Going Green: Some hard questions

Going green is an in-thing. People do it for different reasons and at different levels. Its a feel good factor for few and others take it as a part of their responsibility. For some it’s a passion and others see a great business opportunity in it. For whatever reasons, over the last decade -it’s the most heard, used, abused, underestimated and far less understood term..

Being environment friendly is a life style and not an activity. It’s about EVERYDAY and not just on Earth day or on Environment day thing. But without being too cynical, and also accepting the fact that dedicated days are the invention of activity obsessed generation, we should not forget that activities on one particular day or one off events, or a superficial approach can not undo the harms . Tribulations by- our reckless life style, lack of long term policies at the state level, and the significance of dollar sign in the present commercial world. Our present day environmental crises need more consistent and honest approach as a solution. There are also questions investigated by environmental ethics. Some of them are specific questions faced by individuals in particular circumstances, while others are more global questions regarding certain practices by larger groups and communities and also its accountability by the developing nations verses developed nations.

If we look at it from a broader horizon, do we need to be environment friendly because we have no other way out? We all know that a sustainable environment is essential to human well-being and its future, but is that the solitary reason for us to take care of it? Or do as a superior and intelligent creatures of the planet we own it to our planet more than other spices? On the contrary, spices with less intelligence or even no intelligence (as per our parameters) have harmed planet earth far less than we the intelligent ones. Interestingly, Dr Jean-Christophe Vié, who works at IUCN headquarters in Switzerland and has his PhD in ecology, writes – “There is no doubt that nature can survive without humans - and has done so, for the most part, since time began. But humans need nature”. We indeed do need nature but sadly going by what we are doing to mother earth, nature does not need us. Is it what intelligence got us –a not so welcomed status on this very earth? So what do we do?

One can always make a start. Small little steps at individual level can not be undermined. We need to understand term GREEN more than it is understood by most of us. Popular green tips, green habits, suggestions to feel good about green, need to be understood and adopted in totality.

Minding ones own ecological footprint is not as easy as it sounds. Even those who may consider themselves to be concerned about the environment would be gobsmacked if they look at the ecological footprints they leave. Just to add few examples : If using energy saving bulbs make you an environmental friendly person, how you dispose it can make you otherwise. Post usage, if one does not dispose off energy saving bulb properly it can harm environment more than it actually helped. Similarly, one cannot donate money to the organisations working for ecology, animals, bio- diversity and yet turn every inch of his or her house to a concrete, or contribute in any which way in the practices that harm bio diversity. It could be usage of leather, watching circus, buying products with palm oil, which contributes in the destruction of rainforests and hence disturbs ecology. Dr Christophe explains it simply yet clearly- “Everything you buy, I mean if you buy tropical wood, if you have a big car and you want to use bio-fuels, this is produced in a place where you have monkeys, where you have apes. The same will cell-phones. I mean a special mineral comes from a place where gorillas live so you have an impact directly by, what you buy you have a direct impact on primate population”.

Learning green is about adopting a philosophy .First you understand it, then you get convinced and then follow. Environment is for us to keep. We need oceans, forests and other spices more than they need us. Setting policies for realistic goals, building public opinion on environmental issues, and adopting a lifestyle where Reduce is better than Reuse, Reuse is better than Recycle and Recycle is better than sending things to landfills can help us take regular little steps towards bigger goals.

Merry-go-round of Mothers’ milk

Today, children are being born in a pre-packaged world. Everything is available in packages including the baby food. In some cases, child is exposed to artificial food in the very first week. Gone are the days of wet nurses, but the formula milk is there to help mothers who either could not breastfeed their babies or choose not to do so. In Europe and America during the early 19th century, practice of feeding babies mixtures based on animal milk rose in popularity. And it also initiated the debate on its health and environmental concerns.

As paediatricians became increasingly concerned about the quality of such foods, medical recommendations such as Thomas Morgan Rotch's "percentage method" (published in 1890) began to be distributed, and gained widespread popularity by 1907.These complex formulas recommended that parents mix cow's milk, water, cream, and sugar or honey in specific ratios to achieve the nutritional balance believed to approximate human milk reformulated in such a way as to accommodate the believed digestive capability of the infant.(source: Wikipedia).This also reinforced that the human milk is best suited for the human babies . Not to miss the planet they are born into!

Formula milk has its impact on child’s health and on earth’s environment. Other than exceptions, when mothers can not feed their children due to health reasons, formula milk has helped nobody. In any case, the percentage of women who physically can't breastfeed is VERY small. It has been promoted to all mothers since late 19th century. An advertisement for artificial infant milk, by Nestle, appeared in the ladies’ home journal was way back in 1895.

We (read market) have always been cleaver to come up with options, which have helped the consumers less than their producers. Our desire to look for solutions has, mostly, given us new set of problems to solve. Formula milk came as solution to wet nursing and gave us unhealthy children. It has been recognised since the advent of manufactured infant milks that infants fed on such products suffer more illness. They are denied the benefits of auto immunisation of mother’s milk. It also introduced children to the world of rubber and plastics through feeding bottles. Contamination of formula milk (Even in developed countries with refrigeration, clean water and sterilising equipment),impact of packaging involved and its impact on environment……..the list of disadvantages is long. To tackle the situation new solutions are being worked out.

Scientists are trying to come up with a substitute for formula milk, as it’s now widely considered a less healthy substitute to breast milk. According to the Telegraph, scientists have recently introduced 300 GMO cows that produce milk genetically similar to breast milk.

When the world is still debating the impacts of genetically modified food (both for animals and humans), health concern associated with the use of breast like milk from these GM cows is not clear so far. Going by our past experiences with such experiments, it wouldn’t be too presumptuous to say that the emerging solution/s to this self generated problem can again lead us to a new level of troubles. Wouldn't it make more sense just to breast feed in the first place in stead of going Marry-go –round with mothers’ milk?

To see a world in a grain of sand

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand

And eternity in an hour.

- - William Blake, “Auguries of Innocence,” c. 1803

Pens in memory of Gandhi but not for the Gandhians

Usually I write on environment only, but few things just make me think aloud.


Albert Einstein, the renowned scientist once said about Gandhiji that - Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this had walked the earth in flesh and blood. If alive today, Gandhi ji would not have believed there is pen named after him, which no TRUE Gandhian can ever buy! The Pen does not suit their pocket and Gandhian values.


The world famous pens manufactures Mont Blanc, is bringing out two sets of premium pens in memory of Mahatma Gandhi. One series - the Mahatma Gandhi Limited Edition-241 series — will commemorate the Mahatma's 241-km march during the Salt Satyagraha. The other series - the Mahatma Gandhi Limited Edition-3000 - will commemorate all those who followed him. Set of premium pens cost Rs 11.3 lakh, an amount, which Gandhi ji wouldn’t have spent on his personal belongings in his entire life.

Gandhi ji use to write on both sides of paper to avoid wastage and used a normal pen but what ever he wrote was written with conviction and truth.He stood for everything that was non-elitist and now there is pen, which only elites can buy and probably use. Hope they will, at least , ONLY use the pen to sign deals based on Gandhian values.

Obama - From US to Copenhagen

As we are merely three and a quarter years away to fulfill Kyoto Protocol , policy makers are gearing up for another international treaty. World leaders and policy makers are meeting again in Copenhagen to sign another treaty in December on climate change. From 7 December 2009, environment ministers and officials will gather in Copenhagen for the COP15 UN climate conference to thrash out a successor to the Kyoto protocol. (The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.)

I had written in my earlier post too- Copenhagen or Kyoto Protocol, no treaty or deadline based agreement can be made possible without mutual participation and ‘Genuine WILL’ based on trust and common interest, which in the case of climate change is indeed common. A balance between national interest of each country and climate change is something, which is crucial. Though President Obama in his speech today, emphasised on the positive steps taken in the last eight months, under his administration, the American reluctance to accept any agreement that would require legally binding and internationally enforceable targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could doom the Copenhagen session.

Paying poor countries for protecting forests is again something I am not able to comprehend. In fact, more I read and understand world practices (in both rich and poor world) more I am confused. And often I am reminded of my father, who says- at times solutions are more dangerous than the problems. But that does not mean we have to sit and watch the world move towards point of no return (if we have not reached there already). Hope something good will emerge from Copenhagen conference.


Anyway,what I liked, as always, in Obama’s speech today on Climate change is: his skill to include efforts at individual level. “Each of us should do what we can and when we can”, this simple line meant a lot to me both as a listener and as an environmental communicator. I have been following his speeches, specially related to environment, which started right from his very first presidential speech. He was the first president to mention climate change and need to change our lifestyles at individual levels.

Hope he actually makes -'Yes We Can' possible.

Here is the text of Obama's speech:

Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.
No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.
The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.
And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man." It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.
We're making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy -- an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits -- projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We're investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances -- helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We've proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks -- a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We're moving forward with our nation's first offshore wind energy projects. We're investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we'll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country. Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.
Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.


Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before. In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We've worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.
Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government. We understand the gravity of the climate threat.
We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.
But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress. We came because there is so much more progress to be made. We came because there is so much more work to be done.
It is work that will not be easy. As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.
But difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress. Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet -- and we must all do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.
We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead. And we will continue to do so by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.
But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well. Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy. Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.

There is no other way.
We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations -- especially the poorest and most vulnerable on a path to sustainable growth. These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution. For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet -- famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources. Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both. It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.
What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet. By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nation’s leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done. We know that our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world. And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long. The journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make it. It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children. Thank you.



And what I would say- God bless the world for the future generations.

Trees for treaties

I have been heartened by the recent G8 meeting in which the world's industrialised powers agreed on an objective ceiling of 2C temperature rise. Soon a new U.N. climate agreement is due to be signed in Copenhagen. But can we achieve such objectives without mutual consensus between all countries? The objective cannot be achieved without mutual consensus between rich and poor countries. Presently, developing countries feel that rich countries have already enjoyed two centuries of industrialisation, but they disagree with developing nations on how much of the burden they should carry under a new treaty.

There is, however, consensus on role of forests in tackling emission issues. We all know that forests and tree planting can help mitigate the effects of global warming by increasing carbon storage and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. More and more Northern and Southern governments, bilateral development agencies, multilateral development banks and big conservation NGOs are arguing that “countries” should be compensated for protecting the “carbon reservoirs” in standing forests. Some governments even propose that there should be economic incentives for developing countries to protect forests .Such incentives should come from a specialised international fund created from public money from donor countries. On the other hand, terms like “carbon finance” and “carbon forestry” are applying new definitions and discussions to the situation. Such practices are dismissed by few due to the notion that the value of forests can be reduced to the monetary value by the defaulters. For the native people the non-monetary cultural and spiritual values of their forest are of utmost importance and must be respected.

International community can help by developing faith and communicating with local communities, partnership between policy makers and grassroots communities, cooperation between developing and developed nations and awareness about larger loss in case of loss of forests can make all the difference to the existing situation for achieve larger goals. More trees for new treaties are indeed crucial.

We Act Nature Reacts-Simple

Newton's laws of motion –to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction –is actually so well applicable on all laws of nature. It was naive of us all to challenge the nature. Today world’s biggest challenge is to deal with nature’s challenge. Every year increased numbers of cyclones, hurricanes, new flues are threatening us the way we threatened the way nature works, with our reckless actions. In spite of advance medical technology, we are often caught unprepared for health threats. Latest Swine flue is just one of the examples.

In 1962, author of Silent Spring Rachel Carson forecast that persistent pesticides would silence the world’s birds –and perhaps make the world unliveable for humankind as well. Today, in spite of the fact that we are able to set out cloned human genes in clusters on a glass slide to test suspect poisons and the genes of similar, representative groups are being studied to see what slight changes in their so-called "susceptibility" genes make them more – or less – susceptible to cigarette smoke, industrial chemicals, pesticides and sunlight, we are still prone to the predictions of Rachel Carson.

Fabric Softeners: Not soft on your Health

Soft towels, fluffy fleeces and synthetic fabrics don’t cling. What’s not to like? Well, try skin irritation, increased flammability and environmental pollution, for starters. It seems the average bottle of fabric softener has a dark side.

Around the world affluent consumers spend millions in a year to keep their fabrics soft but the problem is that fabric softeners are not soft on the health and the environment. It can be harmful to both the people who use them and the marine life that ends up swimming in them.

Most fabric softeners are emulsions of water and cationic surfactants, which can cause skin irritation. Consumers never know which surfactant is used because manufacturers are not required to list this on the pack. Because the mechanics of fabric softening don’t vary from brand to brand, manufacturers have turned to perfume to distinguish their products from one another- indeed, many believe fragrance is a key factor in increasing sales. These products are often marketed as luxury items, in much the same way as health and beauty products, which customers are encouraged to purchase in a range of scents to suit all moods.

Manufacturers are not obliged to write harmful chemicals list on the products neither there is a law, which can make them write but, no one can stop you from finding out what you are paying for. You just need to keep our eyes open to what is good for our health and the environment.

Be aware for your own health