Cole 1

T.J. Cole

BIOL 315

MWF 11:00-11:50

12/8/14

Christmas Consumerist Ethic

The Christmas season is upon the world; naturally, almost every member in developed

countries will join the conveyor belt of consumerism in an effort to purchase a barrage of items

for their loved ones, or even themselves. This is a staple to not only the countries’ cultures, but

also to their economies- it is during the holidays in which most companies begin to see positive

income and it is important to support the companies which sustain its customers. One does not

need to have a doctorate to know that Christmas is a time for giving to loved ones, but is there an

extent in which the giving becomes extraneous, even harmful? The question is not asked about

people receiving unneeded gifts- it is asked in defense of the environment and the dozens of

groups entities affected by consumer transactions. Some of the environmental burdens posed by

Christmas are upon landfills and pollution from production. This paper pushes for a consumerist

ethic during the time of Christmas so that the gift giver, while doling out wrapped boxes to those

most important to him, can stop and consider giving a bigger gift to the environment by

restraining himself to consumeristic modesty.

It is not uncommon assert that the period of the year in which people spend the most

money and consume the most is during Christmas. A Gallup poll dictates that lower income

individuals (<$90,000 per year) spend around $84 dollars a day during December of 2013; upper

income individuals (>90,000 per year) spend roughly $174 per day in the same year. Both of

these statistics stand as the highest numbers in their individual polls with the exception of $189

per day spent by upper income individuals in May of 2014. This skewed statistic of an increase

Cole 2

in expenditures in May 2014 may suggest that December of 2014 could see upwards of $200 per

individual per day. Statistics given by the National Retail Foundation indicate that from 2011-

2013, the average amount of money US holiday shoppers spent on merchandise has increased by

$27 per person. Another Gallup poll says that in 2013, the estimated Christmas spending of US

consumers was $704 per person. This year in 2014, the figure has risen to $781 per person- it is a

$77 increase, (more than a tank’s worth of gasoline), for each individual in one year. In a poll by

National Retail Foundation, $602.1 billion were spent in 2013 during the winter holidays. While

these former small differences do not seem like a lot, they accumulate into massive figures and

indicate even more massive effects-remember, the former figures were calculated for each

individual. The last statistic is hard-hitting as it is over seven times Bill Gate’s net worth,

according to Forbes Magazine. In reflection upon the amount of money spent during Christmas

time, it is imperative to consider the following: of the six billion plus dollars spent during winter

holidays in 2013, a rough equivalent amount’s worth of solid waste has accumulated in landfills.

Almost everything one buys comes packaged, in which case the packaging is disposed. One of

the biggest externalities of almost every transaction is contribution to landfills.

For decades, peoples’ reliance on landfills for solid waste disposal has left us to believe

that it was indeed the correct means (Tammemagi, 4). Unfortunately, people can sometimes be

wrong as is such in this scenario. The US EPA states that in 2012, there were 1,908 landfills in

the country (Statista). While landfills remove the solid waste produced from the households and

industries out of visible reach, some components of the garbage-mountains themselves travel

back to the people (and sometimes other people) in the form of leachate. Leachate can most

easily be understood as “toxic underground garbage water”. It is a “complex mix of inorganic

and organic components and combined with site specificity, often means that the route of

Cole 3

exposure and toxicity remain unknown” (Koshy, 171). When rain hits the tops of landfills, the

water trickles down through the large pile and accumulates underground. Along the way, various

particles and toxins are picked up due to the dissolving power of the rain water. The rainwater

percolates through the layers of waste in landfills and migrates through pores within the mass.

The toxic wastewater then collects in the lowest point of the facility in a storage reservoir or

sump (Koshy, 172). Studies have shown that components of leachate pose threats to the

environment and human health.

In the UK, 80% of its residents live within 2 km of a landfill, which means that there is a

greater chance of exposure to landfill emissions, i.e. gasses, particulate matter and most

importantly, leachate. According to two studies, landfill leachates have been shown to induce

abnormal sperm morphology and chromosomal abnormalities in the bone marrow of mice. This

indicates that leachate is genotoxic in the cells of mammals (Koshy, 172). In the toxicity

assessment of leachate conducted by Koshy et. al., it was mentioned that the oxidative capacity

of leachates has inflamogenic and carcinogenic health effects in humans (179). As for the case of

the environment, many critical discoveries by Bernard et. al. have occurred. Their study was to

estimate the hazards of landfills through testing leachates on toxicity. It was done using aquatic

organisms belonging to all three trophic levels of the food chain: producer, consumer and

decomposer. Growth inhibition was tested for the producers, morality for consumers and

decomposers, and luminescence inhibition for bacteria, also in level of decomposer (Table 1,

2307). For convenience, the final results were recorded in “Toxic Units” (TU) and expressed in

percent, ranging from 0-500, “exceeding 100 in a substantial number of cases” (2308). There

were three types of leachate used: leachate from domestic waste landfills, mixed or not mixed

with non-hazardous or hazardous industrial waste and artificial landfill waste (2304). The results

Cole 4

were compelling, revealing that “the leachates need to be diluted by more than 10.000 times to

make them innocuous for environmental biota” (2317).

Bernard et. al. discovered that domestic wastes, whether alone or mixed with hazardous

or non-hazardous industrial wastes, were “substantially more toxic than those of pure industrial

wastes” (2308). The findings reveal that it is the consumer household, not industry alone, which

contributes to pollution by landfill. The most toxic-sensitive organisms, the ones with the highest

overall TU levels (or smallest “Sloof” values (2314)) were Vibrio fisheri (bacteria), Spirostomum

ambiguum (ciliate protozoan), Ceriodaphnia dubia and Thamnocephalus platyurus (crustaceans)

and Lemna minor (duckweed) (Table 3, 2315). This is ecological damage at a level overlooked

by many. The most sensitive organisms were both of the decomposers; without decomposers in a

community, the water and soil will fail to timely regain their nutrients. Duckweed, already a

plant facing endangerment, feeds dozens of different organisms. Without it, there could be an

entire break in the food chain. The two crustacean species affected will not only fail to keep

other competing primary consumers in check, but their increased absence will weaken the

carnivores. If such a practice continues with the world’s landfills, nearby aquatic bodies will be

dead, or at the very least have low diversity. Nature’s aesthetic and instrumental value will be at

an extreme threat. Humanity lives in a trashy paradox; the fact that the world’s effort to “clean

up the earth” and dispose of their waste to a landfill, but to have the endeavor turn around to

cause its own form of pollution shows that there is still a long way to go before there is a zero

impact waste system. However, the natural environment from which humans have expertly

detached themselves is not the only unforeseen issue.

Fresh Kills used to be New York City’s only landfill and was the largest in the whole

world, covering 2,500 acres and reaching a height of 150 meters (Tammemagi, 5). To put this size

Cole 5

into perspective, the 2014 average U.S. corn and soybean yields are estimated at a record level of 171.7

and 46.6 bushels per acre respectively (USDA 2014). Multiply such figures by 2,500 and America loses

the potential for 427,750 bushels of corn and 116,500 bushels of soybeans. When applied to the rest of the

country, an infinitesimal amount of potential land for domestic food production, (not just corn and

soybeans, but green produce, too), goes awry. In a country where food deserts are numerous and obesity

among low-income households is high, this system of municipal solid waste removal is flawed and unjust.

It removes opportunity from those who need it and poses a bandage-style solution to a non-bandage type

of issue. It would be illogical, however, to completely vanquish landfill use- the common mode for trash

disposal is simply the best of a bad situation, and no matter how well engineered are modern landfills, “it

is accepted that all landfills will leak to some extent” (Koshy, 171). In sum, the issue arises through the

mismanagement of the landfills and determining the “proper treatment of leachate” (Zou, Koshy), but the

single starting point of the issue is consumeristic acts. If the developed world would exhibit self-control

over itself in consumption, the issue of environmental harm by landfilled would be mollified, but it is the

culture of developed nations to live in excess. Consumption on almost all levels is the main generator to

waste and one of the star contributors to ecological degradation.

Developed countries are primarily consumer societies (Bauman, 25). Zygmunt Bauman, in his

book titled “Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (2nd Edition)” epitomizes the act of human

consumption:

“To consume also means to destroy. In the course of consumption, the consumed things cease to

exist, literally or spiritually. Either they are ‘used up’ physically to the point of complete annihilation, such

as when things are eaten or worn out, or they are stripped of their allure, no longer arouse and attract desire,

and forfeit their capacity to satisfy one’s needs and wishes – for example, an overused toy or an overplayed

record – and so become unfit for consumption” (25).

Cole 6

When any item becomes “unfit for consumption”, it typically ends up adding to the waste pile-up

seen in every landfill.

America and every other developed country was, at one point or another, a producer society

(Bauman, 24); but those societies have evolved into primarily consumer societies when industries began

to outsource factories to lower income countries, where environmental laws are more lenient, the working

age is younger and the wages are smaller. These modern producer societies (China, Taiwan, India, etc.)

are who provide for the consumer societies, in which system the consumers are blind to their transactional

externalities on the producers (i.e. pollution). People of developed countries are mere involuntary sheep to

an unjust system of consumerism.

“The passage from producer to consumer society has entailed many profound changes; arguably

the most decisive among them is, however, the fashion in which people are groomed and trained to meet

the demands of their social identities…the absence of routine and the state of constant choice that are the

virtues (indeed, the ‘role prerequisites’) of a consumer… Ideally, the consumer’s satisfaction ought to be

instant, and this in a double sense. Consumed goods should bring satisfaction immediately, requiring no

delay, no protracted learning of skills and no lengthy groundwork; but the satisfaction should end the

moment the time needed for their consumption is up, and that time ought to be reduced to a bare minimum”

(Bauman 24, 25).

This seems to be a main reason why people tend to over-consume on mere things: their use and

satisfaction for particular items are single and instantaneous. Afterwards, something else must come into

play in order to “amuse” the consumer. It seems that people likely overspend during the holidays for

precisely this reason- the reason being that they worry about their loved ones’ happiness. The use of their

son or daughter’s new toy will be short and they will be unhappy (or bored) without a stash of other

trinkets. Nobody wants to disappoint their children, so they further harm the environment by fulfilling

their kids’ desires with more clothes, toys or electronics. It is then assumed by general society that those

Cole 7

with the most money, those who consume the most, are the most happy. The Easterlin Paradox dictates

otherwise.

Richard A. Easterlin is a professor of economics at University of Southern California (USC), who

wrote a paper in 1974 titled “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?”. His paper asserts that

happiness does not increase over time as a country’s income increases (populationassociation).

“Happiness is not confined, of course, to economic well-being” (Easterlin, 90). Easterlin confirmed this

assumption through a study done through polling and cooperation of citizens in “nineteen different

countries, including eleven in Asia, Africa and Latin America” (118). It was found that “Within countries

there is a noticeable positive association between income and happiness—in every single survey, those in

the highest status group were happier, on the average, than those in the lowest status group” (118). While

the latter statement appears to oppose the Easterlin Paradox in that the wealthier are the most happy, it

does not say that the happiness improves “over time”, nor does it take into account social norms.

As years progress, so too do economics and production, and as a country accumulates more

wealth, the standards for living, consumption and consumer goods go up. “This upward shift in standards

(tastes) tends to offset the positive effect of income growth on well-being that one would expect on the

basis of economic theory” (116). People will associate their own levels of happiness based on societal

norms; if it is a highly developed country and the individual is doing poorly financially, he or she will feel

less well off, less happy, than those at the top (119). Easterlin sites Hadley Cantril to illustrate this

concept:

“People in highly developed nations have obviously acquired a wide range of aspirations,

sophisticated and expensive from the point of view of people in less-developed areas, who have not yet

learned all that is potentially available to people in more advanced societies and whose aspirations

concerning the social and material aspects of life are modest indeed by comparison [p. 202]” (115).

Easterlin sums up his thesis and turns the statistic of the wealthy as the most happy on its head:

Cole 8

“Over time, however, as economic conditions advance, so too does the social norm, since this is

formed by the changing, economic socialization experience of people. For the same reason, among different

societies at a given time, there tends to be a rough correspondence between living levels and the social

norm. As a result, the positive correlation between income and happiness that shows up in within-country

comparisons appears only weakly, if at all, in comparisons among societies in time or space” (119).

Thus summarizes the Easterlin Paradox, in which happiness does not come from objects due to

the social norms of life and culture. How does this apply to modern Christmas consumerism? For starters,

the entire gift-giving aspect of the holiday in developed nations (America in particular) is based on the

grounds that to make somebody happy, one must buy another a thing. This is seen in almost every

Christmas advertisement. There is a campaign launched by the high fashion company, Mulberry, called

“#WinChristmas”. Their famous advertisement for Christmas of 2014 features a posh collection of people

at Christmas morning, where it is “Darling’s” (the main character is referred to as “Darling” by her

significant other, so she will be referred as such) turn to open her gifts. Darling receives, in this order, a

portrait of herself made by another, a waving puppy and a unicorn given to her by her boyfriend or

husband. As each gift is received, the givers bear either a smug expression, if his or her gift trumps

another, or dejected when they see that the other person’s present is better. The grandmother of the group

gives her present last, and it is a Mulberry handbag; Darling becomes dramatically jovial and ecstatic and

everybody in the room is angry and jealous of Grandma. Her significant other even dismisses the unicorn

from sight. Gerry Human, the chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather London comments on

this ad saying that “The wickedness of the "#WinChristmas" idea appeals to me. It's a game of

one-upmanship during Christmas-present opening time, where Granny's Mulberry bag gift even

trumps a unicorn. I like that the film breaks the uber-serious fashion category mould, choosing to

lampoon its middle-class audience instead” (Business Source Premier). By “lampoon”, Human

means “criticism”. Darling has received a $1,700 hand bag made from soft cow leather- an item

out of reach to anybody in middle class society. Such a campaign appears puts pressure on the

Cole 9

consumer, bestowing feelings of unavoidable guilt in one of two ways: 1) Being that the blue

collar man cannot afford this luxury for his wife or 2) That the blue collar man splurges on such

an item, causing stress from a financial standpoint. Not only do up-scale fashion companies

distract from the true meaning of Christmas (that is, celebrating God’s embodiment to humanity

through family and fellowship), but if they employ leather as a primary material to accessories

(as does Mulberry), invasion of animal welfare and the environmental harm of tanning

simultaneously occur.

“Leather tanning is a world-wide industry, and known as one of the most important

industries of Mediterranean countries. Tanneries are located in what are called “organized

industrial districts” due to the complex wastewater characteristics” (Lofrano, 266). In vernacular,

leather is heavily chemically treated (or tanned) animal skins for anthropogenic use. Meat

packaging plants are what provide leather companies with their skins. When one purchases

leather, they support the meat industry, known to mistreat subservient animals, make people

overweight and pollute (PETA). Tanning only consists of a fraction of leather treatment; there

are the pre-tanning processes of soaking, unhairing and liming, bating and deliming, degreasing

and pickling. Treatment of the raw animal skins in the pre-tanning process is to remove hair or

any other excess substances (blood, fat, skin) and condition the dermal sheet to absorb and

collect the additives (tannins, chromium salts, vegetable substances, aldehydes, oils and

formaldehydes) used for the actual tanning (266). The skin becomes a rawhide after pre-tanning

and leather after tanning and re-tanning (YouTube). Leather manufacturers take careful measures

to ensure quality and lack of wasted materials. Despite their efforts, trouble emerges.

Possibly the biggest issue in tanning is effluent and wastewater: “Acids, alkalis,

chromium salts, tannins, solvents, sulphides, dyes, auxiliaries, and many others compounds

Cole 10

which are used in the transformation of raw or semi-pickled skins into commercial goods, are not

completely fixed by skins and remain in the effluent. For instance the present commercial

chrome tanning method gives rise to only about 50–70% chromium uptake” (Lofrano, 266).

During the retanning, synthetic tannins called “syntans”, resins and oils are added in various

doses to soften the leather. Syntans, resins and oils all pose a problem due to their low

biodegradability. Since these “semi-pickled skins” are not absorbing all of what is being added,

an addition of toxic chemicals resides in the effluent and dumped. Worthy of noting is the fact

that formaldehyde, one of the components of syntans, is a carcinogen; as the paper discussing the

environmental impact of leather tanning mentions, “there has not been any particular restriction

for syntans yet” (268).

Wastewater gets produced during pre-tanning, which contains not only chemical

pollutants but organic as well. Lofrano has calculated that raw skin has 30% loss of organic

material through the working cycle (268). The “beamhouse wastewater”, as named by Lofrano

et. al. has an alkaline pH, which disrupts the acidity of soil and water upon dumping. Leather

tanneries pollute, and any form of pollution is unacceptable, especially when much of the

pollution is an externality of frivolous human consumption. Revert back to the the nature of

Christmas advertisements, specifically Mulberry’s blasphemy on the holiday. An ethic and need

arises from all of the formerly discussed issues of consumerism, the Easterlin Paradox and

landfills: The 1st world upper class has a great obligation to damper its collective ego on

appearance and satisfaciton through leather items, or any items for that matter. The developing

countries (also known as “the producers”), need the developed to limit their use. Otherwise, the

world witnesses environmental injustice. Animal leather is a valuable resource, but like all other

resources, its use must be maintained. Such maintenance falls under Mulberry’s and other

Cole 11

leather-based companies’ extensive uses of such a fiber- their fortunes seem to thrive off of

degradation.

How can developed societies be content with this, that they damage their own water

supplies, abuse the natural world and endanger the lives of others, even their own? There is a

universal lack of moralism in the country which places priority onto things rather than people

and non-humans. The ethic argued is this: first world residents must sacrifice a small part of their

comfort and convenience for the good of others. They must consider their loved ones (many

times, themselves) and picture them on the other end of the exchange, in which members, human

or not, are suffering, having their rights to live imposed upon and being oppressed due to the

wants for which satisfaction can be controlled. Christmas is conventionally perceived as a time

for giving, but the externalities involve more taking (from the environment) than giving to a

single person. One of the main roots of environmental degradation is consumerism, which causes

buildup of landfills and usage of resources. Most people think that the problem starts and stops

there, but there is an underlying cause to all of what has been previously discussed: it is greed,

which has infuriated our Creator.

Stephen Bouma-Prediger, in his book “For the Beauty of the Earth” discusses the

ecological virtues of self-restraint and frugality, in that acting on those virtues, especially in

consumptive habits, is pleasing to the Lord. Frugality and self-restraint run as supporting morals

to the principle of sufficiency, based on the theological motif of creational finitude (154).

Creational finitude addresses the reality that the earth is indeed limited in its goods and resources

(138). The opposites (vices of deficiency) of frugality and self-restraint are greed and profligacy.

Bouma-Prediger defines greed as “the disposition to excessively acquire, especially beyond

one’s need” (139). He goes further into the subject noting, “Avarice is perhaps a more accurate

Cole 12

term, for it denotes a craving to acquire that is blinded to the limits inherent in creation. Driven

by cupidity, the greedy person lacks any sense of the finitude of the world” (139). Greed is the

opposite of frugality, which is “the economy of use of efficiency of use given the limits of the

goods available” (139). Frugality is saving one’s money and spending it wisely. Self-restraint is

closely connected- its conjugate vice, profligacy, is mere lack of the former. Profligate people

are over-indulgent, and many times towards themselves. They consume more than what they

need and do not acknowledge the finite state of the world. (139). The Easterlin Paradox parallels

well with human greed. If there is an excess of wealth and richness, then the average person will

build up the want for earthly “goods”, thus becoming materialistic as a result of greed.

Somehow, humans have become lost in their own worlds and only exhibit self-control when their

wallets tells them “no”. Money is important, but basing decisions solely on financial principles is

the incorrect way to live one’s life. It is much more Christ-like to take consumptive decisions

into ecological welfare. In light of the holidays, it is imperatively ethical for one to practice the

discussed virtues of frugality and self-restraint. It is our Christian calling and has been from the

very beginning.

God tells Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and

have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing

that moves upon the earth.”- Genesis 1:28. In past society, many people indeed took dominion

over Creation; the pioneers in America deforested whole forests for their agricultural land and

saw wilderness as something to be conquered (Armstrong, Taylor, 182). These men took God’s

command of dominion into the wrong direction- it was a direction of malpractice and usury of

the land. America’s ancestors were in competition with God’s own Creation. It was a sheer

misinterpretation of God’s task for humans; “dominion” was meant more along the lines of

Cole 13

“tender loving care”. God, our King, created humans to be the kings and queens of His Creation-

the earth. God has dominion over Creation, but His people are His agents- those who care for the

earth. A good king does not usurp his people’s resources, cut down their homes, kill their

families or dump noxious toxins in their food supply. The only time God has ever done such as

thing was in the story of Noah’s Ark, after which he promised to care for us and keep us out of

harm’s way. “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the

waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”- Genesis 9:11.

Given the Lord’s commands to us, and given the level of harm done to the environment, it seems

logical to conclude that landfills were not in God’s plan. Perhaps if we practiced frugality and

self-control a lot more often, the amount of waste in landfills would be miniscule compared to

that of the present. If God had promised to take care of us humans as King, then it is only right

for us to return the favor as stewardly kings and queens of His earth, and a large part of such

comes from wise consumption.

Such a tactic is all well and good, but upon the present age, we have socially evolved

from rugged contenders of Creation to total separation. Our abandonment has caused disconnect

and apathy for the environment, a state of reverence just as tragic as the pioneers’ ethos. By not

getting involved in any issues big or small, by choosing to stay away from the problems, one sins

against God’s will. Romans 1:20 explains God’s love and wisdom in Creation: “Ever since the

creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been

understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse”. There is

nothing one can do or say to justify ecological harm. Destroying or letting destruction happen

when the means of prevention are immediately at hand is sinful. The sheep and the goats story in

Cole 14

Matthew 25 alludes to how all of Creation is a part of the Lord and by caring for the earth, one

pleases and cares for God:

““Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father;

take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was

hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I

was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you

looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him,

‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did

we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever

you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”- Matthew 25:

34-40

Society must change and care not only for other humans, but for non-humans as well. Our

collective greed and profligacy are at the root of environmental chaos. Greed leads to materialism,

the love for earthly things. Materialism, coupled with increase in wealth and socialized pressure

to purchase, leads to consumerism. Consumerism, being that the objects consumed are short-lived,

leads to waste. Waste leads to landfills, which lead to leachate. Finally leachate leads to

degradation. Our devil-inspired, inwardly-curved, anthropocentric attitudes come back to haunt us

in the form of unclean water, environmental injustice and socially backward institutions primarily

focused on money. At the same time, Christians live life “just trying to be a good person”; many

times, and unfortunately, people do and preach “good” for their own self- preservation. Ezekiel

33:30-32 explains this debacle: “My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to

hear your words, but they do not put them into practice. Their mouths speak of love, but their

Cole 15

hearts are greedy for unjust gain.” Doing the right thing just because it is “the right thing” is not

“Christianity” or “pleasing the Lord”, it is moralism. Moralism turns into Christianity when one

chooses the right thing, not just because it is moral but because God calls people to action. People

must learn to wisely consume for God and the earth first and their wallets and satisfaction second.

The rewards are eternal if one abides.

Is there hope for the earth? The typical Christian response is “yes”, as explained in

Romans: “For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For

the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who

subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and

brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God”- Romans 8:19-21. The Creation is

waiting for the Christian environmentalist to take a stand, not just to individuals, but whole

institutions; somebody who will get in another’s face and tear down all unjust policies. There are

not enough believers evangelizing on behalf of God’s Creation. There are too many believers

who are still a part of the conventionally wasteful consumeristic system, overvaluing the latest

sundress and forgetting that it is God who truly brings them life, especially during Christmas.

Humanity’s Savior’s birth should not be celebrated with frivolous spending on gifts and usury of

resources, with eventual destination of such in the garbage. Humanity, while giving to their

loved ones, must also give a greater gift to God and His Creation through their own

consumeristic restraint and stewardship. Consume less, be thankful, love your friends and

families, and have a Merry Christmas.

Works Cited

Cole 16

Armstrong, S., & Boltzer, R. (1993). Historical Context. In Environmental ethics: Divergence

and convergence (3rd ed., p. 182). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Average amount holiday shoppers spent on merchandise in the U.S. 2013 | Statistic. (2014,

October 1). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from

http://www.statista.com/statistics/243489/average-amount-holiday-shoppers-spent-on-

merchandise- in-the-us/

Bauman, Z. (2004). Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (2nd Edition). Berkshire, GBR:

McGraw-Hill Education. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Bayswatter Hibiscus Small Classic Grain. Product code: HH2873-205J175 Retrieved. December

4, 2014, from http://www.mulberry.com/shop/womens-bags/shoulder-bags/bayswater-hibiscus-

small-classic-grain

Bernard, C., Guido, P., Colin, J., & Dû-Delepierre, A. (1996). Estimation of the hazard of

landfills through toxicity testing of leachates—I. Determination of leachate toxicity with a

battery of acute tests. Chemosphere, 2303-2320. Retrieved December 6, 2014.

Christmas in the U.S. - average spending on gifts, 2014 | Statistic. (2014, October 1). Retrieved

December 5, 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/246963/christmas-spending- in-the-us-

during-november/

Craven, S. (2013, December 6). Spending This Christmas or Spending It Well: Resisting

Consumerism. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from http://www.christianpost.com/news/spending-

this-christmas-or-spending-it-well-resisting-consumerism-109988/

Easterlin, R. A. (1974) Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical

Evidence” Nations and households in economic growth 89 (1974): 89-125.

Expected consumer spending by seasonal event in the U.S. 2014 | Statistic. (2014, July 1).

Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/319562/us-consumer-

spending-by-seasonal-event/

Hermann Oak Leather Tannery Tour Video - A Weaver Leather Leather Production HD. (2009,

June 3). Retrieved December 4, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyCaonpEd70

Human, Gerry. Private View. Campaign (UK). 11/28/2014, p1-1. 1p. Retrieved December 4,

2014 from EbscoHost

Koshy, L., Paris, E., Ling, S., Jones, T., & Bérubé, K. (2007). Bioreactivity of leachate from

municipal solid waste landfills — assessment of toxicity. Science of The Total Environment,171-

181. Retrieved December 8, 2014.

Cole 17

Lofrano, G., Meriç, S., Zengin, G., & Orhon, D. (2013). Chemical and biological treatment

technologies for leather tannery chemicals and wastewaters: A review. Science of The Total

Environment, 265-281. Retrieved December 4, 2014, from SciVerse ScienceDirect.

Mulberry #WinChristmas (2014, November 9). Retrieved December 4, 2014, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK0fKEvgXJo

Prediger, S. (2001). For the beauty of the earth: A Christian vision for creation care (2nd ed.).

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Rich Get Richer: Bill Gates Tops Forbes 400 List of Richest Americans. (2014, September 29).

Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/rich-get-richer-

bill-gates-tops-forbes-400-list-richest-n214196

Richard A. Easterlin. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2014, from

http://www.populationassociation.org/sidebar/paa-fund-campaign/honored-members/richard-a-

easterlin/

Tammemagi, H. (1999). The waste crisis landfills, incinerators, and the search for a sustainable

future. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, USA. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Taylor, Alan. 1998. “Wasty Ways”: Stories of American Settlement. Environmental History 3.3:

291-310. Copyright © 1999 by Forest History Society. Reproduced with permission of Forest

History Society in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.

“The Leather Industry.” PETA. PETA, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/leather- industry/

Thiesse, K. (2014, September 16). USDA projects record 2014 crop production. Retrieved

December 8, 2014, from http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog/usda-projects-record-2014-crop-

production

U.S. lower-income consumer spending - for the ongoing year, by month | Statistic. (2014, July

1). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/205250/us-self-

reported-lower-income-consumer-spending-by-month/

U.S. municipal solid waste - landfills by region 2012 | Statistic. (2014, February 1). Retrieved

December 5, 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/186346/number-of- landfills- in-us-

municipal-solid-waste/

U.S. upper-income consumer spending 2013-2014 | Statistic. (2014, July 1). Retrieved December

8, 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/205247/us-self-reported-upper-income-

consumer-spending-by-month/

Cole 18

Zou, D., Chi, Y., Dong, J., Fu, C., & Ni, M. (2013). Supercritical water oxidation of MSW

leachate: Factor analysis and behavior of heavy metals. Environmental Progress & Sustainable

Energy, 1117-1124. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from EbscoHost.