Disposing of the diaper debate

The great diaper debate illustrates one of the more frustrating weaknesses of the green revolution: While it might be easy, even simple, to pinpoint a certain environmental problem, it is often difficult and complicated to come up with an unequivocal and satisfactory solution.

The opponents of disposable diapers have made their position well known. They maintain that diapers take hundreds of years to decompose (if they ever decompose) and the bundle of joy they contain takes equally long to decompose, presenting serious concern about the spread of disease. What's more, the diaper manufacturing process makes heavy use of chemicals, dyes and plastic - not to mention excessive logging. Therefore it is advisable to switch, or rather return, to reusable cloth diapers. Sounds convincing? Absolutely. But precisely at this point, things start getting complicated. Opponents of cloth diapers argue that the amount of water and energy wasted in laundering them is equal in ecological terms to the waste and pollution entailed by manufacturing disposable diapers. They further maintain that textile manufacturing is as polluting and problematic a process as disposable diaper production.

Opponents of disposable diapers hold their own, however, contending that a child who uses cloth diapers generates less pollution for the simple reason that the inconvenience of using these nappies has parents weaning their toddlers off them at an earlier stage.

Precisely at this point, where the numbers are cited and it is hard to argue with numbers, I also start to feel exhausted and tend to acknowledge that the issue has been decided, that without a doubt, the use of disposable diapers was a mistake and the time has come to ask forgiveness from the environment and return to using the cloth diapers that humans used for generations upon generations.

But, hold on tight, there is another ideological divide: Reusable cloth diaper opponents vehemently argue that the very thought of putting babies back in cloth diapers reveals the true ugly face of the green revolution. After all, who will pay the price of this debate? The weakest link, the newest arrivals to our world, who will have to roam around damp and shivering from cold in cloth diapers that are far less absorbent and comfortable (at least there is no argument on this point). Simply put, it may perhaps be ecological, but completely unethical to harm the welfare of babies and demand that they be at the forefront of the effort to preserve the environment. There are so many other things adults can do to improve the world before requiring babies to give up such an elementary necessity.

Had enough? Wait until you hear the third camp's side, which opposes both reusable cloth diapers and disposable diapers. This camp recommends raising babies without diapers. From the green perspective, this, of course, is the ultimate solution.

Completely fed up? We haven't yet said a word about the fourth camp, which recommends diapers made of several layers of flannel, or terrycloth, or organic cotton, shaped like disposable diapers and with Velcro or snap closures. They also have waterproof covers so that the baby's clothes remain dry and clean. In short: a hybrid creation combining disposable and reusable diapers. But how is that a hybrid? Is there a part that is thrown out?

Diapers, of course, are just an example of a typical environmental problem: Given all the unequivocal views and proposed solutions, the handling of the problem slows to a stop. Frustrating? To say the least.

The possibility of a childhood removed from the outdoors may escalate into a disorder known as Nature Deficit Order. According to several Web sites and articles, this is a not uncommon situation in which refraining from going or hesitating to be outside escalates to the point of becoming a disorder. It may sound a little strange and perhaps even radical, but in reality, mothers' calls to "come home, it's late already," which once echoed on the streets, are gradually being replaced by pleas for children to leave the computer for a while, disengage from the television and go outside to get some fresh air.

The term Nature Deficit Disorder tries therefore to define the situation of many children who were born and grew up in urban areas and were exposed very little, if at all, to the plant and animal world. This deficit also has an important ecological impact: How is it possible to get children who grew up with no physical connection to nature interested in environmental protection? Why would they have to worry about the flowers, trees and open spaces that were never dear to them or a part of their world?