Frustrations from the World’s Youth at the UN Climate Conference

For the past two weeks, leaders from over 190 countries have been negotiating the future of climate change at this year’s UN Conference on Climate.

The negotiations have taken place between member countries of the UN international treaty titled the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The treaty was ratified at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992.  The ultimate objective of UNFCCC is “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system”.

Since the UNFCCC was established, the member states (today totaling 194) meet annually at the Conferences of the Parties (COP) to “assess progress in dealing with climate change”. This year’s COP, the 18th since its inauguration in 1994 (referenced as COP18), is being held in Doha, Qatar.  One of the main issues being addressed this year is the future of greenhouse-gas emission reduction and the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire at the end of this month.

The conference began with some very dark projections from international organizations like the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).  In a UNEP report, published just before the beginning of COP18, they state that in 2010 greenhouse-gas emissions rose to 50.1 gigatons of carbon equivalent.  This figure represents a 25% increase from 2000, and is 14% higher than the projected emissions required (44 gigatons) to maintain the desired 2°C increase in climate temperature; the 2°C increase that scientists believe is the “threshold” to avoid “dangerous” climate change.

Naderev M. Saño, the lead negotiator from the Philippines, gave an extremely heart wrenching appeal to world leaders this week:

Mr. Saño´s plea has become a popular speech amongst news reporters and bloggers covering the conference.  The delegate’s raw emotion and evident frustration regarding the lack of leadership and action being taken by the UN delegation is rarely seen in an international setting such as this.

Nikkid Hodgson, a writer and climate researcher from California, was in the room when Mr. Saño gave this speech.  She writes:

I swallow my tears, trying to hold my emotion back as it rises up from my chest. This is the delegation I want, the delegation that reflects the urgency the American youth–the world’s youth–so desperately want from their leaders. When I sit back, reflecting on how the world would be if my delegation was more like the Filipino delegation, the chasm between what is and what should be is staggering and the weight of that reality burdens my heart and my conscience. When the U.S. asks what its youth wants from it, it’s this. This moment, this humanity, this leadership.

Hodgen’s words express the aspirations, and deep frustrations, of the world’s youth – both those that have been at COP18, and those that have been watching all over the World. The world’s youth are desperate for strong leadership. They are looking for leaders who are willing to make the difficult decisions needed in order to provide a better future for generations to come.

For years now, youth organizations have been present at COP.  They have watched as delegates enter and exit the meetings, arguing over the technical details of each annex of the agreement, including how much money “rich” countries should give to “developing” countries in order to help pay for climate adaptation and reparation.  Yet, the bigger issue of climate mitigation is not being solved.

While older generations continue to squabble over numbers, the world’s youth have consistently been shut out of the negotiation rooms and have been unable to take part in international decisions.  Decisions that will directly impact their future, and their viability, on this planet.

This issue was brought up to UN Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres and COP 18 President His Excellency Mr. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah.  Ms. Figueres responded:

This process welcomes the impatience of youth. This is about your life. We welcome the healthy impatience of youth. At the same time, we must understand that this process will require a commitment for change of the financial structure of the world. We [negotiators and policy makers] are very far behind what the science tells us we should be doing.

Given that the UNFCCC was written to be a “strict intergovernmental process”, youth groups do not have much of a voice in these proceedings. Therefore, youth associations do what they can to influence those that have the ability to negotiate.

In 2009, for example, youth from all over the world came together to promote the 350 International Day of Climate Action (350 being the amount of parts per million CO₂ in the atmosphere that is safe for humanity. We are currently at about 392).  The movement was later described by CNN as “the most widespread day of political action in our planet’s history.”

This year, at COP18, youth groups have come together again to share ideas, information, and resources in order to help create awareness and influence. Youth groups like YOUNGO and SustainUS planned awareness campaigns that were held outside of the conference rooms:

On the International Youth Climate Movement’s website, there are pictures of additional youth campaigns and protests from COP18.

Notably, the youth group Region’s Arab Youth Climate Movement (AYCM) led a historic Climate March in Doha on Saturday, December 1st.  It is believed to be Qatar’s first ever demonstration, and was approved by the Qatari Government.

Despite the large volume of appeals from the world’s youth, no revolutionary agreement has been reached at COP18. 

As of Friday night, an agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol, set to expire at the end of this month, had not been reached.  Some critics believe that negotiations were halted due to “a host of reasons, though most developing nations blame rich countries like the United States, Canada and Japan for refusing to sign an interim successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol that would bind them to emissions reductions.”

Saturday morning, COP18 delegates agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for another eight years, however, Japan, Russia, and Canada have pulled out of the agreement. Therefore, the only international agreement on climate change in effect today binds 35 countries to emissions reductions and leaves out some of the world’s biggest polluters including the US and China. The Kyoto protocol will regulate only 15% of world emissions.

World leaders have agreed to continue to work on a new global emissions agreement for 2015, which would take effect in 2020.

The older generations have decided to, yet again, finance their present interests with the youth’s future.

Before we see truly effective climate mitigation, we may have to wait until today’s youth become the official delegates they are now watching enter the negotiation room.

Unfortunately, at that point, it may be too late to avoid extreme climate disaster.

Comments Off on Frustrations from the World’s Youth at the UN Climate Conference / 08 Dec 2012 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

Environmental Economics: Comments on Climate Change Doha Conference

The Doha Climate Change Conference is coming to a close.

The summit, organized by the United Nations, started two weeks ago in Doha, Qatar. 195 member states joined the convention in order to negotiate and discuss about several climate change issues.

The Kyoto Protocol (the international agreement between 37 industrialized countries and the European community aimed to reduce the GHG emissions) is due to expire at the end of the year and one topic of the discussions was the possible agreement on a second commitment phase.

Before the summit started there was already an atmosphere of skepticism and mistrust among governments, NGOs and the environmental groups. The Kyoto Protocol has been criticized for not having achieved the goal of reducing the emissions. In addition US did not ratify the agreement because it did not cover the developing countries like China and India (the biggest CO2 emitters now) and a low commitment from the member states was kind of expected.

The conference took place in Doha, the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, by the way..

My personal perception is that despite of the emergency of the current situation, each country keeps being focused on its own economy and growth and after many annual summits it is still hard to see some progress on climate change.

The main concern regards an agreement on the carbon emission regulations both the developing and developed countries should accept and implement.
The developing countries economic development (especially in China and India) could be compromised by the compliance to such a protocol that would limit their industrialized development.

The wealthiest countries are requested to guarantee financial aids to help developing countries to adapt to the climate change, but the current financial crisis those countries are facing makes this probability quite unrealistic.

I personally have the impression developing and developed countries are looking and accusing each other of being the main responsible of the current situation and waiting for the other to take action.

China is the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and the representative of the Chinese delegation, Xie Zhenhua, affirmed: “Developing countries are the victims of climate change.” Therefore China agreed to contribute to reduce the GHG but expects developed countries do more.

This is the best video I found that sum-ups the tragic comic reality:

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

Today is the last day of the Summit and an agreement on several key issues is needed and still missing.

The final discussions and negotiations regard the new agreement to be signed by all countries in 2015 and to come into force in 2020. This Global treaty would demand all the countries to respect the CO2 emission levels and to contribute to future emissions cuts.

So another year without a substantial change and other 7/8 years before a world commitment.

I ask my self, do we have all this time?
Can we wait years and accept the ice of Greenland and Antarctica melting three times faster than in 1990s? Typhoons and hurricanes becoming always more frequent and causing damages and natural disasters? Species disappearing?

As the negotiator of the Philippines delegation, Naderev Saño, said during the Doha conference: “No more delays, no more excuses”.
I think we don’t have time..

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

Comments Off on Environmental Economics: Comments on Climate Change Doha Conference / 07 Dec 2012 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

DP:International Aid – should change the current model?

Continuing with the evolution of the Blog today, I am starting to develop some exciting topics connected to Sustainable Development, one of the primary axes of IMSD; therefore, I am continuing as promised in my previous post.

Today the world still has a significant economic and social division between the “developed” and the “undeveloped” countries. If we take into account the studies being done at present to define these categories, we would get endless options to define them. Nevertheless, an idea that I recently saw on the web and has seduced me significantly was from Hans Rosling, a Swedish Professor of International Health. During one’s of his studies, he speaks about human evolution taking into account two extremely important indicators: Per Capita Income and Life Expectancy.

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

If we take into account these indicators to evaluate the International Aid Model, we would consider the Per Capita Income is represented by the “developed” countries or those who had strong Aid participation (donor’s countries), to the “undeveloped” countries that are those were the Life Expectancy is an issue that has not been solved yet. This is example shows that the “International Aid Model” has been not effective because the countries by themselves do not evolutes in a proper way if they follow this path.

If we look more deeply we ask, what does Humanitarian Aid to developing countries generate? Is this the best way to help developing countries? Is the benefit short or long term?

According to the report “Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2012“, International Aid can be focused on four main areas:

•Poverty: The inability to generate a welfare state that ensures basic access to the primary needs of human beings: food, health and education.

•Conflicts: Associated to military situations in countries that affect the primary needs of human beings. These are probably already put in place by the governments, however, due to conflict situations; they can be seen significantly diminished.

•Natural Disasters: Unexpected events with great social impact of involvement on infrastructure and human beings deprived of access to basic needs.

•State Fragility: Linked to countries who a weak state legitimacy, and also has not the infrastructure to ensure the access to primary needs to their inhabitants.

As you see the International Aid is focused on primary needs, but what about development?

Reviewing the data related to humanitarian Aid on recent years, it is interesting to note that each year is declining slightly disbursements of money on humanitarian issues but notes that some countries that have benefited from this Aid has not had major progress in overcoming their specific situations, examples such as Haiti and Pakistan (Earthquake – Natural Disaster) African (Famine – Poverty)

That is why in my opinion the humanitarian Aid by itself are not the way for nations to develop properly, the world order is changing and we need to think Long-Term, because humanitarian Aid are based on contingency measures, to ensure that the Short-term residents of the affected areas have access to food and primary health issues.

From my perspective, I would asseverate that we may go into a new development scheme in regions affected or delayed in this process, this fact is critical. We need to reinforce and restructure the model of humanitarian Aid as a generator of changes in society, and leave behind the model needs to satisfy depleted in the short run products specific situations.

Change is non-negotiable, the road to development is marked by eradicating poverty worldwide, not only in countries that have internal product development to benefit their own people.

Right now we are 7 billion people and by 2050 we will be 9 billion, if we do not change the current model as humanitarian Aid, how we are going to deal with the global population growth?

 

 

Comments Off on DP:International Aid – should change the current model? / 04 Dec 2012 por Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual
IMSD /

DP: Burning and Building Bridges: A Necessary Identity Conflict for “Third World” Critics in a “First World” Classroom

As we approach development perspectives through this course, I find myself asking, “Who are we, as ‘Third World’ critics in a ‘First World’ classroom, to even begin to try to understand or empathize with the needs of the developing world? Is it not the case that this practice of ‘study’ is similarly steeped in the colonial assumptions that we are seeking to debunk? Before entering into the development debate, have we sufficiently addressed our own place in identity politics, the world [dis]order, international communication, and our own individual lifestyles that support or reject the systems that have created a wealthy global North and a dependent global South?”

To answer some of these questions, I have turned to some of the foremost scholars in post-colonial theory (perhaps you’re noticing a trend here in my blog posts…) to determine what their relevant precautions and recommendations are to the “First World” academic community. I find these recommendations to be particularly poignant considering that many post-colonial theorists come from the “Third World” itself, despite their likely training and education in “First World” institutions of education. Before entering into analysis, I want to address the fact that drawing on post-colonial scholars to answer this question involves the traditional conundrum of truly “accessing” and “representing” subaltern communities, but I do believe their recommendations are potentially more relevant than those of traditional “First World” development critics.

As I share in the title of this post, I believe that a necessary “burning” and “building” of bridges in our own identity is an essential step forward for development. In other words, a truly critical view of development perspectives necessarily requires a deep understanding of my own position in the world.

Such an understanding inevitably requires “burning” some of the previous bridges that had led me to an identity constructed from “First World” discursive realities. Unpacking my whiteness, my upbringing in a superpower nation, and my education steeped in a self-serving national discourse are a few examples of the ways in which I can attempt to view my own history as one that is borne out of the very systems and processes that I am seeking to critique — that I too am a product of asymmetrical global politics — and that not just the “developing world” is a victim or a by-product. Recognizing our own bias and privilege is the critical (and perhaps initial) responsibility for students and practitioners of development.

This identity conflict also requires the “building” of new bridges that contradict our upbringing as “First World” children. Some essential understandings for students and practitioners of development include constructing new and more accurate narratives of colonialism, supply and demand, structuralism, global governance, ethnocentrism, and socioeconomic disparities, to name a few. Unfortunately, these more diverse narratives are not the common discourse — they are difficult to access and even more challenging to defend — particularly given neoliberalism’s strong grip on free markets, Darwinist views of development, and a general lack of consideration for the opinions and perspectives of nearly two-thirds of our global population.

As a result of this identity conflict, I have found three broad recommendations from post-colonial scholars to assist the development discipline to build a better future based on the retelling of some of the most fundamental narratives in our “First World” history: 1) to seriously critique and potentially overturn historical texts that reinforce incorrect or outdated worldviews; 2) to study the communicative patterns and exchanges (in addition to the content) between the “First World” and the “Third World”; and, 3) to commit to a shared responsibility to reform our own communicative practices and identity projects and perceptions.

Martin Fougère and Agneta Moulettes demonstrate the need for textual re-evaluations through their exemplary revision of Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences. Hofstede’s work essentially developed a normative cross-cultural business model that fueled international communication studies for two decades and was widely used in international business, corporate management, and media worldwide (Fougère & Moulettes 2007). His work essentially divides the world in two, according to Fougère & Moulettes, “with one side being ‘developed and modern’ and another side conceived of as ‘traditional and backward” (Fougère & Moulettes 2007). His work “ultimately serves the purpose of promoting the idea of the West as a world saviour by exporting its founding principles” while “greatly undermin[ing] the burdens of history, especially the colonial and neocolonial facts” (Fougère & Moulettes 2007). Without such a revision, this unfounded imperialistic justification would remain a part of our nationalist, capitalist discourse and potentially contribute to unjustifiable and immoral cultural intrusions and atrocities across the world.

Linda Alcoff articulates the consequences of communication in her essay, The Problem of Speaking for Others”. This is especially important in conversations between the First and Third World communities, who often are speaking (or being spoken for) on very different levels. She writes that these communicative strategies are just as important as what is being said. She essentially argues that the desire to “speak for” others comes from a desire for personal mastery. She explains that those who communicate from this position are seeking “to privilege oneself as the one who more correctly understands the truth about another’s situation” (Alcoff 1991). This experiential imperialism is yet another warning posed to the academic community. According to Alcoff, we must continue to explore other cultures by speaking “to” or “with” them, rather than “for” or “about” them.

Lastly, Homi Bhabha (2004, 2008) articulates our collective responsibility to remain in the “anxiety” of identity. Rather than jumping from one radical identity polarity to the next, Bhabha challenges us to mediate our identities (both individualistic and nationalistic) in a space of continual expansion and understanding. This breakaway from modernity and colonialism has clearly dominated communication literature and should continue to shape our understanding of our personal responsibility (as what he calls “the moral witness”) and our communal responsibility (as what he considers “global memory”) in an effort to make communication as equal and open-minded as possible.

In the end, it is imperative to take up the responsibility as “First World” members of the human family in today’s ever-globalizing society — committing both to our own identity exploration and to the idea that our collective journey is one that must be told through diverse perspectives in order to reach a fair future for all.

—————————————————–

Alcoff, L. (1991-1992, Winter). The Problem of Speaking for Others. Cultural Critique, (20), 5-32. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/

Bhabha, H. (2004). Dissemination. In The Location of Culture (2nd ed., pp. 199-244). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1994)

Bhabha, H. (2004). Locations of culture. In The Location of Culture (2nd ed., pp. 1-27) [Introduction]. London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1994)

Fougere, M. & Moutlettes, A. (2007). The Construction of the Modern West and the Backward Rest: Studying the Discourse of Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2(1) 1-16.

2 comentarios / 04 Dec 2012 por Kelly Elizabeth Behrend
IMSD /

Sweet reflections

Blog post DP2 of 4 for the subject Socio-Economic Development Perspectives

With the availability of certified Fair Trade products now in the market, such as Fair Trade chocolate, coffee and tea, what questions are then raised about the ‘fairness’ of those brands and products that are not certified as Fair Trade? Furthermore, what position does this leave the consumer in with regards to moral decision making?

If you want a sweet chocolate fix, you can get chocolate usually within minutes from a supermarket, small convenience shop or vending machine. And these products and brands of chocolate are most commonly the products and brands of the big multinational players.

For example, Nestle has KitKat, Smarties, Crunch, Lion Bar; Cadbury has Dairy Milk, Twirl, Flake, Crunchie; Mars has Mars Bar, Snickers, Twix and M&Ms. And as I was writing this blog I just researched Toblerone to see who owns it and in fact it is owned by Kraft and what I actually also discovered is that Kraft now owns Cadbury! In other words, the chocolate industry in Europe and United States is owned by just a handful of multinational player who produce a range of different chocolate products and brands.

While these products and brands represent the vast majority of the chocolate market, I could not find any of these companies that actually produce certified Fair Trade chocolate products. Although several of them talk about corporate responsibility on their website or claim to be ‘partnering’ with Fair Trade organizations, at the end of the day, in my consumer eyes, their products are still not certified as Fair Trade and therefore do not meet the standards which other smaller producers have proven to be achievable.

Although I have been eating chocolate my entire life, the truth was I knew almost nothing about the chocolate industry, about cocoa and where it actually originates from. Furthermore, what was Fair Trade chocolate exactly about? Is it just another marketing tool? So, I did some research recently on the issue and thanks to the power of the internet, I have been able to read about the supply chain of the chocolate industry. An industry that heavily relies on cocoa farming in West Africa to supply about 70-80% of all the world’s cocoa to our chocolate producers. This is how the supply chain works:

1. Cocoa is harvested from the cocoa farmer’s plantations
2. The intermediaries then buys the cocoa from the plantations at around 1 EUR a kilo
3. The intermediaries then sell the cocoa to national exporters
4. The national exporters then sell the cocoa to the international markets at around 2.5 EUR a kilo
5. The cocoa is then sold from the international markets to the chocolate manufacturers
6. The chocolate manufacturers can then turn 1 kilo of cocoa into approximately 40 standard chocolate bars

In other words, a kilo of cocoa at 1 EUR for the farmer, can become 40 chocolate bars for the manufacturer…you can do the maths!

This supply chain model leads to a huge inequality in the distribution of wealth from the final product and does not allow the farmers to develop their business and in turn the local community. As a result, this model also encourages cocoa farmers to resort to the trafficking of child labour in order to avoid labor costs. According to several documentaries available on the internet, this practice of child labor is present throughout many of West Africa’s cocoa plantations, mainly in the Ivory Coast, where children as young as 7-14 are trafficked from neighboring countries in order to be used as free labor. The children do not go to school, work extremely long days, do not receive wages, work with dangerous equipment and pesticides and often do not even speak the local language. In other words, they are the perfect victims of child slavery. These issues are exhibited by the video featured below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHDxy04QPqM

So, what we essentially have in the chocolate industry is a handful of developing countries supplying the raw material to a handful of multinational companies who sell their products and keep their profits in the developed countries. All this, while the majority of consumers enjoy their chocolate without the faintest idea about what had to happen to get to the cocoa to make that chocolate.

Since learning about the reality of the chocolate industry supply chain, the ubiquitous chocolate products from the big players have now taken on a new representation of unfairness for me. On the other hand, I now perceive the true value of Fair Trade products.

However, according to an official statement issued by the association of chocolate producers, the chocolate producers do not take corporate responsibility for this unfairness, claiming that “the vast majority of cocoa farms are not owned by the companies that make chocolate or supply cocoa and we therefore don’t have direct control over cocoa farming and labour practices”.

I understand that the companies that produce Fair Trade chocolate are usually smaller companies that serve a niche market and have more direct contact with the farmers. But in my opinion, I do not think it is fair for the big multinationals to deflect responsibility by playing the indirect-cause-and-effect card. By the same token, where does that then leave us as consumers in our daily lives? If we believe it is immoral for the multinationals to deflect responsibility, what right do we then have to claim that we are also not responsible for what happens in the stages of the supply chain before the product reaches us? In other words, where do you draw the line of responsibility?

Where ever you draw the line, one thing is clear, we the final consumers of chocolate products ultimately have the power to change the rules of the game by supporting only those products that meet Fair Trade standards. Multinational companies will only change their supply chain practices and definitions of responsibility when they see a significant consumer demand for Fair Trade products. However, here is the challenge for consumers, Fair Trade products are few and far between and chocolate is everywhere and it is in many different forms and in many different products…again, where do you draw the line? If you feel like chocolate and there is no Fair Trade products available, do you sacrifice your taste buds for the greater good of development? And what about that chocolate ice-cream or chocolate cake most likely made from multinational cocoa products..should you also question your support for these products?

Therefore, even though Fair Trade business models do offer a feasible solution to the inequality of the modern day economic trade system, the Fair Trade movement still has considerable challenges ahead in the chocolate market before it can start to make a real impact to promote fair and sustainable economic development for the majority of cocoa farmers in West Africa. And if you are anything like me and want to support Fair Trade but at the same time you love chocolate…you may unfortunately find yourself with somewhat of a consumer complex…torn between your heart and your stomach as you try to navigate the aisles of our daily consumer lives. The below video is however a source of inspiration for me that Fair Trade products are worth the extra consumer effort to find…

Click here to view the embedded video.

Comments Off on Sweet reflections / 03 Dec 2012 por Daniel Salter
IMSD /

DP: Happiness for Development or Development for Happiness

In one of my first classes at EOI I was introduced to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. It is appealing to assume that once one satisfies lower level basic needs she/he progresses to meet higher level growth needs and, once those needs are also satisfied, one may approach the highest level called self-actualization. On the other hand, one can became depressed about this idea finding out that less than 1% of the population is expected to achieve self-actualization. Moreover, how long would one take to reach the top of the ‘pyramid to happiness’?

In my search for answers I discovered a lot of criticisms of Maslow’s methods, but it was Ed Diener who interested me the most. He helped designing a survey on well-being with 60,865 participants from 123 countries, and published (together with Louis Tay) an inspiring study relating positive and negative emotions to various needs, including food, shelter, money, safety, respect, social relations and autonomy. According to him ‘Although the most basic needs might get the most attention when you don’t have them, you don’t need to fulfill them in order to get benefits from the others. Even when we are hungry, for instance, we can be happy with our friends.’

The results of Diener’s survey reminded me of Robert Chambers’ article Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? and the outcomes from Participatory Rural Appraisals in a Pakistan village. Both strongly connect interpersonal need satisfaction (time at home, friendship, love and respect, for instance) to everyday satisfaction, well-being and happiness. As a consequence, both question development policies based on monetary measures.

There have been many discussions around this subject and apparently happiness and well-being have finally joined the development agenda. In a recent meeting called “Happiness and Well-being: Defining a New Economic Paradigm” Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, stated: ‘We need a new economic paradigm that recognizes the parity between the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic and environmental well-being are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness.’

It looks promising but still far from the necessary. The Earth cannot support our current development standards, so in fact we need a new value paradigm. Instead of just making happiness a prerequisite for sustainable development, shouldn’t we be thinking of making sustainable development a prerequisite for global happiness? Consequently, as an alternative to classifying countries into developed/developing/least developed shouldn’t we classify them into happy/not-so-happy/least happy?

I will be happy to keep you posted on the development of this subject.

 

Comments Off on DP: Happiness for Development or Development for Happiness / 30 Nov 2012 por Andrea Mara Hanai
IMSD /

Y.E.S., we can. (DP)

After graduating from San Francisco State University in May 2011 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology, I was extremely motivated to apply my newly acquired knowledge in the field. The concept of altruism is what directed me towards a degree in Sociology early in my academic career, and now that I had attained my degree, I was eager to really work in a capacity that would allow me to provide assistance where it was needed.
At the time I was managing the restaurant at a Yacht club just outside of San Francisco, serving a population that was, to me, the absolute counter community to that which I wanted to be serving. My heart lies with marginalized communities, those who are under represented and un-heard with specific regard to children. While finding jobs that genuinely satisfied my passions were few and far between, volunteering opportunities were endless. Through volunteering, I was able to begin to explore through which vein I wanted to develop and satisfy my goals.
I came across an organization based out of Richmond, California called Y. E. S. (Youth Enrichment Strategies) that operates, on a fundamental and practical level, parallel to my values within a community that by default needs the type of attention that I strive to provide. Establishing stability and self-empowerment during developmental years is central to one’s ability to realize and establish success throughout their life; contributing what I can during this time in a child’s life is what I seek. Providing the opportunity for children to have access to various forms of knowledge is crucial to their development. This is recognized by Y.E.S and its affiliates and is the fundamental value that attracted me to the organization.
By eliminating potential obstacles such as access to resources (i.e. clean water, energy, etc.), and providing access to various form of knowledge, it is my belief that children have an increased probability of actualizing their goals in the long term. This understanding has led me to EOI with intentions to work towards this reality through a multitude of ventures.

Comments Off on Y.E.S., we can. (DP) / 28 Nov 2012 por Cianna Walker Carrillo
IMSD /

DP: Water Conservation

Hello again!

As I mentioned in my previous post, my understanding of sustainability until I started the IMSD program has been on my experience with PepsiCo in environmental sustainability. Naturally, when someone mentioned sustainability, I thought environmental issues and on top of that, I thought how corporations do their part! I could have deducted from common knowledge about other forms of sustainability but I would not have been able to expand much more. This is one of the many reasons why I enjoy learning about this, because so much of it is new material for me and it has opened my mind up about the possibilities I have and the direction I’d like to take my career.

On Sustainability Issues

In my first project with PepsiCo I was part of a team that put together a competition in Latin American and the Caribbean called the Eco-Challenge. It sought out to create awareness about water conservation while promoting innovation and entrepreneurship. It consisted of two challenges: 1. To create a video game that educates about water conservation in an entertaining way and 2. Develop a solution for access to safe water.

Throughout the years, we evolved the Eco-Challenge to promote environmental awareness and solve environmental issues through business ideas. However, since the project started with water conservation, this topic remained close to me.

Let’s rewind back to that geography class where we first heard of the amount of accessible drinking water in the world.  We learned that the earth is 70% water but out of that percentage, only 2% is fresh water and out of that, less then 1% of it is accessible for human use. These numbers are still shocking, but what is more shocking is how we tend undervalue water. If we are aware of such numbers then why do we act like we have water to spare?

One of the Millennium Development Goals is to reduce the amount of people who cannot reach or afford drinkable water by half for 2015.  There needs to be collaborative work among governments, academics, industries, and organizations to reach the goal. This, however, is only part of the issue because water scarcity although already a problem in some countries, will be an inevitable global issue in the future, which is why there are so many things that could be done about water conservation. Currently 71% of water withdrawals are for agricultural purposes and 16% for industrial. These alone are two areas where water efficiency can and should play a big role.  I believe that there is still much to be done to increase awareness on such a crucial issue.

Water conservation is evidently important but it doesn’t have to be applied just on big scale projects, it can also become part of one’s everyday life. By being aware and creating little changes throughout the day one can help create sustainable behaviors become the public norm.  If everyone takes part then it just becomes part of a habit and routine.

People seem to forget that small changes can lead to an overall significant, positive improvement.

Every drop counts!

Check out some tips:

http://wateruseitwisely.com/100-ways-to-conserve/index.php

Comments Off on DP: Water Conservation / 27 Nov 2012 por Micaela Rossetti
IMSD /

I, Where we go & Change

First of all I want to say that this is going to be my first experience in developing a blog, the truth right now is that I’m especially excited, because I write quite often, therefore is going to be a new habit.

Returning to the line of thought, I give you a brief description of who I am and where we are going with the blog.

I’m Venezuelan 33 years old, my university degree is in Accounting, also I had a  Master in Management and Finance Administration, my professional career I have developed in KPMG Venezuela, where I was 8 years and achieved position myself as a Senior Manager of Risk Consulting area, in the last 4 years I worked in “Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability”, I was in charge of managing the projects that were developed in the firm, this experience changed my outlook completely, I met a whole new world of alternatives and much to do, also greatly motivated me to work in the light of new needs that we shall be facing soon, which are connected to all environmental and social issues that have left a secondary place in the agenda topics global interest, for these reasons and many others that we will go in this blog progressively revealing everything that is linked to Sustainability and Climate Change has become my main area of ​​personal and professional interest.

When I look back I realize that I have been constantly evolving through professional areas associated to accounting, external audit, internal audit, risk consulting and finally CSR, which is why I pose the following question directly.

It is difficult to change? Change mindset? Change habits? Change of interest? Change professional? Changing the way you live? Change your beliefs?

In my opinion we are now the world is in a process of major changes, we have left behind the unilateral view that what matters was focused to the economic, the world order is changing at a speed that sometimes we do not realize, we now look more attention to environmental and social issues and all the implications that would have in a short and long term, so the aim of this blog is to address these issues, many of them related to topics of interest connected to Sustainable Development, Climate Change and Social Responsibility affairs, and as I mentioned above now this is my passion, so I will get deep with this topics

Finally say, that I do believe in change, and the power that is generated from them in the process of transforming ideas that make the road to where we want to go.

Nice to be here, we meet again soon

 

Comments Off on I, Where we go & Change / 27 Nov 2012 por Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual
IMSD /

The Chicken or its Egg (DP)

What came first…the chicken or the egg?

According to Mahatma Gandhi, “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

So if we consider Gandhi’s view on development, it seems that the chicken itself should come first and what it produces is secondary to the way that the chicken is treated.

This is in stark contrast to the reality of modern industrial factory farming practices where how much and how fast an animal produces is the priority and how the animal is treated has seemingly fallen off the moral radar.

A trend I have noticed from the discussion in our Development Perspective course, is that over recent history, there has been a gradual broadening of society’s moral scope. Historically, at the centre of morality, was those who believed that they conceived (i.e. controlled) notions around morality. In other words, white imperialistic men controlled who or what would be considered moral enough to be given rights. However, we have seen this moral scope slowly broaden to include ‘the others’ who have also been issued some form of rights to varying extents. For example, decolonization and the right to independence, abolishment of slavery, women’s rights, ethnic and indigenous rights and gay rights.

So, it seems that as societies develop they tend to be more morally inclusive of ‘the others’ who were traditionally marginalized and exploited. What is it about the nature of development that enables those with power to often loosen their domination over ‘the others’ and to subsequently issue them with the provision of rights? What is it that makes a society question its moral? Is it because of high quality education systems, strong economic and democratic development or an active civil society?

More specific to my area of interest and passion, how do animals and the environment fit into our moral development trajectory?

If moral development is commonly associate with the traditional key developmental indicators (such as GDP growth, democracy and education) then how do we explain the existence of practices such as factory farming in the so called ‘developed countries’?

Factory farming is an expression of one species exploitation, and complete domination over another living species.

There is of course major and important differences between humans and animals which distinguish the concept of human rights and animal rights. At the same time, should the notion of rights that a living being is entitled to be based on their relative intelligence to us, or their ability to suffer? If it is their ability to suffer, to feel distress, to feel fear, to feel pain and misery, then in my opinion, factory farming represents a complete disregard of life’s essential rights. Practices such as factory farming therefore represents a huge regression in human moral development. The question then stands, has something gone terribly wrong with our progression of moral development or are there some other factors about the way industrial societies now operate that is facilitating the existence of industry practices around the world that disregard animals and our environment?

This video from Animals Australia, an animal welfare organization, provides some insights into the the issue of factory farming:

Click here to view the embedded video.

While I won’t be able to explain how pigs fly in that video, in my next blogs, I will look to unpack the issues of human development and agriculture, environmental destruction, animal welfare, food distribution, consumerism and the relationship between them all.

But for now, here are some compelling quotes from the above video…as they say, just some food for thought:

“cheaper (animal products) means crueler”

“according to the UN, raising animals for food, contributes more to climate change than all of the world’s trains, planes and automobiles combined…not to mention water pollution, species extinction, and almost every other major environmental threat”

“the reality is, factory farms use more food than they use, which means less food for everyone else. At a time when globally, more than one billion people are suffering from malnutrition, one third of the worlds edible cereal harvest is being fed to farm animals…that cereal would be enough to feed around three billion people”

“around the world, consumer choice is driving change”

Thanks for reading…and stay tuned for more blog posts coming soon…

Comments Off on The Chicken or its Egg (DP) / 27 Nov 2012 por Daniel Salter
IMSD /