Energy-Efficient Windows Inspired By Nature : New Bio-Inspired Approach To Thermal Cooling Could Be Applied To Solar Panels

A. Schematic of the composite window structure. B. The artificial vascular network layer.”

A new type of energy-efficient window — inspired by and recreating the vascular networks found within living organisms — has been created by researchers at the University of Toronto. The new windows work effectively to limit heat loss during the winter and provide a cooling effect during the summer. The new design has resulted in 7–9 degrees of cooling in laboratory experiments. The researchers also think that their new technique/design could be applied to solar panels, working to increase their functional efficiency thanks to the cooling effect.

The new process is, in the words of the researchers themselves, a “bio-inspired approach to thermal control for cooling (or heating) building window surfaces,” one that works through the action of optically clear, flexible, elastomer sheets, which are attached and bonded to normal glass window panes. The attached elastomer sheets — which are composed of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) — feature ‘channels’ through which room-temperature water is free to flow. It’s this flowing water that provides the thermal controlling effects.

“Our results show that an artificial vascular network within a transparent layer, composed of channels on the micrometer to millimeter scale, and extending over the surface of a window, offers an additional and novel cooling mechanism for building windows and a new thermal control tool for building design,” stated Ben Hatton, lead researcher and a professor of engineering at the University of Toronto.

As the researchers note, windows currently account for around 40% of all building energy costs — any improvements with regard to their thermal regulatory abilities would be valuable. Hatton continued: “In contrast to man-made thermal control systems, living organisms have evolved an entirely different and highly efficient mechanism to control temperature that is based on the design of internal vascular networks. For example, blood vessels dilate to increase blood flow close to the skin surface to increase convective heat transfer, whereas they constrict and limit flow when our skin is exposed to cold.”

As Hatton notes — the new technique could probably very effectively be applied to solar panels, and could also function well as a means of supplying heated water to existing hot water or heat storage systems.

The new research was just published in the journal Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells.

Photo credit - University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering

Content Courtesy -cleantechnica

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Explained, in 7 Balloons

In 2010 human activity caused 50 Gt CO2e of greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions were 76% carbon dioxide (CO2), 16% methane (CH4), 8% nitrous oxide (N20) and 2% F-gases.

The big terrestrial emitters were China (23%), the USA (14%), Europe (10%), India (5%) and Russia (5%).

And the primary sources of emissions were energy (35%), industry (18%), transport (13%), agriculture (11%), forestry (11%), buildings (8%) and waste (4%).

The sources are explained in more detail in the balloons above, which technically shouldn’t float so well ;-).  These balloons don’t look very threatening, but they represent the large majority of positive climate forcings.

Which in English means they are major causes of climate change.

Check out our new eBook for ideas that will deflate your balloon.

Photo credit - shrinkthatfootprint Content Courtesy - shrinkthatfootprint.com

Urban Regeneration and Climate-friendly Development: Lessons from Japan

As part of their research within the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) Sustainable Urban Futures Programme, Postdoctoral Fellow Osman Balaban and Assistant Director/Senior Research Fellow Jose Antonio Puppim de Oliveira examine the potential role of urban regeneration in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Cities have a central role to play in tackling climate change as well as in adapting to its effects as they contribute much to it and are under severe threat from its impacts. Because urban spatial policies have long-term effects, they are key for tackling climate change and it is through such policies that city governments can guide climate-friendly planning.

Spatial policies cover a range of issues from a regional scale to individual buildings, including promotion of compact cities, provision of green spaces and water bodies (retention and detention ponds, water canals, etc.), retrofitting existing buildings, infrastructure renewal, and increasing non-motorized and public transport coverage. They may further be useful in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation goals simultaneously. For instance, green spaces mitigate emissions through carbon sequestration and help combat impacts like heat stress, air pollution and flooding.

Introduction of such spatial policies necessitates certain forms of intervention in existing urban areas. “Urban regeneration” inherently comprises such interventions, from renewal to rehabilitation, and thus can provide opportunities to introduce spatial policies that address climate change.

However, urban regeneration research has so far focused on community-based issues, governance aspects and even sustainability, but not much attention has been paid to climate change. With our recent paper we intended to contribute to the literature by enhancing understanding of the potential role of urban regeneration in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

We undertook a close examination of how and with what effect different forms of policy responses to climate change are emerging in urban areas. We also examined how and to what extent urban regeneration, as a major field and instrument of urban policymaking, could be linked with these policy responses and thus turned into a city-based response to climate change.

The research was based on two case studies in Japan where the focus of urban planning has shifted from growth to reorganization that is designed to create compact cities in the country’s era of depopulation. There are recent attempts to convert existing regeneration sites into smart districts, where carbon emissions and environmental footprints are lowered. However, further research that strengthens the links between urban regeneration and climate change is required to foment the scale-up of these initiatives.

Urban regeneration evolves

Urban regeneration is a way to reorganize and upgrade existing built environments rather than planning new urbanization. It is an old concept that has evolved over time. Its roots can be traced back to the 1970s when many cities in Britain and the United States started initiatives, referred to as “urban renewal” or “area improvement”, that focused on physical renewal of inner cities identified as “areas of social deprivation”.

By the late 1970s, economic aspects like revitalization of downtown cores or entire cities were incorporated into renewal schemes and urban regeneration became a more comprehensive concept. Property-led urban regeneration projects dominated urban policymaking in British and US cities in the 1980s, based on the understanding that a supply of new premises for office, industrial and retail activities would facilitate local economic transformation. These projects came as part of the strategies to achieve the “entrepreneurial city”, a new form of urban governance to encourage local economic development.

Nevertheless, the ineffectiveness of the property-led approach in addressing issues of social equity and environmental protection led to incorporation of new goals into the urban regeneration concept. During the 1990s, the environmental benefits of improving existing urban areas were recognized and regeneration projects began to be considered as a means of addressing the three pillars of sustainability: economic revitalization, social justice and environmental protection.

There have been recent attempts to associate urban regeneration with climate policy, but these remain in their infancy and require further efforts to improve their theoretical and practical underpinnings. Current progress is limited to a few examples of regeneration projects that are designed to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation along with other objectives.

The regeneration process entails different forms of spatial interventions which could change the form and land use structure of cities in a way that could facilitate the implementation of spatial policies that address climate change.

Perhaps the most fruitful form of intervention is effective utilization of inner-city lands. Through urban regeneration, city governments can make the best use of brownfields and underutilized lands, providing the possibility of employing a “grow-in” strategy to concentrate the majority of new developments in existing urban areas, in the form of mixed-use developments.

Such a strategy may help achieve energy and resource efficiency by preventing urban sprawl and, in particular, reducing commuting time and distance. Further, less energy is consumed in compact cities for urban infrastructure operations. We know that 30 percent of urban energy consumption goes to pumping water and collecting wastewater. So, the more area that a city occupies, the higher the amount of energy used in that city to provide water to and collect wastewater from buildings.

Buildings are among the major sources of carbon emissions due to energy consumption for heating and cooling. Further, poor quality buildings and those sited in disaster-vulnerable (eg., on floodplains) areas are the most vulnerable to climate impacts. In many nations, buildings that will be in use in the next decades are already built. Special attention should therefore be paid to turning existing buildings into low-carbon and less vulnerable structures. Urban regeneration could help in overcoming such building-related challenges, either by retrofitting or renewing existing buildings, as part of the renewal and rehabilitation of inner cities.

Urban regeneration in Japan

Japan has been depopulating since 2005 and, according to projections by Tetsuo Kidokoro, the population of cities of all sizes will start to decrease after 2015. Due to this demographic change, the focus of urban planning and development in Japan has shifted from growth to reorganization. More attention is now paid to turning cities into more compact and sustainable places with a high quality of life.

This could be done by addressing urban problems inherited from a previous period of rapid urbanization, such as urban sprawl, decline in city centres and disaster vulnerability. Further, in line with global and national environmental concerns, greenhouse gas emissions in Japanese cities have to be lowered.

Much can be expected from urban regeneration in transforming Japanese cities into more sustainable and low-carbon urban environments in the era of depopulation. We looked at two urban regeneration initiatives in Japan, representing two major approaches of regeneration practices in Japanese cities, namely “project-based” and “plan-based” approaches.

The first case was the Minato Mirai 21 project (MM21) located in the central quarter of Yokohama City in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area.  Although initiated in the mid-1980s, the project is still in progress. MM21 was built on 186 hectares of brownfields and reclaimed lands and is currently a mixed-use district, including offices, malls, residences, hotels, cultural centres, a hospital and parks. The main objective of the project is to increase the self-sufficiency of Yokohama by strengthening its central business district.

The second case was Kanazawa City in Ishikawa prefecture in eastern Japan — a mid-sized historical town with a population of 462,361 people. Kanazawa has been encountering problems caused by urban sprawl, such as decline in the city centre, high reliance on automobiles and an increase in carbon emissions. Since the 1990s, the city government has been addressing these problems through several means, including urban regeneration. The “City Center Revitalization Plan”, which covers an area of 860 hectares and includes actions to regenerate the city center, is the primary component of urban regeneration attempts in Kanazawa.

We analysed the impacts of these two initiatives to tackle climate change by breaking them down by the following aspects: economy and work, buildings and land use, transportation and mobility, infrastructure for resource efficiency, energy consumption and efficiency, and community-based issues.

In addition to the scope and extent of their climate benefits, both cases presented a series of lessons on transforming urban regeneration projects into opportunities to reorganize cities in climate-friendly manners as described below.

Flexibility in project conception and design

Flexibility in the design of regeneration projects can help to incorporate them with new concepts that emerge over time. A main feature of the MM21 project is the delay in its completion due to the economic recession in the 1990s.

Slow realization of the project turned out to be an opportunity to eliminate the shortcomings in project design regarding environmental issues. Contemporary concepts like waste recycling, green buildings and smart grids — that did not exist at the time when the project was initiated — began to be incorporated into the project over time. Further, as the project has not yet been fully implemented, city government has had the opportunity to apply new environmental technologies to turn MM21 into a smart district. MM21 is one of the major “Yokohama Smart City Project” areas.

Participation and political commitment

Although community participation is important, it cannot guarantee a climate-friendly and low-carbon city. In the Kanazawa case, where varied stakeholders are involved in decision-making, the overall impacts of the plan have been relatively minor. This is mainly due to the main actors’ weak political commitment and lack of resources to pursue climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Therefore, in order to benefit from community engagement, participation mechanisms need to be supported with political commitment and the two should complement each other. Only then can a balance between technical top-down and participatory bottom-up approaches be achieved throughout regeneration practices.

Coordination between city divisions and policies

A sectoral approach dominates policymaking in both cities. Different city administration divisions are in charge of different sectors regarding urban development and environmental management. However, coordination between them seems to be insufficient. For instance, the Waterworks Bureau of Yokohama City takes no particular action on water issues directly related to climate change, as a separate division of the city government is in charge of global warming and climate change.

Considering a similar problem, Kanazawa’s environmental plan draws attention to the need for effective coordination between city divisions to facilitate the implementation of environmental strategies. For instance, Ishikawa prefecture has developed an “Eco-House Project” to raise citizens’ awareness of green buildings and encourage them to install green technologies in their houses. However, lessons from this prefectural project seem to have not been reflected in Kanazawa’s City Center Revitalization Plan.

Binding and structural measures

A main factor that limited the positive impacts of the revitalization plan in Kanazawa is the reluctance of the city’s government to introduce binding measures. Instead, it chose to adopt “soft” measures aiming to achieve behavioral change in the long-run. For instance, the plan avoids restricting car use, although it aims at decreasing the use of private cars for inner-city trips.

Such an approach seems to have prevented the plan from being supported by strong and complimentary measures. Likewise, the limited capacity of the city government to introduce structural measures in certain policy fields resulted in similar outcomes. As Kanazawa’s bus system is run by the private sector, the city government couldn’t introduce structural regulations on the system, and soft policies have been ineffective in overcoming the structural deficiencies in the system. This illustrates that binding and structural measures should be introduced as part of regeneration projects, particularly to ensure compliance and behavioral change.

The crosscutting potential

Our case studies demonstrated that urban regeneration is an instrument of urban policy that has the potential to facilitate the introduction of spatial policies to address climate change.Interventions inherent to the regeneration process could be used to upgrade existing urban environments and hence change the form and land use structure of cities in climate-friendly manners.

As a crosscutting field of urban policy, urban regeneration could also help in bridging the “mitigation and adaptation dichotomy” and create synergies between two major targets of climate policy, helping to achieve mitigation and adaptation goals simultaneously. In the MM21 project, adaptation actions like provision of green spaces and infrastructure improvements have been implemented together with mitigation actions like a district heating and cooling system.

Of course, achieving this is not straightforward and hindered by multiple challenges, as noted above. Overall, there remains the need to understand conceptually, and in practice, how urban regeneration could help to both tackle climate change and achieve its main objectives of revitalizing certain areas in the urban fabric.

Photo credit - Minato Mirai 21, Yokohama, Japan. Photo: Marc Antomattei. Content Courtesy - UNU.edu

Today is World Oceans Day

Make the Ocean Promise

June 8th is World Oceans Day! On World Oceans Day, people around the planet celebrate and honor the body of water which links us all, for what it provides humans and what it represents. Be a part of this growing global celebration! Make your promise now via the World Oceans Day website @ http://bit.ly/ocean_promise

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.

Why the Insurance Industry won’t save us from Climate Change

RL Miller debugs the shaky Insurance industry and Climate Change relationship

A myth floats around among those seeking free-market solutions to climate change that insurers will be a positive force. Insurers are worried about the impact of climate on their business model. They will increase rates. Expensive insurance will drive people off the coasts. People and property won't be as affected by coastal storms. Most recently, Fast Company asked whether trillion-dollar storms will drive us off the coasts: "Just how long until large chunks of America's coastline become virtually uninsurable, starting with Lower Manhattan? Some would say this is a good thing, a perfect example of markets appropriately pricing risk and (dis-)incentivizing people accordingly."

There's only one problem: This market-driven solution won't work.

Insurers are worried about climate change, with good reason. A recent Ceres report found, generally, that they're ill-prepared for climate. Their model for pricing risks depends on historical models, which are meaningless in the time of the new normal.

For several years Munich Re, the giant reinsurer, has been advocating for governments to do something about climate change, based on rational self-interest: If governments can prevent it from happening, then insurers won't have to pay out. Guess that didn't work out so well -- thanks, United States Senate! As climate mitigation seems to be failing, adaptation strategies become necessary.

The first adaptation strategy will be to raise rates. Here, the free market advocates are giddy. Coastal insurance will become very expensive, so no one will live on the coasts! Yay! However, it won't work. A look at two southern California coastal communities illustrates the free-market failure of insurance to deter people from living near the coast.

Malibu is a notoriously high-risk area -- I joke, "Do you know what Malibu means in the Chumash language? 'Stupid people live here.'" It's prone to fires and landslides. Year after year, TV cameras cover muddy devastation, wrecked mansions, and teary-eyed residents vowing to rebuild. And, generally, they do rebuild. But they rarely do so with insurance money, because California policies don't cover landslides. Insurance in Malibu has become so expensive that many residents rely on the FAIR Plan, an insurance pool of last resort. Although California's FAIR plan was created in 1968 ostensibly to aid inner-city residents who were considered uninsurable after the 1965 Watts Riots, it now serves wealthy homeowners who have chosen to live in high-risk canyons and coastlines. And wealthy people have lobbied the state legislature for concessions in coverage.

Twenty-eight states have similar plans that cover certain high-risk weather events -- brushfires in Malibu; wind and hail damage in coastal communities in Georgia and New York. FAIR Plan high premiums and limited coverage haven't deterred people from living in high-weather-risk areas so far.

Another way of understanding how high premiums fail to act as a deterrent is to imagine yourself with enough money to buy your dream car -- that fire-engine-red Lotus, that 1965 Mustang, that Tesla Roadster. Insurance on that car is expensive. Does that stop you? If so, you're rare. People who can afford to live on the coast do so for reasons wholly divorced from pragmatic cost issues.

In short, the free market of high insurance premiums and limited coverage hasn't deterred people from living in pricey coastal communities. Climate change will raise premiums and limit coverage, but people will still want to live in Malibu. But what of less expensive coastal communities?

La Conchita is a small community sandwiched between the coast and steep, unstable mountains on the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line. A 1995 landslide buried seven homes. Property values plummeted, insurance became unaffordable, and people moved in anyway. Why did they move in? Because you could get a walk-to-beach home for $500,000 instead of the $5 million you'd spend in Santa Barbara or Malibu. The area took on a surfing haven reputation -- a little funky, a little high-risk, a lot less expensive. People moved in, paid cash, and thus weren't required to have insurance, or went onto the FAIR Plan -- again, the cost of insurance wasn't a factor. Then a second landslide in 2005 killed 10 people. The $500,000 house is now marked down to $350,000, and no one is buying it. Although no significant connection has been made between the storms of 1995 and 2005 and climate change, La Conchita may be a harbinger of what's to come: high-risk hamlets.

A new OECD report finds that the two American cities most vulnerable to rising sea levels are New York and Miami. Lower Manhattan is likely to end up like Malibu -- very wealthy people willing to ignore risks -- while Miami becomes a high-risk island, cut off from the rest of Florida as a wall of saltwater moves inland. Insurance rates aren't likely to uproot people.

In the medium-term (10 to 20 years), I wouldn't be surprised to see insurers attempt to restrict coverage for climate-related damage, much as has been done for mold/fungus coverage when mold became a hot-button issue in about 2001.

In the long-term, the industry may not survive in its present day form. It's built on charging risks based on past patterns. But past history can't map a new normal. The property insurance industry is reeling from the storms of 2011, and the life and health insurers have barely begun to consider the likely profound impact of climate change on their mortality tables. If the federal crop insurance program has yet begun to calculate the impact of climate on its program, I haven't seen it. Perhaps we'll end up with some sort of two-tiered program in which government extends the concept of a FAIR plan (minimal coverage, high premiums) to virtually every aspect of insurance, and some wealthy people choose to pay even higher premiums for additional coverage. For now, the insurance industry shouldn't be considered a player in the search for free-market solutions to climate change.

RL Miller is an attorney, climate/enviro blogger, runner, quilter, keeper of chickens. If you hate the terms climate zombies and oilpocalypse, blame RL Miller.© Grist Magazine

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

Two Acres and a Pile of Leaves

Conner Voss explains why today's Farming is not what it used to be!

Scritch, scritch, scritch. As a shovel to soil, axe to wood or chisel to stone—putting the rake to leaves is a timeless task of cosmic constancy. When I find myself taunted, twisted and oddly bound by the realm of infinite possibility in life, there is welcome peace in the simple, undeniable progress of a big leaf pile.

For so many reasons, this is good work: my feet are gentle on the ground, and my hands hold the tool—quiet, ancient—perfectly suited to this task. Scritch, scritch. There is room here for thought. It dances among my steady breath and between the shuttering leaves, all at once connected and irrelevant, meaningful and meaningless. With an undeserved degree of self-satisfaction, I am pleased by this paradox. I tell myself that there is wisdom in there somewhere, and then I pause, assume a familiar propped position, and begin to contemplate the purpose of this heady chore.

This is chestnut-tree detritus. Every autumn, descending in ligneous, spiny abandon, this fawn mat of organic matter blankets Digging Roots, our two-acre urban farm. If raked into huge piles and left undisturbed for a few years, the unfriendly mix of burrs and leaves would eventually mellow into a nutrient-rich leaf mold. If, on the other hand, it were left in place beneath the expansive arboreal reach, the very same thing would happen on a much longer timeline—as on a forest floor—and we would sacrifice valuable summer pasture, the ability to easily pluck chestnuts from the ground and perhaps the tolerance of our 12 neighbors, who are not keen on these suburban fence-lines becoming buried beneath wind-blown leaves. And so we rake.

Scritch, scritch. Resuming the satisfying rhythm, I cannot help but feel somewhat conflicted about this energy expenditure. Will I be here to utilize this leaf mold? Does it matter if I am? Does true stewardship require a sense of security?

My wife Sarah and I moved to this suburban lot roughly three years ago, ecstatic about the opportunity to develop our farming enterprise within an inspiringly vibrant social and professional community. We gladly accepted the responsibility of tending two close-in acres for what seemed very reasonable rent and the freedom to experiment with small-scale farming systems. If two acres proved an overwhelming task, we might have the social capital to rethink our long-term aspirations. Maybe I’d go back to school or take up a trade, or open a café. There are surely many ways to build a well-rounded, fulfilling livelihood.

But two acres isn’t too much for us. Quite the opposite—it isn’t enough, and we are yearning for more. The more we plan, the more we learn, the more we allow ourselves to reach for a full-time farming future, the more difficult it becomes to rake leased chestnut leaves on a sparkling Saturday afternoon. It’s impossible to pinpoint the exact moment in time when we became dissatisfied with our short-term arrangement. Slowly, subtly, we began to question the sanity in a system that does not encourage long-term decisions about our place.

Scritch, scritch, scritch. How do these monstrous piles of mined minerals, later to be deposited upon our vegetable beds, and eventually spread upon our dinner tables, fit into a month-to-month lease? How does the improvement of our pasture, later to be grazed by healthy chickens and lambs, further enhanced through dung and selective palates, and transformed into sustainable solar protein, fit into a month-to-month lease? Scritch, scritch. This labor, this tined effort is at least a four-year investment in soil fertility, self-sustenance and business security. As human participants in an all-encompassing cycle of life, death and return, the most efficient work is work that provides a service toward future fertility, diversity and resilience. Sarah and I are learning that the principle of working less, smarter, is easily applied within a system that maximizes the natural regeneration of our most valuable resources.

Our successful role as stewards seeking to survive, thrive and grow from the bountiful surplus of solar energy is completely dependent upon unwavering observation and well-timed participation. We need to see ourselves as part of the future of a place, and then perhaps we may be rewarded with the “interest” of life-long stewardship.

With this in mind, we hope to own land someday soon. Over two years ago and many leaf piles later, we started our farm search. It is an emotional trial far beyond anything we could have anticipated. We’ve researched hundreds of properties, and visited dozens and dozens more. Every candidate is cause for the difficult condition of detached projection—where we try to articulate the possibilities without fostering an unhealthy connection. Weekend after weekend, we’ve thrown ourselves into this arresting duet, frequently tumbling through a brief existential crisis when the chips don’t fall quite right. Many times we’ve returned home to wonder if this limbo is worth the trouble.

Neither of us was born into farming. There is no land to return to, and no native cultural knowledge to draw upon. Our approach is largely a scratch-and-sniff, pay-to-play, fake-it-’till-you-make-it type of operation. Given this pursuit, there is occasion to consider how wealth (specifically land) is transferred through time and space in our culture. We come from solid, middle-class families who have worked tirelessly to provide us with a plethora of options in life. In the first place, this safety net allows us to imagine a life as farmers at all. Our parents emerged during a time when small family farms were evaporating amidst the rapid commoditization of our food system, along with a depressing decline in rural agrarian communities.

It was the ’50s, and canned food was cool. And now, as the privileged offspring of baby-boomers, we are bequeathed the resources to examine voluntary simplicity, endowed the good credit to gamble with debt, and gifted the ideological support to swim against the social fish ladder. Even so, given our relatively affluent backgrounds, strong educations and bull-headed determination, good farmland feels like an uncomfortable financial stretch.

Perhaps the single greatest irony for us is that farming itself does not initially pave a welcome path toward owning a family farm. The major reason we transplanted to Portland was to work to save money to buy land. Full-time farming, for the time being, was put on hold. The burning question is: If there is an entire generation of young, aspiring farmers chomping at the bit to realize their agricultural destiny, but they must first move to the city to gain the capital to afford the inception of that destiny, will a resettling of our rural communities happen soon enough to change the game? That the prevailing method of changing the paradigm is to capitalize on it first is a mind-boggling contradiction. Doesn’t such a model imply that we are fighting ourselves?

To put farmers on the land, and keep them there, we may need a cultural reckoning wherein the true definition of profit involves the sustained ability to productively harness the energy of the sun. And let that be enough. Unfortunately, we can’t pay a mortgage with sunshine, and in many cases, with many lenders, we aren’t even enabled to pay a mortgage with farming.

My question is: In the end, what is land really worth? Is it worth its utility? Beauty? Ecological richness? Potential for subdivision? We’ve found that this assessment is grossly arbitrary, depending on who holds the deed, and what predominates the surrounding land use. In addition, the fate of farmland no longer accessible through traditional financing structures is utterly dependent on the emotional constitution and financial expectations of the owner. Are they willing to carry the loan? Are they willing to sell below “market (development) value” so that a couple of modest means might be provided the opportunity to carry on true small-scale agriculture in that place?

One of my favorite Chinese proverbs states: “You cannot build a foundation upon the sand.” Long-term tenure is the bedrock of our future foundation. Without it, there is little incentive to prioritize regenerative agriculture over short-term gains. The management processes that flow from cautious observation are qualified only as we build life in our soil—this takes time, patience and a measure of success not easily captured through cut-and-dry cost-benefit economics. The soil, our greatest asset, appreciates in value with time and dedicated care—a task for which we, as humans, are well suited, and to which we cannot afford to tend without complete commitment to our future.

Conner Voss first joined 'Oregon Tilth' as an AmeriCorps member and has served as the Organic Education Center’s garden coordinator since October 2008. He is currently establishing a farm. This essay originally appeared in In Good Tilth , a magazine devoted to the organic movement. IGT is project of Oregon Tilth , a non-profit advocating for biologically sound agriculture.

Can I Save the World ?

HeleneJa ponders if she can indeed fight Global Warming and save the World!

With so much information out there about global warming and the effects that are causing natural disasters, is there anything we as individuals can do to make a difference? Yep! You don't need to move mountains, but a small pebble can really make ripples that can create positive changes world wide. Here's a few "pebbles" you can use today!

We all feel we have a purpose in life. As more of us become aware of the damaging effects of global warming, we are also concerned about practical solutions to the problem. Most importantly, how can we fit in as part of the solution, instead of the problem?

Unfortunately, many of us become overwhelmed when we watch the ever-increasing natural disasters and it starts to feel like the world is crashing around us. I remember watching the plane hit the World Trade Center over and over and over again. I remember being completely paralyzed to the television. Sleep was optional, but only in between important news breaks. I felt helpless. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the attacks to ease my fears of possible future attacks, but I mainly wanted a sense of control back into my life.

I do not like to focus on the doom of global warming because that's not the best mindset for me to find solutions and implement actions. I truly believe we all can make a difference in our lives, in the lives of our families, friends and community. I also am a firm believer that every single action taken produces a ripple effect throughout the world. When we take a simple action such as changing a light bulb to a compact fluorescent bulb, a positive motion is set in place.

Just for fun, let's see what can happen: (this will show how the action affects others)

- That old bulb in the living finally goes out. You go to your local hardware store and see miles of shelves of light bulbs! OY! (production of CFL bulbs)

- Someone comes over to help and maybe suggest a CFL. "A what?" you ask. The assistant tells you that even though the bulb is more expensive than a basic tungsten bulb, it will last years longer, it will not burn hot, uses way less energy, thus saving you money every month AND prevents the release of more than 450 pounds of emission from a power plant normally used to light the old style bulbs into the air! (increased sales and more potential advertisement of a green product, decreased amount of carbons released into the atmosphere)

- You read the advertisement and glimpse the familiar EnergyStar sign. So, you think, "Why not!" (increased awareness of a great program)

- You go home and your kids ask you about the funny looking bulb. (educates the kids and tell their friends how smart their parents are!)

- Your friends come over for dinner and recognize the bulb, but never really considered buying one until now. (increased awareness through word-of mouth [extremely powerful!!!] and more potential sales, advertisement, decreased emissions)

- You get the electric bill the next month and notice you really did use less electricity AND saved a little money. ($$$)

- You go to buy more CFL bulbs and realize the prices dropped a bit due to increased sales! (supply and demand of a product that improves our world)

That's just for changing one bulb! Just one action really can make an impact. Just because we do not always see the immediate results don't mean they aren't there!

So what are the best solutions of global warming? Can we help save the world? Yep. I would first suggest do whatever feels right for you. The level of comfort will be different for everyone. To me, it can be summed up as: AWARENESS and ACTION

AWARENESS

My first exposure to environmental issues came about while working at Home Depot. I watch as a person chained himself to our lumber shelves and awaited the local police. His actions, maybe a bit extreme to some, created awareness to the customers, Home Depot and the media. Many of those same actions ultimately changed the way Home Depot purchased and sold lumber.

For me, my level of comfort was turning off the lights. The more I learned, the more I did to help the environment. Learning about basic, easy-to-do home repairs really made a difference and increased my confidence as well as the confidence of my customers.

Now, years later, I must say living in Thailand has taught me a lot about saving energy as well as joining together for what you believe in. I've seen Thais go to the employment office and march because wages were too low. I have witnessed the ousting of a political figure because the Thais felt betrayed.

I have greater respect for Thais and for others I've met from different countries. Their views and actions have taught me so much about global warming. I also have greater appreciation for our abilities as Americans to make changes worldwide.

So to further answer people's question - "What are the best solutions to global warming?" My suggestions are all easy to do, but the main factor lies with what is comfortable for you. If I am given a great idea, but is too time-intensive, I probably won't do it. But if it's as easy as hitting the enter key, now you got my attention!

Ok. We are much more aware of what's going on. We understand we have a problem. Now what?

ACTION

I started with small steps. As I learned more, I found the bigger steps easier than I realized. I discussed my views with others and listened to their ideas.

My friends in Alabama recently installed solar heaters and a tankless water heater. Businesses are seeing the advantages of doing the right thing and stepping up their environmental cleaning efforts People from all walks of life have created petitions requesting a more proactive government. Even the 2008 Presidential Candidates are listening. Many are now including global warming as their primary issue.

Need some ideas to get your creative green juices flowing? OK! Here you go! Enjoy!

- Get the family involved - make it fun and educational.

- Make it a project during your child's science fair.

- Chat with your friends - they may have some unique ideas.

- Add a signature tag to your emails. I have a personal account with Yahoo. Whenever I send someone an email, my signature message or quote is at the end of the page. I create the signature once and forget about it. If you see a quote you like or have a message to share with others - signature it!

- Find out what tax incentives or refunds are available to you, i.e. hybrid car tax incentives, toilet replacement rebates, deduct the costs of energy-saving appliances and energy renovations in your home.

- Support greener businesses. Our money dictates what businesses sell. Our support encourages businesses to continue doing the right thing.

- Want to invest in the stock market? What companies are moving forward in clean-up? Researching new technologies? Contributing portions of their profits to support environmental organizations?

- Vote. What candidates are fighting for positive changes in the environment? Who seems to be making global warming a primary focus in their campaign? How does the candidate balance global warming and the economy? Does the candidate understand the threat and what solutions does he or she offer?

- Join others online and become a part of something bigger. In the past, petitions involved going door-to-door or standing near the mall entrance. Thanks to the internet, a letter to Congress has never been easier - or more effective! Read the letter already prepared. If you agree with it, type your name and hit ENTER!

- Submit your ideas to websites. I would love input from you! Your ideas can be just what someone else needed! Many websites would also benefit from your thoughts and appreciate the communication!

- Start a discussion group in your community. Barnes and Noble or Borders are excellent meetings spots. It's a great way to meet others and bounce around ideas.

- Help improve your neighborhood. In Tampa, there's a wonderful community group that has a Project Lottery. Each participant chooses a project they need completed on their house. A name is pulled every month. The neighbors spend one weekend on the project. The lucky owner provides drinks and snacks to the neighbors volunteering.

- Create a website of your own! Everyone has a voice. Today, websites are effective communicators and very inexpensive. Get the kids or the community involved. Let your voice be heard too! Even better, volunteer for Green Coalition.

HeleneJa is a writer and an environmentalist in the making!

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.