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