The Global Water Tool: Making Corporate Water Data a Little Less Dry
World Water Week is upon us, an annual fete of all things H2O. The event, held in Stockholm, is the leading global meeting place for experts from businesses, governments, science, NGOs, academe, and United Nations agencies. This year's event features the launch on Tuesday of a remarkable Global Water Tool, a free online resource to help companies calculate water consumption and efficiency across a portfolio of facilities around the world.
The tool is the product of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, a Geneva-based organization of some 200 international companies representing 30 countries and 20 industrial sectors. Nearly all of its members have core businesses that depend heavily on water: Alcan and Alcoa (aluminum production), ConocoPhillips and Shell (oil production and refining), Dow and Dupont (chemicals and ag products), Rio Tinto (mining), Lafarge and Holcim (cement), Pepsico and Suez (water and beverages).
Indeed, pretty much all large companies depend heavily on water.
One of the challenges such companies face is assessing the potential risks posed by water's uneven quality and quantity from place to place, and even from time to time in the same place. For companies, the questions are many: How many sites are in extremely water-scarce areas? Which sites are at greatest risk? How that will change in the future? How many employees live in countries that lack access to improved water and sanitation? How many suppliers are in water-scarce areas now, or will be in ten or twenty years?
Few companies can comprehensively answer such questions, leaving them at risk for disruptive water shortages and droughts. A recent study by the Pacific Institute found that while most corporate sustainability reports address freshwater use, "few offer insight into many water-related risks facing businesses. Most reports lack context, quantitative data, supply chain information, and consistent methods and definitions," the institute reported. That's a risk unto itself, akin to being a timber company that isn't measuring and tracking the future of forests.
As I've noted in the past, water issues are of growing concern to business, especially with the rising tide of concern about climate change:
Unlike climate issues, where problems and their solutions have global impacts, water will be seen as a mostly local issue requiring local actions. But, if as experts predict, warmer climates and lowered water tables lead to widespread disruptions, activists and regulators will begin to connect the dots, foisting regulations or global treaties upon the business community.
It's not just the poorest economies where water is a concern. Wealthy nations, too are increasingly facing water stress for their plants, animals, and humans. In Australia, for example, what's been called the worst drought in a thousand years is pitting farmers selling food for export -- a major source of national income -- against households, communities, and industries needing water on the domestic front.
The World Water Tool aims to help companies evaluate and address water risks and impacts in their operations and supply chains in order to minimize risks. The tool is the brainchild of Jan Dell, vice president of CH2M Hill, the global engineering and construction firm, which has been doing water risk analyses for big companies for years. Dell was frustrated at the dearth of readily accessible up-to-date data about water at the local level around the world. Each time her firm did an analysis, they had to go online, pull data from a series of databases maintained by United Nations and other organizations, and put it together in some comprehensible way. It wasn't easy or efficient, even for experienced pros.
With good reason. Gathering data about water for a far-flung operation can be more complex than analyzing something like greenhouse gas emissions, which itself can be overwhemling for many companies. With climate, you simply add up the data from each location to measure your company's footprint; a ton of carbon is the same wherever you go. With water, your company's footprint depends in part on local water conditions. If water is scarce, even the most efficient operation may be too much. When it's plentiful, conservation measures may not make sense. So, you need to understand the local situation to make sound business decisions. For example, in areas with lots of water, it may not be cost effective to put in energy-intensive water recycling facilities.
"It occurred to me a that a tool could be created, and that it shouldn't be a commercial one," Dell recounted to me last week. With the strong backing of CH2M Hill chairman and CEO Ralph R. Peterson, Dell donated countless hours in partnership with WBCSD and its member companies to create a tool that would simplify the data gathering and analysis process -- and to make it free to all users.
The resulting tool has two parts: an input sheet and an online map. The input sheet contains the company's site location and water use information. After entering your company's water use figures, the sheet automatically provides outputs, including water indicators compatible with the Global Reporting Initiative requirements and downloadable metrics charts that demonstrate the company's data combined with both the country and watershed figures.
The online mapping feature enables companies to plot their sites with external water datasets (from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization, and Unicef, among others) and download those locations in a map. These datasets provide several key metrics, including renewable water resource per capita, mean annual relative water stress index, and access to improved sanitation. The tool is linked to Google Earth, which provides spatial viewing of a company's site locations in relation to detailed geographic information, including surface water.
The product of all this is a comparison of your company's water uses with key external water-related data; key water GRI Indicators, inventories, risk and performance metrics and geographic mapping; an assessment of relative water risks in your company's portfolio; and the calculation of water consumption and efficiency data.
It sounds complex, but it's not. The tool is fairly intuitive to use. Says Dell: "It could have been a spaceship, but we really tried to build a bicycle that everyone could ride."
Poring over such calculations and assessments may seem, well, dry, to most of us, but they are nothing short of revolutionary for those inside companies seeking to understand how climate change and other environmental challenges create both risks and opportunities.
Of course, the goal in all of this is for companies to take action, "not just to collect data and make charts," as Dell put it. But one tends to follow the other, and that makes the World Water Tool an essential part of any big company's efforts to quench its thirst for water in a way that is sustainable -- economically, environmentally, and socially.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
August 12, 2007 in Business Practices, Climate Change, Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (4)
Learning to Love (and Value) Ecosystem Services
Ecosystems must be viewed as huge capital assets, affected by nearly all development and investment decisions, according to a report released this week.
This finding isn't exactly new. Researchers have long been saying that we risk our economic future as we plunder and degrade our forests, coasts, wetlands, aquifers, topsoil, coral reefs, and other natural systems upon which business and commerce depend. As I've written in the past (see here here, and here), all companies ultimately depend on the availability of healthy ecosystems -- whether they use raw materials directly or rely on the availability of products manufactured from those materials.
The United Nations Millennium Assessment in 2005 reported the extent to which economies depend on the capital lying within nature's lands, waters, forests, and reefs. The new report, Restoring Nature's Capital (download - PDF) presents the results of the earliest concerted thinking about how to address both the stark realities and the enormous potential uncovered by the UN report.
The authors contend that nature's benefits -- both economic and social -- could sustain many more generations if businesses, governments, and civil society pursue the UN's action agenda, which calls for an increase in the availability of information on ecosystem services and a redressing of the balance in favor of local rights to resources and local voices in decision making. It also calls for managing decisions across levels -- local, regional, national, and international -- and increasing the use of accountability mechanisms and economic and financial incentives.
The solutions are all before us, says WRI.
The challenges, while enormous, are not insurmountable. We believe that the seeds of change needed to put us on a path to sustaining ecosystem services are already emerging, assembled from existing pockets of best practice around the globe. What might the world of decision-making look like in 2030 if these seeds germinate and transform the way we see and value our ecosystem services? Will it become second nature for people to safeguard the capacity of ecosystems to provide the mosaic of services necessary for human wellbeing? Will ecosystem health and development aspirations be viewed as mutually reinforcing sides of the same coin, instead of a zero sum game?Imagine for a moment that the movement to ensure the sustainability of our natural assets and long-term wellbeing that is already underway in parts of the world grows across economic sectors and political boundaries. Led by participants in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, global business leaders with progressive ecosystem policies such as members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, coalitions of governments such as the Poverty Environment Partnership, and multidisciplinary applied scientific groups such as the Resilience Alliance, the movement unleashes a new generation of information and governance approaches.
In this eco-idealistic world, everybody has a role to play:
- Business views ecosystem stewardship as a source of new markets and competitive advantage. Companies adopt policies on ecosystem services and routinely report to the public on how they are implementing them.
- Local communities have clear rights to resources in their communities and a significant voice in decisions about how they will be used and how the resulting costs and benefits will be distributed.
- Research communities embrace ecosystem services as a major research theme. Information from monitoring systems for ecosystem condition and trends is analyzed and broadly disseminated, informing economic and development policies and election priorities.
- Civil society performs the role of watchdog, solution provider, and trailblazer, making information available and enabling the public to hold business and government accountable.
- National governments monitor the health of ecosystem services and include indicators in national accounts, enabling the public to track progress and hold decision-makers accountable.
- International organizations play a lead role in establishing the conditions for institutional cooperation on ecosystem stewardship across political levels and geographic scales.
WRI goes beyond the ideal to offer an "action agenda" that involves strengthening each of these groups' ability to play their part effectively -- and suggests new institutions that might be needed to stimulate change.
What's most helpful about the WRI report is that it goes beyond the blame game of who has caused the destruction of ecosystems. Instead, it offers a plan and charts a course for change. These are exactly the kinds of tools we need these days: ones that give all players a script from which to read, pushing and prodding them to play their respective roles in the hopes that, in the end, we'll have a consistent, coherent story to tell.
| | | | |
May 8, 2007 in Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (1)
The Spoils of Success for the Natural Products Industry
The natural products industry has become a screaming success. That's mostly good news. It also offers some cautionary tales for the sustainable business sector.
That's my 2¢ worth, having just returned from Natural Products Expo West, an annual industry trade show and shindig that attracts some 40,000 visitors -- retailers and other industry professionals only, please, no outsiders allowed. The event fills nearly a million square feet of exhibition space at the Anaheim Convention Center, featuring some 2,700 exhibitors and dozens of professional education sessions -- not to mention countless sideshow book signings, cocktail receptions, private dinners, and blow-out parties. (I was there to lead a session on "Greening Your Business and Bottom Line.")
You don't need industry stats to know that health-minded products -- comprised of natural and organic foods, healthy ethnic and specialty foods, supplements, health and beauty goods, and "natural living" products, according to the organizers -- is big business, but the stats are impressive nonetheless: Sales in 2005 were just north of $50 billion in the U.S. alone, according to Natural Foods Merchandiser, and probably twice that globally.
A hundred billion dollars, to paraphrase Everett Dirksen, is real money. And it's attracting big industry players. The tales have been well told of corporate megaliths swallowing up some of the industry's best brands: Ben & Jerry's (Unilever), Stonyfield Farm (Danone), Tom's of Maine (Colgate-Palmolive), Horizon Organics (Dean Foods), Odwalla (Coca-Cola), Hains Foods (Heinz), Boca Burger (Kraft), Morningstar Farms (Kellogg), Seeds of Change (M&M/Mars), and many others.
But the cavernous halls of Expo West showed that behind these companies are still more big players, such as ADM and Cargill, offering sweeteners, emulsifiers, texturizers, stabilizers, strengtheners, conditioners, and assorted other ingredients contained in the science projects that comprise many of today's manufactured foods, both "natural" and otherwise.
And it's not just Big Ag. Big Pharma was amply present, too, serving up a mind-numbing array of botanical extracts and biotech-infused antioxidants, binders, carriers, diluents, hydrocolloids, lubricants, peptides, and other components that go into today's "natural products." (Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, anyone?)
To be sure, there were plenty of "pure" foods and personal care products, too -- those that were 100% organic, unadulterated with anything short of TLC.
It's all part of a massive industry that long ago crossed over into the "mainstream" category, attracting a wide spectrum of interests. Combing the aisles of the expo were dozens of buyers from Whole Foods Markets, as you'd expect, given that the company is now a Fortune 500 player, with nearly $5 billion in annual sales. But there were also buyers from Albertson's, Safeway, Sam's Club, Target, Wal-Mart, and most other major grocery chains and big-box retailers.
All good, of course, but there was something missing from it all, and it concerned me: The event seemed nearly devoid of anything political.
This is no small matter. Eating, as it's been said (by many, mostly attributed to restaurateur Alice Waters, but also to others), "is a political act," though you wouldn't know it from this event. Where were the activists -- those advocating family farms, animal welfare, local foods, farmers' markets, the integrity of the U.S. organic labeling law, slow food, GMO-free food, healthy produce for the underclass, genetic biodiversity, organic school lunches, the connection between factory farming and climate change? If they were present, I didn't see them. (A few exhibitors promoted Fair Trade goods, though most were also pushing products bearing that label.)
It concerned me, both for the future of food, but also for the future of "green." As environmentally-minded companies grow and the market matures, will the politics that underpin their products and services similarly get glossed over, or ignored altogether, in the name of revenue growth, mergers, and acquisitions? Will concerns over biodiversity, clearcutting, access to potable water, asthma epidemics, endangered species, loss of wetlands, nuclear waste, and smart growth be swept aside by green businesses' rush to claim market share?
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against seeing these businesses and their sectors prosper and flourish. I'm just hoping that these companies don't lose their souls in the name of sales.
The sustainable-business sector does have at least one positive lesson to learn from the natural products folks: The latter seem to have done a great job of emphasizing the benefits of their products in positive terms, not just non-negatives. Today's natural products aren't just absent of pesticides, antibiotics, and artificial what-not. They have flavor, antioxidants, age-defying botanicals, and many other beneficial attributes.
On the other hand, too many greenies engage in what I call "unvertising" -- impressive but uninspired lists of what's left out of their products: VOC-free, animal-friendly, climate-neutral, no old-growth fiber, mercury-free, non-petroleum, no artificial anything, etc. I can't think of many other businesses that have prospered by convincing the public that they are less bad. (One exception: The curious campaign by Cingular, now AT&T Wireless, boasting that it had the "Fewest Dropped Calls.")
For green products and services to sell, they'll have to emulate their natural-products brethren, learning how to articulate why they're good, not just why they're not bad. Otherwise, they will continue to suffer the huge chasm that exists between green concern and green consumerism -- shoppers' general unwillingness to align their dollars with their green values.
One foodie footnote: A couple weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending a presentation and conversation between Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and noted sustainable foods author and journalism professor Michael Pollan, which filled a 2,200-seat auditorium at UC Berkeley. The event was the culmination of an e-mail conversation that's taken place between Mackey and Pollan over the past year or so, archived here. I highly commend the webcast of the two-hour event, which includes a 45-minute presentation by Mackey on the "Past, Present, and Future of Food." It was both informative and inspiring, and gave me newfound respect for Mackey's company, which, despite its bigness, continues to learn, change, and innovate in the name of sustainable and healthy foods.
| | | | |
March 11, 2007 in Green Marketing, Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (3)
The Cruel Irony of the Thirsty Rich
There's a cruel irony in a new report just out from the World Wildlife Fund: Water crises, long seen as a problem of only the poorest, are increasingly affecting some of the world's wealthiest nations.
That's a far cry from the usual water-related enviro-screed, which typically cites U.N. data pointing to the 1.1 billion people around the world who lack access to improved water supplies and the 2.6 billion who lack access to improved sanitation. It's become eco-chic to say that, "In the 21st century, water will be the new oil."
All true, of course. But as the WWF report, Rich Countries, Poor Water (PDF), points out, a combination of climate change, drought, and loss of wetlands that store water, along with poorly thought out water infrastructure and resource mismanagement, will lead to increasing water problems in countries such as Australia, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S.
In Europe, countries on the Atlantic are suffering recurring droughts, while water-intensive tourism and irrigated agriculture are endangering water resources in the Mediterranean. In Australia, the world's driest continent, salinity is a major threat to a large proportion of its key agricultural areas. Despite high rainfall in Japan, contamination of water supplies is an extremely serious issue in many areas. In the United States, large areas are already using substantially more water than can be naturally replenished. This situation will only be exacerbated as climate change brings lower rainfall, increased evaporation, and changed snowmelt patterns.
Says WWF:
Some of the world's thirstiest cities, such as Houston and Sydney, are using more water than can be replenished. In London, leakage and loss is estimated at 300 Olympic-size swimming pools daily due to ageing water mains. It is however notable that cities with less severe water issues such as New York tend to have a longer tradition of conserving catchment areas and expansive green areas within their boundaries.
The implications for companies doing business in the industrialized world are implicit if not explicit: access to water could easily become a constraint to operations. In some cases, water-related problems could lead to decreases in water allotments, more stringent water-quality regulations, growing community activism, and increased public scrutiny of water-related corporate activities. These may impact site selection, license to operate, productivity, costs, revenues, and, ultimately, profits and corporate viability. As the Pacific Institute put it in a 2004 report detailing risks to the private sector from inadequate freshwater resources: "Water-related risks now pose a potential multi-billion-dollar threat to a wide variety of businesses and investors."
(I've posted previously on this theme -- see, for example, this and this.)
What to do? The WWF report suggests that we have to change "our attitude toward water."
It is clear that fresh water has long been an under-appreciated and undervalued resource and the attitudes of developed country governments, industries, and populations to water need urgent revision.
Addressing this, says WWF, will involve the proper and equitable pricing of water and the ecosystem services provided by freshwater flows; the ending of subsidies that encourage wasteful use; ramping up water conservation and recycling efforts; maintaining and restoring aquatic ecosystems; and more.
That's just for starters. WWF says we'll also need to deal "openly and accountably" with water. That includes accounting for the cumulative impacts on human and natural water systems, "a factor often ignored in one-off project impact assessments"; and adopting a precautionary principle where knowledge of impacts or natural systems is inadequate.
The bottom line: Companies should expect to find water issues rising to the level of awareness that energy conservation and efficiency has seen in recent years. The good news is that companies that already have implemented comprehensive energy efficiency and management systems will have a jump on those that haven't. Addressing both energy and water involve extremely similar processes: conducting audits and establishing a current baseline; identifying cost-effective, low-hanging fruit for making efficiency improvements; generating organizational awareness of the issue through effective communication and training; getting top-level buy-in to tackle the bigger, longer-term, and more challenging issues, such as water-intensive manufacturing processes; engaging suppliers, activists, and other stakeholders; measuring and reporting; and on and on. You know the drill.
And along the way, some leadership companies will establish themselves with innovative technologies and practices, smart and effective partnerships, and new business models and opportunities.
Even before that happens, customers, regulators, and activists will likely be chiming, in inquiring about what companies are doing to mitigate the risks of doing business in a world where access to water is a constraint to productivity and profits.
| | |
August 23, 2006 in Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (3)
Our Nuclear Summer
For all the arguments made by the opponents of nuclear power -- that it is uneconomical, unsafe, a potential boon to terrorists, poses waste-disposal issues, and all the rest -- nuclear's biggest threat may come from the one problem it is purported to address: climate change.
If, as many climatologists suggest, the heat waves in Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere are an indication of shifts in global climate patterns, it could spell doom for nuclear power, whose viability is directly linked to the availability of adequate water supplies.
Consider what's happened lately on both sides of the Atlantic.
"The extended heat wave in July aggravated drought conditions across much of Europe, lowering water levels in the lakes and rivers that many nuclear plants depend on to cool their reactors," reports the Christian Science Monitor, adding
As a result, utility companies in France, Spain, and Germany were forced to take some plants offline and reduce operations at others. Across Western Europe, nuclear plants also had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment. Even with an exemption to environmental rules this summer, the French electric company, Electricité de France (EDF), normally an energy exporter, had to buy electricity on European spot market, a way to meet electricity demand.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the utility giant Exelon last week cut the power at its nuclear power plant in Quad Cities, Ill., after a heat wave warming the Mississippi River valley reduced the supply of cooling water, according to a Reuters report cited by the blog energy.buzz. The story cites similar drought-related cuts in nuclear plants in Minnesota and elsewhere in Illinois.
Such problems may be short-lived -- these plants' output have likely since been restored -- but the question remains: What happens to nuclear power's future if climate change reduces the availability of the water on which they depend?
This isn't the first time this question has surfaced. In the catastrophic European heat wave of August, 2003, many nuclear power plants had to reduce energy production or shut down because rivers simply did not carry enough water to ensure their cooling.
Lack of water isn't the only problem associated with heat-stricken nuclear plants. The French government announced last month that nuclear power plants situated along rivers will be allowed to drain hot water into the rivers at higher temperatures than normal, according to IPS News. The heat wave since mid-June has led authorities in France, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere in Europe to override their own environmental norms on the maximum temperature of water drained from the plants' cooling systems.
Of course, it's not just nuclear. Hydroelectric power plants are similarly affected by droughts, especially crucial for an economy in a country like Norway that is dependent on hydropower. In northern Italy this summer, low water levels in the River Po affected hydroelectric supplies, prompting power shortages in Rome that knocked out air-conditioning and left people trapped in elevators, reports the International Herald Tribune.
Indeed, any power plant that uses a steam cycle "has the potential problem of exceeding discharge limits if temperatures are excessively warm," as nuclear engineer Lisa Stiles-Shell points out in an industry blog. She notes that "only about 1/3 of the heat is usable to turn a turbine, the waste heat has to go somewhere." The point seems to be that nuclear is just as inefficient as other large, centralized power plants, so why pick on us?
Point taken. Still, these real-world problems should concern the nuclear industry more than they seem to. Droughts and releases of heated water into rivers don't show up much in the industry literature -- or in anti-nuclear activists' arguments. Perhaps they should. Access to water supplies is being seen increasingly as an economic, political, public health, and human rights issue. Overall, about one-third of all water used in Europe is used for cooling electrical generators, including those powered by both nuclear and fossil fuels. How will our growing need for power reconcile with our growing need to quench our farmlands, our wetlands, and our bodies?
As for nuclear in particular, the water issue needs to float to the top of concerns addressed by both advocates and opponents when make their respective cases. For now, the burden of proof seems to be on the nuclear industry. As Stéphane Lhomme, a spokesman for a French group Sortir du Nucléaire (Abandon Nuclear), told the Christian Science Monitor: "Global warming undermines the arguments we've always heard about nuclear power, that it doesn't damage the environment. Nuclear is not saving us from climate change. It's in trouble because of climate change."
| | |
August 9, 2006 in Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (7)
Toasting Ecotourism's Potential with 'Dos Margaritas'
For the past 20 years or so, the reality of ecotourism has largely failed to meet its promise. The notion that tourism could not only have a lighter footprint but also promote social and environmental good seems to have been lost amid the vast hodgepodge of what passes as "ecotourism" these days: five-star spas, jeep safaris, posh eco-lodges, "sustainable development tours," and all the rest. (Among my favorites: helicopter tours offered by the Hawaii Ecotourism Association.)
One might easily conclude that the term is, essentially, meaningless.
And yet "ecotourism" has meaning. According to the Green Globe 21 International Ecotourism Standard (download here in PDF), it refers to "ecologically sustainable tourism with a primary focus on experiencing natural areas that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation, and conservation." (Note the absence here of Hawaiian helicopters and Ayurvedic masseurs.)
True ecotourism does more than protect the environment. It improves the welfare of local people -- giving them not just jobs, not just handouts, but skills that engender self-sufficiency. It empowers the locals to become stewards of their communities in a way in which they benefit from tourists' visits, and can do so for generations, without degrading their culture or the land that nourishes them. It's tourism that's not just benign, but beneficial.
One shining example of how ecotourism can work is Dos Margaritas, a nonprofit with which I've become familiar in recent years. Founded by two women -- a successful American dot-com entrepreneur and a Chilean travel industry veteran -- Dos Margaritas has shown what's possible when stunning scenery meets savvy strategy.
Ground zero for Dos Margaritas is in Futaleufu, in a narrow, pristine, and increasingly well-known river valley in the Patagonia region of Chile. Futaleufu has become quite the hotspot destination of late. A Google search yields hundreds of rafting, kayaking, and hiking outfitters in the region.
Joaquina Peña saw it coming a decade ago. She also saw the Chilean government's plans for hydroelectric dams along the Futaleufu River, part of the Pinochet government's efforts, launched in the 1980s, to privatize Chile's energy and water resources. Peña, who had been working with U.S. outdoor companies bringing tourists to Chile, already had seen one major river, the Bio Bio, fall victim to dams in the mid 1990s, flooding thousands of acres of indigenous communities. Peña vowed this would not happen to the Futaleufu. She found a parcel of land adjacent to the river and in 1998 began to raise funds to create a beachhead for locally run tourism.
That's when Lisa Gansky showed up. Gansky, a veteran of several Internet start-ups and self-described "marketect," found her way to Chile as part of a year off of travel and contemplation. She helped raise money for the downpayment on the 1,000-acre parcel and developed a business plan for a new nonprofit, dubbed Dos Margaritas ("two daisies" in Spanish). They recruited locals to build a series of classrooms, dormitories, and other facilities that would serve as an ecotourism training center, harvesting fallen trees left behind by timber companies.
Today, that school teaches teenagers and young adults to become world-class outdoor guides, offering classes in English, first aid and rescue, whitewater rafting and kayaking, rock climbing, mountaineering, fly fishing, environmental science, social studies, computer and business skills, and "great customer service." Dos Margaritas students also learn the basics of organic gardening, beekeeping, and goat raising, enabling them to grow much of the food that is served at the school.
The result: a new generation of talented indigenous eco-guides and entrepreneurs, able to host the mostly American and European turistas with all the TLC that only locals can muster.
But it's much more than that, as Peña and Gansky told me recently. "The biggest change is in self-esteem," says Peña. "They go through school that is a tough boot camp. After that they realize they can achieve anything that they want. They arrive feeling they are poor and need help. They leave knowing that it's not about help, it's about how they can do it themselves."
The impact of Dos Margaritas has been leveraged beyond the students who go through the year-long training. "The people who we've impacted directly have affected and infected other people in the community," says Gansky, noting that the program has graduated 350 people in a community of just 1,500. "Organic gardening and compost were new. The reality of solar energy and green building materials and recovery of fallen trees were things people wouldn't normally do. Some met with resistance, but eventually they've become accepted."
Peña and Gansky founded Dos Margaritas with the goals that it be both self-sustaining and replicable. Neither goal has yet been achieved, but it's only a matter of time. "One of the main concepts after seeing this project happen is that it's very replicable," explains Gansky. "As we go to other parts of Latin America, these kinds of programs can be tailored to the local environment and culture of the people living there. The fundamental concept is embracing and supporting the local people to become part of the wave of ecotourism."
Says Peña: "Now, others from different parts of northern Patagonia are calling to see how they can get in on the action -- how to grow their lifestyle without destroying it. Without mining for gold, silver, nickel, cadmium, and other minerals. Now everyone is taking about 'going eco.'"
And perhaps this time, "eco" will actually mean something.
| | |
August 6, 2006 in State of the Art, Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (4)
Aspen Ideas Fest: Life, the Universe, and (Almost) Everything
How to do justice to the Aspen Ideas Festival, from which this post is being written? How to summarize, or even mention, the nearly 150 sessions -- plenaries, tutorials, conversations, screenings, and demonstrations -- taking place over the past seven days? Or the more than 180 speakers and moderators? Not to mention the serendipitous schmoozing.
It's a daunting, likely impossible challenge -- akin to bringing home a single shell plucked from the sand as a means of describing your weeklong adventure at the beach.
Last year, I described the event as "TED meets Davos at 8,000 feet." That doesn't do it justice, but it's still the best I can muster.
So I'll forego attempts at "covering" something that is inherently uncoverable in favor of plucking a metaphorical shell out of the sand.
But which shell? Alan Greenspan talking about our energy future? Sydney Pollack and Nora Ephron discussing Frank Gehry? Ray Anderson (Interface Inc.) and Lorraine Bolsinger (General Electric) talking about corporate environmental leadership? Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer talking about the judiciary? Janine Benyus talking about biomimicry? Norman Lear and Ben Bradlee talking about the future of news and entertainment? Bill Clinton or Karl Rove "in conversation"?
Naw. I'll go with E.O. Wilson, talking about "Saving the Creation."
Biologist Edward Wilson, for the uninitiated, is one of America's most prominent scientists and the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, "On Human Nature" and "The Ants," as well as other celebrated works. Biomimicry guru Janine Benyus, with whom I had the pleasure of sitting during Wilson's talk, calls him the "Darwin of our era."
This wasn't Wilson's first appearance at the Ideas Fest. The day before, he participated in a smaller "tutorial" with two renowned colleagues: Tom Lovejoy and M.A. Sanjayan. That session, simply titled "Life on Earth," took a deep dive into our planet's loss of biodiversity, a session that was as daunting as it was depressing; several members of the audience appeared close to tears at the state of our vanishing species and the rate at which biodiversity, which took about 3.5 billion years to evolve, is being eroded by human activity. "Science and technology, combined with a lack of self-understanding and Paleolithic obstinacy -- have brought us where we are today," is how Wilson puts it.
Wilson covered some of the same ground on Saturday, but what stood out was how much he -- and we -- don't know about our planet.
Simple things, like the number of species that exist. Scientists have identified as many as 1.8 million species to date, but they acknowledge that the actual number could ultimately be as many as 10 million -- or even 100 million. "We simply do not know," says Wilson.
What we do know is astonishing. One example: the nematode roundworm is the most abundant animal on earth. Indeed, 80% of all living creatures are nematodes. If we were to somehow strip away all of the planet's land mass, but leave the nematodes, their abundance would allow us to still see the outline of the continents, according to Wilson.
And what we're learning is equally astonishing. Biology is opening up new technologies, and biodiversity -- the abundance of species -- is one principal emphasis. Thanks to rapid DNA sequencing, scientists can hack the genetic code of some species in hours instead of days. Says Wilson: "It has just begun, and we have no idea of what lies ahead."
Along with the new technologies are new techniques for engaging our citizenry -- and especially our youth -- about the scientific underpinnings of world in which they live. For example, a growing number of institutions are conducting "bioblitzes," a means of organizing young people (among others) to document the biodiversity in their own back yards and communities -- discovering new species, in some instances.
All of which is far more than an academic exercise. One of the central problems of the century -- lifting the world's poorest out of poverty -- represents, in many respects, a biodiversity challenge: How do we make it worthwhile for them to be stewards to the vast array of species to which they've become accidental heirs? asks Wilson. Perhaps ironically, the poorest of the poor and the world's richest biodiversity are concentrated in the same parts of the globe.
"The solution," says Wilson, "must flow from the recognition that one depends on the other. The poor have little chance to improve themselves in a devastated environment. Conversely, the natural environment cannot survive the pressure of a land-hungry people who have nowhere else to go."
Wilson says his other big challenge is to bring together the scientific and religious communities to "set aside our differences in order to save the creation. The defense of living nature is a universal value. It doesn't promote any religious or ideological dogma, and it serves the interest of all humans."
It's a tall order, to be sure. And in the end, Wilson's quest to forge an alliance among the Darwinists and the Intelligent Designers in the name of Mother Earth may be as daunting a challenge as any. But it seems clear that scientists and clergy will have to work together on all this, if we humans are to have a prayer of a chance.
July 8, 2006 in Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (1)
The 'Most Sustainable Cities': Houston, We Have a Problem
The 2006 rankings of America's "most sustainable cities" were announced last week -- released, with more than a little irony, at a mayors' conference in Las Vegas -- and as usual they fomented a feeding frenzy for local media. Reporters in and around the top-ranked winners -- among them, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Chicago -- produced glowing stories touting their green standings. Meanwhile, media in the 40-odd other cities tended to look the other way.
While the victors (and especially their elected officials, chambers of commerce, and tourist bureaus) enjoy their spoils, what happens to the "losers"?
The case of beleaguered Houston -- home of Ken Lay, Katrina refugees, and the nation's dirtiest air -- which ranked dead last in the 2005 rankings, may be instructive.
The rankings, produced each year by SustainLane, an online community focused on sustainable living, are based primarily on public data, supplemented with primary research and interviews with city officials conducted by SustainLane's San Francisco-based team. Some cities, it seems, provide a wealth of information and data about their performance -- everything from air quality and green buildings to local food and agriculture and "city innovation." And some cities provide little or nothing.
Houston fell into the latter category. When SustainLane sought out a contact in the city government who could fill out the group's questionnaire last year, one woman, Sylvia Brumlow, identified herself as the best point person for environmental issues for the city.
But despite follow-up calls and e-mails, Brumlow (who, it turns out, works for the Environmental Investigations Unit of the Houston Police Department) never followed through, contributing to the city's rock-bottom ranking last year.
"That created quite a stir, and a lot of hate mail came pouring in from Houston," James Elsen, SustainLane's founder and CEO, told me last week. "But then a cool thing happened. We started getting comments posted to our Web site that we were right in placing them last -- comments from consultants and academics working with the city, as well as from residents of Houston. We were on local Houston radio and covered in their papers, and a real debate ensued about Houston's record."
Elsen continues:
About a month later we got a call from Karl Pepple, recently appointed by Mayor Bill White as Director of Environmental Programming. Karl said he would work with us, which he has done quite effectively this year, and he told us that Houston did indeed have environmental management functions within numerous departments, but they never met with one another or knew of each other's work until Karl was appointed. He told us that now they meet monthly across many departments and are thankful they are now able to do so, as they are involved in new learnings and discussions, as well as being able to create new efficiencies for the city of Houston's environmental programs.
Houston's problem, it seems, had as much to do with its lack of self-knowledge and coordination of efforts as with its actual performance. And that put it in good company -- not just with other cities, but with thousands of companies that have good, green stories to tell, if only they knew about them. Sometimes, it's the simple matter of finding the stories -- along with good storytellers -- that can begin a positive spiral of inspiration and innovation -- leading, of course, to even more good stories.
Put another way: If only Houston knew what Houston knew. Now, increasingly, it does.
A happy ending? Well, not exactly. In this year's rankings, SustainLane expanded its coverage from 25 cities to 50, and Houston, sadly, dropped from 25th to 39th, slightly ahead of Tulsa and Detroit. Seems that Houston's "good stories" don't measure up to those of 38 other cities.
Meanwhile, what of Columbus, Ohio, which won this year's dubious 50th-place honor? Says Elsen: "We're already being set-up with interviews there so they can understand why they finished last."
June 4, 2006 in Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Biodiversity Meets the Bottom Line
It's become axiomatic to state that the future of life on earth is directly linked to maintaining a healthy diversity of plants, animals, and other species. But what about the future of business? How directly, and how severely, does it suffer when our planet's biodiversity erodes?
For companies in the forestry, mining, energy, fishing, or other sectors linked directly with natural resources -- or tourism, which relies in part on nature's bounty to attract customers -- the links between biodiversity and business success are pretty clear. But what about others: manufacturers, retailers, and other purveyors of products and services? Where, and how, does biodiversity impact their bottom lines?
Not long ago, such questions were largely academic. But no longer. Biodiversity is entering the corporate mainstream through a variety of organizations and initiatives. And companies are finding that, at minimum, they must understand the topic, if not take direct action.
The evidence of mounting loss of species continues unabated. Just last week, researchers reported that unless the destruction of tropical rainforest on private land is curtailed, about 40 percent of the Amazonian forest will be lost by 2050. The study was published in the journal Nature.
A new guidebook on the topic could help companies do their part to reduce this devastation. "Biodiversity is a fundamental component of long-term business survival," says A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector, released last week by the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank Group. It continues:
Businesses rely on genes, species, and ecosystem services as critical inputs into their production processes and depend on healthy ecosystems to treat and dissipate waste, maintain soil and water quality and help control the air composition. For example, agribusiness relies on the diversity of wild relatives of major food crops, as a resource to ensure crop resistance to disease and pests.At the same time, business and industry can have major negative impacts on biodiversity resources. Yet, while the private sector is part of the problem, it is also part of the solution. The resources and influence of the private sector offer important opportunities for innovative and effective contributions to conservation.
The business case for biodiversity begins with the understanding that all companies ultimately depend on the availability of natural resources -- whether they use raw materials directly or rely on the availability of products manufactured from those materials. Biodiversity also ensures the annual delivery of an estimated $33 trillion worth of nature's "free" services upon which many businesses depend: microbes that decompose solid wastes and maintain soil fertility and health; insects that pollinate plants used for food, fiber, and fuel; organisms that control pests and diseases that reduce resource availability; ecosystems that moderate the effects of floods and drought; and on and on. Biodiversity also plays an important role in stabilizing the earth's climate and reducing the impacts of climate change -- which can affect the operation of companies of all sizes and sectors.
In some cases, normal business operations can harm biodiversity, such as by inadvertently polluting their habitat, or during droughts, when business water usage draws down water tables, taxing local habitats and species.
In other cases, biodiversity loss results from more overt actions. For example, the quest to commercialize plant genes by transnational companies and national governments is destroying a wealth of genetic resources and livelihoods across the Asia-Pacific region, threatening those in the region who rely on plants -- such as turmeric and basmati rice, and trees, such as the neem of India and the mamala of Samoa -- for food and medicine.
The IFC guide offers a wealth of practical knowledge for companies on addressing such issues, including understanding biodiversity, developing an effective biodiversity strategy, and managing the risks from biodiversity issues. The guide also offers sector-specific biodiversity management information for ten industry sectors, from mining to tourism.
This isn't the only resource on the topic -- others include Business and Biodiversity; Case Studies in Business and Biodiversity; Commercial Use of Biodiversity: Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing; and Putting a Bit Back: A Guide to Nature Conservation for Small to Medium-sized Enterprises -- but it's one of the better ones.
The field of hands-on knowledge on business biodiversity practices is just beginning to unfold, but is destined to grow in lockstep with concern about the future of biodiversity "hotspots" -- areas in which there is a disproportionate number of endemic species and which are losing habitat at a high rate -- whether halfway around the world or in companies' own backyards.
March 23, 2006 in Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (2) | TrackBack
China, India, and the 'State of the World'
Worldwatch's venerable State of the World annual is just out, and the 2006 edition zeroes in on China and India -- and the threats and opportunities they present to sustainability.
The litany of bad news has been well told. As Worldwatch puts it "If China and India were to consume resources and produce pollution at the current U.S. per-capital level, it would require two planet Earths just to sustain their two economies."
Among the realities: China has only 8% of the world's fresh water to meet the needs of 22% of the world's people. . . . China and India have both just started to build what are slated to be two of the largest automobile industries in the world . . . If Chinese per-capital grain consumption were to double to roughly European levels, China would require the equivalent of nearly 40% of today's global grain harvest.
And so it goes.
What could the good news possibly be? Turns out there's plenty. For starters, both China and India committed during 2005 to accelerate the development of renewable energy sources. India plans to increase renewables' share of power from 5% to as much as 25%, while China's new energy law will help jumpstart wind power, biofuels, and other renewable fuels.
China's automobile industry has adopted Europe's environmental standards, which are tougher than those in the U.S., part of that country's efforts to promote energy efficiency. China has achieved status as the world leader in producing and installing compact fluorescent light bulbs. India already has the fourth-largest wind power industry, while China and India are the third and fourth largest ethanol producers, respectively.
And then there are leapfrogging technologies and systems that could head off some of the more dire predictions about the development world's environmental footprint. One example is in transportation: A growing number of people in China now argue that an automobile-based transportation system simply is not capable of providing mass mobility to over a billion people without destroying resources that are required to meet other human needs.
In response, the Ministry of Construction has recently declared that public transport is a national priority and is promoting Bus Rapid Transit, an ingenious system that combines the speed of a subway with the affordability of a bus. First developed in Curitiba, Brazil in the 1990s, the idea is simple: dedicate selected lanes or roadways to bus traffic, have passengers prepay their fares for quick boarding (as on a subway), and give bus drivers control of stoplights so that the bus has a green light along its route. The result is the virtual equivalent of a subway system at a fraction of the capital cost.
Where this has been tried in China, such as in the southwestern province of Yunnan, car traffic has fallen by 20% and bus ridership during rush hour has jumped fivefold.
But let's be clear: State of the World 2006 does not make for joyous reading. The world's primary watersheds are being converted at an alarming rate to agricultural or urban-industrial uses. Mercury poisoning in developing countries is on the rise. Hundreds of nanotechnology products are entering the marketplace, with thousands more in the pipeline, while their effects on human health and the environment remain unknown and unpredictable. Factory farming is now the fastest-growing means of animal production in the world, with meat consumption rising fastest in the developing world. China now leads the world in production and consumption of meat.
It's a sobering perspective, but Worldwatch's talented team of writers makes it compelling reading nonetheless.
January 11, 2006 in Sustainability, Trendwatching | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (0)
The Dalai Lama's Shoes
Dharamsala, India -- There's one final story to tell before we depart Dharamsala. It's not related to anything environmental. It's about the Dalai Lama's shoes.
As I explained in my last post, my wife, Randy, is curating a major exhibition titled The Missing Peace: The Dalai Lama Portrait Project, in which more than 75 artists from around the world are creating artworks that depict the Dalai Lama, his values, and his world.
One of those artists is Sylvie Fleury, a Swiss installation artist. For the exhibition, Fleury wanted to use a process called kirlian photography to portray the Dalai Lama's aura. Toward that goal, she asked Randy to procure something that belonged to the Dalai Lama that she could use to photograph the aura. So, Randy worked through channels to do that.
Soon thereafter, the shoes arrived. The Dalai Lama's office had sent an old pair of brown Dexter shoes, size 7-1/2.
When they arrived at our home, the first notable thing was the shoebox in which they had been packed. The brand of the shoebox: Easy Spirit. Clearly, someone back at headquarters was having a little fun with this.
As we sat around admiring the shoes, it was tempting to want to try them on -- how many of us can say we have walked in the Dalai Lama's shoes? But we resisted the temptation -- after all, we didn't want to mess with the aura. (Besides, the shoes wouldn't have fit: My feet are a full size larger.)
And so the Dexters were dutifully repacked for shipment to the artist in Switzerland. Since I was the next one heading out the door that day, I was tasked with delivering them to Fedex. And because this was an international shipment, there was some paperwork involved.
The Fedex clerk asked, "What's in the box?"
"A pair of shoes," I replied.
"Are they a gift?"
"No. Just a pair of shoes."
She persisted. "Anything special about them?"
"Nope."
"Do they have any special value? Are they fragile or breakable?"
"No," I replied. "They're just a pair of shoes."
And all the time I wanted to tell her: "THEY'RE THE DALAI LAMA'S SHOES!"
I couldn't, of course, because the paperwork would no doubt have tripled.
In our audience with the Dalai Lama this week, I told him this story about his shoes. He chuckled along appreciatively and joked that since the shoes had been resoled, the resulting aura might well be that of his cobbler.
But he got serious when I mentioned how we had been tempted to try them on -- to "walk in the Dalai Lama's shoes." And I assured him we hadn't.
To which he replied, simply but sternly: "Good."
But there's a bigger story here than a mere encounter with a great man's footwear. Tenzin Tethong, former chair of the Dalai Lama's cabinet, who now teaches at Stanford (and chairs the Committee of 100 for Tibet, one of the sponsors of The Missing Peace), says that the goal of the exhibition should not be about hero worship, or even the fight for Tibetan freedom. And it's not about how we become the Dalai Lama, or walk in his shoes.
Rather, says Tethong, the exhibition must show how each of us can walk alongside the Dalai Lama: how each of us has a story, and how that story can share in the Dalai Lama's story -- of compassion, peace, and the unity of all things.
---------------------------
Postscript, July 2007: My wife received the following e-mail from David Pearl of Yarmouth, Maine, which I am pleased to share:
I am a high school teacher in Maine and my grandfather made the Dali Lama's shoes.My friend was at The Missing Peace exhibit in New York City when he called while standing in front of a photograph of the Dali Lama's shoes. The Dali Lama became an international symbol of peace while walking in my grandfather's shoes.
My grandfather, Harold Alfond is 93 years old and still lives in Belgrade Lakes, Maine near the town where he first opened a shoe factory in 1940. My grandfather was a very successful businessman and his Dexter Shoe company produced more than 100 million shoes, most of them hand-stitched right here in central Maine.
What makes the story even more remarkable is that my grandfather is one of the Maine's leading philanthropists. In 1950, at the age of 36 my grandfather created the first private foundation in the State of Maine. Since then the Harold Alfond Foundation has dispersed well over $100 million in charitable contributions. Much of that philanthropy has been targeted to central and rural Maine.
My grandfather has spent a lifetime giving. His positive spirit and dedication to philanthropy is the primary reason that I decided to become a teacher. It also makes the news that the Dali Lama wore his shoes even more wonderful.
December 22, 2005 in Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (0)
The Dalai Lama and the Rivers of Tibet
Dharamsala, India -- My wife, Randy Rosenberg, is an independent art curator and consultant to museums, companies, and institutions. For the past 18 months, she has been curating a major exhibition titled The Missing Peace: The Dalai Lama Portrait Project.
The exhibition -- which will open next June in Los Angeles, then travel to Chicago, New York, and Miami, and on to Europe and Asia through about 2009 -- brings together more than 75 artists from around the world who are creating artworks in many media that depict the Dalai Lama, his values, and his world. The project is sponsored by the Dalai Lama Foundation and the Committee for 100 for Tibet.
It is that exhibition that has brought us to Dharamsala, home of the Dalai Lama and the Tibet Government in Exile. And on this day, to a private audience with His Holiness to talk about the exhibition -- and, as it turned out, the environment.
When we arrived, the Dalai Lama greeted us at the door, shook our hands, and invited us to sit and talk. Randy quickly launched into a briefing about the exhibition, describing the various themes in which the artworks have been arranged -- "Humanity in Transition" "The Unity of All Things," "Spirituality as a Global Commodity," and others.
His Holiness listened with interest and immediately homed in one particular theme -- "Tibet: Its People and Its Land." "It is important to give a clear presentation about the land," he said. "Not just the beauty or some animals, but the emphasis on the major rivers and their source of life."
The problem, he explained, is that many of the rivers that flow through large areas of Asia -- Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Pakistan, and Vietnam -- including the Yellow river, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Salween, and Yangtse, all originate in Tibet. And it is at these rivers' origin that large-scale deforestation and mining are taking place. The pollution of these rivers is having a drastic effect not just on Tibet's ecology, but on the downstream countries. He continued:
Within my lifetime, the glaciers in Tibet have reduced quite rapidly. According to some scientists, at the rate of reduced snowfall and becoming warmer, then after a few decades, all the major rivers will become very different. That means the whole northern India will suffer because of drought. The unnecessary exploitation of nature in Tibet has to stop for that reason. It is of immense importance to educate that the ecology in Tibet needs special care. Without adequate caution, just exploiting the major resources, is wrong. The communists always do that for two reasons. First, they are really ignorant. And second, they don't care.Another key issue, said the Dalai Lama, is Tibet's growing population, the result of the Chinese government's relocation of millions of its citizens to Tibet, where Chinese now outnumber Tibetans. In addition to putting Tibetans at an economic disadvantage, the continuing migration of Chinese progressively erodes the capacity of the region to provide clean air and water and other critical resource needs. He explained:
Two centuries of limited population is okay. But much increased population in those lands is of great damage to the ecology. So, one of our real fears is the rapidly increasingly Chinese population. They are causing great damage not just to Tibet's ecology, but also to its culture.It was a brief conversation with this holy man -- about 20 minutes in all -- but it was an unexpectedly ecologically focused one. Saving Tibet turns out to be about much more than saving Buddhism and the Tibetan culture. It is literally about saving Tibet: the land, its rivers, and all of their life-giving properties. Next time: The Dalai Lama's shoes.
CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC E-MAIL UPDATES WHENEVER A NEW ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED TO 'TWO STEPS FORWARD'
December 21, 2005 in Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (5)
India: From Delhi to Dalai
More about which in a moment.
This is my second trip to the Indian subcontinent. The first trip, in early 2000, was a weeklong, whirlwind speaking tour of four of India's largest cities: Delhi, Calcutta, Mumbai (Bombay), and Hyderabad. This year's three-week, largely non-business trip, is far less rushed - and far less urban. It has taken us from Delhi to Dharamsala, after which we will roam the state of Rajasthan, then visit a tiger preserve and bird sanctuary over New Year's, followed by an obligatory visit to Agra, site of the Taj Mahal, then back to Delhi and home.
It is comforting, in a perverse sort of way, to see, via the local news, a country like India grappling with similar environmental issues as the United States. Among the headlines of the past few days:
It's simply dishonest for major Southern emitters like India and China to argue that the North accounts for three-fourths of [greenhouse gas] emissions; their own per capita emissions are below the global average (4.1 tonnes of CO2); and so they needn't undertake reductions. The global average is unacceptably high. China and India are fast approaching it -- although they are below the US's criminal level of 20 tonnes.
(The U.S. seems to take it on the chin even when other countries are berating themselves.)
But all that is behind us here in Dharamsala, a mystical mountain village in northernmost India. On Wednesday, the winter solstice, my wife and I have a private audience with the Dalai Lama.
How, exactly, do two non-Buddhists, non-Tibetan scholars jump to the front of the line of thousands (millions?) seeking to meet His Holiness (as he is referred to in these parts)?
More on that -- and on the audience itself -- shortly. (Here's a hint.)
December 20, 2005 in State of the Art, Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (1)
The Sustainability of 'Alternative Gifts'
'Tis the season for giving -- and, for some, avoiding conspicuous consumption.
There's a way you can accomplish both.
I'm always pleased and humbled this time of year to receive the Alternative Gifts International catalog, which is filled with opportunities to give low-cost, life-enhancing gifts to those in need -- the very basis of "sustainability."
In a world sated with gizmos, gadgets, and geegaws, AGI offers the opportunity to give simply, elegantly, and effectively. It works with reputable nonprofit agencies that aid established projects around the world. Its annual gift catalog is an education in itself. Each of the gift opportunities included features background information about the problem and how even a small contribution can make a big difference. Categories include child survival, development, disaster relief, education, hunger relief, peace/justice, medical assistance, livestock, shelter, water, and women in development.
The AGI catalog is an education by itself.
For example, one AGI gift in this year's catalog is the Medicine Box, which "provides basic medical products to treat the common ailments of approximately 1,000 adults and children for two to three months in a typical third world hospital or clinic." The value of the box is leveraged by donated medical products from pharmaceutical and supply companies, bringing the actual value of the box to more than $2000. The cost: $44 for enough medicine for 100 people; $440 will supply medicine for an entire village.
Many of the gifts support NGOs, such as Solar Cookers international, which teaches Kenyans how to build and use solar cookers for cooking food and pasteurizing water, saving precious firewood. SCI trains dozens of women to solar cook and to become solar cooker demonstrators and salespersons in village marketplaces, earning income as Africa's newest solar entrepreneurs. $15 pays for one solar cooker; $55 trains and equips one woman entrepreneur.
Many of the gifts are environmental. For just $6 you can help The Nature Conservancy protect an acre of coral reef off the Jamaican coast. The group is partnering with Pedro Bank fishers to protect their livelihoods. A first step is building a sanitation system to safeguard the health of 900 residents and nearby coral reefs. Twenty bucks helps the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund monitor and protect the gorillas and their habitat every day with the surveillance of anti poaching patrols. For $28 pays for seeds to help the American Friends Service Committee assist Haitians in the building of tree nurseries and the mass planting of the "marvelous" mango tree.
AGI screens recipients to choose those with notable records of cost-effective projects. It chooses projects that encourage development and empower poor people to help themselves, so results are long-term. It seeks matching funds, which leverages donations.
This time of year -- in fact, all year long -- there are so many worthy recipients like AGI. But AGI's catalog is a stark reminder that as we prepare our annual giving lists, the gifts we choose -- and the impact they have on both the social and natural environment -- can extend well into the future.
December 14, 2005 in Sustainability | Permalink | Save This Page | Comments (1)
Ag's Global Footprint
Urbanization has decimated farmland in developed countries like the United States, but that's not the case everywhere. As populations in some developing countries swell, farmers are cultivating more and more land in a desperate bid to keep pace with the ever-intensifying needs of humans.
As a result, agricultural activity now dominates more than a third of the Earth's landscape and has emerged as one of the central forces of global environmental change, according to scientists at the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Some of that land-use creep has negative environmental consequences such as deforestation, water pollution, and soil erosion.
To better understand ag's global footprint, SAGE researchers are tracking the changing patterns of agricultural land use around the world, including a look at related factors such as global crop yields and fertilizer use. They've distilled that information into computer-generated maps, which are being presented this week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
The exercise is beginning to cast light on some emerging trends. Countries such as Argentina and Brazil, for instance, have increasingly cleared forests to grow soybean, a legume that has never been a traditional crop of Latin America. Scientists say the surge in soybean production there has a lot to do with the booming demand for soy at the other end of the world -- in China. Meanwhile, longtime soybean farmers in the U.S. -- the world's top soybean producer -- are growing increasingly insecure about their place in the global market.
But scientists risk missing important regional and local trends by taking only a global approach to land use change. To help bridge that gap, SAGE researchers say they are working towards a new "Earth Collaboratory," an Internet-based data bank that would simultaneously draw on the knowledge of global scientists, local environmentalists and everyday citizens.