I only caught a portion of a report on NPR last week so I am afraid I can’t properly credit the speaker who first mentioned the idea of less consumption leading to more local trash. But it’s such an interesting concept I had to write about it.

Most of us don’t think about what happens to the packaging our stuff comes in. Many of us just throw it away or recycle it. When it’s recycled, cardboard and other waste paper often ends up being processed and bailed at the recycling facility for export to countries that, oddly enough, can’t get enough of this stuff. Places like China and Japan, where they make lots of stuff but don’t have a lot of trees to make into paper and cardboard to put the stuff in.

So China makes stuff, sends it to us in boxes, we buy the stuff, recycle the boxes, that go back to China, to make packaging for more stuff, and the cycle goes on and on.

But apparently, we’re not buying enough new stuff from them and the waste paper we’re sending to the Far East is piling up in their shipping ports and the bottom has fallen out of the recycled paper business. So China et al. may not want our waste paper products any more, or at least not in the quantities we’ve been sending it them in the past.

Meanwhile, all of the stuff from China and company that was already in the pipeline to the U.S. will eventually be sold and the paper and cardboard sent off to recycling centers without a market to sell it to. So where will it go? You guessed it, into landfills, perhaps even the one in your city or neighborhood. It could be worse, at least this paper and cardboard is biodegradable. But it takes up a lot of room in landfills, room that we’re rapidly running out.

So then, is the lesson to buy more to keep the cycle of consumption and waste recycling going? I think not. The lesson is to consider the entire life cycle of what we purchase, including the stuff it comes in. For example, less packaging, less to throw away or recycle. No packaging? Well, good luck unless you’re buying used in which case someone else has already dealt with the packaging.

Here’s an interesting video in Chinese with English subtitles about the problem of over packaging as seen from the Chinese perspective.

At a loss for a present for your friends, family, and colleagues? I understand completely. Try a donation in their honor to the charity of your choice.

This year, I have chosen the One Laptop Per Child Foundation. I suppose this is a no-brainer for an educational technologist.

Watch the thank-you video from some 2007 recipients:

I have written before about the wonderful book, Disrupting Class, by Clayton Christensen, et al. The book seems to be making the rounds in the blogosphere, and its three authors are appearing in interviews and web casts

This is a good thing. The book deserves a wide readership and, even more importantly, deep discussions amongst school leaders. Thus it was that I was excited to tune in to last week’s EdTech Talk with during which the book was discussed with Patrick Bassett, President of the National Association of Independent Schools.

(Full disclaimer: I work for an independent school that is a member of NAIS).

Bassett is one of the most wired and savvy education executives I know and therefore I was not surprised that he has not only read Disrupting Class, but he understands and embraces the implications of the authors’ assertions regarding the future of education.

It may be even more surprising that Pat represents a sector of education that many people many believe represents the ivy walls, tradition, and conservatism. But Bassett is not that that kind of leader. Indeed, he is recommending Disrupting Class as recommended reading to all NAIS members and believes it critical that we engage in thoughtful discussions at all levels within our organizations. He believes that NAIS schools have a leadership responsibility to help define future schools along five themes of sustainability, and that programmatic sustainability requires schools to change to reflect 21st century practices such as those discussed in Disrupting Class.

Listen to Bassett’s remarks: www.edtechtalk.com/21cl_88

People with an opinion about copyright law seem to agree that the current system is broken, or at least the interpretation of copyright law by many media companies is broken.

The fact that it is broken is little defense against infringement. There are lots of bad laws and, should you run afoul of one, you can still be prosecuted, fined and jailed.

Clearly the law must change. So how do educators help to make this happen?

We can lobby our legislators to change the law. We can conduct boycotts of companies deemed to be intransigent offenders of common copyright sense, and move our business to those with more acceptable policies. We can try to spark public outrage through acts of civil disobedience for what is believed to be unjust laws. We can go to court and attempt to overturn unjust laws by proving that they are unconstitutional or contrary to congressional intent.

None of these options appeal to me. I’ve got a life to live and I am not THAT passionate about the issue to make it my life’s work.

How about you?

The Center for Social Media at American University recently released a great video on copyright. This video was also featured in an ISTE webinar on copyright held on December 4, 2008. I offer it here as a segue to a discussion in a later post about copyright issues and opportunities as they apply to 21st century schools.