The economy is not an act of god, we made it, we can change it.

This is an article by Ruth Chircop, student and Greenhouse member, on sustainble economies and previously published on the Insiter Magazine

-------------

In the year 3500 an alien spacecraft was hovering around the planet known as Earth. This planet seemed to be full of biodiversity and a very beautiful planet to live on and it baffled the young aliens in the space shuttle why there is no more humans living on such a beautiful looking planet.

So the captain started explaining how the planet has spent the last 1000 years recovering its beauty after all humans extincted themselves through living in an unsustainable way and eventually burnt out the whole planet and made the planet an unlivable place for themselves.

Hopefully we may be still in time for the scenario above to be just exaggerated figment of my imagination. Right now our economic machine seems to be heading off the cliff to the abyss of environmental, economical, social and cultural catastrophe. We are not approaching the ecological limits to growth we are well past them. Matthias Wackennagel one of the founders of the footprint analyzes says that we will need the equivalent of two earths by the late 2030s to keep up with our demands. But we do not have two earth's and even if we did in a couple of hundred years time if we keep consuming, producing and creating waste at the same rate we are, we will run out of the second earth cause as Einstein points out “You cannot solve problems from the same thinking that created them. A radical change is needed. More economical growth in the rich countries is simply unsustainable. Serge La Touche a French economist, behind the Degrowth movement criticizes economic growth and consumerism.

The Degrowth movement is a political, economic and social movement based on environmentalist, anti consumerist and anti capitalist ideas. Key to the concept of growth is that reducing consumption does not require a decrease in well being but rather aim to maximize well-being through non consumptive means- sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community. In late 2001 he spoke in UNESCO conference in Paris calling for a selective economic contraction to stop environmental decay. His influence goes well beyond French borders. In Italy the magazine Carta spreads the critique of development and economic growth. Grass root movement networks formed Climate Justice Action, which aims to take the urgent actions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change including embracing Degrowth as an alternative. The idea is also spreading outside Europe. Ana Ester Cecena from the National Autonomous university of Mexico says Degrowth has also taken root in Latin America “We know that capitalism leads to large scale catastrophe. We need to confront it with radical changes in our way of life”

Sustainability is the key. We cannot continue consuming, creating waste, polluting and extracting from earth at the rate we are doing. Sustainability is the ability or capacity of something to be maintained or to sustain itself. It’s about taking what we need to live now, without jeopardizing the potential for people in the future to meet their needs. If an activity is said to be sustainable it should be able to continue indefinitely. “Sustainability is the optimal balance of natural, economic, and social systems over time." The Florida Center for Community Design & Research

And our economic system right now is everything but sustainable. We are extracting natural resources at a faster rate than they are being renewed. We are leading lives addicted to mindless consumerism which are depleting the planet's resources. A new way of measuring our well being is needed. One that is not based on continuous economic growth to the detriment of our planet. The kingdom of Bhutan has already done this. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was replaced by Gross National Happiness as its core metric of economic success. Bhutan is asking itself the question that everyone must ask: how can economics, cultural social and environmental issues be integrated in a sustainable way.

According to leading economist Jefferey Sachs this kingdom has “embarked on serious journey” and “the rest of the world’s economies should do the same”. We need a social and cultural conceptual change in the way we evaluate progress , and realize what is truly important in life. The economy is not an act of god we made it we can change it. We need to seriously consider ways of combining economic well-being with environmental sustainability, cultural vitality and social equity before, in the immortal words of Jim Morrison, "the shit house goes up in flames."

Coverage of the 'Legality Now!' Rally

Greenhouse supports the 'Legality Now' rally.

A clear statement will be made in the coming days in Valletta. A statement by the major Environmental NGOs together with Greenhouse to state that legality must be upheld and that political commitments in relation to environmental law must be upheld.
The rally in question here is the 'Legality Now' rally which seeks not to influence policy but to fight back the weakening of environmental law enforcement at present. From illegal hunting and trapping to air pollution, ODZs, abuse of Nature 2000 sites and unauthorized ground water extraction the spectrum is wide and the environmental laws are not being upheld and given the priority they require. In a small state as that of Malta the limited and fragmented nature of our environment deserves greater care and respect from Us who lend this land from future generations. All of whom have a right to the natural endowement of this land!

Greenhouse will be present and invites everyone to join its ranks at the rally.

Uphold Legality!

Join the Rally!

___________________________________________________________________


Message by the Rally organisers:

The Prime Minister has ignored repeated calls by environmental NGOs to enforce the law for the proper protection of the urban and rural environment, while MEPA continues to bend rules and policies to favour private interests at the cost of the national interest.

Consequently the Maltese natural and cultural heritage is being irreparably damaged by

ABUSE OF NATURA 2000 SITES – FOMM IR-RIH, BAHRIJA AND TA’ BALDU

ENCROACHMENT ON ODZ - SCRAPYARDS, SEA BANK HOTEL EXTENSION, QALA, RAMLA L-HAMRA

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND TRAPPING

AIR POLLUTION - TOXIC EXHAUST, CONSTRUCTION DUST & DELIMARA POWER STATION

UNAUTHORIZED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION

DESTRUCTION OF HERITAGE - QORMI KNIGHTS’ ARMOURY

SHAM PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FREEPORT & VALLETTA REGENERATION PLANS - VIOLATION OF STRUCTURE PLAN

The situation has become intolerable and undemocratic

Join the RALLY on Saturday 13th March at 10am at City Gate, Valletta

Organisations Supporting the Rally: Nature Trust Malta, Birdlife Malta, FAA, Moviment Graffiti, FOE, MOAM, Ramblers Malta and Greenhouse.

Environment Fair Debate

For the Environment Fair organised by KSU, Greenhouse will be setting up this Debate.

Fragile! Handle with Care.

The purpose of this debate is to draw light and provide a platform to Environmental NGOs who have seen political support fall in recent months. From Spring Hunting to Nature Reserve Management and ODZs, 3 central ENGOs from the environmental lobby will be presenting their case and have views expressed on campus. Together with the MEPA's Director of Environment Protection.

Date:

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Time:

12:00pm - 1:30pm

Place:

Quadrangle, University of Malta

Panel:
Nature Trust
Mr. Vincent Attard (President)
Birdlife Malta
Mr. Geoffrey Saliba (Campaigns Coordinator)
Ramblers Association Malta
Mr. Alex Vella (Secretary)
MEPA
Mr. Martin Seychell (Director of Environment Protection)


Special Guests:
Hon. Rodrick Galdes
Dr. Micheal Briguglio
Dr. Alan Deidun


We encourage student participation and feedback before and after the debate.

Attend and voice your opinion!
Greenhouse Team

Links:

Event Page

Poster Page

Environmentalism: a solution

Part 2

So the first part highlighted the struggle between vision, values and policy in modern environmentalism. Dealing with global warming should not be seen as a "special interest".There seems to be a lack of practical strategy which incorporates a vision of environmentalism. Instead we are stuck in the environmentalist's quest to overstate and exaggerate the fear tactic. When what environmentalism needs is to have its position defended in debates, to divide its opponents and to increase its political power.

And it was during 2003 when the In September the Apollo Alliance and its national coalition of labor, environmental, business, and community leaders released The New Apollo Program, a comprehensive clean energy, job-generating strategy to restore America’s economic strength. What prompted this movement was the need to forma vision first, then seek the coalition.

Industry and conservative lobbyists state that working to solve global warming would mean sacrificing jobs. Environmentalists think, ‘You’re talking to me about your job — I’m talking about saving the world!’. In so doing they simply should accepting their postulation. On the contrary, we should rebate that safeguarding the environment will increase jobs not reduce them!

As this abstract clearly argues:

Talking about the millions of jobs that will be created by accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy offers more than a good defense against industry attacks: it’s a frame that moves the environmental movement away from apocalyptic global warming scenarios that tend to create feelings of helplessness and isolation among would-be supporters. If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we must start framing our proposals around core American values. We must start seeing our own values as central to what motivates and guides our politics.

The solution comes into being when environmentalists stop seeing their work as a special interest. When instead, they craft proposals which benefit the industry, workers and their communities, by providing a grand vision of a post-global warming world.

Adapted from "The Death of Environmentalism" (http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf) and from "www.apolloalliance.org/"

Malaise of Modern Environmentalism

Part 1

First comments on “Death of environmentalism” by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus.

Environmentalists are mostly concerned with moderating human impact on the environment. Protecting nature comes with the slogan that nothing in nature exists alone, and as a result we should aim at creating a sustainable environment. However how much are we really doing to preserve our eco-system?

Usually the most used tactic is not to frighten the public with terms such as global warming, but instead to focus on “science-based” proposal such as fluorescent lightbulbs and hybrid cars. However when push comes to shove how much really is modern environmentalism capable of handling climate change? Are we really holding to our granite belief that everything is somehow interconnected in nature?

“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.”

John Muir.

As environmental groups fail to win over national legislation to safeguard the environment, there is little to do except cling to hope as their political power decreases. Yet today’s leading environmentalists do not see the future so bleak. They understand that real change must come slowly, changing one policy at a time. Despite all this, should we entrust in these modern methods?

According to Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the US is not doing as much to help the environment as it should. However they do not deny the potential. They introduce the Strategic Values Project, a survey which shows that America’s values now lean more to conservatism. Maybe the newly-elect president Barack Obama can serve to change that; especially since his pre-electoral campaign specialized precisely on this concept!

In my opinion the main concern of this document lies within the form of support environmentalists have. Although public support comes in great quantity to sustain the environmental cause, it does little in terms of the quality.

“The environmental movement acts as though proposals based on “sound science” will be sufficient to overcome ideological and industry opposition.”

Sour ce: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

The Green Perspective

How many products and services supposedly have environmental benefits? How many companies advertise their Green practices to appeal to the consumer? This is done because Green sells! And manufacturers know this so they invest money to improve their products, and make them more environmentally friendly. But are these Green claims legitimate? Are the products or services really pro-environment or are they just pretending to increase profits?

A Study of Environmental Claims in North American Consumer Markets by TerraChoice (2007) analyzed market products claiming to be environmentally friendly. A total of 1,018 products where identified which contained 1,753 environmental claims. Of all the products studied, every one of them made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences, except one!

As a result of the study, 6 patterns of greenwashing where described, known as the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”. These are:

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off

e.g. paper (including household tissue, paper towel and copy paper): “Okay, this product comes from a sustainable harvested forest, but what are the impacts of its milling and transportation? Is the manufacturer also trying to reduce those impacts?” Emphasizing one environmental issue isn’t a problem (indeed, it often makes for better communications). The problem arises when hiding a trade-off between environmental issues.

Sin of No Proof

e.g. Personal care products (such as shampoos and conditioners) that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification of this claim. Company websites, third-party certifiers, and toll-free phone numbers are easy and effective means of delivering proof.

Sin of Vagueness

e.g. Garden insecticides promoted as “chemical-free.” In fact, nothing is free of chemicals. Water is a chemical. All plants, animals, and humans are made of chemicals as are all of our products. If the marketing claim doesn’t explain itself the claim is vague and meaningless. Similarly, watch for other popular vague green terms: “non-toxic”, “all-natural”, “environmentally-friendly”, and “earth-friendly.”

Sin of Irrelevance

e.g. CFC-free oven cleaners, CFC free shaving gels, CFC-free window cleaners, CFC-disinfectants.Could all of the other products in this category make the same claim? The most common example is easy to detect: Don’t be impressed by CFC-free! Ask if the claim is important and relevant to the product. (If a light bulb claimed water efficiency benefits you should be suspicious!)

Sin of Fibbing

e.g. Shampoos that claims to be “certified organic”, but for which research could find no such certification.
When I check up on it, is the claim true? The most frequent examples in this study were false uses of third-party certifications. Thankfully, these are easy to confirm. Legitimate third-party certifiers – EcoLogo^CM, Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Guard, Green Seal (for example) – all maintain publicly available lists of certified products. Some even maintain fraud advisories for products that are falsely claiming certification.

Sin of Lesser of two Evils

e.g. Organic tobacco. “Green” insecticides and herbicides.
Is the claim trying to make consumers feel ‘green’ about a product category that is of questionable environmental benefit? Consumers concerned about the pollution associated with cigarettes would be better served by quitting smoking than by buying organic cigarettes. Similarly, consumers concerned about the human health and environmental risks of excessive use of lawn chemicals might create a bigger environmental benefit by reducing their use than by looking for greener alternatives.

http://www.terrachoice.com/

Andre Vella

Green House Chairperson