's look at Annie Leonard.  The barest of glimpses at her background will show that she could be the poster-child for environmentalism.  With degrees from Columbia University (the home of the we-love-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-the-guy-who-promised-to-destroy-America idiots) and Cornell, she's worked for such wonderfully objective and unbiased organizations as Health Care Without Harm, Essential Information and Greenpeace International, and coordinates the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and serves on the boards of International Forum for Globalization and the Environmental Health Fund.  I'm sure she doesn't have any vested interest in portraying capitalism and industrial advancement in a poor light, though.

Next, who is helping her produce this video?  Another very quick look shows that the Tides Foundation and the Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption are primarily responsible.  Here's just a bit about these organizations:

"Tides was created to provide comprehensive, flexible services and tools to those dedicated to lasting progressive social change."
--  Drummond Pike, Founder and CEO, Tides

The Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption supports foundations and individual donors in their efforts to promote a shift to a more sustainable economy and culture. The Workgroup grew out of a concern that our economic practices and policies are increasingly in direct conflict with sustainable development. In particular, US consumption and production patterns, based on the principles of maximizing growth and acquisition, are the root causes of many major environmental problems.

So, as you can see right out of the gate, everyone involved with this project is starting from the far left, which is inherently anti-American and anti-capitalism.  And we all know that far-left causes never, ever, ever exaggerate or omit details that might compromise their positions, do they (can we say global warming)?  Anyway, the bias of Leonard and her backers shows through from the moment the video starts, and never lets up.

Now, let's take a look at the video itself.  I have to admit, I thought the animated sketch drawings are kind of catchy in a less-is-more sort of way, and the video was clever in its presentation.  The problem rests in its content, which is based on half-truths, biased assumptions, and glaring omissions.  I'm no expert, but I'll take my best swipe at explaining what the real deal is.  The only reference I found to help identify some of the weaknesses in this video is at Digital Bits Technology, which appears to me to be another techie with a penchant for blogging.  I know nothing about him, but he makes some good sense on his review, and we came to a lot of the same conclusions (great minds think alike, right?); I assume he is in much the same boat as me, a non-expert just trying to help out someone who asked him about the video.  Anyway, I'll include some of his thoughts as a supplement to my own as I walk through the video below.

Before proceeding, please take the 20 minutes necessary to watch the video.  Otherwise, none of this will make sense and you'll think I'm a blithering idiot for talking crazy.  My comments below follow the video chronologically, so you may want to listen once, then listen again as you read along.

[...Jeopardy theme song plays in the background...]

Good.  Now that you've watched 'The Story of Stuff', let's begin the dissection.

Leonard starts out be describing the cycle of 'stuff'.  There are five steps, each of which Leonard soundly criticizes:
1. Extraction
2. Production
3. Distribution
4. Consumption
5. Disposal

1. Extraction
Leonard begins with the assertion that America spends over half our federal budget on the military.  While that sounds great for the purposes of her video, that's a grossly inaccurate statement.  The Department of Defense budget for 2008 was $583 billion, whereas the total government budget was around $3 trillion.  I guess that a trillion dollars worth of inaccuracy is close enough for her.

She refers to the extraction of natural resources as 'trashing the planet' and claims we're running out of natural resources.  That is also untrue.  The fact is that over 90% of the land in the U.S. is undeveloped, and that forests alone cover more square acreage than all the cities and towns in this country combined.  And the U.S. is one of the more developed nations in the world - most other places aren't nearly as developed as we are.  She claims big corporations are getting cozier with the government - I can't say I disagree with that.  She goes on to say that 1/3 of the world's resources (and 40% of the U.S.'s trees) have been used.  I don't have stats specifically about that, but my guess is that she's probably getting her numbers by counting how many trees have been cut down over a period of time with absolutely no regard to how many trees have been planted to replace them.  Trees, like wheat or corn, are a renewable crop, but she apparently doesn't get that.

Next, she trots out the tired argument that America uses more than its 'fair share'.  She's correct (last I knew) about the fact that we have 5% of the world's population and use about 30% of the world's resources.  Her bias is evident in the fact that she omits all mention about how much America provides to the rest of the world.  How many other countries receive gifts of food, money, or products from the U.S.?  Most of them.  Who provides billions of dollars in aid when a tsunami hits on the other side of the planet?  We do.  Who has provided billions of dollars for AIDS relief in Africa over the past couple of decades?  We did.  Who has liberated literally hundreds of millions of people into freedom around the world?  Us.  Don't give me that crap about using more than our 'fair share'.  What would happen if we decided to stop being so generous?  Just look at what is happening around the world with just a slowdown of our economy - markets around the world are bouncing like rubber balls!  If we actually called in all the debts Europe owed us from World War II, we'd destroy the entire European economy.  But we're generous, and we won't do that.  We'd rather share our blessings with the rest of the world.

Digital Bits adds that we also provide 27% of the world's GDP, and points out that that's pretty good efficiency.

Next Leonard says something very curious.  She says that since we're running out of our own resources, so we go take the resources of other (3rd world) countries.  What??  It would be nice if she would give even one example of this provocative assertion, but she doesn't.  Funny, I thought that sovereign nations managed their own resources, and I can't say I recall the last time the U.S. invaded another country with the intent (and result) of taking their resources.  The last few times we've gone to war, it's been in the name of liberation and freedom rather than conquest.  Leonard is completely wrong here, and it shows her blatant anti-American stripes.

2. Production
Leonard talks an awful lot about toxic chemicals being used in production processes.  If you just listened to her, you'd think that everything being produced used only toxic materials and came out toxic at the end!  Again, simply not true.  Sure, there are a lot of chemicals used, but there are plenty of industry controls and tests performed to prevent negative effects from chemicals used in production.  Are there still issues every now and then?  Sure.  Manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to gain efficiency and lower costs.  That doesn't mean that everything is toxic!

Her comments about BFRs are way off base.  Is she really such a simpleton to believe that we would use a fatal neurotoxin in the vast array of products that she mentions?  Come on, be real.  Then, on top of this ludicrous assertion, she throws out the scare tactic that mothers' breast milk is full of toxins.  It's amazing that every child isn't born with three heads, isn't it?

Digital Bits goes into a lot more detail on BFRs, and points out that humans naturally have trace amounts of arsenic inside us, too, but you don't see us dying from arsenic poison on a regular basis.

Her comments on how people are forced to work in horrible conditions in factories because they have 'no other option' are likewise shallow.  If people don't like working in a factory, what's stopping them from working somewhere else?  If they lack education, they should go get it.  If they are in a poor location with few options, they should move.  If they don't like the work, they should get a different job.  This is America, the land of opportunity - millions of people pick themselves up and make themselves better every day by doing these things.  Is it hard?  Absolutely!  Can it be done?  Absolutely!  She's being manipulative here, and playing a pitifully petty sympathy card.

She then moves on to pollution from these factories.  I'm not going to waste time verifying her stats on how much pollution is released.  What I would like to point out is that the technology developed in America is some of the best in the world, and as such, we have some of the best ways of dealing with pollution and toxic byproducts.  Heck, we can't even bury a dead pet without having a cement enclosed coffin to keep potential pollutants out of the ground!  I wonder why Ms. Leonard isn't trashing 3rd world countries who openly dump raw chemicals and sewage into drinking water for being unclean and irresponsible...  A 2006 study was done to determine the top 10 most polluted places in the world.  Guess how many included America?  None.  Guess how many included any modern industrialized nation?  None, unless you count current day Russia as a modern country (though given the shape it's in, I'm not sure that's accurate - it's more like a 3rd world country with nukes).  She's clearly not dealing in facts here.

3. Distribution
Leonard says that distributors try to keep costs down as low as possible.  That's true, obviously.  Where she's wrong is how she says distributors do that: through low wages and skimping on poor health coverage.  Um, I'm just curious, but if a company paid wages that are too small, wouldn't they have difficulty finding workers willing to accept such low wages?  Same thing for benefits - it's simple supply and demand.  She clearly doesn't have a grasp of basic economics and job markets.  That's probably because she's been working for lobbyist groups for years - lobbyists get paid purely to run around believing really hard and talking really loud about what they believe.  As far as I can tell, they don't actually produce anything useful (i.e. goods or services), but they're awfully good at restricting things like technological advancement and economic growth.

Anyway, Leonard also makes the statement that the cost of making stuff isn't built into the purchase price.  She goes on quite a lengthy explanation of a time when she bought a $4.99 radio, and how the various pieces of that cheap little radio probably came from lots of places around the world, and that five measly bucks couldn't possibly cover the cost of the ocean liner trips, trucks, manufacturing, assembly, etc. that brought the radio to that store shelf.

WHAT?!  Does she not get the fact that by building millions of units, shipping in bulk, etc., the cost of a single radio actually is $4.99??  And, not only does that five bucks cover the cost of manufacturing, shipping, distribution, shelf space and wages for the store clerk, but there's also a little bit of...wait for it...PROFIT in there!  If there wasn't, the company wouldn't make these radios, they wouldn't sell these radios, and they'd go out of business in a heartbeat.  If nothing else in this entire video reveals Leonard's sheer mind-boggling ignorance on basic economics, this one little thing does the job perfectly!

No, she's much more interested in the false assertion that the Earth paid for this cheap little radio by the loss of its resources, kids in the Congo paid for it with their very lives by working in coal mines, and Wal-Mart employees (she doesn't actually say 'Wal-Mart', but it's obvious who she's talking about) paid for it by purchasing their own health insurance.  I'd like to make a couple points here.  First, where in the Constitution is the part about Americans having a right to health insurance?  What about people who don't want health insurance?  We may think those kids in Congo are having an awful life (and by our standards, I'm sure it's probably not a picnic), but if it weren't for American factory jobs, would they have any jobs or income at all?  She terms all these other people 'paying' for the radio 'externalizing' the cost of the radio.  I can kind of see her point, but she's totally misrepresenting the reality of the situation.  Isn't cutting costs out of the item a good thing?  Is Leonard saying that it would be better for everyone to have this cheap little radio cost $200 in order to provide comprehensive health insurance and a $30/hour salary to Wal-Mart employees and Congo factory workers?  Funny, I thought we wanted low-cost goods and services so that poor people could have access to those goods and services.  Guess not.  Or, is she saying that the poor people in the Congo are more valuable than the poor people here in America and should be given higher priority...?

4. Consumption
Leonard takes a pot shot at Bush for his statements after 9/11.  She blasts Bush for not suggesting that Americans grieve, pray, or hope (all of which he actually did), and also for having the audacity to suggest that Americans continue on with their lives as best they could.  She says Bush was wrong for asking Americans to shop (her word; Bush actually suggested 'continued participation and confidence' in the economy), citing it as an example of rampant consumerism.  But, did she forget that the World Trade Center was one of the biggest financial centers of the entire world?  The damage done to our economy through that attack was at least in the tens of billions of dollars, and Bush needed to minimize any further financial problems.  Does this fact escape her, or is she deliberately ignoring it?

She then goes on to say that 99% of all consumer goods are no longer in use just six months after they are purchased.  Hm, that's quite a statistic.  Is she including food in that?  What about Kleenex?  How about make-up?  Would you expect any of these things to stick around for more than a couple months?  No, of course not - they're consumables.  Their purpose is to be consumed, and quickly.

Next she talks about how Americans used to be much more thrifty and better stewards of their resources.  I couldn't agree more with her on that - it's sad how little responsibility is shown by our generation, and how little we seem to care for our stuff.  My assumption is that this is at least partly a byproduct of being in such a wealthy society.  I also tend to agree with Leonard on the intentional nature of the consumer goods industry, but I would draw a line where she implies the purpose of the economy is to provide health care, education, justice, and so on.  Those things are all great, but they're not the purpose of the economy.  The economy's purpose is the production and consumption of goods and services.  It's in the definition:

the management of the resources of a community, country, etc., esp. with a view to its productivity; the prosperity or earnings of a place

How is this hard to understand??

I can't argue with them designing stuff to not last - I've suspected that myself.

But, when she got to the story about the desktop computer, her ignorance again became apparent.  I assume the 'single piece' she's talking about is the processor, and while it's true they are not always compatible with newer versions, they do usually last for at least a couple generations (i.e. several years).  Besides, the CPU is far from the only thing that changes from year to year - how about the memory, or the hard drive, or the optical drives, or the adapter cards?  How about all the other internal connections, or the motherboard?  The processor isn't usually the reason a computer needs to be upgraded, and the reality is that today's computers are very easy to upgrade so there is no practical reason you can't make a computer last at least 4-5 years.  Anyone who knows anything about computers understands this, so I am forced to assume Annie Leonard is a technical imbecile.  But, once again, that doesn't appear to stop her from making false assertions, does it?

Her thoughts on advertising and the happiness index seem pretty fair to me, too, but she seems to once again be missing a critical factor: just because we see advertisements for the latest and greatest stuff, that doesn't mean we always go buy it.  There is such a thing as self-discipline, and pretty much everyone I know practices it on a regular basis, at least to some degree.  Does she think we're such simpletons that we instantly go out and buy everything we see on TV?  Paging Ms. Leonard to the real world, please!  Similarly, it doesn't take too much effort to find and purchase things that last longer than average.  You just have to read some reviews, ask some questions, and get some recommendations from people you trust.  It's not quite the crisis she seems to think it is if you apply a little bit of common sense and responsibility to your spending habits.  There's a whole industry built on reviewing and rating products, and a whole lot of people utilize that information.

5. Disposal
Leonard's implication that landfills and incinerators change the climate are patently false.  The global warming movement has been revealed for the hoax that it is.  It's too bad so many people just accept the assumption that has been put out there for years.

Again with the toxics!  What is it with her and toxics?  She apparently has a fascination with toxics.  Okay, let's assume for a moment that she is correct that incinerators are the number one source of dioxin, which is the most toxic chemical in the world.  How much dioxin actually affects humans and nature?  Personally, I can't recall the last time I heard of someone dying from dioxin poisoning, or from a massive dioxin spill that wiped out a local ecosystem.  How about you?

I agree - recycling is great.  Go for it.

I wonder which 'people' she's talking about when she mentions that 'people' are working to help reduce or eliminate these processes?  Is she talking about groups like the Earth Liberation Front, one of the most violent home-grown terrorist groups who actually destroy property and hurt people...?

She throws out some fancy buzzwords like sustainability, equity, green chemistry, zero waste, and closed loop production, but what exactly do those terms mean?  Is sustainability even possible in her context?  Equity makes me immediately think of wealth redistribution.  The others sound great, but are they realistic?  How much will it cost to implement these things?

So, that's the end of the video.  Here are some final thoughts.

First, I like what Digital Bits says:

One thing that always frustrates me is that some people hate corporations, while still using their benefits. They hate big, nationwide or global-sized businesses. They want everything to be localized down to the mom-and-pop store level. Then they get in their car, use their computer or cellphone and send an email.

Those last things would either not be possible or affordable without big business. Without a corporation paying zillions for research and development, without mass-production, without a large production and distribution infrastructure, we arguably wouldn't have the Internet. Or affordable cars with easily-repairable parts. Or computers and email. Or forget those "consumer" products, and focus just on healthcare: Who do you think developed that flu shot and other disease inoculations? Or the heart stent procedure that probably saved the lives of multiple people in my family? AIDS and cancer research, the almost-worldwide eradication of polio, or (to use a specific example from someone I know) advances in knee implants, providing knee pain relief, faster recovery and less physical therapy, a wonderful alternative to total knee replacement?

You can't have it both ways, denouncing a company while using its products to improve your life.

Well said!  This is one of my frustrations, too, and a perfect way to sum up the hypocrisy of people like Leonard.

Annie Leonard seems to be advocating the stunting of all facets of the production of goods and services.  If these things are so evil, is Leonard willing to go back to the standard of living of 1800, before the industrial revolution?  I hate to break it to her, but her fancy little video is completely impossible if it weren't for the very processes she condemns.  As Digital Bits mentioned, there would be no phones, no computers, no Internet, no airplanes, no cars, no ballpoint pens, etc., all of which she presumably used in her research and producing this little video.  Is she is willing to give up all of these things to support her own claims?  Do you realize that the average American has more food options available to eat from our local grocery store than kings of hundreds of years ago did?  Even better, all of it is supremely affordable because of the manufacturing processes that Leonard condemns!  Is she willing to go back to baking her own bread by hand every day, and eating home-grown grains and vegetables every day for the rest of her life, and hunting for her own meat?  These are things largely eliminated by the processes she condemns, and the elimination of those basic tasks has allowed people to focus on other things like technological advancement.

And how about some solutions, Ms. Leonard?  You go on and on about how horrible the materials economy is for almost 20 minutes, then finish with what I assume you think is a rousing 45-second pitch for fixing it.  Where are the details?  How exactly do you plan to introduce zero waste into the production of goods?  What are your proposals for implementing green chemistry in making pillows?

She offers no detail because that's not her point.  Her point is to scare you into reacting negatively against technological advancement and progress, and to fool you into paying more than you need to for goods because you feel guilty about the hypothetical damage it's doing to some shrubs on the other side of the world.

This video is a clever little production, but it falls vastly short of being persuasive to anyone who is willing to objectively look at the facts and apply some common sense.  Her bias and her glaring lack (or ignorance) of fact really call into question the validity of this video.  Sure, it's a great emotional tugger about a system 'in crisis', but if you really stop to think about it, her story of stuff is so full of holes that it's more porous than Swiss cheese.

If Annie Leonard wants to go out into the sticks and live off the land like a savage, she's welcome to do so.  I, however, prefer to sit on my couch in my centrally-heated house with my wireless laptop, broadcasting to anyone around the world who cares to look at my blog while a movie plays on my DVD player and my SUV waits quietly in the garage to take my whole family safely to the grocery store where I can buy cheap food and eat like a king.

There's my two cents.