Plagued with hamsters whilst muddling through

How interesting to read Cradle to Cradle during a holiday weekend where we celebrate gratefulness in overeating, then go out and trample one another for the cheapest electronics that will last about a year so we can throw them out and do the same thing over again.  Don't get me wrong, I love Thanksgiving, and I even ventured out mid-morning on Black Friday...and bought sock yarn and darning needles so that I can learn to fix holes in my socks.  I'm not trying to be condescending or anything; I actually think this holiday weekend that epitomizes the extreme of American consumption is becoming oversaturated.  More and more of us see how ridiculous it is, and it is a smaller percentage who are still lining up at 3am to get more stuff.  I say this anecdotally, perhaps it's just part of my "downshift moment" as De Young and Princen would call it.  Those around me are reaching this moment as well, whether it is in the realization that we don't want or need more "stuff" or in the realization that material goods seem trivial in comparison to focusing efforts on social justice.

So, back to the readings. If I've taken anything from this class, it is that a healthy amount of skepticism must accompany analysis of solutions to environmental problems.  We've read specific critiques of McDonough and Braungart's views, but it is still refreshing to see a positive paradigm.  The authors address the theme of conflicting ideas around growth; many of our class readings have likened it to cancer.  The image of the massive hamster haunts my thoughts.  McDonough and Braungart distinguish types of growth.  In children and nature, we see growth as beautiful.  In industry and areas where growth is for its own sake, we want it limited.  Some growth we want and some we do not want.  This is agreeable, although they do not address how even the positive framing of growth must eventually come to an end.  Children stop growing, and the hamster does not inherit the earth.  Perhaps from there the "good growth" comes in ideas and intellectual growth, but the authors do not specify this.  

After so many weeks of thinking about impending doom, I am once again cautious of a so-called world of abundance.  It is certainly appealing.  The authors seem part of a system reforming view, wherein people can thrive if we reshape our culture and paradigms on design and do away with the concept of waste.  It would at least feel less stressful.  They point out: "When the choice is consistently between the frying pan and the fire, the chooser is apt to feel helpless and frustrated, which is why a more profound approach to redesign is critical." (170).  At the same time, it feels like as end users we are being absolved of some responsibility here. If only the choices were 100% good instead of "less bad," we could stop feeling wracked with guilt. But we still want what we want, and will deal with the negative feelings about it or do without.  Their arguments resonate somewhat, but do not do away with my general discomfort.  I suppose for my community and for myself, I like De Young and Princen's concept of "adaptive muddling" at this point.  Not only does it sound like exactly what we are all doing anyway, in an adorably bumbling way, but it gives one the chance to solve problems for ourselves, in a relevant context.  Forget being presented with better choices, let's make our own.

Everything's gonna be all right?

Hello anyone reading this. 
Prepare yourself for a train. A train of thought. 
A stream. A stream of consciousness. 

To preface, I am both enamored with and confused by (confused as to whether or not it is the 'right' solution) the whole cradle to cradle idea… I agree with downsizing… 

For me (in case this hasn't been obvious) it's all about some kind of fundamental truths and human nature. I am possibly operating out of the mind set that there is some kind of greater power, shhhh don't tell anyone. It just seems like everything fits together so neatly. Sure, it may simply be the case that this wonderful Earth system came about after a huge number of different random variations, and this is the only way it all goes together. Also there is the issue that the only reason I perceive things being put together in the 'right way' is because I, as a human, am able to comfortably exist in it. I guess in some ways assuming that things are correct is assuming that the Earth was made for people. Just because Venus doesn't have any aware beings that we know of, is it less? I'm just musing here, but humans are undoubtedly a part of the Earth (unless there is some sort of alien situation that I am unaware of… ooh but that would make for an interesting story), so we're a part of the Earth, as is evolution, we have evolved to have this beautiful, complex brain and have created so many things with it to make our lives 'easier' and 'better.' It seems that our brains, which are natural (whatever that means) would encourage us to function in a way that works with the environment from whence we have arisen. From this it seems perhaps something has gone wrong with our brains, everything was made to fit perfectly together, the infinite possibilities came together and produced this, but one of the outcomes it turns out was faulty… and it's us… I am inclined to think that common sense and morals should lead us to operate in a way that works with nature. 

Earlier in the semester I got this crazy idea that I told myself I wouldn't share for fear of ridicule but I throw caution to the wind. I should preface this with the note that all of my surmising rests on less than well informed grounds. 

Alors. 

Basically it seems to me that all of the major world religions - Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu (and any others I'm missing)- rest on the same moral grounds. We could collect a lot of the moral codes from these religions and we would see some very strong parallels (again, I haven't actually done thing myself). I wonder if we had truly stuck to these moral codes what the world would look like, I am inclined to believe that we would be living in a more environmentally friendly place. Erik Assadourian said that he believed we need some kind of environmental religion, I don't know if this is where he was coming from, or if he was more acknowledging the fact that people require some kind of religion to follow for social reasons, or what exactly. I really must read more of his thoughts on this. Anyway, the point is all of these world religions arose independently (kind of), and they all acknowledge similar things, as did the Ancient Greeks… I can't really speak for their Mythology though, there was some funky stuff going on there… Native Americans have some interesting ideas as well. So all of this for me seems 'natural' to some extent…. 

The catalyst for all of this were two phone conversations- A few weeks ago I spoke with one of my best friends on the phone and she expressed the idea that humanity is small, and the Earth is large, and nothing we can do can really harm the Earth. This view greatly distressed me. A few weeks later I spoke to my mother and she expressed a similar view point. "The Earth has been through all of this before, ice ages, warming, meteorites, and it is always fine, it always adjusts." I felt a kind of depression creeping up, then I probed deeper and I realized that we were approaching the situation differently. What my mother (and I assume my friend) meant was that the Earth would be fine through global warming, people and animals might go extinct but the planet would still be there, basically until the Sun dies. Fair point. This seems to come down to definitions, as things so often do with me. What is the Earth? What are we fighting for when we fight for the planet? The Earth has always been the Earth right? Even before people existed. We're fighting for the inhabitants of the Earth, we're fighting for morals, we're fighting for a happier planet in terms of the living beings and systems supported by this chuck of molten magma and rock we're floating around on. We're fighting for fairness. 

Balance is important, intuition is important, acting on what you know to be right and just is good, and getting all tangled up in detail and then never acting on anything isn't good, but it is important to take a step back and make sure everything is lined up right. I can't say that I've really figured out that everything is lined up correctly but at the very least I've analyzed things a bit more. 

And on that very unfinished, unpolished note I leave you my friends. 

China. The new Taylor Swift.

Call me hipster but China has always been a little mainstream for me. 

Everyone I talk to is interested in China-US Relations. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the significance of China in the world today, and I've always been glad that people are interested in it. It is just that China never really lit my inner fire. Of course as a naturally inquisitive person who is easily interested in almost anything I should have known that a fascination with China and its role in the world was only the introduction of a book away. Shapiro's integration of culture, history, society with environmental issues and policy was truly enlightening to read. 

One thing I have been struck by recently is this perception that because China is supposed to be communist they can just tell their people what to do and they will do it. This seemed somewhat ignorant to me, and after reading this and listening to Dr. Shapiro talk about China my opinion is even more set. I saw a clip from a documentary a while ago, it showed a truck driver illegally giving rides to people in the bed of her truck. A uniformed man saw the truck with the bed full of people and tried to tell the lady that she couldn't give rides like that, the woman berated the officer, I mean she scolded him like a child. If I remember correctly she was even waving something in her hand, like a rolled up piece of paper, which we swatted the officer with before getting back in her vehicle and driving off with her truck bed full of passengers. While I was reading reports on the recent U.S. - China agreement I actually read precisely that many American's think that China can just tell their people what to do and they'll do it, but in fact this is not the case. A few days after I read this I was in my Economics class and we got into a discussion on the topic and a student actually raised her hand and said that China had a lot of power over their people and could just order them to follow the new pollution rules... 

One of the biggest things I came away with from all this China talk was that the power in China doesn't really lie with the government. It lies somewhere in between the government and the lower classes. This reminds me somewhat of learning about the emergence of the merchant class in the U.S. and Europe, there are many gaps in the parallels but it is nevertheless brought to mind. There are certainly similarities in contemporary United States. Popular documentaries such as Food Inc. and Merchants of Doubt do a great job of highlighting the close knit relationship between big businesses and the government, I think we can see something fairly similar in China, and a certain kind of capitalism takes root there. With the sort of 'dash it all! We will be a huge beautiful developed country attitude regardless of what we have to do to get there!' attitude of China, they might actually have less control of what their people are doing that the United States. After all, as we read in Shapiro's book China has some of the best environmental laws in the world, yet the levels of pollution in China are jaw dropping, particularly from an American standpoint. What's going on here? In the U.S. there are certainly a large number of issues, and we as noted in the book, export a lot of our pollution causing industries. Nevertheless as jaded and skeptical as I am about the U.S. and environmental regulation policies I am sometimes made aware that there are actually some policies in place that function quite well. This doesn't seem to be the case in China. It doesn't really seem to me that China is going to be able to simply and smoothly reach their part of the goal, as seems to be the opinion of some people. 

The United Staes of America and the People's Republic of China are unquestionably two of the most powerful states today, the question in terms of environmental policy and the recent agreement is are they more powerful that the polluting industries that have given them so much of the power. 

So long and thanks for nothing.

I was so very inspired yesterday as I arrived for work.  50-60 students amassed outside the AU boards breakfast meeting to no so gently remind them whom they represent. I watched over the course of the last few months, people committed to an idea, acting on behalf of something much bigger than themselves. I watched the nervous excitement of anticipated action in the face of power with real potential to endanger themselves. I’ve watched raw emotion pour into the conversations surrounding the issue of divestment and climate change. I have seen Native American people speak of how the fossil fuel industry is further endangering their way of life and spiritual connection to this one and only planet we share. I have also watched those very same Native American gentlemen confront the most powerful forces in this country by civilly disobeying an unjust system and in response were “escorted” to jail.  And in the course of all this, I have also see the expected responses from a society that has not quite evolved fully enough to comprehend the magnitude of the conversation that is taking place before their very eyes.

While cautiously observing and showing silent support for the movements rally on Monday, where a hundred committed warriors braved the arctic wind and rain to inspire involvement and reaffirm devotion to the cause of divestment, two less than subtle students watching the performance could be overheard snickering “this is so stupid.” American University is one of the most politically active campuses in the country and yet the majority of the student population has casually observed this movement on a broad spectrum from mild disinterest to outright hostility. People I know that are not your typical “head in the sand” types are too self involved or dispassionate to give a shit. Yesterday I watched the American University Board of Trustees, which membership reads like a Fortune 500 list, vote NOT to divest away from fossil fuels because they said that it would be too risky. Too RISKY.  The power of money, Wall St., invested interests has spoken from their Upper West Side apartments, from their Bethesda McMansions, and Brown Stone walk-ups. They have spoken for their Porsche Cayenne’s and Mercedes Benz S-Class sedans that inconspicuously dotted the campus yesterday. They have decided their brunches of exotic foods and imported wines far too tasty to be forgotten. They spoke wrapped in their designer clothes made from in factories by people presented with no other option for work.  They spoke from their electronic devices made of natural resources from someone else’s backyard, brought here to only be discarded in a few years time when a “new” toy can bring them a fleeting moment of happiness. It is too risky they say.

They’re right.

Everything they spoke for might disappear. That is risky. They can cloak it by claiming student services and tuition would be affected. The scare you argument. They can continue to fool themselves into thinking this is the only way and that these “kids” don’t know what they’re talking about. The you’re too naiveté argument. Or they can pull out some legal text and interpret it any way they see best’s suits their needs. The it’s the law argument. But let’s be clear about one thing. It’s all total bullshit. This group of individuals is heavily invested in a system of exploitation of the worlds poor and weak and they are using all these other arguments into justifying to themselves and each other that this is the best course of action. They probably honestly do feel like it will all just go away if we were to move away from fossil fuels.  Comments like “We’re not there yet” or the “World’s not ready” dominate this kind of thinking.  Statements like this are heard every time there is a systemic changing potential out there. Idiots. We’ve never gone away. In fact we’re stronger and better off for all the major changes that we as a country have made in the face of severe injustice; The Revolution, The Civil War, Women’s Suffrage, and Civil Rights.

So here is what I say to the Board.  You are wrong. You are on the wrong side of history. Most of you will hopefully come to recognize this in your lifetimes. There is a drum beating just below the surface. You may not recognize it now, but you have critically wounded more people than you think you have helped by this vote. You are all cowards.

To tie into this weeks readings… China wants everything the Board voted for this week.  And why shouldn’t they? They deserve it.  They have worked very hard for it.

But they can’t have it. At least not the way it is structured now. But neither can we.

I see China as this crazy not so microcosm of where the world is headed. Particularly in regards to population. They are showing no imagination in their pursuit of the almighty buffet of brunch possibilities. This is worrisome.

Future from the past: Navdanya's alternative imagination

I ended my last blogpost with a question whether the current environmental movements show us alternative path to the future. In this regard, here I discuss about an organization called Navdanya which has a radically different imagination for the future of agro-food system. It is a program of Vandana Shiva's participatory research initiative Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) in the foothills of the Himalaya. For those who are closely following global politics of seed and agro-ecology, Shiva's name should be enough to get a sense of principles of the organization. My personal acquaintance with Shiva's writing goes back to early 2000s when I was developing my interest on environmental justice issues in South Asia. Her powerful writings and passionate engagements in environmental politics, particularly on green revolution, eco-feminism, seed politics and bio-piracy were keys to understand political-economy of natural resource in the global south. As we talk about alternative imagination for the future, Navdanya's work offers a way forward that is locally instituted and indigenous knowledge-based agro-ecological system.

Right after the Chipko movement, Navdanya originates in the mid 1980s when there was growing political and ecological violence in India, e.g. Punjab riots and Bhopal disaster. Bhopal disaster was itself an ecocide whereas Shiva finds roots of Punjab's Shikh nationalism to the green revolution, which was creating winners and losers and breeding discontents among Shikhs (Shiva, 1992, Violence of Green Revoluton). Navdanya emerged as a result of non-violent resistance to the corporate control of agro-economy. It has now become a network of seed keepers and organic producers across India. It has established several seed banks in the country, trained farmers and promoted direct marketing of their produce. It has stressed on alternative science of socio-ecological system.

Navdanya has focused its work on five areas: (1) Earth democracy that includes seed sovereignty, food sovereignty, water sovereignty and land sovereignty; (2) climate change and its impacts on biodiversity and agriculture in the Himalaya; (3) women for diversity (movement and grandmothers' university); (4) organic movement, a call for a shift from suicidal economy to living economy, that includes organic production, organic certification, fair trade and organic products; (5) Bija Vidhyapeeth, school of seeds or Earth university, a learning center in Uttarakhand, India.

Navdanya has furthered its activities in terms of campaigns, events, publications, learning centers and organic farming practices. It has already organized several campaigns such as soil not oil, save a seed, start an organic garden, GMO free, biopiracy, bija-satyagraha (seed as a force of truth), jaiv panchayat (grassroot democracy, of all life, in everyday life), right to food and seed sovereignty. All of these activities in the leadership of Vandana Shiva and her national and international network have made the organization effective at the national and global level. She has become a globally renowned environmental activist to fight against corporate control of biodiversity. Therefore leadership, network, activities and most importantly its principles are keys to identify the organization.

Navdanya's name itself hints its principles. Navdanya literally means nine seeds (dhanya= seeds) and "nine gifts" (dana= donation / gift) and therefore symbolizes seeds as ultimate gift of life for continuity and heritage embedded in biological and cultural diversity. Navdanya imagines sustainability in the ecological system that develops from local knowledge and practice and aims at protecting agro-biodiversity, local farmers, and their framing system. It challenges existing knowledge and political system and strongly counters the current trend of corporatisation and privatization of the food and agro-system. The organization gives importance to the women's leading role to move toward sustainability. It embraces several Gandhian notions like non-violent resistance of satyagraha (force of truth), swaraj (sovereignty) and traditional knowledge and practice based economy.   

Peace Boat. It's exactly what it sounds like.

"Doing good environmental work." That is such a vague qualification, I'm sure by design.  It is intriguing to see how people interpret such criteria and choose just one organization to fulfill it.  In any case, I chose an international NGO that I learned about ten years ago but I haven't followed their work much since.  It's called Peace Boat and it is headquartered in Japan.  I actually read about it in a book I bought at fifteen called Delaying the Real World and I wanted to volunteer on it since it would have been easy to get to Yokohama at that time.  Sadly, I turned 18 and came to America for college instead and now it's a much further trip to Japan.

But back to Peace Boat.  "Peace Boat is a Japan-based international non-governmental and non-profit organization that works to promote peace, human rights, equal and sustainable development and respect for the environment." (Explore here)  It sounds broad, but the organization does have a number of varying projects related to each of these areas.  What makes it unique and innovative is their chosen medium for change and the philosophy behind it.  They have a strong focus on education and advocacy programs for social and political change, and are historically and operationally entrenched in the civil society part of the triangle.  Peace Boat's main activities occur on "peace voyages" taken around the world on a charter boat.  "The ship creates a neutral, mobile space and enables people to engage across borders in dialogue and mutual cooperation at sea, and in the ports that we visit."  They also have a number of land-based centers for regional work around East Asia.  The ports for each voyage are chosen based on local partnerships and the potential for social and educational programs rather than mainstream commercial interests.  The organization puts a strong emphasis on participation, partnerships, hands-on learning and people-to-people contact as necessary for shaping change in the world.  I find their use of the ship as a way to break down borders as particularly unique.

Peace Boat's history, mission, and main principles make it an effective organization in their goals for change.  Its first voyage was organized by Japanese university students in 1983 as a way to learn about the effects of past wars on other countries in the region.  Japan had a policy of censorship regarding its military history, and this was a way for the students to learn firsthand and foster the people-to-people connection.  Some other main facets of Peace Boat include volunteerism, financial self-sustainability (the organization is funded completely by the people who participate in peace voyages), horizontal working systems, mobilizing people for civil society movements, and remaining unaffiliated from any political or religious group.

Tying this organization into the themes and paradigms of our class, I believe that Peace Boat as an entity would be close to a social green and a system reformer.  The organization shuns traditional media and has a strong focus on social justice and reforms.  While they are involved in a number of environmental projects (such as Galapagos reforestation), people and social issues within sustainability are the focus of Peace Boat.  The organization is a system reformer because it works toward social and political change in innovative ways and civil society movements.  Clearly is apart from "business-as-usual" activities, but it works within existing structures and frameworks.  For instance, it often partners with local advocacy and volunteer organizations at its ports, but it also partners with the United Nations on a number of projects and has its own Peace Boat Millenium Development Goals campaign.

I did not go into depth on the specific projects and voyage activities of Peace Boat, but this should give a general overview into its type of work and paradigms.  Its grassroots beginnings, continuity in operations, global focus with local action, and creative people-based methods of program delivery are all elements that we could explore in seeking to make effective change.  Every organization has its own specific focus and can't "do it all" necessarily, but examining the values and structure of an organization can help us understand what ways we would like to influence the world.

The tireless struggle

The organization that I came across through this weeks research is called the climate justice alliance (http://www.ourpowercampaign.org/cja/). Their focus is to combine forces of similar like minded organization working at the very local level on the front lines (or fence line as they like to say) to build on the growing movement around systems change. They are view climate change as the overarching theme that drives many of the major problems within societies i.e. affordable housing shortages, education disparity, wealth inequality, access to reliable infrastructure, equitable pay, and a whole swath of other issues.  Most of these local level fights are rooted in Indigenous, African American, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and working-class white communities throughout the U.S. They view the world as facing two interconnected and interrelated systemic crisis; economic and ecological. To address one without the other is impossible. Their belief is that it is possible to make a calculated transition to a more economically just system if local communities are ecologically rooted and committed to power without pollution and energy without injustice.

I think that a lot of their strength comes from this idea of trying to build the political perspective of their alliances.  There are so many organizations across the country that are working on the same issues that need to be working together and use the national cohesiveness as their strength.  People are beginning to see these issues as systemic malfunctions and are willing and able to come up with ideas for alternative practices.  As the problems are all rooted in the same cause, it is healthy to assume that many of the solutions that work in one area may very well work in others.  This network of knowledge/information sharing is essential to the success of a movement like this.  CJA works to connect groups and encourage joint or shared action. From this comes an element of motivation that may not be present otherwise. Liking it to the bonding that takes place between soldiers in war may be extreme, but similarities do exist.  

This organization is definitely looking to transform and entire system to address not only ecological concerns but also economic ones.  I would say that the are bringing it to the forefront the social green theory on how to deal with the current crisis that humanity seems to find itself in.  I get the sense that many of these organizations have been on the fence lines for a very long time.  As the conversation of local economies has moved into the mainstream, I imagine there is some sort of vindication and satisfaction with their years of hard work.  I almost see this organization has not only a driver of that conversation but also a sort of liaison between like minded peoples.  With the effort focused on bringing together these conversations and joining forces, they are helping to ensure that “issue ambassadors” are well prepared and equipped to go back into their communities and spread the word of the “eco gospel.”  The kind of power they’re trying to build across all those different domains is to have these local strategies but [they] are connected across communities through a unified vision, shared strategies and common frames. I read an interview with the organization’s leadership team and one of the most interesting quotes I found was this: “for us it's never just been about the mobilization. It is as important how we build the road to the mobilization, and actually more importantly what happens afterward.”  In terms of a take away, this would probably be the biggest one.  From a practical standpoint this is a much more difficult task than getting 400,000 people to take to the streets.  That is why I think, despite the major efforts being made on the national and international stage (especially in the past few weeks) it is important that local level involvement and sustained action is important, if not more so.  

I know at times, very often in fact, being a part of smaller organizations that address local issues seem small and insignificant.  But knowing that there are others just like you all across the country/world lends a strong sense of purpose to one’s efforts.  It is important to remember and to remind that this is a lifetime effort.  Change will not come in days, weeks, months, years, or even decades.  But rather it will come maybe by the end of one's lifetime if lucky, but most likely this will be a generational struggle that is forced to push the cart up the hill slowly but relentlessly.