Did you know that at least 60 percent of the solid waste going to landfills could be recycled?

Where did we learn this idea that there is an “away” place where we can send our garbage? What would it do to our thinking if trash cans were all labeled “for the landfill in Eastern Washington” or wherever garbage is being sent.

In the sustainability discussion class at Stillwaters Environmental Center, we learned what it did to our own thinking to change some of the language we use. We all recognized immediately the power of language when we re-labeled our Stillwaters trash cans “landfill” cans.

Language is the basis for what we call “framing” any issue or concern. Every word is defined relative to our conceptual framework, and what words we choose can also alter our concepts of the subject.

For instance, we hear a lot about “tax relief” as a very good thing, or at least a neutral term. “Relief” implies a framework of some kind of affliction from which we need to be unburdened, or a pain that needs to be remedied. And when we are, we experience “relief.”

The person or medicine that brings the relief is the hero. And anyone or anything that opposes relieving the affliction is certainly a villain. But in the case of taxes, they are what we pay in our system of government in order to pay for our public services and infrastructure. Taxes are our dues to have the systems like highways, education, power, television, water, parks and even landfills. Why exactly would we need relief from those services? And where is the affliction?

So how we describe issues is critical in framing the subject and in changing our viewpoints. Changing our language to talk about development is another example. When some real estate agents describe a property, they may apologize for wetlands or a stream, or downplay their size or significance. They are, to some folks, a bother or impediment to being able to “develop” a property.

If “develop” means only building as many structures as possible or in any place you want, then it might be more difficult to “develop” a property with wetlands. But that’s not the case if one thinks of development as creating the best blend of human and wildlife habitat.

Development means “bringing something to a fuller or better state than it was.” Not necessarily better just for the humans, but better for all the inhabitants of the property and the community as well.

Thinking of it that way, those wetlands and streams suddenly become rich assets and exciting features of the land. “Development” now means making those features better, which may mean leaving them alone and protecting them. Or it may mean improving their quality with restoration of native plantings.

“Boundaries” come to mind as well. Do we fence out nature, or fence in humans? The classic story is that a new landowner visited her five-acre wooded property to decide where to build the house. She put her small dog down to play, and the dog ran off into the woods and was killed by a coyote or raccoon. In her grief, the landowner cut down the entire woods and fenced all five acres, presumably to eliminate the nature that killed her dog. A simple, small fenced yard would have accomplished so much more.

We can see creating “boundaries” as a way to let nature be natural, and to keep humans, both adults and kids, and their dogs, cats, bikes, cars and all our other trappings from intruding. Gordon Elementary School, for instance, is left open for wildlife to pass through at night, but the play areas are fenced to keep children safely in the play yard during recess. At Stillwaters, domestic animals are confined to the building interiors and a small fenced yard, and humans are confined to trails, allowing bears, ducks, squirrels and other critters free run of the rest of the land.

Another language viewpoint that shapes our actions: “Abundance” or “scarcity.” Listen to your own language or pay attention to what you hear. We are bombarded daily with the philosophy of “scarcity” that tells us there is not enough to go around — whether it is money, food or the latest car — so we need to hurry to get our share before it is gone.

The philosophy of “abundance” says that there are enough resources for all of us and we don’t have to be greedy or stockpile for the future. In fact, if all Americans ate only the calories they need in order to be healthy, we would have enough food left over to feed all the hungry of the world. But we are living in an atmosphere of scarcity and competition, and we are encouraged at every turn to get more, eat more, use more — but why? Before it’s all gone? Where’s it going? Will it all just be thrown “away”?

Stillwaters is hosting a new Sustainability Discussion Group in fall. If you are interested in getting on the list, call us at (360) 297-1226.

— Naomi Maasberg is director of Stillwaters Environmental Learning Center. Contact her at  naomi@stillwatersenvironmentalcenter.org.