Fair-traded biofuels

In the spotlights of the global climate debate, another, "huge one", is gaining strength and remainding us time and time again that unless coordinated, fair and system-approaches are employed, the world will face huge risks of conflict.

Certainly, it concerns the global agricultural sector that has been and will continue to modify itself depending on the global urban demand. As China and India progresses economically, the meat demand is increasing, influencing a change of farming. Needless to mention the West´s enormous meat consumption, the recent increased demand of "biofuels", (almost exclusively unsustainable ethanol), has commonly resulted that the worlds foodstuff prices have increased by 30% during only the last 6 months!

The strategies for managing emerging agromarkets, such as the huge continent of Africa, differ strongly among various stakeholders. Swedens foreign minister, Mr. Carl Bildt, has personally declared that there is significant risks that we might experience food riots in the near future. Meanwhile, the Swedish Cooperative Centre, helping people for self-help in third world countries since 1958, recently published a report stating that biofuel production from Africa specifically might bring a promising potential in combating poverty. Ensuring a rural worker more in payment through cultivation of energy crops will acertain offspring in educational participation, increasing economic ensurance against diseases and maintaining an "alive" rural side - as long as it is managed socially and environmentally sustainable (conclusions from the report).

However, as it was discussed during the TGR show with Martina Krüger (071209) from Greenpeace, there have been obvious extraction and marketing mismanagements of biofuels in many cases. Apart from not sufficiently benefitting the local community from which the energy crop is cultivated and extracted, no significant considerations are given to the biological multitude (sacrificing precious rainforests) and the ecosystem-services that the subjected biohabitats provide (both for us humans and for all other living creatures). And, interestingly, as Peter Roberntz, WWF, points out: there is a tendency to avoid environmental requirements of biohabitats for the sake of climate relief... Everything is connected...

Not to mention - what is actually hindering a continuation of neo-colonial structures of biofuel/monetary exchange between North/West and South/East when we already live in a world where huge amounts of natural resources are shovelled out from Africa, increasing in value in Europe/North America/Japan/China?

Fair traded & organic produced biofuels
Climate labelled fruites
Sustainable fished fish

Think Globally

Potential EU and US climate plans surprisingly similar

A Washington Post editorial concisely compares surprisingly similar action plans that are on the table in the EU and US. The EU plan calls for emission reductions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, while the US plan would reduce emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Both plans would introduce an increasing percentage of auctioned emission caps, and both rely to a large extent on biofuels, certainly something to be concerned about.

Both plans face significant obstacles, the US plan perhaps more formidable ones. But it shows that despite the climate pariah status the United States has earned for itself under the Bush administration, there are those with concrete ideas that are pushing for action on global warming.

Accessing the editorial requires logging in, something well worth doing to access all the excellent free content on the Washington Post website if you are interested in American politics.

Social and ecological clothes

The stylist Siroun Forsberg and the trend expert Stefan Nilsson have newly listed companies that offer clothes, jewellery and other objects aimed to promote social charity.

Simulteneously, I can advise "Asfaltblommans" webpage - listing boutiques that sell ecologic produced clothes!

/Jimmy

The US Election Coverage: Are They Thinking Globally?

While back in the United States visiting family for the holidays, I had the opportunity to see the coverage of the presidential races for the democratic and republican candidates for president in 2008. My personal view on which candidates I like aside, in the first New Hampshire debates and in overall election campaigns, it has been interesting to see how global environment and sustainable development have been addressed. 'Change' is the big word on the election trail, especially on the democratic side and everyone is postulating as to who is best suited to bring about big change.

But what is the change being addressed? While the some environmental issues has landed finally as important to voters, and in some ways and some times as a non-partisan issue. The republican candidates (the conservatives) were asked on energy issues, for example, and several advocated reduced dependence on fossil fuels, reduced emissions standards, and investment in cleaner energy and technologies. The positions put were framed that the "Great Nation of America" can innovate solutions much like it landed a person a moon a half century ago. As much as I actually like some the candidates and the discussion taking place (not the republicans even though most of them would be a lot better than Bush, no matter what) there are some basic issues that have me very concerned over the US and the prospects for sustainable development.

In fact, the word "sustainable," was not mentioned once in the debate. In the UN and the development and environmental communities the word "sustainable" is all over seemingly every agenda, document, initiative, etc. When it comes to global change and the future, everyone think globally radio talks to would answer that, in some form or another, sustainability is the answer. What "sustainable development" actually means and will entail is the big question, but generally being more sustainable is what everyone wants to do or at least seems to talk about. Yet, in the news and debates in the US so far in 2008, the word never comes out. Renewable energy, energy independence, even GHG reductions and reduced carbon emissions are all discussed, yet nothing about sustainable development. In terms of international issues, much more time is spent talking about global Islamic Radical terrorism threats than resource/climate issues.

Why is sustainable development not ever mentioned as part of holistic change? Of course, I don't know, but to speculate (and I love to speculate) is that genuine talk about sustainable development is not electable. Politicians in the US can not try to sell any talk about people changing lifestyles. That can not speak of transforming business. People want WASHINGTON to change (a very natural reaction to Bush with which I concur), and feel that the world or at least their country is off track. But the big changes in individual behavior that people in the environment and development communities are refering to when they discuss a sustainable future is not what anyone is discussing. According to a facebook poll of debate viewers, (which draws a younger and 'hipper' demographic) more viewers thought the economy was underrepresented in the debates than the environment. And this carried on to the second democratic debate that took place a couple days ago, where the environment was barely mentioned. Important issues for sure were debated: poverty, health care, the war in Iraq; but the environment faded to the back.

I guess I like everyone we want the same thing: for other people to change.

/josh

Sustainable business approach?

This recent advertisment of a domestic and inter-european Swedish commercial airline (translation: EUROPE FOR ALL!) is causing some reactions.

The symbolism of a red glove and the tied fist belonging to someone giving loud orders directly gives socialistic or communistic associations. It becomes ironic to recall Ryanair, a low-budget airliner, infamous for its inhuman corporate ethics during training of flight staff. That approach implies a minimum of ethical and social considerations in the business model. And surely, its not quite complicated to understand that low budget airline tickets, as is the case of this advertisment, implies effective cost-reductions at every possible business front - including staff wages and very long working hours. The double moral becomes obvious; Europe for all "class retorics" does not go hand in hand with the most fair treatment of their own staff workers labour rights. And the climate system specifically, and the global environment overall, are somehow, over the advertisment symbolics, sacrificed, so that as many consumers as possible, and as cheap as possible, can fly to a European city over any given weekend...

This is tempting,
but is it sustainable? Or even secure for societies/economies/environments/individuals?

Find out if, when we in TGR discuss the polar bear situation with the polar bear expert Tom Arnbom this Sunday the 27th. See below post!

/Jimmy

Polar bears in peril this Sunday on Think Globally Radio

Polar bears have become an unlikely symbol of global warming, as their icy habitats are threatened by the changing Arctic climate. We are very happy to welcome Tom Arnbom, a polar bear expert and adventurer from the WWF to Think Globally Radio this Sunday to tell of his recent expedition to the Russian Arctic, where he observed polar bears in their natural habitat, and the effect climate change has had on the conditions necessary for the survival of the Earth’s largest land carnivore.

We have all sorts of highly interesting guests on the show, but it will be extra exciting this Sunday to talk to a true field researcher who will share his first hand encounters, observations and anecdotes from one of the "front lines" of climate change.

This episode of Think Globally Radio coincides with the polar bear and Arctic theme this weekend at the Swedish Natural History Museum, where photographs and videos from the Russian Arctic, as well as lectures by Mr. Arnbom, will be featured all day Saturday and Sunday, 26-27 January.

The reflective engineer 2008

Last year, the successfull seminar serie "Den reflekterande ingenjören" ("The reflective engineer") was professionally arranged by SEEK (Sustainable Engineers Everywhere - a KTH Student Organization) in collaboration with INUG (Engineers Without Boarders International, Stockholm) at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

This year, Think Globally Radio is an engaged partner in the planning process for the continuation of the seminar serie. Think Globally Radio is assisting particularly with deeper knowledge and conceptual understanding of sustainability linked to various societal, economical, cultural and environmental aspects. It will be an interesting collaboration without doubt!

SEEK + INUG + TGR!

/Jimmy

Go Sweden! And do more!

In todays "Godmorgon Sverige", Swedish National Television, there was a brief but interested panel debate concerning the great climate and energy package officially released by the European commission today. And the targets are not only tough, but also differentiated depending on the economical situation of the respective countries. Now keep in mind that the European Union has quite high expectations globally as the Union is viewed as a concerned and proactive political power zone in climate politics. Keep in mind the rough and strong position the European Union had towards the States during the recent UN Climate Conference on Bali.

So the challanges are huge. Especially for rich countries within the European Union (reed: Germany, France, Belgium, Italy and UK) to start achieving set targets of climate gas emission reductions. Because, in order for the European Union to show leadership in this important and alerting issue (radical changes are to be done within 15 years so as not to upset the climate system before tipping points arrive), the individual rich countries need to be in resonance.

For Sweden, the case is different. We cannot forget that every country has different prerequisists for these reduction targets. So Sweden can consider itself very lucky being placed in a corner of the world where inland stream-water is rich, securing a renewable energy system. And of course this fact is fast to be used by the politician in place: Maud Olofsson, center party leader of Sweden, said - Sweden is great. With green energy licences, energy-effectiviness of companies, district heating powered by solid waste, installed wind and water power installations and "environmental" cars selling great are making international delegates impressed. And the environmental minister in Bryssels is smiling, explaining that he is proud that Sweden is showing the way. Go Sweden!

The transport sector, the transport sector, that is the problematic area of Sweden sais Maud. And, as Erika Bjerström, European correspondent for STV, said, Sweden has the oldest and heaviest car park of the whole Union. Swallowing enormous amounts of fuel. Of course this sector will be under construction during the coming years of climate politics. Go Sweden!

But the global bell rings higher than this.
What about the average natural capital consumption per capita in Sweden (not to say globally)? Why is the political scene expressing more or less solely energy-effectiviness, biofuels and cap and trade systems when we have a whole Earth in change? Not only climate change, but global change (recall Prof. Will Steffen at Think Globally Radio 071104) - meaning how much of productive land and water we need to carry up our consumption behaviour primarily in the West, that is, what we use and what we discard. Keep in mind ecosystem service stress (70 % of fishing stocks overfished, 30-40% of all land living organisms extinct in a couple of years and water sheds drying out in many parts of the world). If everyone in th world lived as Swedes, there would need to be: 3.5 Earths. Go Sweden! And do more!

/Jimmy

500,000,000 million people is a lot of people

That's roughly equal to the current population of Europe. Or a little less than DOUBLE the current U.S population. It's also the amount of people who will migrate into cities in the rapidly urbanizing China by 2050.

Now, this is certainly not the only "by 2050" statistic that may frighten, scare, or even excite the average person (in fact here is a great list some predictions from the World Future Institute). But, still, before writing anymore I need to take and deep breath and just say it: my lord, urban areas will need to be built up to house, employ, and accommodate some 50 times the population Sweden over the next 4 decades. So, whether all these new urbanites will live like urban Swedes, sub-urban Americans, like the Singaporian Sustainability Superstars, (Singapore is generally recognized for being the most efficient at everything, or at the least in urban planning) or something in between, China's urbanization will be fascinating and crucial to global sustainability. This is displayed excellently in the New York Times series, China: Choking on Growth; and I can attest first hand that perhaps the biggest present and potentially future danger-spot for China will lie in how they build and use their cities (I wrote my thesis on transportation planning in Beijing, and, well, I truly love the city but frankly the traffic is sheer lunacy). So this entry will the first subject of a series of posts on this topic, which will delve into different aspects the urbanization process in China.

Last week, Dr. Douglas Webster, from the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, was in town last week to give a lecture (as part of the Stockholm Seminar series) on urban land use planning currently underway in China and he seemed hopeful over the current state of urban planning in China. Indeed, there is plenty of positive signs for more sustainable style development (I use this term very loosely, its a blog so please don't crucify me yet, thanks). For one, Chinese cities are generally speaking quite dense, and dense urban structures are generally more resource efficient. Further, major investments are being made in rapid urban transit, subway lines, and highspeed railways to improve connections inside and between cities. One interesting criticism he had of Chinese land use centred around industrial land use, which has been given far too much valuable land in central city areas.

With China's cities growing rapidly, the decisions they make now and over the next couple decades in terms of planning, building and infrastructure will determine their future sustainability. Let's hope more and more of them will look like this environmental gem being built outside Shanghai.

Car fuel taxes approved - what about flight?

Once again I am reacting upon an article by SvD, which by the way happens to be my primary source of news. However, the subscription is coming to an end soon, and we have decided to take the opportunity to switch from printed news-paper and go entirely online...

Anyway - an interesting article a couple of days ago was about the nations reduction strategies. It was written prior to the national climate commitees meeting, scheduled for today, with the aim of national climate objectives and targets formulation. The opposition parties have agreed that 40% reduction of climate gases have to be realized until the year 2020 in order to avoid global average temperature increase to exceed 2 degrees. The comments from politicians reflect wide and different opinions on the purposes and also the approaches to achieve this reduction. Some view Sweden as a isolated nation and that we need to focus on the daily economic activities that are coupled to emission of climate gases and reduce them. Others are more focused on the European level, and Mr. Anders Wijkman, honoured guest at Think Globally Radio, considers that formulations have to be as international profiled as possible.

And very true so. In fact, the climate gas emissions coupled to the production of the products that are pumped into Sweden, for instance, every year, from emerging markets such as China and India, are bigger than the exports from Sweden, making emissions caused by Swedish consumers "invinsible" but nevertheless globally common. They have to be international, because simply switching to products produced by countries that are more environmentally/climate friendly also need to take into consideration on all lost job incomes of huge amounts of employees that are installed to keep the Wests consumption-oriented economy running. The have to be international because introduction and training of green-technology or clean-teach to emerging markets need to go along with joint formulations of alternative jobs descriptions within a global low-carbon, renewable energy, product-recycling sustainable economy. They have to be international , because they are not carried out by single nations, but in an agreed, co-operative and proactive international arena where every nation plays an important part.

Now, the article finishes off with one interesting conclusion after years of political debate - all of the political parties in Sweden today agree that the fuel tax for cars have to increase as one of many climate objectives. I think we really have to see the history to learn fast here; what about flight taxes? Do we really have the time to wait until something radical will happen? Until we realize that taxes are the only sensible solution? The European Union has a great responsibility to start introducing fast-connecting railways between major European cities along with introduction of approriate environmental taxes for flights. This co-operation needs to be fulfilled. Both because the European Union is demographically exemplary for such railway systems, because it has to take proactive action in order to assist the rest of the world in the sustainable transformation, and because of global environmental and social equity; flying around the world is carried out by some small precentage of the world population (rich people) while it affects the major part of the worlds poor.

/Jimmy

Empty Sea, Silent Sea

I would like to follow up a bit on Jimmy’s post below about fish consumption, and how serious a sustainability question it has become. Management of fisheries, and regulation of international fish markets, has proven to be among the most intractable of environmental issues.

This past week, the New York Times started a series of articles called Empty Seas (which also appeared on the front page of the International Herald Tribune), looking at fish consumption in Europe and other issues related to unsustainable fishing practices. I was astounded to read that in London, cod can fetch $30 per kilo! If demand and supply is such that the price of such a staple fish can climb so high, it is difficult to be optimistic on the prospect of sustainable fisheries, in Europe or elsewhere, as the market for fish has reached a global level; great demand and high prices in one region can be answered by fishing fleets from any number of nations (for example, in Empty Seas, it is discussed how Chinese vessels catch fish off the coast of Africa to satisfy demand from the European market).

The Empty Seas article series also calls to mind Isabella Lövin’s award-winning book Tyst Hav (“Silent Sea”), on unsustainable fishing practices in the Baltic Sea and beyond. So far only available in Swedish, the book will likely at some point be translated to English. (Ms. Lövin will be the studio guest on the Think Globaly Radio program on February 10th to discuss these issues in greater depth.)

Aggregate demand for fish and meat can only rise as worldwide population and wealth increases. If fish consumption must be reduced to sustainable levels (or switched to species that are currently more abundant or better managed), where can the substitutes come from to make up the difference? As Jimmy pointed out, the day to day decisions of consumers, which drive markets, are the building blocks of sustainable consumption that cannot be underestimated.

Structural factors, such as government subsidies to fishing fleets, which fuel over-capacity and drive unsustainable fishing practices, also need to be taken into consideration. This is discussed in a NY Times editorial, which suggests addressing the problem through international trade talks at the World Trade Organization. Such policies that cause unintended negative consequences are sometimes called "perverse incentives" and in this case have led to a situation where "too many boats are chasing too few fish".

/Eric

Fish consumption pattern are changing

In yesterdays SvD, there were 2 interesting articles dealing with fish and tiger prawn consumption.

The bigger article was about types of fishes that are being sold in Stockholm and which of them had a green, yellow respective red-listing status by WWF. What was interesting is that the majority of the fishmongers investigated by the journalists of SvD had plenty of cod, wild salmon, plaice and tropical prawns lying freshly ordered on the counter. "I try to convince customers to buy a sustainable alternative, however that is not always so easy" - sometimes I think about the phrase "It´s not easy to learn an old dog to sit", in this case is very applicable... The salesman goes on, "In the end, it is always the demand and access that governs - what the customers want, is what we have to sell, otherwise we would go under".

The other article reflected a decision that was taken from another approach. Tiger prawns, which cultivation demand cut-down of mangrove forests, has been a warm debate for quite a while now (listen to our radio show "the impact of eating: sustainable food consumption in Stockholm" here). Interestingly, 75 restaurants around Stockholm have now promised not to include tiger prawns in their menu´s after lobbying by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, pushing through a so called "prawn promise" to help save the mangrove forests in the world. The change has not been felt as problematic - "There have been no problems whatsoever to give up tiger prawns, we simply serve other alternatives"

So what we have here is fishmonger indecision and stall between red alerts from research and demand of customers versus 75 restaurants taking a proactive and deterministic approach to simply abandon what is unsustainable. On the other hand, simply switching the massive consumption from red-listed to green-listed species like perch, pike and alaskan pollock will simply, after a longer perspective, also make them red-listed unless we realize the most unsustainable motor; our own consumption patterns and the important insight that one planet Earth simply cannot manage the massive stress we expose it to.

So next time we want to buy fresh fish, let´s ask for a gree-listed alternative!

/Jimmy

Proof: CSR = profitable

In todays Svenska Dagbladet´s (SvD) business section, a big article based on a recent study and book conducted and written by Lars Hassel, professor in accounting and auditing at the University of Umeå, has proven the, for some still doubtable; being social and environmental responsible in business increases the profit of the corporation. Corporations that have actively engaged in CSR have increased their profitability and stock exchange value in contrast to comparative companies without sustainable action.

Corporations and companies that still resist modifying their values to accept the fact that their activities are impacting the environment impress me. Shifting into a sustainable and clean course basically means sacrificing some of old (comfortable) habits in order to be more responsible to the common natural capital from which everything derives and to which all is thrown away. The time has come to change. To all corporations - do it!

And most importantly, dont hesitate!

/Jimmy

The Prius and The Whale

Predicting and finding solutions to climate change can be a rather cerebral subject: carbon offsets, climate models, emissions trading schemes and so forth can sometimes feel quite distant from the natural world that we live in today. That's why its refreshing to see that some are still taking actions that are more viscerally appealing, such as Greenpeace going "old school" and interfering with the Japanese whale hunt.

I have never understood why Japan, a nation that is otherwise extremely conscientious of its international image, is so intent on hunting whales while most countries have rejected the practice. For a sector that is so marginal to their economy, why would they jeopardize their reputation among consumers of far more economically significant Japanese products? I can't help but wonder how Toyota, maker of the Prius- one of the stronger environmental symbols of today- feels about Japanese whaling ships hunting and processing perhaps the most potent symbol of classic environmentalism.

(By the way, Toyota has announced that it will offer an electric plug-in version of the Prius by 2010)

/Eric

Climate change in the backseat of US election coverage

Health care, the economy, immigration, national security…certainly all extremely important issues that must be discussed and debated during an election year, and have dominated the recent political dialogue in the United States. Climate change, and the environment in general, however, have been discussed only around the edges in the context of the current American presidential race.

I was just back in the United States for several weeks, and had the opportunity to closely follow the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, as well as the Democratic and Republican debate between. When mentioned at all, global warming was usually given a back seat to energy security (i.e. dependency on foreign supplies).

After all the media coverage of climate change in 2007, culminating in Al Gore’s Nobel Prize, I was expecting it to be one of the more important election issues of 2008. Apparently not. Now, each candidate at least has a position on the issue (for example, Obama favors cap-and-trade over carbon taxes); however, the television media outlets that I turned to during my visit (primarily MSNBC, which is usually considered fairly balanced politically), showed scant interest in reporting where the candidates stood, and how their proposed policies differed from one another. During the January 5th debate on ABC, little time was devoted to discussing climate change, with only Obama and Richardson having the opportunity to present their position, and no time for the Democratic candidates to challenge each other’s proposed solutions. I can’t remember hearing the Kyoto Protocol, or its successor that was the subject of the recent international conference in Bali, mentioned at all.

This apparent lack of interest stands in stark contrast to the recent election in Australia, where climate change was treated as a top-tier issue and some say was partially responsible for the downfall of the John Howard government, widely considered a climate change pariah. True, Australia has been in the grips of a severe drought that has been described as the developed world’s first climate crisis. But the US too is currently being afflicted by a historic drought in the southeast, and water shortages are certainly an issue for the western states. Not to mention the risks associated with hurricanes, such as Katrina, the frequency and intensity of which some scientists speculate may be linked to climate change.

Whether this paltry coverage truly reflects a lack of public interest, or the candidates’ political strategy, or if the media and pollsters finds climate change a less attractive topic, is an open question that will be interesting to consider while following what nonetheless promises to be a fascinating year in American politics that will certainly have global consequences.

/Eric

it´s our definitive understanding...

I just finished Andreas Malm´s book "Det är vår bestämda uppfattning att om ingenting görs nu kommer det att vara försent", something like: "It is our definitive understanding that if nothing is done now it will be too late" - released by Atlas publishing house, 2007.

This book, I believe, does not leave any of its readers untouched. Malm begins with a historical background of what he acknowledges as a controproductive and dogmatic scientific perspective. All the way from the industrial revolution our scientists have focused and researched narrowly upon individual, separated issues of science and technology. Obviously, up until now, as Professor Will Steffen explicitely pointed out at Think Globally Radio´s episode "Surviving the anthropocene", on the 4th of November 2007 (listen here), the human race has not encountered such common global problems and challenges. Not until now are we commonly facing that the prevalent Western high-carbon and consumer intensive lifestyle is highly unsustainable. Not until now, are we also understanding that the science and technological innovations we have created historically have largely been destructive to our common, precious natural capital. Another important concept that is hindering a real perception of our climate system is the prevalent gradualistic change of the climate and nature as large; the climate, is in fact counter to that theory a beast, that when it is shaked out of its sleep, is capable of contributing to sudden devastating consequences...

Malm continues, after the historical outlook, to give a somewhat nightmarish description of our current and future situation if nothing is done; Greenland melting much faster than scientific models are predicting; glacier´s melting water, bursting out of hidden and unknown temporal bedrock storage devastating downhill villages around the Himalayas; temperate and tropical forests carbon "sinks" turning into carbon "sources" due to natural mechanisms of reverse respiration; much more frequent storms and hurricanes due to a higher energy flow within the biosphere - the grand conclusion is that added spiral feedback loops and self-organizing criticality in the climate systems is enhancing the physical consequences of our emissions. The climate will change abruptely.

You may panic reading this book, especially during the nights... but needless to say, that does not lead to anything constructive whatsoever. This is an important book, because it gives plenty of insights and also wakes up the will to affect and improve. It is important because we, in the Western world, have the responsibility to reconstruct our societies towards sustainability. And whether or not this will be carried out as a revolution, as Malm suggests, or through a common and broad co-operation, only the future will predict. One thing is for sure - scientific reseach need to be transformed into constructive action in order to improve our society at large, not merely improve the energy-efficiency of technology!

/Jimmy

Think Globally Radio blog coming soon!

This blog is an outgrowth of Think Globally Radio, broadcast out of Stockholm, Sweden. Content here will be a complement to our radio program, an extensive archive of which is available at www.thinkgloballyradio.org.