praying for rain...

Yes I know World Environment Day has come and gone and I have failed to acknowledge it. Indeed I am being very belligerent posting this today. The newspapers have gone back to being normal coloured and the TV channels are not compelling you to 'tune in for World Environment Day'. The day after yesterday is really just back to business after a day of green hoopla. This is precisely my point now and in previous 'environment day' posts.

Today I am reflective, the glorious red flame of the forest trees are in full bloom and the monsoons are around the corner in India. It always brings back memories of splashing around in the rain after school and then tucking into some hot chai. It has been 10 years since I graduated from school - in those years, rainfall patterns have perceptibly changed. Summers have gotten measurably hotter, rainfall less intense and duration of monsoons have also gotten shorter.

Last year Greenpeace hung a banner off the Mumbai-Thane bridge to bring to attention to the sporadic monsoons. It was covered in the last world environment day post. This year Greenpeace has released a video which in true style is creative and stresses again a call for action. Watch it below.

A whole year has passed and there have been no milestones or remarkable achievements, then again a year is not enough to undo decades of damage. But where is the start that we have been hankering for?

Bonn climate negotiations have started, which is the follow-up to Copenhagen. It is anybody's guess as to what will come out of them. There is no use worrying or feeling hopeless.

Right now, it is stiflingly hot. The sky is making lots of noises and there is a gloom of heavy rainclouds that will not burst open in welcome showers. Why? We do not know, but I suspect its because the number of trees in the city has dwindled. So like that guy in the Dean Martin song, I too am praying for rain; for very different reasons...

eating the rainforest

Photo Courtesy: Lush Cosmetics. Wash your hands off palm campaign

I have been thinking about how to talk about palm oil without actually saying, "Save the Orangutans" - I have previously mentioned and believe that conservation efforts should be based on economic facts rather than the sympathy factor.

First of all, it must be said that palm oil is everywhere. Up until 2008 in the lead up to the famous Greenpeace campaign against Dove, palm oil was thought to be found only in cosmetics. Today however, palm oil is being used widely in the food industry as well. There is no requirement for it to be labelled 'palm oil' and manufacturers can get away with labeling it 'vegetable oil'. According to Palmoilaction - it is being used in products by Sara Lee, Cadburys, Pringles, KFC, Maggie Noodles etc. The most recent Greenpeace campaign video (below) highlights use of palm oil in Nestle Kit-Kat Bars. I wonder how these companies justify this in their CSR policies.

A previous post on wide-scale deforestation in Indonesia talks mainly about illegal timber. Palm oil means even more money than timber to some people. Global demand for palm oil is now more than 40 million tons per year making it the mainstay of Indonesian and Malaysian economy. Much of the land used for the cultivation of palm oil was former rain-forest. The destruction of rain-forests not only means habitat destruction but loss of valuable carbon sinks.

China, India and other emerging markets are the biggest buyers of palm oil. Since it is a cheap form of vegetable oil containing no trans-fats, it is used widely in food preparations. It is also a feasible source of bio-diesel - the irony is not lost to me. There have been several reports stating that preservation of rain-forests mean more money than its destruction but palm oil means the money comes quicker. Intact rain-forests contribute in many ways to a nation's economy by means of eco-tourism, carbon finance, etc.

A study in Conservation Letters last month estimated that if REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is included in a cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gas emissions, payments for "avoided deforestation" could range between $1,500 and $11,800 per hectare, depending on when the carbon credits are allocated and sold. In comparison, the oil palm market was estimated to generate a net present value between $3,800 and $9,600 per hectare over a 30-year period.

Although a vast proportion of the Indonesian economy is dependent on palm oil, there is a way to make it more sustainable and the key here lies in increasing productivity in the areas already under cultivation without destroying new forests. How is this possible? Consumer awareness. When demand for palm oil reduces, the destruction of forests for oil will taper off. When this kicks in and carbon finance money is paid out, some of this will be invested into sustainable options thereby uplifting people out of poverty.

I honestly do believe that people living in crushing poverty do not destroy the environment out of malice but simply because they have no choice. Unless nations that are better-off demand that exploitation cannot continue, local governments of poorer countries will not seek alternatives. A seemingly micro-issue like palm oil is connected to the much larger macro-issue of food production, global warming and the global economy. The next time you go shopping consider this: you might be eating the rain-forest without even knowing about it.

Oh! and Save the Orangutans...

for treedom!

It's tree-pruning time at my house and I watch intently as they saw mighty branches in systematic rhythm . The tree surgeon shouts out a caution before the branch falls with a thud and a cloud of dust rises. I feel a strange sort of emptiness. This is one tree, one branch that interfered with an electric line. I then imagine thousands of trees being felled and stand paralyzed with the images in my head. Yet is it happening. Deforestation is a way of life in many countries.

Indonesia is now the fourth major emitter of carbon, not because of industrialization but because of illegal logging. Almost 50% of Indonesia is covered in forests - forests hosting an enormous amount of biodiversity. Because the archipelago spreads across two bio geographic zones, many species found here are not found anywhere else in the world and there are still others waiting to be discovered. Indonesia hosts 31% of endemic animal species and 60% of all its plant species are endemic as well. It is home to the Orangutan - one of the great apes and most endangered animals - scientists predict will be exist by 2012 if deforestation is not curbed.

The forests are being degraded and destroyed by logging, mining, argicultural activities, fuelwood, paper manufactor etc. Much of the rainforest that is left is logger-over and degraded. The loss of forest cover affects river flow, contributes towards soil erosion and decreases yield from forest products. Indonesia is the world's largest exporter of tropical timber generating more than US$5 billion annually - this means that loggers are moving deeper and deeper into virgin forests and destroying entire ecosystems. Legally harvested timber affects 700,000-850,000 hectares of forest per year but widespread illegal logging boosts this to 1.2-1.4 million hectares according to statistics taken in 2004. This not only hurts the legal timber industry, it also makes conservation and education measures difficult.

The demand for illegal timber with China and Australia being the biggest buyer, fuels the industry. Awareness on both sides of the divide is crucially essential. Within Indonesia several grass-roots NGOs are working towards educating the people against the detrimental effects of illegal logging and are working with them to build alternative lifestyles. The EU has recently called for stricter laws in order to prevent the influx of illegal timber.

The corruption and poverty within Indonesia does provide a conducive environment for illegal logging to thrive however, consumer pressure can work to curb this. This destruction of their forests is not only their national problem, it takes international effort to stop it. Forest logging contributes to much larger global problems like increase in temperature and loss of species. As long as there is demand for illegally logged timber and as long as there are no rules in place to stop the trade of the same, supply will continue. Work to make sure the paper products you are using come from sustainable forests or are recycled.

A recent Greenpeace campaign demonstrated the power of public pressure. Unilever is one of the world's biggest buyers of palm oil, most of which comes from Indonesia and this is a contributing factor towards deforestation. This oil was being used in Dove soaps. The campaign against Dove was designed to ensure that the palm oil for their soap came from sustainable resources. After staggering public pressure Unilever and Dove agreed to protect the Paradise Forests in Indonesia. Never underestimate your voice as a consumer. Do your bit.

Trees are the Earth's endless effort to speak to the listening Heavens above

- Tagore

selling ideals

I'm puzzling about extreme environmentalism today. Is there such a thing as 'extreme environmentalism'? What does it entail? How far can environmental groups go in order to get their message across?

Most environmental groups aim for the most radical, the most eye-catching, the most headline grabbing advertisement that they can think of to get their messages across. There is a reason for this: the rationale is that unless it is that attention grabbing, people will not react. It is radical simply as a measure to over leap the bonds of apathy. However, there is a thin line between communicating to the audience and alienating them. There is also a thin line between inducing thought and invoking disgust. Where is this line? Who judges?

Greenpeace, WWF and PETA are all known for their advertisements as much as they are known for their campaigning work. Some of their ads border on creative genius, some are cryptic in their message but environmental adverts put an image to the problem. It makes it visual and sometimes, heart-wrenchingly so because everything they portray could be reality. Environmental organizations also have to be very careful in order not appear ambiguous in their campaigns. Adverts exist to get campaign messages across in a succinct manner. Being three different organizations with three different campaign goals and methods to achieve them, the common thread they have is the way they push the message out.

The recent ad campaign done by WWF to highlight global warming features polar bears, seals and penguins as homeless people due to the melting of the poles. This is both clever and gets the message across. Previous WWF campaigns have also featured the decline of wildlife, loss of rainforests and damage to oceans. More recently they focus on climate change issues. Greenpeace's ads also border on the provocative at times without directly targetting at population sector, they instead make you question your choices. The recent adverts done for the climate change campaign borders on brilliant yet they are accessible.

Greenpeace adverts include campaigns for genetically modified food, climate change, protection of oceans and ancient forests. Greenpeace adverts employ catchy slogans and like with other campaigns, stunning visuals. They sometimes have political targets but are otherwise aimed at the general public.

The ad campaign featured by PETA however antagonises a section of the public as it targets obese people. Offensive? Effective? Ridiculous? Everyone seems to have a different opinion on the billboard--no doubt one of PETA's chief aims. But referring to overweight women as 'whales' is pretty rude, no matter whom you ask. This ad campaign drew outrage from feminist groups and healthcare providers alike. PETA's never been subtle. The group's president has postmortem plans to barbeque her own body to make a point about vegetarianism.

The point to be made here is that selling a product is hard enough, selling an ideal is much much harder. If environmental groups are to continue selling ideals, they cannot afford to alienate potential target groups. Any movement is impossible to take off the ground without adequate number of people supporting the cause. The question that should be asked is whether they go after the smaller battles or the bigger wars? Should PETA be targetting animal cruelty or non-vegetarians? They are not mutually inclusive. Ambiguous ad campaigns do little to strengthen an organizations' profile and much less to convince the public of their true motives.

Photos: All images copyrighted to their organizations. Image 1: PETA©. Image 2: WWF ©. Image 3: Greenpeace©

environmentalism in india

One of the casualties of climate change is the Indian monsoon. I have blogged about it before and currently Greenpeace in India is running a Rainspotting project in order to study change in monsoons to feed into the larger climate story. Coming in from London to report is Grace Boyle - she is interning with Greenpeace for the course of the summer and has been blogging about her experiences with her own blog that she writes for the Independent. Grace's accounts are often stark and unflinchingly realistic.

Recently she asked me to write a small piece on environmentalism in India and to read it on her blog, look here. Or just read on...

Environmentalism is kind of dead in India. This is my belief; mostly environmentalism in its most basic, intrinsic form is connected to the respect for the commons. Anytime someone teaches you not to litter, that someone is teaching you to respect the commons and by proxy igniting an environmental spark. In the absence of this education, both respect for the commons and environmentalism is a lost concept in India.

Environmentalism in India takes on many different forms however – with most of the urban population, it is something that is hyped and something that is ‘someone’ else’s problem. But they do not know who that someone else is and they refuse the responsibility of that someone else being them. Why should they? – with their fat paychecks, fancy cars and flash clothes?

Rural India – the ‘real’ India in so many ways, the India that is connected to the mysteries of this vast land and intrinsically connected to the many colours of her soil. They know. They notice; the changes, the peril that lies beneath those changes, the heart-break that goes with change that is unwanted. To them this change is almost perverse, like a clarion call before death finally comes.

There are some that embrace change and some that fight against it. On the side that fights, there are several organizations working in India to raise the profile of the issue. Public perception of this is varied from apathy to mild interest to outright support. The last category forms the smallest percentage – the apathy is most worrying. Consequences of global warming – the biggest battle that humankind faces barely brings a reaction to many people in India – surprisingly even the so-called informed young crowd.

So far this ‘green’ movement has been just that – a movement, something that can fade away, something that is ‘cool’ for now – like a fashion statement. The gravity behind it is lost somehow because the messengers are trivializing the issue, dumbing it down to reach across to the masses. My argument: concepts of environmentalism have enough there for it to cross over intellectual barriers – this dialing down is detrimental because it aims for a mass rather than a critical mass to hasten the tipping point.

Part of the reason for the inaction and apathy is that India has never been a revolutionary culture – it has been a culture that quietly hums along, taking everything that has been thrown in its way – accepting rather than rebelling. This has been ingrained in its peoples’ psyche so deeply that it will take much much more than threats of climate change to spur this mighty elephant into action.