Imagine we’d know which way to navigate towards a sustainable development of our planet.

A planet which has boundaries – or with more positive words “a safe operation space for humans”. We must respect it. Yet, that is not enough. We must also seek to find socially just solutions. That is when we can speak of inclusive and sustainable development.

“When crossing unknown territory, a compass can be pretty handy. Achieving sustainable development for nine billion people has to be high on the list of humanity’s great uncharted journeys.” Oxfam is offering us that compass which should help us steer efficiently and without any more catastrophes through the coming years.

On the outside the doughnut-compass shows nine processes (put together by earth-system scientists Rockström et al) like climate regulation, nitrogen cycle and biodiversity loss. All of which are crucial for steering free of any big icebergs. “Together, the nine boundaries constitute an environmental ceiling – what their authors call ‘a safe operating space for humanity’”.

Now, “how about combining planetary boundaries together with the concept of social boundaries?” That is when we look at the inner cycle. Here it is all about a solid social foundation on we build our system “below which lies unacceptable human deprivation.” The most important concept to take into account here are human rights. This is the space where we hope to see great developments at the Rio +20 meeting.

Watch the following video to learn more:

The project tries to prove that it’s “wealth not poverty which is putting this planet under pressure” showing for example that giving food to all the starving would only need 1% of the total global food supply. Similarly, “bringing electricity to the 19% of people who currently lack it could be achieved with less than a 1% increase in global CO2 emissions”.

The whole concept is quite easy really: “Between the social foundation and the planetary ceiling lies an area – shaped like a doughnut – which is the safe and just space for humanity to thrive in.” Read the full article to find where the needle of the compass is directing.

“So what do you eat?” is the number one question for vegans and vegetarians.

What people with a little imagination usually picture are dishes in which meat and fish are replaced by soy products – or worse: where there is only a bit of salad left on the plate. The truth is: soy burgers and textured soy protein are definitely out there and some of us like it, but others live a happy and soy-free life. That is because many believe that the so called faux meat (faux hot dog, faux meatballs, etc.) are not as carefree as we would like think.

Soy products have been critized for causing health problems over the last decade. Interestingly, people usually consume them for health reasons in order to get their protein levels right.  If you look into it, you’ll find that there is an endless number of alternatives of protein sources in the vegan world such as nuts, seeds, grains and even vegetables. That said, we can have a closer look at the reasons not to go soy.

The vegfamily writes the following: “Depending upon whom you choose to believe, soy is either a wonder food or the next asbestos. Even among professionals in the field of nutrition and other sciences, there is much confusion about the conflicting information drawn from the countless research articles published each year on soybeans and their derivatives.” Soy is therefore controversal, but who would want to take the risk?

Importantly, Grist explains us that not all soy products are the same. Whereas soy milk and tofu can be seen as “wholefoods”, soy burgers and meat substitutes are far from that. “Big Food found ways to co-opt and mass-market soy, using a synthetic solvent called hexane to extract soy protein isolates from the bean. These isolates give veggie burgers and energy bars a cheap dose of protein.” That’s exactly when things become unhealthy. Hexane is a petroleum by-product and highly toxic. Just one example given by Grist: “Soy increases estrogen levels, which in turn increases risk of breast cancer and other estrogen-sensitive cancers.” There are many more examples of health risk linked to a high soy consumption.

What is further worth mentioning is that soy production in most cases is not good for the environment. Most of the production in the world is genetically modified and done in monocultures. Also large parts of the Amazon rainforest have been cut down or are being cut down directly or indirectly because of soy production. Besides, most soy products are processed and therefore need further energy imput: “while meat-based diets have about twice the environmental impact of soy-based diets, a non-soy veggie diet beats them both.”, Grist says.

Nevertheless, soy is a convenient alternative to meat and good source of protein. Especially newcomers to the vegan/vegetarian diet might find it useful. However, it might be best to come up with alternatives to a product which possibly harms us and definitely harms the environment.

Picture by Th♥mås Lǔ, thank you!

China is where things are happening these days. What is true for industry can also be applied to agriculture.

And there are some good news: Greenpeace just published that China announced to draft a proposal to keep their rice free of genetically engineered (GM) seeds. “This is actually a world-first initiative that deals with GE food legislation at state law level,” said Fang Lifeng, the Food and Agriculture campaigner of Greenpeace.

This new law would limit all levels of GM food: research, production, import or export. In short: “The draft stipulates that no organization or person can employ GM technology in any major food product in China.” (In case you don’t remember why GM-foods are not the solution for hunger in the world, check out this article).  Greenpeace now hopes that following the drafting a mechanism of supervision will be put in place.

China has already seen dramatic problems in agriculture like for example in the Loess Plateau. In this documentary you can check out how a region as big as France was lost to dessert-like conditions due to wrong agriculture practices. “Agriculture and grazing practices over thousands of years have transformed the once lush forests into a dry and degraded ecosystem. As the yellow loess soil eroded, the silt raised the riverbed, causing seasonal flooding by the Yellow River.” The region is therefore suffering from both drought and floodings. Not using GM-seeds and the needed pesticides to make them grow is definitely a big step towards a sustainable food production – and maybe towards a green China.

Looking at the crazy traffic in Bangkok, you would not possibly think about getting a bike.

But maybe that would be just the answer. As this fellow netizen is proposing: “go ahead, it has been done before.” And if you can cycle in Buenos Aires, Bangkok should definitely be doable!

According to the Ministry for Transport, 56% of the people in Bangkok get around by car. Another 35% use buses. No wonder that the streets are usually blocked. With the number of vehicles growing rapidly in Thailand – those in Bangkok are further using a lot of fuel – the environmental impact of this kind of traffic is getting worse. Not to speak about the polluted air which make Bangkok people suffer.

From time to time, I see a person crazy enough to hit the busy streets of Bangkok with a bike. To my amazement, I recently also came across some bike paths in the middle of the city. Is my use of the SkyTrain combined with a lot of walking maybe not the most sustainable way to get around the city of angels?

What’s for sure is that if you do it well, it will save you a lot of time. “With the right route, you reach your destination faster than other vehicles.” With the wrong route, you probably end up stuck in the traffic yourself. There are also some (quite funny) rules to stick to in order to make your ride safe, check them out here.

In case you’re not sure if you want to risk an encounter with other vehicles, CNNgo writes that “there are actually some great areas and fantastic paths that will let you get some exercise while you see Bangkok up close and personal.” In their article you can also find a nice list of calm areas to bike in and relax.

For tourists, Bangkok is already offering free bicycles called “Green Bangkok Bike”. These free bikes – mainly available in the Northern area – have been introduced in 2008. Hopefully, they can promote that lifestyle also within their constant population – who seems to have given up cycling for motorized ways of getting around.

The stastistics are definitely in favour of bicycles: within the very heart of the city, traffic doesn’t move faster than 12km/h – an average biker can do much better than that.

For those who are in town: this Saturday is a good start for getting in the mood for big city cycling. Join the Cycle-lizing Bangkok Fest!! More about the event on Greenworld (unfortunately in Thai). I’ll update on the event this weekend!

Now, be honest: how many layers has your toilet paper?

Grist recently reported that “we’re now using more trees for toilet paper than for newsprint.” What is true for the US is most probably not very different from other western countries – and it’s definitely not only due to the slowly dying newspaper industry.Luxury toilet paper – you know that one which smells nice, has several layers and a nice and soft texture -  is made out of 100% virgin content (real trees which got cut down for being flushed down your toilet). “Normal” toilet paper on the other hand holds a recycled content of about 60% and 100% recycled is available too. Is is the consumption of the luxury type, however, which is growing fast in the western world – especially the US.

Elsewhere in the world toilet paper – luxury or not – is not a given thing. If you’re supposed to always bring your own roll, believe me you’ll use less. And using less seems to be the only solution to keep some of the trees in the forests. Recycling is slowly becoming less of an option: “More toilet paper used to be made out of recycled office paper, but now that offices are going paperless, there’s less of the really high quality recyclable paper “, Grist writes.

Grist also proposes a rather radical alternative: to ban toilet paper altogether. They say that in countries like France (or Thailand) where people use water instead of paper, the usage is much smaller. Maybe a ban is not even necessary. Let’s start like this: we all reduce one layer of our toilet paper (obviously of the recycled kind). In the end you have to ask yourself “Should I contribute to clear-cutting and deforestation because the big [marketing] machine has told me that softness is important?” (Natural News). Who is in?

picture by mastahanky, thank you!

Why 100 million women are missing in India: the reality of sex-selection. – a guest-post by Zlatka Niznanska.

Just recently, a new campaign against pre-natal sex selection in Southern Delhi arose from the cooperation between the Centre for Social Research and the German Embassy in India. So far, this has been one of the latest attempts to crumble the rising number of
female foeticides in Delhi.

Although sex determination has been institutionally banned in September 1994 with the Pre- Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act that should provide “for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception…and for the prevention of their (technology) misuse for sex determination leading to female foeticide”, the collection of empirical data demonstrates grave gaps between the legislation and its actual
implemetation. According to 2011 census 914.23 girls were born for every 1,000 boys in
the age group 0-6, compared with 927.31 for every 1,000 boys in the 2001 census. This
number also underlies regional varieties; states with the lowest ratio of girls are mostly nothern rural regions of Punjab 798, Haryana 819 and Delhi with only 868 girls per 1000 boys. Hence, as a report developed by Centre for Development Studies asserts, in India’s rising population there is “evidence of masculinity in sex ratio in general as well as in child sex ratio in particular“.

But why is having a daughter such a bad business in India? The reasons why there are “100 million women missing” (as Amartya Sen stated in 1990) are diverse. The low girl-child ratio does not solely depend on the prenatal sex-determination and (sometimes) following the abortion of female embryos. In some parts of India, strict cultural preference for male children still prevails and therefore the value of one’s children is primarily determinated by their gender. Following this logic, for example, when facing health problems, female children are more prone to be neglected, while family’s resources
are allocated on the well-being of the boys of the family.

The cultural value of a male child evolves around the traditional belief that while a daughter needs to be married off and provided with a costly dowry (although in India the payment of dowry was officialy prohibited by civil law in 1961, it remains highly institutionalized), the boy with his future wife will stay at home and take care of his parents. Therefore, a male child is seen as parents’ asset, while the girl is a costly burden.

In recent years, numerous strategies have been started with the aim of the empowernment of women. One of the most comprehensive worldwide strategies are the Millenium Development Goals (UN), which promote elimination of gender inequalities, empowernment of women in public functions along better heathcare and chances for mothers as well as children disregarding their sex.
Despite India being a full member of the UN, which also theoretically subscribed to the MDGs; the efficient implementation of these lofty aspirations is dependant on a popular supported by India’s diverse society. And this endeavor takes more than time.

Read further:
Warren, Mary Anne (1985). Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection. Rowman&Littlefield Publishers

Sen, Amartya (1990). More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing;  in: The New York Review of Books vol.37, nr.20

Watch: documentary India’s Missing Girls, (BBC 2007)
Browse: www.gendercide.org

Zlatka Niznanska is currently studying Global Studies at JNU University in New Delhi.

Picture courtesy by mag3737, merci!

In Canada you better don’t speak up too much for the environment in the future

The environmentalist movement was shocked last week when hearing that a new anti-terrorism law in Canada would focus especially on eco-terrorism. The Globe and Mail quotes John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada: “It’s an indirect suggestion that somehow environmentalism is attached to terrorism and that’s just wrong.”

However, environmentalism is not the only target. “The minister said that, in addition to foreign threats, the government would be vigilant against domestic extremism that is “based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.”

Many read the proposition as direct answer to the ongoing protest Northern Gateway pipeline – which would transport tar sands oil to the cost to export it to Asia. The project is very similar to the Keystone XL pipeline which recently was rejected by Obama on environmental grounds. A success which the environmentalist movement could not enjoy for very long.

Why are these pipelines bad news? The Northern Gateway pipeline is rejected by not only environmentalists but also local leaders and residents as well as First Nations. The pipeline and the boats which would transport the oil to China would go through First Nation’s lands.

On the environmental side, all protesters agree that the environmental cost, they argue, of inevitable oil spills would simply be too high. Karen Campbell Director of the Pembina Institute starts her opposition to the project with the following words: “Can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.” (These are the words of Enbridge CEO Pat Daniel, the company which is responsible for the planed pipepline). The tankers who would come pick up the oil are one of the biggest risk factors: “Fully opening B.C.’s coast to crude oil tankers creates the risk of a major oil spill, endangering salmon, bears and all the wildlife that lives in and around our coastline.” Let’s not forget that the oil which would be transported in the pipeline is alreading carrying a heavy weight of environmental damage.

“The anti-terrorism strategy carries the adversarial relationship between the government and the environmental groups to the extreme.” From what we have learned until now, calling somebody a terrorist, means pretty much taking away his or her rights. Does somebody who simply wants to protect the environment for future generations really play the same game as a terrorists? So far, I haven’t heard about bomb attacks made by treehuggers. However, The Globe and Mail acknowledges that some groups might turn to other means if there voices aren’t heard. Calling them terrorists beforehand is not the best strategy to encourage the peaceful means which are at the very heart of the movement.

Picture by mermaid99, gracias.

Did you know that “about 2/5 of girls are never born due to a preference for sons”?

That’s one of the statements given by the recently published Word Development Report 2012. You can think of the World Bank whatever you like, but at least they are going with the times and looking at how important women are for the development of our planet. Here are some of the findings:

The authors of the report are positive about the position of women nowadays: “Although many women continue to struggle with gender- based disadvantages in their daily lives, things have changed for the better—and at a pace that would have been unthinkable even two decades ago.”

There are definitely some good news within the report: “Gender gaps in primary education have closed in almost all countries.” Further, more than half of the university students are women nowadays. The report also explains how empowering women means positive impact on communities on many levels. An example: “in India, giving power to women at the local level led to increases in the provision of public goods, such as water and sanitation, which mattered more to women.”

However, inequalities continue to exist and are stronger in some areas of the world. “Females are more likely to die, relative to males, in many low- and middle-income countries than their counterparts in rich countries.” Women are also “more likely than men to work as unpaid family laborers or in the informal sector.” In most countries, women continue to be under-represented in politics as well as in higher positions in the private sector.

The report stresses gender equality and explains it in the following terms: “Gender equality refers to how women and men relate to each other and to the resulting differences in power between them.” They explain that “gender equality is smart economics”. The report states the importance of “removing barriers that prevent women from having the same access as men to education, economic opportunities.” Further on they point out that empowering a woman directly and indirectly helps other people: her children and the people in her community.

Let’s see if what they call gender mainstreaming keeps us going towards a more equal society. It would definitely be a smart choice not just for the economy.

You can find the full report here in several languages.

Earth Hour knows people are ready to give a lot for the planet. Like this man who says: “My daughter has this princess box that she’s always dressing me from. If 5,000 accept this challenge I’ll let her dress me from the box and wear it to work everyday for a week.”Now, his challenge is to comit to recycling. Not so hard, really. You can watch more videos of challenges on the campaign’s youtube-channel.

This year’s Earth Hour is coming closer, it will be on Saturday 31st March. But what was the Earth hour again? Its motto is uniting people to protect the planet. It all started in 2006 in Sydney. Many people decided at that time to switch off the lights for one hour to show their wilingness to change the way we treat our planet. Since then, the Earth Hour has grown far beyond the borders of Australia.

Last year’s Earth hour was quite a success: “More than 5,200 cities and towns in 135 countries worldwide switched off their lights for Earth Hour 2011 alone, sending a powerful message for action on climate change.” Let us see how many of us will participate this year. In the aim of WWF – who is behind the Earth Hour - there is a strong focus on companies, and not only individuals.

Since switching off the lights for one hour is a powerful sign but we are still not changing what we want to see, Earth Hour is now also trying to push people to make real changes within their lives. If you will, I will is trying to do exactly that. Maybe it helps if we don’t cut back on waste and consumption or switch over to public transportation for the noble sake of saving the planet, but rather because we want to see that man going to work dressed as a princess. I’m pretty sure the Earth doesn’t care for our reasons.

Going to the supermarket can be extremely challenging if you don’t want to buy products which have travelled more than you have.

Did you know that “Pringles potato chips are sold in more than 180 countries, though they are manufactured in only a handful of places”? Consequently, the consumer can have quite a hard time finding local products in the supermarket.

The world we live in nowadays is highly complex as far as food goes. As the NY Times wrote some time ago: “Cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to be turned into filets, then shipped back to Norway for sale.” Just one of many crazy examples. What is the environmental and social price for that behaviour?

The Times brings it to the point when stating: “But the movable feast comes at a cost: pollution — especially carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas — from transporting the food.” And what’s worse, “under longstanding trade agreements, fuel for international freight carried by sea and air is not taxed.” The numbers are alarmingly high; the Guardian wrote in 2008 that “annual emissions from the world’s merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO₂, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of the main greenhouse gas.” Which makes it rank right after cars, housing, agriculture and industry in the list of the worst climate changers. (read here about the idea to impose an environmental tax on cargo ships).

Having our products come from far away and on complicated journeys also means that we have no possibility of controlling the way they have been produced. Longer supply chains mean more possibilities for companies to produce in ways that damage the environment. They also heighten the chances of workers facing dangerous and inhumane working conditions.

One of the clearest reasons why our food has turned into globetrotters is the fact that we want to eat everything all the time. “Consumers in not only the richest nations but, increasingly, the developing world expect food whenever they crave it, with no concession to season or geography.” Combined with faster and cheaper transport (and those chemicals which help keeping stuff fresh) a new big business has been born.

As the NY Times concludes rightly, the problem and the solution lie in education: “unfortunately, we’ve educated our customers to expect cheap food, that they can go to the market to get whatever they want, whenever they want it. All year. 24/7.” It’s time to educate our children to be more sustainable consumers. In the meantime, a label like the one above might be useful for consumers with a conscience.