Double thinking - could counter effect thinking be better?

Companies are becoming more and more obsessed on how to make themselves look green. It's very frustrating because they are investing $$$ on producing reports and advertising saying how wonderful they are, but do not mind about their role/bargain power in high environmental value productive chains. Surprise! They are targeted by groups such as Greenpeace and suffer with punches on the stomach.

I agree that there are companies making sincere efforts to understand and to cope with environmental issues. It's not natural for them to incorporate these issues to their "lifes"and unfortunately it's not into their "DNA", let's say.

So now we are in a very special momentum: am I naïve or my generation is trying to create born-environmental-friendly companies?

- Recently a British electricity company announced that it has the lowest carbon emission amongst electricity companies there; this is because they are providing energy powered by nuclear source. So, the problem was moved elsewhere, right?

Companies try to diffuse bias messages about what they are doing, everywhere in the world. Last week ads of the brazilian oil company Petrobras (exalting its green profile and CSR practices) were banned, after another Greenpeace action.

So there are some watchdog NGOS trying to "correct the message" available to the wide public. But instead of betting on this harmful double thinking, I would appreciate if companies could at least count on counter effect thinking (at least they could avoid these incoherences).

NaPalmOil - part#3

Just found this podcast on The Guardian online where John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, explains why the environmental group holds Unilever responsible for the destruction of Indonesian rainforests and the killing of endangered orang-utans:

What Greenpeace says?

- if Unilever sorts out its supplies the company could fix deforestation 

- Unilever tries to upscale its best practices in order to avoid lights on its non-green aspects

What Unilever says?

-  Has joined the Sustainable Roundtable on PalmOil created in 2002 to deal with palmoil supply chain; and states that they are committed to find a sustainable solution (such as certification for the palmoil). Demand for palmoil has exploded; because of China and India larger consumption; and also because of the biofuels use.

What Greenpeace says #2?

- Unilever didn't deny the accusations from Greenpeace; they did not track the origin from palmoil used by them (data is all mixed up). Mr. Sauven says that Unilever has been committed to the roundtable (SRPO) but that this roundtable has just been used to cover business as usual practices from a lot of its members. Unilever knows for a long time about the problems but  members, some quite clearly involved in breaking Indonesian laws, contributed to deforestation and wiping out the orangutang's habitats, were not kicked out of the roundtable.

- Mr. Sauven say that time has come and Unilever needs to put up or shut up. Because it cannot go on claiming it is sustainable company, while at the same time they do not take responsibility for where that supply is coming from.

- Why Unilever? Every corporation involved in food or cosmetics is potentially consuming/buying palmoil. But Unilever joined the roundtable and was aware about everything that goes on related to palmoil. So there was no excuse to accept the conditions in place; and besides that, it has a lot of high profile product lines whom have palmoil as basic input. 

NaPalmOil - part #2

According to Down to Earth, Indonesia is the world's second largest palm oil producer, the third most extensive area of tropical forest and one of the richest centres of biodiversity. With Indonesia's forests disappearing at 3.8 million hectares per year, the area converted to oil palm plantations has doubled during the past decade to nearly 5 million ha.

The country is among the world's lowest-cost producers. And the costs associated with establishing environmentally and socially sustainable practices are not compatible with a competitive plantation industry. In a free market, the result is a 'race to the bottom' in terms of sustainability standards. Better standards are needed, but these are not the same thing as environmental and social sustainability. More? Click here. Or watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooCwCb6TEow

NaPalmOil - part #1

The story is like this:

1. PalmOil is a huge problem in Indonesia- but I would say that beyond a problem in itself, it strongly aggravates Indonesia's problems.

2. Greenpeace launched a campaign against Unilever (Dove products, spec.) as the company is one of the major buyers of palmoil (made in Indonesia). 

Campaign uses orangutangs and indigenous peoples as icons of vulnerability; and manipulates the original Dove campaign for liberating girls from abusive aesthetic patterns.

All my friends, from London to Manaus, are talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odI7pQFyjso&feature=user and some said they won't buy Dove anymore. 

3.  Almost all cosmetics in the world (and food, as well) use palmoil as basis. Have you noticed that even the "environment-friendly" products contain "pure vegetal oil" in its formula? Well, this is a proof that they are made of palmoil (possibly from Indonesia).

So what are the alternatives to Dove, asks a good friend of mine? There are organic and even vegan cosmetics nowadays. But they are expensive - so what about those people with take a shower everyday but can't spend US$ 5 just for a soap?

I think this debate is SUPERgood. That's why I think this is post #1. 

Media wars and the state of the Amazon, in Brazil

There are 2 media bombs dominating the political debate in Brazil - besides the tabloid-style war exploiting the murder of a 5-year-old girl tossed from the 9th floor of her parents' apartment (or something like that). 

No.1 is the conflict between rice farmers and indigenous peoples in Roraima, which has been escalated during last weeks since some representatives from the Brazilian Army decided to give their opinions about the case and provoke a big media war. Now there are several "bullshit experts" having their thoughts expressed in the most important media vehicles, as if they were THE wise voices on Amazon issues. My opinion? These people are contributing to misinform Brazilian population about what really matters in Roraima and they use the same old scarecrows to do it. I totally agree with Manuela da Cunha&Ana Valeria Araujo positions on yesterday's FSP. But anyway... we can talk more about WHAT this is conflict is all about later.

The media bomb no. 2 is related to "deforestation vs world food crisis". Mato Grosso State's Governor, Blairo Maggi, gave a speech on Friday about deforestation as a remedy to the food crisis: he defended that "the right to deforest" (it means opening new areas, provided that not illegally) is an inevitable mechanism to meet the growing demand for food in the world.

Mato Grosso is the in the "border" of the Amazon and other biomas; and is one of the biggest soya producer sites in the world. The State has been largely and fastly deforested in last 10 years.

Blairo Maggi defended a global dialogue on how to reach a balance between nature conservation and food production, as climate changes are already negatively affecting many production areas while investments on biotechnology are still palliative; "they could appease the crisis, but barely in the short run".

After this declaration, a lot of reactions came: Brazil's Ministry of Environment opposed to deforestation as a remedy to the food crisis ("we cannot deal with the problems using the same ineffective solutions"said the Minister), yesterday. Today, the Green Party asked for clarification from Maggi's side and there is an article in Folha de Sao Paulo where a representative of farmers's sindicate affirms that the forest has extremely low economic value, thus cattle ranching is "the business" for the Amazon. This sir also denies the connection between deforestation and violence, which is also another hot topic.

As you see, things are VERY hot down there...

 

KlimaBil 2008

Before e-GLO's session today, I was at KlimaBil 2008 which brought people to the Youngstortinget plass (in Oslo) to showcase eco-cars such as those who are fueled by hydrogen, biofuels, etcera. Klima= climate; Bil = car in Norwegian. The event was promoted by ZERO, a Norwegian NGO which aims to contribute to limiting the threat posed by climate change by promoting carbon-free energy solutions.

There were great concerts  - I loved Maria's band and also those very funny rock'nroll guys that performed. Anyway, in the picture you see "Romiseta", a tiny car launched in the 70's. Here in Norway (in Europe, I would say) this kind of MINI cars are very popular. It is funny cause people park them everywhere (even in the middle of the street, literally!!! that's the case in Italy!).

I am not sure about how "environment-friendly" are them, as they just carry 1-2 people. But it seems that the industry is making efforts to make them more and more eco-efficient.

Young Sustainability Leaders: "Buddy Experiment"wit IUCN's CEC

Hey there! I am very excited with this Intergenerational Partnership for Sustainability (IPS) created by World Conservation Union's Comission on Education and Communication. It is certainly a very nice experience for mutual learning and I was very lucky (i think!) because my mentee is very experienced on Natural Parks and she is from Argentina! That means I'll get to know more about Conservation in the South American context (til know I just know a little bit about the reality in the Amazon countries) and also have an opportunity to practice my Spanish. The Buddy experiemnt is e-mail based ; and the buddy-matching was made by EarthCharter according to each one's manifested interests. Mine were ecological economics and payment for environmental services!

Oil barrels and coffee beans - the fight for natural resources in L.America

Today I attended the launching of "Oljetønner & kaffebønner - kampen om naturressursene" (Oil barrels and coffee beans - the fight for natural resources), 

2008'annual book of the Latin America Group in Norway (LAG). 

Unfortunately the book is available only in Norwegian . As I am struggling to learn the language, I'm gonna use it for pedagogical purposes as well ahahahah. So maybe I can translate some texts to English and share with you. 

Anyway, it offers a broad vision over what has happened in every L. American country in the past 2 years, focusing on political and social aspects. And there are very interesting articles related to "the biomass revolution", how oil companies and indigenous peoples are facing each other in the Amazon, and about the Oil for development program- another kind of Norwegian aid.