\nreleased in 2007, The Story of Stuff<\/a>—it’s been viewed more than 10 million times—about America’s take-make-waste
\ncycle of excessive consumerism. Following the video’s success, Annie had more
\nquestions to answer, more information than could be packed into a short film.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Enough, as it turned out, for a book “The Story of Stuff:
\nHow our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our communities, and our
\nhealth—and a vision for change,” is out today. Admittedly, the book itself is
\nstuff, but it was produced using
\nelectronic copyediting, 100% post-consumer recycled paper, soy-based ink, and
\nnontoxic binding and jacketing materials—so props for that.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Annie took a moment out of her trash- and toxics-reduction
\ncrusade to chat about The Story of Stuff Project, the video, and her new book.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Q. The Story of Stuff video gained a lot of attention <\/p>\n A. I think it was the right message at the right time. The <\/p>\n Q. Is there anything that you would change about the video <\/p>\n A. There are two lines I think are misunderstood. When I talk about the 1 percent <\/p>\n Q. The video is being used as a teaching tool for students <\/p>\n A. In no way was I even remotely thinking I was making this <\/p>\n Q. The film got a lot of attention from detractors as well. <\/p>\n A. I did watch part of them. The part where I lost my <\/p>\n Q. So it’s just a loud minority that disapproves of The <\/p>\n A. I should say less than 1 percent are angry. And the <\/p>\n Q. You said that with the video, you were initially hoping <\/p>\n A. Well I got tens of thousands of emails from people asking <\/p>\n Q. What would you encourage people to do on an individual <\/p>\n A. People ask me that a lot, and I like to see where they <\/p>\n Q. What signs of hope for positive change have you witnessed <\/p>\n A. When I was making The Story of Stuff film, I went back <\/p>\n Q. Has there been any stuff that’s been difficult for you to <\/p>\n A. Not really, partly because I just don’t really focus on Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Colbert interviews Annie Leonard<\/a><\/p>\n Garden Girl TV: Raised beds in the city<\/a><\/p>\n
\nwithout you doing any real promotion for it. What do you attribute that to?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\neconomy was collapsing, so it forced people to think more strategically and
\ncritically about where they put their dollars. I feel like, in a way, releasing
\nthe film was sort of like taking the temperature of the public. Because it was
\nso accessible and simple without dumbing down, it offered people the narrative
\nframework to talk about the issues. My goal in making the film was to turn the
\nvolume up on thinking and talking about the problems with how we currently
\nmake, use, and throw away stuff.<\/p>\n
\nnow?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nof stuff is still in use. [From the video: “Guess what percentage of total material flow through
\nthis system is still in product or use six months after their sale in North
\nAmerica—1 percent. In other words, 99 percent of the stuff we run through
\nthis system is trashed within six months.”] Because of where it is in the film,
\npeople often misinterpret that as 1 percent of what we buy. The other line that
\nI’m ambivalent about is the part where I say it’s the government’s job to take
\ncare of us. Some people misinterpret that to think I mean that they should
\nremind us to floss our teeth and tuck us into bed at night. Maybe I should have
\nsaid is it is the government’s job to make sure things are fair and good and
\nsafe. I think “take care of us” was shorthand that triggers different things in
\npeople’s minds.<\/p>\n
\nin classrooms across the country. Were you expecting that?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nfilm for kids. It’s very inspiring that people like it. My real goal was to
\ntalk to my peers in the progressive movement. I wanted people like recycling
\nactivists and forest activists and gender rights activists and economic rights
\nactivists. I wanted to encourage all of us to think about the broader context
\nof the issue that we’re working on, to sort of deepen our analysis.<\/p>\n
\nAnd I know you’ve addressed Glenn Beck’s<\/a> comments specifically on your blog and in other interviews, but have you seen
\nthe corresponding videos<\/a> that Lee Doren<\/a> made?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\ninterest was when he was attacking me for saying we’re using up our resources.
\nHe had a cross section of the earth and said the earth is 4,000 miles deep, and
\nwe’re nowhere near using up our resources. I’ve lived in India, in Bangladesh,
\nin Haiti, and I imagined going to those villages and handing them a shovel and
\nsaying, “Dig deeper.” It was nuts. It became clear to me that it wasn’t an
\nattempt at fact-based, rational discussion. But still, I’m glad he did it. I’d
\nrather we be arguing about this stuff than ignoring it.<\/p>\n
\nStory of Stuff?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nmajority of those are just following the exact lines they’re getting from Glenn
\nBeck. It’s not even rigorous critical thinking. There have been other
\ncritiques. I really appreciate the people who give honest critiques, and the
\nnumber one critique we get is that I left something out. In which case I say, “Duh,
\nit’s a 20- minute cartoon.” Of course I left something out. But it’s
\ninteresting to see what’s on people’s minds, and by far the number one thing
\npeople say I left out is population. And second is industrial food systems and
\nhow whacked they are.<\/p>\n
\nto reach out to your peers. But with the book, who were you hoping to reach?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nfor more information. One woman wrote and said, “I’m an SUV-driving, republican
\nhousewife from Texas, and I would never have watched your film if I knew what
\nit was about.” She said that she had never thought about any of these issues
\nbefore, and it’s made her rethink everything. I feel like people’s interest was
\npiqued. There are a lot of incredible environmental books out there obviously,
\nbut I think a lot of them are a little intimidating to people who are new to
\nthe issue. So my book is not meant for diehard environmentalists. It’s meant
\nfor the people who are new to the issue who want a slightly easier entrée to
\nlearn about some of these issues.<\/p>\n
\nlevel?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nare so I ask them, “What can you think of to do?” They say, “I can recycle. I
\ncan ride my bike more. I can buy organic. I can buy this instead of this.”
\nReally individual actions as opposed to, “I can work with my neighbors to shut
\ndown this toxic factory.” We have a consumer part of ourselves and a citizen
\npart of ourselves. And throughout this country’s history, the citizen parts of
\nourselves have accomplished enormously wonderful things to make this country a
\nbetter place. But in recent decades, I feel like the consumer part of ourselves
\nis spoken to and validated and nurtured so much that we’ve over-identified with
\nit and the citizen part of ourself has atrophied. We just need to start reinvigorating
\nthat citizen muscle. So the number one thing to do is to hook up with others
\nwho share your values and start making some real change.<\/p>\n
\nsince you started the project?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nand looked at all the latest information and all these facts so I could make
\nsure I had the most up-to-date credible information, and it was such a
\ndisheartening process because on every issue, there’s some species lost to
\ndeforestation, to economic inequality. And all the web pages said things like,
\n“Consensus of scientists warns of imminent collapse.” It was really bad. But
\nthe antidote to that was how, all over the world, people are doing things to
\nreject this system and help transform our economy to be more sustainable and
\nfair. It is incredible how everywhere you look, on every corner of the planet,
\nthere are people that are charting a new path. The other thing that helps me
\nmaintain hope is that I know that change is inevitable. We can’t keep using one
\nand a half planet’s worth of resources indefinitely. But the question is, are we
\ngoing to change by design or by default? Either way it’s going to be a lot of
\nhard work. But if we change by design, we can be so much more intelligent and strategic
\nand compassionate about it. If we change by default, if we dig our heels in and
\nsay we’re not changing the American way of life, we’re still going to change
\nbecause we’re butting up against ecological limits. But it’s going to be a lot
\nuglier and a lot more violent. But I have enormous faith in the goodness of
\nhumans, so I think we can pull it off.<\/p>\n
\ngive up or part with or not consume?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nthe individual piece so much. I really don’t fall into that camp where it’s
\nyour fault because you left the water running when you brushed your teeth. So I
\njust don’t spend a lot of time around the guilt and the individual action
\nstuff. That said, I lead, by U.S. standards, a pretty low impact life. Way
\nbefore The Story of Stuff, I did not bring into my house PVC plastic and brominated
\nflame retardants and Teflon pans and that kind of stuff. The main thing I do
\nthat reduces my consumption is I live in a community in which my neighbors and
\nI are really good friends. We have six houses together on the block, and we’ve
\ntaken down the fences so we have a shared backyard; and we share a lot of
\nthings. So among our six families, we have one pickup truck that we share and
\none ladder that we share and one barbeque and one hot tub and one gardening
\npruner; and because we share things, we have to buy so much less. Less stuff
\nbut more friends.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/a.rfihub.com\/eus.gif?eui=2223\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"