on world ocean day

Every morning, while drinking a cup of tea and eating my breakfast, I go through a website routine. Every morning, I log into MSN messenger, check various e-mail accounts, check Facebook, go through online comics and blogs, and eventually breakfast is over and I can move on to the time-consuming task of job hunting.

Ecosalon is one of those websites.


Earlier this morning, as I ate my cinnamon-raisin bagel and drank my tea out of my Elephant House mug, I browsed through the new articles on the Ecosalon website and stumbled across this one. Apparently, since 2008, June 8 has been World Ocean Day. I didn't know that existed (so much for press). To mark the occasion, article author Heather Goldstone discussed the affect human actions are having on the world's oceans, and the rather horrific consequences that are coming about due to our almost ceaseless blundering.

At the end of the article, Goldstone lists five things we can do to help our oceans. Small things. Everyday things. Things that, to an individual, may seem unimportant and, even, ineffectual. But if every person in every country on every continent does their part, change is not only possible but probable. "One person can make a difference, and every person should try." JFK can't be wrong, can he?

And after all, which would you rather see? This:


Or this:


(Images borrowed from here, here, and here.)

on eco-fashion

Well, a small part of it.

First, let me say that I have been...remiss. Okay, let's not get fancy, I haven't posted anything in months, and that is just horrible. After all, it's not like there hasn't been anything happening in the sci-fi and environmental worlds. The sixth series of Doctor Who started. There was Earth Day. There was the anniversary of Chernobyl. So many things happened, and I...ignored them.

But then, so many things were happening to me.

As of early April, and officially to the public as of May 14, I am the new Monthly Book Review Columnist for Starburst Magazine! Starburst originally began as a print magazine in 1978, but stopped in 2009. Now it has been re-vamped as an online magazine, and it's pretty damn fantastic (because I'm not biased at all). As for my little corner of the mag, every month I review a different piece of genre fiction, be it novel or short story collection; sci-fi, fantasy or horror. It's proving to be a wonderful exeperience, and hopefully readers get just as much enjoyment from it as I do.


Now, for the primary reason for this post.

I was walking around town today, and noticed, right near my flat, a new shop had sprung up: {Think} Boutique. The clothes were lovely and the window display adorable and so, being in a window shopping mood, I went in.

All of the clothes and accessories are from "Fair Trade, organic, sustainable, up-cycled or locally produced sources" (here I quote the flyer that I took with me...the only thing that I could afford, unfortunately).

How is it that it's been there for almost six weeks and I've been oblivious?

I had a quick chat with the woman working there, and discovered that the Boutique is a pop up shop, temporary no doubt due to the cost of permanently owning the space. All of the clothes are and will continue to be offered online, however, I loved being able to see them in person. Because that is the issue with organic clothing: rarely will you see it in stores. Chains, of course, tote the organic label. H&M produces organic clothing, however, it has been under fire for its use of GMO cotton, which is as inorganic as you can get. Truely organic clothing appears to only be available from sources that aren't quite as mainstream, however, finding them in a shop where you can try them on is tricky. And unfortunately, combined with famously high price tags often leads to consumers going for cheaper, non-organic options.

Eventually, I hope, the use of completely organic, Fair Trade, and ethical materials will become more mainstream, and the issue those of us who wish to have all aspects of out lives be as eco-friendly as possible face when clothes shopping will be eradicated. Organic clothing will become the norm. But in the meantime, I'm going to bask in having an eco-friendly boutique so close to my home (because basking is all I can do). And when it packs up next week, I'll move back to some of my internet favourites, which I hope you'll enjoy as well.

VivaTerra

People Tree

For more, EcoSalon has an entire section dedicated to green fashion, with frequent items for you to lust over.

(Image borrowed from here.)

on earth hour

Tonight at 8:30pm is Earth Hour! What does that mean? It means that tonight people all across the world are switching off their lights for one hour to take a stand against climate change. So get out your candles, and join me in giving our planet a bit of a break.

Because it so dearly deserves it.

(Image borrowed from here.)

on nuclear power

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last week, you know about the crisis in Japan.

The aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, alone, are horrific. Bodies wash up on the shores of Fukushima, limp and still like ocean debris. Houses crumble. Whole lives are overturned. Natural catastrophe in and of itself is terrible, but even though the seas have calmed, the danger isn't over.

And that's all thanks to us.

Nuclear power is a hotly debated subject, it always has been. I, personally, am not comfortable with something that leaves waste we are unable to safely dispose of. Even a minute amount of exposure to radiation is harmful, as evidenced by the mass evacuations occuring around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant (a 20km zone, so says this article). It's dangerous to be around unprotected, it's complicated, uraniam mining is harmful to both people and the environment, and when something goes wrong, the after affects can be disasterous.

Chernobyl is, while not the most recent nuclear disaster, certainly the most famous. On April 26, 1986 a systems test led to an explosion that unleashed enough radiation to displace over 336, 000 people, and leave the nuclear plant's surrounding city of Pripyat abandoned to this day. The effects on people and the environment were terrible: 203 people were immidietely hospitalized, of whom 31 died. Radiation drifted through the air to settle as far as Canada. Food produced near the area was adversely affected. The affects are still felt today, from higher cancer rates among survivers and those within the area, to food still being under threat of contamination due to the wind-blown radiation. One of the most noticible environmental affects is the Red Forest, whose pine trees were destroyed by settling radioactive particles, making it one of the most contaminated areas in the world.

Why nuclear power is still used after such an incident both puzzles and enrages me. You would think, given the accident's after affects, that people would think that it was far too dangerous to keep using, that the risks outweigh the gains, and that people and the planet deserve better than the threat of nuclear disaster.

You would think.

Now, 24 years later, another nuclear plant is under threat, making a natural disaster a million time worse. It's not nature's fault; earthquakes and tsunamis happen. But we have to be smart enough to either not put things liable to explode out of nature's line of fire, or not put them there at all. I vote not at all. We are doing our planet and ourselves a huge disservice by using nuclear power, because for all that it can be "clean", if something happens, we put everything at risk. Our homes. Our families. Our health. Our Earth. Escaped radiation leaves traces in trees and soil and in our skin, and long after the rubble has been cleared and normality resumed, the consequences still grow. Like a cancer. As cancer.

So lets not let it.



To help with disaster relief, please make a donation to the Red Cross. And/or head to help_japan, a fandom auction wherein the proceeds go towards charities that give aid to Japan.

(Images borrowed from here and here.)

one household cleaners

A few weeks ago, I did a trial at a coffee shop, and while the job did not work out as hoped, my time there did get me thinking about something: household cleaning products.


When my former employer sent me to clean, he sent me with paper towels, over-the-counter glass cleaner, bleach, and cheap dish soap (the kind you can buy in bulk). I don't use these chemicals at home, and was disgusted when my senses were assaulted by the fumes created by these products. One day mid-week, when I got home, I decided to look up the health dangers that come with interacting with normal household cleaners.

To whit, I was horrified.

First, there's soap. Hand soap, that is. It's what we use most often, in our bathrooms and kitchens, and there are hundreds of options to choose from. There are different scents and colours and sizes; some have flitters, others have "moisturizing pearls"; and each of them is chock full of chemicals that can be hazardous to ourselves and our planet. Triclosan is a bacterial-killing chemical found in 75 % of hand soaps, an article in The Minnesota Daily says. Triclosan can cause allergies in children, and there is a worry that its use in other products (like deoderant, toothpaste, and toys) may cause resistant strains of bacteria to develop, which of course doesn't do anything good for we humans. The affect on people aside, like with the dirt you wash off, your soap--and the triclosan--goes down the drain, through pipes, into a water treatment plant, and then back into our lakes, rivers, and oceans. According to the Minnesota article, waste-water treatment plants do not filter triclosan from the water, but they do add chlorine, which can then lead to chlorinated triclosan, and when combined with sunlight, this can cause a dioxin. This is then taken in by fish, drank by animals, and absorbed by the soil that nourishes plants, and doing nothing but harm, even if it doesn't seem like it at first.

The story isn't any better for the soap you use on your dishes. Like most soaps, they contain Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Sodium Laureth Sulfate. Depending on the concentration, it can be hazardous to the skin it's exposed to. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is also absorbed into the skin, and when that happens it mimics the hormone Oestrogen, which can lead to something as severe as breast cancer. Many dishwasher detergents also contain chlorine, which means that "each time you wash your dishes, some residue is left on them, which accumulates with each washing. Your food picks up part of the residue--especially if your meal is hot when you eat it."

Essentially, we are all eating and drinking chlorine.

Of course, it doesn't stop there. From air fresheners (which contain formaldehyde) to bleach (a strong corosive), laundry room products (which contain chemicals that can cause rashes, sinus problems, and other wonderful things), and toilet bowl cleaner (which contain hydrochloric acid), nothing is free from chemicals, and the predominant reason why they are used is because they are cheap. But they are also extremely dangerous, if not in the short-term, then in the long-term health effects you will suffer from breathing in fumes and absorbing the chemicals you use to clean with. I've heard about these effects first hand, and it's not something I wish on myself or anyone else.

In the developed world, we have become obsessed with cleanliness. That's not necessarily a bad thing (after all, not that long ago people weren't even bathing weekly), but I think we have become overly aware of bacteria, but uninformed as to the effects bacteria has in our everyday life. Germs are everywhere, on our skin and in our bodies and on every blade of grass. But they are not something to be terrified of, to wipe out with the harshest chemicals Mr. Clean can provide. Unfortunately, that concept will take some time to catch on. In the mean time, what is available for those who want the dirt out of their house, but also want to be eco-friendly?

Good ol' hot soapy water.

This will do the trick for most things, guarenteed. If you need something abrasive, then baking soda is handy (it also kills odours and puts out grease fires). But if you want to buy cleaners (and their associated accessories), and definately if you want to buy eco-friendly soap to mix that your hot water, I recommend Ecoleaf and Ecover.

Ecoleaf are UK-based products that use biodegradable, plant-based ingredients, and have recyclable containers. Depending where you purchase, you can also go into your local organic shop to refill your containers. Personally, I love their hand soap.

Ecover is an international company founded in Beligum in 1980 with products in more than 26 countries. They have everything from hand soap to floor cleaner, and like Ecoleaf their products are plant-based, use few ingredients, have recyclable containers, and you can refill where available.

During that week of worrk, I saw my (now ex) boss mix bleach, glass cleaner, and soap in the dishwasher, and I was so horrified I couldn't speak. Hopefully his regular customers--customers who eat off those plates and drink from those glasses every day--aren't harmed by his cleaning methods.

And hopefully by reading this, you won't make his mistakes.

(Image borrowed from here.)

on computers

Three days ago, I returned to the UK. I took a nap, did a bit of unpacking, and set up my laptop. I hadn't been on the thing two seconds before my computer was attacked by malware.

A friend of mine was able to fix it remotely, and in the meantime I was able to use my netbook, but nevertheless the situation was frustrating. The malware had disguised itself was WindowsDisk, a defragmentation software. A similar thing had happened last year, when a Trojan attacked my computer disguised as anti-virus software. Hackers are getting tricky, and in both instances I freaked about the files stored on my harddrive. This most recent incident, I had less to worry about, but I did quickly e-mail myself a short story I had been working on and hadn't got a chance to back up on an external harddrive. But this got me thinking.

Are writers worse off if they use the computer?

Back in the day--and I mean way back--before iPads and laptops and computers so thin not even a CD will fit inside it, when you wanted to write something, you got out a piece of paper and a pen and you wrote it by hand. Many still do, and the success of notebook companies like Moleskine and Paperblanks clearly indicate that people still enjoy using a paper notebook. For myself, I find that a notebook is easier to carry (more so than even my netbook), more conducive to jotting things down, and that editing on paper is better than trying to do it through Microsoft Word.

But there are downsides to using a notebook. For one, I know my hand can cramp if I write for too long, and I don't write as fast as I think, meaning I'm sometimes one or two sentences away from where my pen is on the page. Furthermore, unless the paper in your notebook is 100% recycled, trees are still being cut down in order to produce paper notebooks, and the covers of those notebooks may not be terribly green, either.

So, computers are speedy, but still not as convenient (although the iPad looks like it will change that), and paper is convenient, but sometimes frustrating. Their respective uses aside, however, how do each stack up against destruction? One would assume that paper is far easier to destroy that something digital. Water can saturate and run ink; fire can burn; wind can toss loose-leaf into the air or into a pond (as Colin Firth found out in Love Actually); and earth can render words illegible. People can also steal notebooks and throw away paper mistaking it for garbage, and unless you make photocopies, you can't backup something physical. Digital writing, however, is just as susceptible to destruction as writing on paper. Work can be deleted, and if your computer is attacked, then fixing your computer can result in a wiping of your harddrive--and every file on it. The tricky thing with computers is that rarely can you see an attack coming, and unlike relegating your writing to being indoors to save it from the elements, protecting your computer isn't completely fullproof. It seems that in recent years, you need all kinds of software to protect your PC, and while Macs are famous for not being attacked by viruses, as a friend once pointed out, there will likely come a day when someone does attack Macs, and they will not know how to defend themselves. Now, not only do you need strong anti-virus software (and a host of other things), you also need USB sticks, external harddrives, and/or CDs in order to backup your work. And you need to do it regularly, otherwise when you're caught unawares, then you are left frantically e-mailing and transfering files.

And that is not fun at all.

It seems that writing has always been fraut with peril, as it were. However, I think that adding technology into the mix has made it just that bit more difficult. Yes, it's greener (you aren't using as much paper when you're saving everything in Word), however, there are dangers to digital work that don't occur with hardcopies, and take much more safeguarding against. While I don't think we're worse off, I do think it makes us more stressed.

And really, do writers need more stress?

(Image borrowed from here.)

on floods

All of this weekend, the news has been drenched (sorry) with stories about two environmental disasters: the flooding in Brisbane, Australia; and the flooding in Brazil's Rio de Janeiro state. Both instances of flooding have nigh-devestated the affected areas, forcing people from homes and destroying property and even taking lives. These are things no one wants to happen, and while each can be explained by natural seasonal weather patterns (La Niña and a Humidity Convergence Zone, respectively), however, I couldn't help but think that global warming may have played a part.

It's no secret that polar ice is melting. All of those images of poor polar bears stranded on tiny ice flows attests to that. However, besides rising sea levels, what else would this excess mean? I give you the water cycle:


We all know it. We all get the photocopy in elementary school science class. We all know that water evaporates and condences, forms clouds and then falls back onto us in either rain or snow. But more water in the oceans means more water is being evaporated. More water evaporating means that more will fall on us than it has in the past. La Niña is a natural event, but the reason for its severity could be global warming-induced. As much rain falls in 24 hours as falls in a month in Brazil is likely global warming. And the harsh winter and heavy snow fall experienced in Europe, the UK, Canada, and the USA is, again, global warming, presented in a slightly different form.

The kind of weather being experienced globally is not natural. Yes, some of it occurs during natural phenomena, however, the severity of these occurences clearly indicates that something else is at work here. There is a clear--and almost stupidly simple--explanation, one that we humans cannot afford to ignore anymore. We can't let these sorts of things keep happening. We can't let people keep dying. Because this is just the start. If we don't do something, weather will only get worse, and from there crops are destroyed, fresh water ruined, animals perish, and more people die.

Is that really worth living happily ignorant a little while longer?

(Images borrowed from here and here.)

on giftwrap

It didn't occur to me until earlier this week as I realized I still hadn't wrapped my Christmas gifts that most of the giftwrap options open to me weren't green ones. I headed to my local organic shop, and did discover some lovely (although not particularly Christmas-y) 100% recycled wrapping paper made with soy-based ink. However, it was also £1.49 a sheet, and the sheets weren't terribly big. Due to my very tiny budget, I ended up with giftwrap from WH Smith. However, this got me thinking about eco wrapping paper, as well as other more eco-friendly options for dressing up your gifts.

At Pristine Planet there are a number of options for handmade giftwrap using non-toxic dyes, post-consumer waste, shed tree bark, and other lovely things. A quick Google search will give you a number of options, however, you will most likely have to order them online. The non-eco stuff is what is cheap to stock, and unfortunately that's what you're most likely to find in Hallmark, WH Smith, and other chain stores.

If you want to take a more hands-on approach and forgo store-bought wrapping paper, you can create your own eco giftwrap. Green Planet Ethics gives some options such as using cloth, children's artwork (although, if you don't have kids, you can do it yourself to get a similar look. Finger painting, stamps made out of halved potatoes--use non-toxic paint and that's a well spent afternoon), magazine and newspaper pages, and even things like pinecones and holly in place of bows. Planet Forward has even more alternatives in place of store-bought products.

Next year, I plan to be more eco-friendly in my Christmas preparations. Instead of just getting a roll of store-bought paper and gift tags that only look homemade, I'll make my own. This way, I can also personalize each gift--write a message, decorate the wrapping using images I know that person likes. So much of Christmas is becoming just about gifts--about objects--placing less importance or full-on ignoring the reason why we give gifts in the first place: to make people happy. To let our friends and family know that we think about them, and love them, and miss them, and that while what we present them with is only a pale representation of what they mean to us, it is something that will let them know that there is someone who cares about them whenever they use or see their gift. Why can't the giftwrap do the same? Why does it have to be something to look at for a microsecond and then toss in the trash?

Personally, I think it can be a bit more.

(Image borrowed from here.)

on the saturday morning cartoon

Over on Facebook, there's the movement (if one could call it that) to raise awareness for child abuse by changing your profile picture to a picture of a cartoon from your childhood. Whether or not this will actually incite action towards child abuse aside, changing my picture got me to thinking about the Saturday Morning Cartoon, and the environment's place in it.

Or rather, the lack of it.


When I was a kid, Ted Turner came out with Captain Planet and the Planeteers, a series about the adeventures of five kids with power rings representing the different elements (wind, earth, fire, water, and heart (not an element, but...it's there)). At the behest of the goddess Gaia, they travel around fighting polluters, and when a problem seems beyond them, they combine the power in their rings to summon Captain Planet.

A few years ago, I watched a couple of epsiodes out of nostalgia, and have to admit, while the premise and message are fantastic, the dialogue is rather cringe-worthy and the plots are a tad cheesy. But like I said, the premise and message are brilliant. A kids show about the environment! What better way to ensure the health and safety of our planet than by pressing its importance on the impressionable minds of children. Children who will then encourage their parents to hold a similar mindview. I know the show affected me as a kid, and is most likely one of the core reasons why I am an environmentalist today.

With this in mind, I wondered if there were programs made since the early 1990s (Captain Planet's original run) that were about the environment. Google tells me no.

Typing 'shows like Captain Planet', 'environmental cartoons' and 'environmental kids shows' into the search engine has come up with very little. Most are environmental political-style cartoons, however, I did come across an article about environmentalism in Disney cartoons. Said article from the Sunday Times states that many of Disney's movies carry environmental messages, backing up its claims with examples from the films. No offence to Mark Henderson, the writer of the article, but many of those examples are ones that will fly over a child's head like a jet fighter. Adults may pick up on it, but the chances of a child seeing Ariel falling in love with Prince Eric as "a fundamental division between humans and the natural world that can, at least partially, be overcome" is slim in the extreme. Any affect the films have on a child regarding the environment will only be subconscious, until such time as the child has grown and viewed the films through educated, adult eyes.

There are two films listed in the article, however, that I do agree that children would be able to pick up a message. Every kid is traumatised to varying degrees after seeing Bambi's mum get shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if the film was the reason why some people never took up hunting or ate venison (or meat in general) or why they later decided to work for the World Wildlife Fund. Finding Nemo is another Disney film whose environmental message is overt enough for children to pick up on it. From the scene of Nemo being torn from his father when he's captured by humans, to the varying psychologically upsetting states of the fish in the dentist's tank, the film does clearly demonstrate the damaging affect taking animals out of the wild for pets can have on them.

"The reaction to the film by the general public has led to environmental devastation for the clown fish and has provoked an outcry from several environmental protection agencies, including Marine Aquarium Council, Australia. Apparently the demand for tropical fish skyrocketed after the film's release. This has caused reef species decimation in Vanuatu and many other reef areas.

Even more bizarre, after seeing the film, some aquarium owners released their pets into the ocean, but the wrong ocean. This has introduced species harmful to the indigenous environment and is harming reefs worldwide as well."

...or maybe not.

But these are films, not half-hour cartoons kids can watch while they eat their cereal in their pyjamas. Granted, it's been a while since I watched a Saturday Morning Cartoon. Environmentalism could very well be present in some of the shows on YTV and Cartoon Network and CBeebies. But as far as overt, clear-cut, in-your-face environmental cartoons for kids goes...

It looks like Captain Planet is our hero.

on diaries

As the year is slowly winding to a close, it occurred to me this week that I would need a 2011 diary. I am a big fan of list making, and writing things down in pen or pencil, and so I enjoy picking a new diary out every year. Last year, I bought a Paperblanks, and as I enjoyed using it, I figured I'd purcahse another diary, only in a slightly larger size than before (their Slim format can be a bit finickyto write in, especially as you get closer to the middle of the book while writing on the left side). Thus prepared, I made my way to my university bookshop, firm in my decision.

When I got there, I wavered.

As I stood in the shop, twirling the book stand round and round, I discovered that my eye was drawn elsewhere. They were slim diaries, black and bound with a cloth elastic. They were beautiful in their simplicity, as classic as the little black dress. You could see them older, the cover cracked and creased, the pages wrinkled from wear, but that only added to their beauty.

They were Moleskines.

I'd seen them before, in Waterstones and a dozen other shops, almost forgettable sitting near flashy book covers and notebooks covered with cupcakes and confetti and cats. I'd always ignored them, eyeing the pricetag and turning up my nose. Why would I pay so much for something so simple? But standing in the bookshop, something drew me to them. Something made me want to own them.

As with all new purchases, I had to deliberate. So I went home. That evening, I looked on the Moleskine website, practically drooling as I beheld not just the diaries, but the notebooks and sketchbooks and watercolour books; books big enough for scrapbooking; books small enough for only a single sentence. I love books in all their forms, and have often bought a new notebook when I knew it would be ages before I would be able to use it. There's just something about writing that first word--that first line--in a new book that is just...spine-tingling.

As I researched, I, like everyone in the 21st Century, turned to Wikipedia. For a while, all was well with the world.

Then I read the end of the article.

Then I felt my stomach clench.

Moleskines...are not green.

According to the article, in 2010 the California Prop 65 warning label started to be slapped onto their books. Save for their Cahier line (which is made from cardboard), all of Moleskine's covers are made with a plastic softener called DEHP (or Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate), which apparently is carcinogenic, and thus necessitated the Prop 65 label. DEHP is used in the manufactoring of products containing PVC, including medical equipment like blood bags and air tubes. Not only is DEHP carginogenic, but it also adversely affects the human reproductive system, as they can leech into the body, lowering sperm count, affecting male fetal development, and causing miscarrige (as it's a pseudo-estrogen and hormone modifier). The Wikipedia article on DEHP (as linked above) continues to outline the harm the chemical can do to the human body.

So why is it used in Moleskine notebooks?

Unfortunately, the internet has provided no answer. Moleskine is aware that the chemical is used in their products, and of the harm that it could cause, but as of August 2010 has done nothing about it. Sickened--and disappointed--I decided not to buy a Moleskine. However, that did not stop me from staring morosely at them when I was in Waterstones a few days later. They looked so innocent. After all, they're just books. Empty books with false leather casing. Could it really be so damaging to own one?

I touched one, and when I got home couldn't stop myself from washing my hands.

I have since begun a search into other, chemical-free notebooks and diaries. Quo Vadis has an eco line that uses 100% recycled paper, and is even manufactured using biogas energy (although they are difficult to find in the UK). Collins has a carbon neutral notebook collection, an Eco line of diaries, and appears to regularly use 100% recycled paper in their products. Hopefully, I'll discover others, and as time passes more companies--including Moleskine--with strive to use fewer production methods that harm both people and the planet.

But for now, I think I'm going to stick with Paperblanks. First instinct is always the best, right?

(Image borrowed from here.)

on studio ghibli

Lately, I've been on a bit of an anime binge. More specifically, a Studio Ghibli binge.

I've been a Studio Ghibli fan for years, the appreciation--and later admiration--first beginning at age thirteen when I first saw Princess Mononoke. I was awed by the film. The story telling was captivating, the animation beautiful, and the score moving. I was entranced, and ten years later, I still am.


The film centres around Ashitaka, a man living during Japan's Muromachi period, who finds himself cursed by a dying boar demon. He leaves his home village for the boar's homeland, hoping to find a way to lift the curse and prevent his death. What he finds, however, is not a cure, but a struggle between the human village of Irontown and the gods, demons, and animals of the forest they threaten to destroy.

The film's environmental message is a powerful one, and one of the things about it that interests me is that there is no victory for either humanity or nature. While characters such as Lady Eboshi do change their former outlook (deciding to stop ravaging the forest to make iron), there are also ones like Jigo, who, despite almost dying at the hands of a deer god, still appears unrepentent towards his destructive actions. There are no winners and no losers, which is a great mirror of what actually happens in life, and one not often seen in any film, let alone an animated one.

One of the things writer and director Hayao Miyazaki does in this film that I adore, is his use of characterization as juxtaposition. There are two extremes in the film: those who hate humans (as encompassed by San, the titular princess), and those who hate nature (as encompassed by Lady Eboshi). In the middle, is Ashitaka, who represents a balance between the two. Of course, this is an extreme oversimplification of the characters. San may hate humans, but the only ones she knows having been trying to kill her animal friends and family, and as the story progresses she does come to care for Ashitaka. Lady Eboshi, who for the majority of the film only sees the forest and its animals, spirits, and gods as an obstacle in her path to bettering the industry of her village, is extremely generous to humans. She takes care of lepers, and frees prostitutes, and puts her trust in Ashitaka only hours after meeting him. Both women are complicated characters, and their status as polar opposites is not completely static. I find it fascinating how Miyazaki structures their motivation, and slowly and subtly changes them.

As an older, more overtly environmentally conscious writer, Miyazaki's use of nature in his films has been--and continues to be--a great inspiration to me. Princess Mononoke and his first Studio Ghibli film, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, are two of his more overtly environmentally conscious films. However, just because the environment isn't the central theme of the film does not mean he doesn't encorporate it elseware.

In Spirited Away, the protagonist Chihiro, working in a bath house for spirits, serves a massive, foul-smelling, filthy spirit that is nothing so much as sentient mud. During the spirit's bath, she discovers what at first she thinks is a thorn, but turns out to be the handle of a bicycle. Pulling out the bicycle results in dislodging a small mountain of human garbage, and once it's clear, Chihiro discovers that the spirit is actually a river god. It's a relatively small seen in the film, and the personification of the human pollution of the natural world goes uncommented on by any of the characters, however, it's things like that that have greatly influenced how I structure my own work.

To be honest, writing stories solely about global warming and melting ice caps can get rather dull. But Miyazaki has taught me that I can still have my environmental message present--that I can still say what I want to say about how I believe we should treat our planet better. It will just be done quietly. A sentence. A paragraph. A line of dialogue. It doesn't have to be big to make an impact, it just has to be there.

Next on my Studio Ghibli viewing list is Pom Poko, a film about tanuki (Japanese raccoon dogs). Written and directed by Isao Takahata, it also appears to have an environmental message, the plot centering around human development encroching on the natural habitat of animals. So I guess Miyazaki isn't the only environmental buff in the studio, eh?