Celebrating World Environment Day on 5 June 2013

Think.Eat.Save.

The theme for this year’s World Environment Day celebrations is Think.Eat.Save. Think.Eat.Save is an anti-food waste and food loss UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme campaign that encourages you to reduce your foodprint. 

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), every year 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted. This is equivalent to the same amount produced in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, 1 in every 7 people in the world go to bed hungry and more than 20,000 children under the age of 5 die daily from hunger. 

Given this enormous imbalance in lifestyles and the resultant devastating effects on the environment, this year’s theme – Think.Eat.Save – encourages you to become more aware of the environmental impact of the food choices you make and empowers you to make informed decisions. While the planet is struggling to provide us with enough resources to sustain its 7 billion people (growing to 9 billion by 2050), FAO estimates that a third of global food production is either wasted or lost. 

Food waste is an enormous drain on natural resources and a contributor to negative environmental impacts. This year’s campaign rallies you to take action from your home and then witness the power of collective decisions you and others have made to reduce food waste, save money, minimize the environmental impact of food production and force food production processes to become more efficient. If food is wasted, it means that all the resources and inputs used in the production of all the food are also lost. 

For example, it takes about 1,000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk and about 16,000 litres goes into a cow’s food to make a hamburger. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions from the cows themselves, and throughout the food supply chain, all end up in vain when we waste food. In fact, the global food production occupies 25% of all habitable land and is responsible for 70% of fresh water consumption, 80% of deforestation, and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. It is the largest single driver of biodiversity loss and land-use change. 

Making informed decision therefore means, for example, that you purposefully select foods that have less of an environmental impact, such as organic foods that do not use chemicals in the production process. Choosing to buy locally can also mean that foods are not flown halfway across the world and therefore limit emissions. So think before you eat and help save our environment! Know more at http://www.unep.org/wed/

Hard to Stomach: Two Billion Now Overweight

Mark Notaras confirms beyond doubt, that what was once viewed as a problem in Western societies, is now and will increasingly be a global one.

“The share of adults worldwide who are overweight jumped from 1.45 billion in 2002 to 1.934 billion in 2010, an increase of 25 percent.” If this opening sentence of the recent Vital Signs Online report from the Worldwatch Institute is not alarming enough, of even more concern is that the world is inevitably heading further down the track of an obesity epidemic.

In other words, rather than overweightness correlating specifically to a geographic region or certain cultural groups (think of the stereotypical “fat American”, once the butt of all jokes), the strongest causal factor is increased income, and the high calorie, meat-based, fast-food dependent “Western” diet, as well as lifestyle factors that accompany it.

With tens of millions of people joining the global middle class year on year, particularly in the fast growing economies of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), it can be expected that the number of people with expanded waistlines will also swell, unless significant policy and behavioural changes occur.

In India for example, a country generally associated with a low-impact vegetarian diet, roughly one in five adults (19%) are now considered overweight, up from 14% in 2002. This in a country of 1.2 billion people and home to the greatest number of the world’s hungry — a figure, incidentally, that rose by 65 million from 1990 to 2005 according to a recent Oxfam report.

Overweight versus Obese

Overweightness can generally be divided into two categories — “overweight” and “obese”. In their report, Worldwatch classify “overweight” as referring to people with a body mass index (BMI) — a measure relating to a person’s height to weight ratio — of 25 or greater. If a person is obese, he or she would have a BMI of 30 or above. For the sake of this article, “overweight” refers to people in both categories, and “adult” refers to people surveyed over the age 15 from a total of 177 countries.

The global picture of obesity drawn from UN Population Division data and analysed by geographer Richard H. Weil, clearly points to a correlation of income with BMI across all regions.

While the global trend of higher income equals higher BMI is clear, there are some variations at the country level. Excluding 20 poor countries with low BMI located in Asia and Africa because they include large populations suffering from malnutrition, Japan (23%) is somewhat of an anomaly. At almost 19 percentage points better than the next (sizeable) ranked industrialised country, France (42%), Japan’s highly urbanised population have managed to draw enough from their traditional food culture (of rice, soybeans, fish and vegetables) to stay healthy.

Not surprisingly, Japan’s high health standards are reflected in the Japanese definition of obesity itself, which refers to people with BMI levels over 25 (and not the universal 30). But even the revered Japanese will be concerned at their longer terms trends towards higher meat consumption, not least because of their increasingly reliance on imported foods.

Broadly speaking, high income countries — from the United States (79%) to Australia (71.1%) to Qatar (62.7%) to Brunei (61.7%) — have high levels of average BMI regardless of which region of the world they are in.

Weighing up the Consequences

Of course, being overweight or obese is not merely an aesthetic concern for individuals and their families, friends and colleagues. Resultant health consequences like diabetes and heart disease impact on people’s quality of life and their ability to carry out day-to-day functions. And when aggregated across populations at a country and increasingly global level, overeating has monumental impacts on the health of our environmental assets.

Raj Patel has captured these impacts in his book "Stuffed and Starved" that talks about the ironies of a world in which the number of people going hungry (approximately 1 billion) is only eclipsed by the number of people overeating.

Even though the American Heart Association recommends that moderately active adults eat around 2,500 (male) or 2,000 (female) calories per day respectively, the average American is currently stuffing themselves with 3770 calories per person per day. Other figures from the 2010 FAO Statistical Yearbook on “Dietary energy protein and fat consumption" indicate that comparable countries include Austria (3760) and Greece (3700).

All of this unnecessary consumption is having significant consequences on Earth’s already stretched land, water and soil resources.This is not to say that every overweight person is taking food straight out of the mouths of a malnourished person. The international food trade is more complex than that. However, the world’s poorest people are more likely than ever to be competing for their staple sources of calories, e.g. for corn and wheat crops, against increasing demands for biofuels and livestock feed, not to mention food market speculators. And as can be expected in any market situation where the weakest lack protection, the world’s poor farmers are coming off second best.

Incidentally, increasing awareness about the global overeating epidemic comes at a time when global hunger continues to be in the spotlight due to the onset of drought affecting millions in East Africa and continuing high world food prices. In relation to the latter, the Food Price Index measured by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations indicate that, despite drops in commodity values for certain major crops like sugar, the overall level of food prices remains at near-record highs.

The Beginning (or the End) of Overeating

So, is there any positive news from this latest research? As the report is keen to point out, experience from Japan and other countries that illustrate higher disposable incomes do not necessarily lead to unbalanced food and leisure choices and subsequently obesity, offer some hope.

It is important to bear in mind that genetic factors also account for how well different populations adapt to high-impact diets and lifestyle changes driven by urbanisation. These differences are most stark in the Oceania region where there are large discrepancies between Polynesian and Micronesian countries on the one hand (a staggering 88% overweight) and Melanesian countries like Papua New Guinea with relatively low levels of BMI.

Still, Oceania, a region of many small island states and a very small combined population, can hardly be a template for the world. Neither, it is hoped, is the US. Former US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner (1990–1997) Dr. David A Kessler outlines a positive plan for Americans to “stop the vicious and unhealthy cycle of overeating” in his 2009 book "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite".

Yet the bottom line is that, even if the US or any other developed country more accustomed to dealing with obesity can overcome the natural tendencies of people to consume fatty, salty and sugary food, at a global level, the era of overeating is probably only just beginning.

Mark Notaras is a writer/editor for the United Nations University (UNU) Media Studio and a researcher for the UNU Institute for Sustainability and Peace (UNU-ISP).

Debate 2.0: Can creating a Green Economy redeem the 1%?

Carol Smith and Brendan Barrett ask if the recent Occupy Wall Street protests are the beginning of a Societal Rethink?

The Occupy Wall Street protests are making headlines around the world, just as those in Spain and Greece did before. All on the tail of the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

However, critics of this latest wave have been equally vocal. And the right-wing media are having a field day with the mish-mash of poorly-expressed motivations espoused by some of the individual ‘Occupy’ protesters being interviewed (like the one quoted by a Vancouver columnist yesterday as saying, “We’ll be here until the rich are poor and the poor are rich” or another photographed with a poster that reads “One day the poor will have nothing left to eat but the rich”).

Then there are those who may quibble with the origins or interpretation of the data used to come up with the moniker “the 99%” that refers to the portion of the population that is not part of the “richest 1%” that own “40% of global assets” (from a 2006 UNU-WIDER study) or in the US, the 1% who own 34.6% of that country’s wealth. Some go even further and call North Americans crybabies for complaining at all, when their countries are undeniably easier places to live than many others around the globe.

But the fact is that long-term unemployment and bleak economic prospects have darkened the global mood. People are angry and this is manifesting in an anti-corporate (mainly financial institutions) and anti-ultra rich direction. Corporate greed is seen as the root cause for the 2008 financial meltdown. This could explain why a recent 10-country survey found consumers increasingly care about the ethics of companies.

The other issue is that some ultra rich people seem intent on blocking efforts to deal with pressing issues like climate change. They would rather risk the loss of a human friendly climate than the loss of a part of their wealth.

To some extent, these concerns may explain the underlying theme put forth by activist magazine Adbusters, conceptors of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which is a message that seems to resonate with what many of the 99% in affluent countries are sensing is necessary given the ecological and resource crises facing the world:

“Anything, from a bottom-up transformation of the global economy to changing the way we eat, the way we get around, the way we live, love and communicate… Let’s occupy the core of our global system. Let’s dethrone the greed that defines this new century,” a recent call to action enthused.

Is redemption possible?

But is it wishful thinking to imagine that the public display of displeasure could possibly encourage a greener tendency in the 1%? It would certainly be in line what the public wishes to see. The survey mentioned above indicated that 34% of respondents consider economic development as the first social priority, yet another 21% see the environment as tops. That means investments in green jobs would immediately be in line with the aspirations of 55% of the population.

That being so, in the run-up to next month’s COP17 climate negotiations, 285 of the world’s largest investors have issued a call for urgent policy action designed to fuel private sector investment into climate change solutions like low-carbon technology. Apparently it’s not the first year the group has made this call but now it’s backed up with a report, commissioned in partnership with the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, that gives more detail on what such climate policy might look like.

What would you get for your money? Well, here is a concrete example. The 285 investors have assets in the order of US$20 trillion. If they were to invest in even the most radical proposals on the table, like Greenpeace’s Energy (R)evolution scenario, then they would only need to spend US$17.9 trillion to move the entire world to 80% renewable energy by 2030.

This kind of outlay would not only assist in tackling climate change but would improve energy security and create new jobs. Such investments create new wealth and at the same time would provide electricity for the world’s 1.4 billion people without access.

We have heard repeatedly, going back to 1992 Rio Earth Summit, that the scale of funds needed to deal with climate change or clean energy, are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Yet we have done very little.

Is it possible the Occupy Wall Street protests are the beginning of a group societal priority-rethink? Could this group of investors be an indication that the 1% is redeemable and not a hopeless lost greedy cause?

Carol Smith and Brendan Barrett are journalists with a Green heart who work together at the UNU - Media Centre.

Is Green Enough ?

Mal Warwick asks Who would have believed it, even ten years ago?

All across America, and increasingly in other parts of the world as well, the people who run businesses, both large and small, are discovering that green is their favorite color. Green is in.

There’s no mystery about this. The public is rapidly coming to appreciate the severity of the threat posed by global climate change. A younger generation that learned about ecology in grade school is coming of age, changing attitudes from within the business world. And evidence continues to mount that consumers favor companies that are environmentally sensitive. Is it any wonder, then, that corporate executives and small businesspeople alike are scrambling to integrate ecologically sound principles and practices into their business operations?

It’s no wonder—we agree. But most of us involved in business have been far too slow to ask a second and equally important question:

Is green enough?

The words “sustainable” and “sustainability” have come to be equated with the ecological perspective summed up by the label “green.” But is that equation fair? If a company—or, for that matter, a society, or the planet as a whole—is run on the basis of green principles, is it sustainable?

I believe the answer is a resounding No. The planetary burden of nearly six billion poor people is sufficient to prove the point, without even exploring the economic implications of the profound gulf between Earth’s rich and poor. But let’s set aside these larger questions until there is an opportunity for us to discuss them at length. For now, let’s just focus on the business case for running our companies not just as environmentally sound enterprises but as what I term “values-driven businesses” grounded in the assumption that collaboration is the path to sustainability.

Values-driven business is based on five fundamental premises:

- Employees work more productively and pay more attention to a company’s profitability when they’re working for something they believe in, are treated with respect, well-paid, and receive a share of the profits. They also tend to feel better if the owner or top managers aren’t making out like bandits by comparison.

- Customers are more loyal and willing to forgive errors when a company’s dedication to quality products and services is obvious and when they deal with highly motivated employees—especially when employees are allowed to take the initiative to apologize and make things right.

- Consumers often show a strong preference to do business with companies that demonstrate a commitment to their community—and are sometimes disinclined to patronize those who don’t. Values alignment between a company and its customers builds loyalty. Customers are more forgiving of mistakes and less apt to buy from a competitor when its goods are on sale.

Your business will be better prepared for the future and more likely to survive its inevitable disruptions if you build stronger relationships today with your employees, your customers, your suppliers, and your community. And the planet we share will be more likely to survive the ravages of the human race if you do everything in your power to lighten your footprint on the environment. In other words, to use the contemporary jargon, your business will be more sustainable.

You—as the company’s owner or manager—will live a less stressful and more fulfilling life if you look on your employees, customers, suppliers, and the community as partners rather than adversaries.

In a values-driven enterprise, an ecological perspective is central. But the same logic that leads us to understand the interdependence of all living things helps us grasp the inescapable truth that a collaborative approach to our customers, our employees, our community, and our suppliers is equally important.

Mal Warwick’s latest book is Values-Driven Business: How to Change the World, Make Money, and Have Fun, co-authored with Ben Cohen, the first volume in the Social Venture Network Series. (See Svnbooks for more information) ©LOHAS

Who is Corrupt?

Sourabh Thakur dissects the inherent hypocrisy surrounding the Anna Hazare Anti-Corruption Movement!

Am I corrupt? Yes I am. I put up a certain self-image in society to gain acceptance, money and power. I lie to my loved ones, protecting my self-image on the pretext of not hurting their feelings. I curb my anger in public to protect that image. I curb all the corrupt thoughts, lie to myself just to get a self-proclaimed label of a nice human being. Even my honesty comes with a carrot of an ego boost or spirituality.

If I am caught drinking and driving, I pay a little money to get away. I try to avoid paying duty while carrying my expensive camera or laptop back home. I produce fake documents to reduce my taxes. I jump waiting lines whenever I can. I use pirated software. I pay my maid a piddly amount of money while I make big bucks myself. I take advantage of situations for my own good. I manipulate situations. I do emotional blackmailing. I use influential people in my life to get things done for me. I like free stuff.

If I am a father I bribe my kids to get good marks in exams. I bribe my dog to be a good dog (whatever that is). If I am a kid I bribe my parents by being a good kid. If I am a political party I bribe you with progress, protection and such vague stuff. If I am a religion I bribe you with god / nirvana / heaven to become good human beings. I even bribe god for good things to happen in my life. And most of the time I am bribing myself.

If I am a CEO I can draw huge amount of moolah for myself, as I deserve it. If I want engineering seat I don’t mind paying donation, but at the same time condemn those who come from quota because they don’t deserve it. If I am a cricketer I can take money to influence match results. If I am a doctor I can get commission from pharmaceuticals to prescribe their drugs. If I run a newspaper I can take fee to publish certain news and suppress others. If I am a cop I can take money to register your FIR. If I am in advertising I can make money by lying to people about my product and trying to feed their fears. If I am an armyman I can rape powerless tribal women, and if I have permission I kill the men. If I am a multinational company I can make huge profits while running sweatshops. If I am a manager I can work to increase my company’s profit, with little regard about people working under me, while protecting my own personal life. If I earn hugely disproportionate amount of money compared to majority of the world I can give some of it as a charity and go gaga over my divine intentions. If I am social activist I can honestly work for social welfare while tirelessly filling my pockets with foreign funding.

I am corrupt in different degrees in different situations according to the circumstances and my capacity. More the power I have, more the capacity to be even more corrupt. I am corrupt in the context of nature, world, nation, society, family and friends or just pure moral self. I am corrupt for money, status, acceptance, praise, power, pleasure, love, sex, nirvana, god, self-image, ego etc etc.

I live in a society where we need laws so that we don’t cheat each other. We need police so that we don’t kill each other. We need armies so that we don’t destroy our civilizations. We need democracy to tell us that we are all equal. We need false identity of a nation so that we can unite each other. And we need government to take care of all this and more for us, because if left on our own we desire attached power hungry selves would destroy everyone and everything around us. So we elect few amongst us, who seem capable or more like who promise to fulfill our hopes and dreams and visions, to run things for us. We give them power to run things for us and with that capacity to be more corrupt. We expect them not to take advantage of the powers that they have got while I continue to be corrupt in my own capacity. So I want to elect another mortal amongst us to police them, who will be totally honest, or create a system, which will not allow him to be otherwise.

How and who are to choose such a person or create such a system? Who has such a keen understanding of human psychology to elect a person with all good intentions and honesty? If there can be such a system why isn’t it employed to elect the leader itself. And if this police become corrupt after all this, which is more likely looking at the history, are we to invent another police to police them?

So I feel like a hypocrite shouting out against corruption, just because it is of a larger proportion and context. Who is to draw this imaginary line and where? Everybody have their own justifications for doing right or wrong things. I don’t want this unending loop of policing. I don’t want another hero who can change others. I want to change myself.

Sourabh Thakur is a Designer/Photographer and lives in Calcutta. You can checkout his Tumblr profile here.