We can't even decide on how to save the world

I was once in a meeting that was organising part of the G8 rally in Germany's Heiligendamm (G8 summit 2007). I didn't really know what kind of meeting it was at the time (I'm talking about the meeting, not the G8 summit :-)), I was only told it had something to do with G8 and I was sent by my organisation to represent us. Not knowing how to dress, I'd rather overdress than underdress. So I wore my suit and my tie, and after a 5-hour trip I was anxious to see who's involved.

Where have I landed?
I finally arrived there, I found the door, and reached for the handle. I enter a room with people in their pullovers and T-Shirts, as casual as they come. The closest thing to formal was a buttoned-up rolled-up shirt. There were about 30 people from 20 different organisations in a big round table ordered in a circle (I think only 4-5 women were there).

So after a short time of amazement, I took my tie off, loosened the top shirt button and now fit better into the group. Though I still had the feeling they think I was some traitor with a corporate background. As it turns out they were discussing about the logistics, the planning of the G8 rally and the main message they wanted to present to the G8 leaders. Some very left representatives were there, the most notable fellow was a mid-20 year old german student with a pullover and rasta curls (I don't want to judge by appearances, but it was obvious after the first hour he was quite a left activist).

No, I won't listen to you, but you're sure as hell are going to listen to me
The problem is when 20 different groups all want to be heard there can often only be one outcome, either everyone has to make a compromise or not much happens. The problem at the meeting was, many times when we were close to coming a decision, someone would say: "Sorry, no, I can't accept that. The document is missing the phrase [enter phrase here]." This phrase or word could be peace, it could be social justice, it could be climate change. So at that point an endless argument would break out, and already in agenda point 2 we're not on schedule anymore. One guy even pretended to take a nap because he was offended no one would understand that his idea was the best one (this guy was annoying and destructive in the discussion process, but he wasn't the only one).

The Economist's Green.View had a report on the breaking up of environmental groups and had an analogy that they found in a movie:

Among the many targets of “The Life of Brian”, a satirical Monty Python film, is the tendency of radical left-wing political movements to splinter. The film’s would-be revolutionaries of the People’s Front of Judea, the Judean People’s Front and the Popular Front of Judea are too busy quibbling and accusing each other of treachery to cause much trouble for the occupying Romans.

"But my priority is more important"
It was similar to where I was. There were peace groups, environmental groups, 3-in-1 groups (economical, ecological and social), activist groups, networking groups, discussion groups. It was a wide range of people and they couldn't decide on even wording of some of the documents.

Sometimes the disagreements are over priorities. In 2005 Britons saw David Bellamy, a noted naturalist and wildlife enthusiast, threaten to chain himself to a wind turbine to protest against plans to build a wind farm in Cumbria, a remote and unspoilt part of England. Mr Bellamy objected on the grounds that the turbines would ruin the natural beauty of the moorland. At other times, global problems are cast against local concerns. Diesel engines produce less carbon dioxide than do petrol ones, so some greens want to see the use of diesel fuel encouraged. But diesel also emits more carcinogenic particles, earning the ire of campaigners for cleaner urban air. Finally, there are arguments over basic facts. There is much debate among environmentalists as to whether plant-derived biofuels are a good thing (since they emit no extra carbon into the air) or a bad thing (since producing them can involve deforestation).

But perhaps the biggest rift is over nuclear power. Here, disagreements reach the most rarefied levels. James Lovelock, a chemist who invented the Gaia hypothesis (the earth is a balance of interdependent mechanisms) and is godfather to a generation of greens, provoked much anger and soul-searching in 2004 when he declared that nuclear power offered the only credible solution to climate change. Opposition to atomic energy, said Mr Lovelock, was based on “irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media”. Equally influential organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace preach the traditional anti-atomic doctrine.

[...]

Caught in the crossfire, many of the green movement’s foot-soldiers are tormented by doubts. Many will tell you that their own attitudes have shifted from outright opposition to nuclear power a few years ago to grudging acquiescence as the scale of the climate-change problem has become apparent.

Well, all in all, it was a very long day, but I left earlier (6-7 hours of multi-group debating was enough). I was put on their mailing list and saw similar things going on in their mailing list. Back and forth, back and forth. In the future I will try to avoid that type of meeting. It was fun and informative but not productive - not my type of meeting. There were too many people, too many didn't have interest in listening to other people's point of view. 3-4 people were the talkers and once they started talking they couldn't stop, dragging and provoking the discussions endlessly. Some people did have interest in finding a solution and were very productive and constructive, but unfortunately their voices were drowned by the bickering over small details.

I have nothing against activist groups, I think peaceful protests are needed to make your voice heard. But deciding on one direction with 30 different representatives from 20 different NGOs or NGO-ish groups just seemed impossible that day.

I'm glad the G8 summit did produce some results (nothing tangible yet) and protest were mostly kept peaceful and I hope to see some good results on climate change in Bali 2007. It would be a nice year, the G8 green light was made in my country of nationality and the decision will hopefully be made in the country I grew up.

A nice BBC report on the G8 protest in Germany 2007 (9:48 mins)

7 Reasons why you should NOT care about the environment

With all this "greenery" going around, climate change and global warming, environmental protection, biodiversity and so on and so on I have made a list of why we should NOT care about the environment.

<sarcasm>

1. Research towards the environment takes money away from other good research. Why should we invest into forests, cleaning water and clean technology? Research in these areas is just taking money away from reasonable research such as faster automobiles and stronger air-conditioners. When global warming comes I don't want to spend too much time in the over-heated car and I don't want to be sweating at home.
   
   
2. It looks ugly to have clean energy. Windparks are just so ugly with their white blades and their turning. And who wants a solar-cells covered roof? Roofs are the first thing you see when you fly over a country with an airplane. It just ruins the first impression for tourists.
   
   
3. Humans should rule earth, not insects. There are about a million known insect species, 3 times more than all other species together. If humans really want to be king of the earth, we should eliminate as many other species possible. The good thing with insects is we don't know many of them and how they function, so it's safe to kill them.
   
   
4. A rise in the number of graduating biologists. We would have a rise in the number of biologists, including marine biologists if we eradicate many types of animals and plants, because then there won't be so many different genus and species to remember. And we can always use more academics. To be more efficient, we should eradicate a whole family or even class of animals, that gets rid of a whole branch in the biological nomenclature that students have to remember.
   
   
5. Non-natural objects like buildings don't "heal" themselves like trees, therefore they need more maintenance, creating more jobs! I hope you don't oppose against this air-tight reason for creating more concrete roads and high-rise buildings. If you are against this reason, you are not very sympathetic towards the working people.
   
   
6. We would save a lot of time! We can cut the small talk short because we don't need to talk about global warming anymore or Al Gore's latest book. In meetings we can focus on money and financial growth instead of being occupied with natural resources.
   
   
7. Less worrying and no need to change lifestyles! It IS a huge hassle to get into an electric car or a hybrid instead of a normal fuel-based SUV (it just feels weird when the car makes no noise!!). And there's no need to look on a different shelf to get an energy-efficient lamp instead of the normal light bulb. I'd rather pay 4 times more for electricity than looking on another shelf! Nobody tells me where to look when I'm shopping!

Maybe you have some more ideas on how we can further ignore the environment and create a better economy? Let me know!

</sarcasm>

Just to make sure: I hope everyone understood the sarcasm behind this post :-). I wrote this to make a bit clearer how ridiculous it is to not care about the environment. There's no real reason why we can't protect our environment and create a more sustainable planet. And it might take some getting used to, but it won't hurt the quality of life - the opposite is true. Being more friendly towards the environment makes us more conscious about our surroundings.

If you want a good read on how civilisations went under because of neglecting or mis-using the environment, pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's Collapse.

Want to know more about how well-being and environmental sustainability can be used to create a happy planet? Read more about it in the Happy Planet Index.

The Big Carbon Offset Lie?

Many of you will have tried carbon offset to get a carbon neutral life or at least head towards that direction. Numerous companies are springing up from everywhere offering carbon offsetting. But are they really what they claim to be?

What is Carbon offsetting?
The world can only take so much emissions of greenhouse gases. Since people in industrialised countries emit more CO2 and other greenhouse gases through e.g. flying, driving, food packaging and production, electricity usage than the earth can handle, they try to buy carbon credits through special companies. What these carbon credits do is that for e.g. 1 tonne of greenhouse gas we "over-emit" they will save up somewhere else. Since developing countries still use old and inefficient technology, it's very cheap to invest there. So by, for example, replacing a wood-burning stove with a solar-cooker, the developing country might save a tonne of CO2 per year because solar cookers don't emit greenhouse gases. And that's how a person in an industrialised country can compensate/offset the "over-emissions".

The problem: The projects aren't working
Now, according to a very well-written Guardian story, this doesn't seem to be working.

One company, Equiclimate, which is run by Christians and recommended by the [UK] government, has sold thousands of tonnes of offset which are now worthless in financial and environmental terms. It bought up some of the special permits which allow European companies to emit specified amounts of carbon. The idea was to sell them to customers who would "retire" them, thus cutting the amount of carbon which those companies could produce. But the European commission distributed 170m too many of the permits and so the thousands which have been bought by Equiclimate's customers make no difference at all. People may believe they are offsetting the emissions from their patio heaters by signing up to the Calor Gas offsetting scheme, but the sad fact is that Calor Gas is relying on 5,000 tonnes of EU permits which it bought from Equiclimate when most of the permits were already worthless. "We chose them because they were recommended by government," a Calor Gas executive said.

[...]

Atmosfair, a German offsetting group which is well regarded for its commitment to the environment, undertook to rewrite a section of its website following a phone call from the Guardian. Since 2004, it has been offering air travellers offsets which carry the gold standard awarded by a Swiss-based group backed by dozens of environmental NGOs. In an uncertain market, this gold standard is highly desirable. But none of the five projects on which Atmosfair is relying has yet produced a single verified gold standard reduction in emissions. One project was never intended to reach gold standard; one has been withdrawn; one is stalled. The remaining two - solar-powered kitchens in India and energy from palm oil waste in Thailand - are up and running, but neither has yet completed the gold standard process. Atmosfair's founder, Dietrich Brockhagen, acknowledged that what he was selling was "forward" credits even though the two projects might fail finally to generate them. "You have a point, that the customer might not understand this," he said.

Even worse, private companies that have tried to be seen as a pioneer in greenery - even in very polluting industries - have fallen way short.

It is 20 months now since British Airways proudly announced a new scheme to deal with climate change: for the first time, passengers could offset their share of the carbon produced by any flight by paying for the same amount of carbon to be taken out of the atmosphere elsewhere. "I welcome warmly this move from BA," said the then environment minister, Elliot Morley.
And how much carbon has BA offset from the estimated 27m tonnes which its planes have fired into the air since that high-profile moment in September 2005? The answer is less than 3,000 tonnes, less than 0.01% of its emissions - substantially less than the carbon dispersed by a single day of its flights between London and New York. The scheme has been, as BA's company secretary, Alan Buchanan, put it to a House of Commons select committee earlier this year, "disappointing".

The project has failed, according to one well-placed BA executive, because one part of the company wanted to improve its image by going green while another part wanted to protect its image by saying nothing at all about the impact of air travel on global warming. The result was that the scheme was launched and then banished to a dark corner of BA's website.

A couple of days later the Guardian published another article saying that certain standards need to be set, because at the moment anyone can set their own rules.

The fast-growing but increasingly criticised carbon offset industry is at risk of being discredited by "cowboy" operators unless it draws up a recognisable set of standards that customers can trust, one of the most senior figures in the sector has warned.

The comments, from Jonathan Shopley, chief executive of the CarbonNeutral Company, highlight growing unease that blue-chip businesses could turn away from carbon credits amid increasing evidence that some schemes are of dubious value.

Even worse for the fledgling industry, many environmentalists are increasingly opposed to offsetting because they fear companies are opting for cheap and ineffectual swap schemes instead of cutting their CO2 output.

"There are credibility issues and there are cowboys around," said Mr Shopley. "It is probably to be expected for an industry at this stage but we need a set of standards and outside verification so that self-regulation can engender trust and integrity in the market."

But at least it's good that efforts are being made.

CarbonNeutral, one of the biggest offsetting companies in the UK, has already developed its own off setting standards, verified by independent assessors. The growth of the London-based firm underlines the growing interest in climate change and carbon off setting around the City.

"We have doubled our revenues over the last financial year and whereas two years ago we would get one inbound call a week about offsetting, it is now over 100," said Mr Shopley, who is supporting the Climate Group, a non-profit organisation, in its attempts to draw up rules under a "voluntary carbon standard".

This is a good thing, because some companies, well-intentioned in their drive towards carbon neutrality have run into problems.

HSBC, the global banking group which promised to go carbon neutral in 2005, says its experiences of trying to offset carbon led it to draw some harsh conclusions.

"The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking at this," Francis Sullivan, an environment adviser to the bank, told the FT.

SustainaBee says: I've never believed that much in carbon offsetting. Maybe once doubts can be cast aside, I will put a little money there. Until then, why not take that extra money that you would have spent on buying carbon credits and use it for implementing measures that can reduce your carbon emissions? E.g. change all your light bulbs to energy-efficient ones (save up to 80% of electricity!), switch your water tap with a more water-saving one (save up to 40% of water per tap!), save up the money for a flat-screen TV or a flat-screen monitor, or maybe get an iMac, a very energy-efficient PC.

Will my bank save the world?

I've been waiting for weeks for the letter. Though their processing may not be as standardised and super-efficient as big institutions, I think the company's idea is a really cool one. And that's why I waited, day after day. And then, one saturday morning, I looked into the mailbox and: Voila!

GLS Bank
Today it finally arrived! "Dear Mr. Adria, as per request we have opened your internet banking account..." and so on. What I'm talking about is that I finally have my GLS Bank account. The bank was founded about 30 years ago and was the first german bank to have an ethical philosophy as their driving force. GLS is an abbreviation for (translated) Community Bank for Loans and Gifts.

What's so special about them is that all the money I have in my account will only be loaned for purposes that they have deemed loan-worthy (such as renewable energy, organic farming, health, social causes). Even better, they choose about 10 areas they will invest in, and I can choose specifically in which of these 10 areas my money will be put in. I chose renewable energy. So, by law, for every 1 EUR I have in my bank account, they can loan 12,5 EUR for a renewable energy project - isn't that great?! There's a second bank like this in Germany, the Umweltbank (Environmental Bank) and I think UK's Cooperative Bank has a similar idea behind it. I don't know which other countries have banks like this, but if you do, write to me!

Big Finance catching up on sustainability issues
Of course big finance institutions don't want to get left behind, CitiGroup wants to direct 50 billion USD in the next 10 years towards fighting climate change and HSBC goes carbon-neutral. Financial Times has even set up a Sustainable Banking Award and many banks want to get on this list.

The Dilemma: 50 billion USD or 100%?
My dilemma now lies in whether I should stay with CitiBank, who are willing to finance huge sums to projects against climate change or whether I should move to the bank that will invest ALL its money into sustainability-related projects (environmental, social, cultural, community)?

This is similar to the investing dilemma of best-in-class approach (where I invest in the most sustainable companies in ANY sector, even oil) vs. a sector-only approach (where I only invest in a certain sector, say, environmental technologies).

For now I will have money in both accounts, but I can see in the future that I will change completely to the GLS Bank.

Why we still need a CitiGroup
In the end, we will still need the CitiGroups of the world. It's the big ones that can move the markets, the small ones often give the impulses and the ideas. It's quite improbable that a small bank will grow so fast just through their environmental action. It's improbable that the small sustainable local store chain will be bigger than "big bad" Wal-Mart, and I don't think they want to. But it is probable that Wal-Mart will move towards a more environmentally friendly direction. And this is what we need: The big movers moving in the right direction.

But at the moment it's often mini-steps they're taking. CitiGroup, with profits at 21,5 billion USD in 2006 and assets close to 1,9 trillion (that's one thousand nine hundred billion!) it makes the sum of 50 billion USD in financing seem quite small now. So until they make bigger steps, I will move my money to my new environmentally friendly bank.

Small Actions to Change the World #1 (Carnival)

I'm delighted to launch the first edition of the Carnival "Small Actions to Change the World" with this post! This will be a monthly carnival with articles that contain small actions any person can make in order to create a better and more sustainable world! Although some articles were posted after deadline, I will still include them here, I'll make it my Small Action to Change the World :-).

We kick-off this Carnival with an article from Chris Baskind from LighterFootstep, he tells us Why small changes matter. This is an excellent introductory post for this first Carnival.

Tracy from The EcoStreet Blog presents How to host an eco-friendly children's party. To the parents: Small actions with little kids could result in big action with big grownups later :-).

PlasticLess presents Five Easy Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Use. Be sure to check it out and start saving today!

Jess Sand from Small Failures gives you 5 Steps to a Better Farmers' Market Experience. Keep these in mind next time you go to there!

Jeremy Hobbs from Jeremy's Consumer's Corner presents an innovative web platform SwitchPlanet.com. His opinion on the site "I'm loving the combination of reducing waste, and charitable donations. Great service!"

Astrid Lee from Therapeutic Reiki presents World Healing a worldwide distant healing initiative which you can join from anywhere. Why not give it a try?

Riversider from Save The Ribble present a photo-rich article on the Mud and Maritime Festival. He explains: "We help explain the importance of River's Mud for wildlife at Preston's Maritime Festival."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of "small actions to change the world!" using our carnival submission form. The next deadline is July 20th! Also visit our blog carnival index page to get more information.

I want to end this article with a story. An old man once walked along the beach. Suddenly in the distance he saw colours on the beach. He went over to see what it was. It turns out that these were starfish. There were so many of them washed up from the sea. Though he was amazed, he didn't think about it twice and just went further for a walk when he saw a child - this child was throwing starfish into the ocean. One by one. The old man walked up to him and said: "What are you doing? There are so many of them - you won't be able to save them all!" To this the child replied: "I might not be able to save them all." The child picked up a starfish and said: "But I can save this one. And this one. And this one."

130 Scientists on the Polar Star to check European Seas' Ecosystems

The ship "Polarstern" (Polar Star) is in icy waters. Just a couple of months ago it was on the Atlantic Ocean doing measurements on the climate and atmosphere.
Now it is on a big journey to Northern Norway and Spitzbergen, where they will examine the Ecosystem of the deep European oceans.

130 Scientists from 11 countries are taking part in this adventure, which is split into 3 phases as part of a project for the International Polar Year 2007-2008. With the help of the manned underwater vehicle JAGO the coral reefs of the deep ocean can be analysed, photographed and tested. Additionally to the Pilot one scientist can sit in this vehicle which can go as deep as 400 metres.

For about 3 weeks, until the 21st of June, 4 pupils will take part in the expedition as part of HERMES (Hotspot Ecosystem Research on the Margins of European Seas). From then on, the scientists will report on the happening on board the Polarstern for about 3 weeks and after that it's the teachers' turn to report for two weeks.

Found via:

• Pupils on the journey with Polarstern - A diary (Readers Edition, german only)

SustainaBee says: Wow, how exciting! The students must be also very delighted to be on board! I hope the EU has more projects in the future where kids, pupils and students can participate.
I will surely report back once the journey is over!

Ads, Ads, Ads: UNEP's Creative Gallery on Sustainable Communications close to 1000 ads!

The UNEP Production and Consumption Branch has created a gallery of sustainability advertisements. At the time of writing the advertisement database has grown to 970 ads! Some of them are quite funny, such as the ads which were shown in Thailand (created by Saatchi & Saatchi) featured below. The themes range from Energy to Production Patterns, from Disaster Reduction to Education and Awareness. They have also recently introduced a rating feature, so you can rate the ads after registering.

Take a look and browse around!

(the video quality is better in the UNEP gallery)

Morocco looks to be first arabic country to draft law to promote renewable energy

As the first arabic country Morocco has drafted a law to promote renewable energy. Its system leans towards the german Renewable Energy Act. This is where power supply companies are obligated to pay a fixed price for electricity produced through renewable energy. So when a person has a solar roof, the person can put it into the national grid and the company is obligated to pay a fixed amount. The cost of this is spread among all power suppliers, so the companies get their fair share of burden.

Changes on paper for this new law are not out of the question but the resolution has been accepted by the general secretary of the government. The goal of the new law is to raise the percentage of renewable energy from currently 2 percent upto 10 percent until 2010.

SustainaBee says: Great, more and more countries are hopping on board the renewable energy train. Let's hope the law is set soon and Morocco and this sun-rich country can start building solar power and wind power plants!


Found via:

• Umweltschutz-News.de article (german only)

Further reading:

• German Feed Laws Power Nation to New Renewable Record in 2006 (Wind Works, February 2007)
  

eBay UK launches FairTrade portal

eBay UK has just recently launched an eBay FairTrade portal. It will have 3 main categories, these are: Clothes & Accessories, Jewellery, Home & Garden. All of the items will have a set price (no bidding). This will make it easier for buyers because instead of going to one shop to get FairTrade items, they can choose from a number of suppliers (at the time of writing there were 9 sellers).

SustainaBee says: This is great! The UK has often been pioneering things concerning FairTrade and also environmental actions. I hope other eBay-countries follow in their footsteps and add a FairTrade or environmental portal.
I hope it doesn't come to a FairTrade price war on eBay, something which might have a opposite reaction of what FairTrade is actually about.

Further reading/references:

• eBay UK FairTrade portal
• About FairTrade standards (fairtrade.co.uk)
• Voting with your trolley (Economist article, critical look on whether shopping fair/organic helps)
  

Airbus determined to cut flight emissions by half until 2020

Airbus, the big aircraft manufacturer wants to cut its flight emissions by half until 2020.

"The industry must do everything it can to ensure that the contribution to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by air transport does not increase from two to three percent as planned," Gallois told a press conference. "Starting in 2008 Airbus will increase its budget for research and technology by 25 percent" as part of an effort to ensure that by 2020 all new Airbus aircraft will emit half the amount of carbon dioxide released at present.

Airbus currently spends 350 million euros (466 million dollars) on research and technology. Gallois said that in the manufacturer's industrial and production operations the goal is also to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2020 and to cut energy consumption by 30 percent.

He called on Boeing and other aerospace players to take part in a meeting in the next few months to discuss environmental issues confronting the aviation industry. "I call on our partners, our suppliers and our competitors to forge a common vision on how to become a green industry, for new ideas will only spring from a common effort by all the key players.

SustainaBee says: This is great that they're finally doing an effort. But as we've learned from industry, often times words are spoken - especially when people are currently listening - but actions not taken. Once a trend ends (in this case - cleaning up the environment) companies suffer from amnesia. It is a good step by Airbus but we have to wait and see to see the results.

Further reading/references:

• On airplane's invisible CO2 (SustainaBee Post)
  

This is your home, it's the only one you've got!

Watch this very cool video from Global Mindshift. Or you can also view it here directly through an uploaded YouTube video (the time synch on the YouTube video is a bit off towards the end).

Was Robin Hood a banker? German banker gives money to poor customers

In the city of Odenwald an employee has been charged with unloyalty in 168 cases and is looking towards jail time of up to 3 years. What are the reasons behind this?

Well in the time between January 2001 and January 2006 the bank worker has been "transfering" money from certain customers' account to other customers' account. The reason behind this was that he wanted to give the money to the people who didn't have enough liquidity and under normal circumstances wouldn't have gotten a new loan.

How was this possible? Well he did several things, in one case he took some stocks from some customers sold them without placing an order and received 83.000 EUR for that. In other cases he faked telephone calls with customers who wanted to transfer money - so to make the impression that he was taking normal orders. This put in another 765.000 EUR. Another 300.000 EUR he made was through - among others - creating false money transfer forms. And he also took money as cash from the customers account (he had a anaging position and therefore had the power to do so) and gave them in cash to another customer or just cashed it into the bank account. This made another 949.000 EUR.

But he lost track of the accounts and the exact transfers. So while he tried to compensate the money which were transferred away from the customers' account in some way, he failed to compensate 640.000 EUR of the money.

He has been charged and can have it revised by a higher instance of the court system. He will probably do so because he will go to jail and won't get any probation.

SustainaBee says: Well, the intention was good, but the methods were all wrong and doesn't make it right. It would be nice to live in a society where money is more equally distributed, but stealing from people is not the answer.


Found via:

• CSR-News.net story (german only)