“The Baltic nation of Latvia is blessed with some of the most beautiful forests in the world, millions of square kilometres of pristine woodland that support a complex biodiversity of rare species of animals and plants. [...] As the UK aims to become one of the greenest countries in Europe, we expose its role in the deforestation of Latvia.”

The clear cutting, which is a total loss not only for biological diversity but also for social and economic reasons, is the result of the current economic crisis in Latvia. It is being fueled by the demand from overseas markets, particularly the UK which has been Latvia’s main export market for over 300 years. Al Jazeera shows how corporations and the Latvian government ignores EU habitat directives, laws and nature reserves to be able to satisfy the market demand for timber. They also question the validation of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate which is said to only label timber that is sustainable produced.

“Many of the products of the trade from furniture to wood pulp and paper are sold in the UK under a labelling scheme run by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international NGO that certifies timber is being sustainably produced. Is that really true?”

This episode shows not just the world’s ecological unequal exchange but also how unattainable sustainability is in today’s capitalistic system which is based on a never-ending growth rate.

Sachs introduces with “the four directions” which are his logical answers to scarcity. Then his talk is divided in nine points; some skipped, others expanded. Focussing on growth, the efficiency paradox, green investments, sufficiency and commons here are a selection of quotes and notes.

Introduction: The four directions

“Let us speak about the success of Copenhagen [laughter from the crowd] everybody who is right in his mind, in the world, knows that we are entering a new historic age. Everybody who is clear in his mind knows that, let’s call it universal encompassing environmental scarcity is to be with us for the 21st century.”

“There are four possible reactions. [...] the first logical answer is, well, keep out people who might add to the aspirations; so it is a logical answer to go for exclusion. [...] Second logical answer when scarcity is looming [...] expansion is a logical response [nuclear power, genetic technology, capture and storage of CO2, geoengineering]. Third, [...] get better in the way we use things; so efficiency is another logical answer. [...] Fourth, [...] revise the aspirations.”

Growth

(11-17 minutes)

“Growth [...] it is a very young phenomenon. Of course for many thousand, two thousand years certainly, humanity has lived without steady economic growth. More so, classical economists – Adam Smith, Malthus, [?] – still do not really have the idea about steady accelerating growth. Yes, there was the idea around that you might increase prospect [...] at some point it will kind of level out, it’s not going to be, if you want, a human condition.”

“The idea of permanent economic growth is an offspring of the fossil age.”

Before second world war governments did not see economic growth as their main objective. Growth philosophy a product of the post-war effort to curb unemployment, thus only 40-50 years old.

Efficiency paradox

(22-28 minutes)

Efficiency paradox: Efficiency leads to consumption.

“The direct rebound effect is that once you can do something more efficiently you do more of the same thing. […] The indirect rebound effect is even more important: […] Where does the money go? […] Whereever you look it is very likely that there will be new energy and material demand associated with it.”

For example, I bought a bike about a week ago. I use it to transport myself to and from work so it already did about 100 kilometers. That’s a couple of kilos of CO2 saved right there. However, it is the stated policy of the Danish government to sell unused carbon quotas. The money they use on tax cuts for the rich and for companies. Thus, my green investment and biking effort is funding luxury yachts, stock market speculation and I don’t know what else.

“The precautionary principle [...] requires we begin research, debate, social experiments about how to live well with less or no economic growth.”

Green investments

(33-37 minutes)

“Investments today shape the economy of tomorrow.”

“There is a common ground [...] between green economy and degrowth. We need green investments because we need a different infrastructure. [Even if it comes with short term growth.] In the mid to long term a real green new deal has to incorporate a perspective of degrowth.”

Sufficiency and the commons

(37-51 minutes)

“Cars are built for intermediate performance levels.”

Effort is wasted in designing for top speed etc.

“The more unequal a society is the less happy people are.”

Unhappiness has environmental consequences as well as growth incentives, therefore promoting equitability creates sustainability.

“If we’d had to pay for Wikipedia, we wouldn’t have it.”

The graphs comes from New Scientist who recently did a special report on how our economy is killing the earth. In the report several “key thinkers from politics, economics and philosophy” gave their opinions about why they disagree with the current growth dogma. They write:

“Most of us accept the need for a more sustainable way to live, by reducing carbon emissions, developing renewable technology and increasing energy efficiency.

But are these efforts to save the planet doomed? A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.”

Unfortunately you need to be a New Scientist subscriber to be able to read the actual articles.

With only a few days left before the 2010 Olympic Games officially begins, there is a buzz around the streets of Vancouver. Being a resident of the city, I can certainly say it has undergone some radical changes in the past few months. Regardless of whether or not you support the games, it seems everyone has something to say.

Recent talk has surrounded the issue of sustainability. Considering, at the very least, the carbon emissions created by all the flights into the host city (and some residents’ flights out of the city) the Olympics can never be genuinely environmentally-friendly. However, Vancouver 2010 has been promoted as “the greenest Olympics ever” (official website: http://www.vancouver2010.com/sustainability/).

Interestingly, David Suzuki recently awarded Vancouver 2010 a bronze medal for sustainability (full article: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews02031001.asp). He writes: “achievements of the 2010 Olympics include building energy-efficient venues, using clean-energy sources, relying on public transit during the Games, and offsetting part of the Games’ emissions.” However, several areas were lacking. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation admits that “opportunities to create lasting reductions in transportation emissions in the region have been missed.” In addition, the carbon-offsetting accounted for less than half of the overall emissions.

Are the 2010 Olympics green? Yes, but only because there’s no snow! Which raises the first major point. Vancouver is mild, sunny, and snow-free, which has Olympic officials incredibly worried. What has everyone most concerned is the lack of snow at Cypress mountain, where major events will be held. The solution? Instead of switching locations to snow-filled Whistler, trucks have been transporting snow three hours—from Manning Park all the way to Cypress, using fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases. Around the city, road closures and detours have also created traffic havoc, thereby increasing greenhouse gases.

An equally controversial topic is the famous red Olympic $10 mittens. They are marketed as the must-have souvenir for the games and it seems every second Vancouver resident on the street is wearing them. Ironically, the mittens are made in China. This has been argued by some as trivial and irrelevant, but as such a prominent icon of the (“green”) Olympics, the symbolic importance of this hypocrisy should not be ignored. Profit is certainly more important than sustainability, as countless other souvenirs (made around the world and shipped to Vancouver) are also ready on the shelves to be consumed.

Finally, as if Christmas lights don’t create enough controversy, many Vancouver residents have been encouraged by VANOC to “Paint the Town Red” by decorating their houses with red and white lights, using more electricity.

As climate change continues to become a more and more pressing issue, it’s crucial that long-term, legitimate measures be taken on the part of organizations like the Olympic Committees. Greenwashing won’t cut it. After all, the Winter Olympics just wouldn’t be the same without, well, winter.

Photo credit: Jeremy Levine Design

Sustainability has never reached the point where it became so imminent as it is nowadays and at the same time so unperfected in the architectural discussion. We are on the eve of an architectural revolution where situational design parameters are no longer used as a design tool to “catch” the genius loci of a place or to resolve the design in the context, but will be driven from a sustainable necessity and local opportunities.

In an interview with the Dutch TV program “EenVandaag”, top economist Jeremy Rifkin states that the survival of the human race depends on the question; How are we going to deal with energy? According to Rifkin we are on the eve of a third industrial revolution, an era where fossil fuel is obsolete but the technique to create sustainable energy is available. So far no news. The interview gets interesting when he unfolds his view on “buildings as small power plants” and the way we should distribute energy. In his vision a lot depends on modern techniques which should be implemented in our buildings. Techniques to create energy from the sun, wind, earth warmth, tidal waves and domestic waste. On top of that we should also, according to Rifkin, renew our way of distribution of this “home created” energy. Energy can be stored as hydrogen energy and shared at peaks and lows throughout a intrigued network similar to the internet. Decentralised instead of centralised energy distribution. The question is; how can we as architects implement these techniques in our design process?

Generic and specific energy resources
Taking the statement “building as a power plant” as a starting point and re-evaluating the available techniques we are evidently given an opportunity. By reviewing these different techniques and energy resources we can clearly divide two main categories; “generic” techniques such as solar panels, wind turbines etcetera which can work at almost every location with almost every program. And location or program related techniques such as earth warmth, tidal wave, hydrogen energy and waste energy, the location or program “specific” techniques. An office uses a different waste policy then a family home, subsequently the process of using this waste as an energy source should also be approached differently in the design as such. Not on every location by lack of space or together with every program we can store hydrogen energy due to its explosive character, take a dense residential urban situation for example.

Check your resources
Before one design sketch is made a study of these specific local use, storage and distribution of alternative energy should be studied and checked on feasibility. Location analyses which are traditionally done by architects to come up with an appropriate building height, suitable entrance and façade materials etcetera should be complimented with a study on energy recourses. Specific energy recourses which should work for the specific location and the specific program or building type. Architects should not distinguish alternative energy recourses as a parameter or technical requirement from their design approach but must see these energies as a more fixed part of the ‘design-equation’, a specific and generic design variable.

The future is now
Buildings needn’t be the most energy guzzling sector in the industrialised world, responsible for close to 40% of the energy consumption and a large part of the CO2 emissions in modern society. In fact, the energy used in our buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation and hot water can be cut by 75% globally, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). We need visionary architects enabling the whole-hearted and implement the use of these technologies into their design strategy. Not only new buildings should be constructed to be energy efficient enough to turn the structure into a net zero energy building. But even better, a plus energy home that supplies more energy than it requires, the home as a small power plant. Make money on clever energy use. It’s possible. We are beyond awareness. It just takes a new design method and a renewed look at the local opportunities.

It’s amazing to see just how much power some celebrities hold over the masses. They can create the latest trends and sway public opinion with just a few sentences. In the case of Oprah and her sidekick Dr. Oz, turning açaí berries from a Brazilian food into a household name was simple.

Background Information

Açaí (pronounced ah-sah-ee) berries are the small, dark purple fruit of a type of palm tree that grows primarily in the Brazilian rain forest. They are eaten by locals as part of their daily diets. In North America, açaí berry juice has been sold in health food stores long before the recent craze because of their “superfood” qualities. Açaí berries contain amino acids (the building blocks of protein), antioxidants, fibre, essential fatty acids (the “healthy fats”) and vitamins. Because of this, açaí berries are a wonderful, nutritious food and a great addition to one’s daily diet. 

However, that’s all that açaí berries can truly be promoted as. Since its recent publicity on the Oprah show, companies and scams have been claiming that açaí promotes weight loss, increases energy, improves sleep, improves heart health and even increases penis size. Indirectly, some of these claims can be considered true. For example, fibre and essential fatty acids (Omega 3 in particular) have been known to support heart health. High fibre content may also reduce hunger cravings, thus enhancing weight loss. The American Diabetes Association recommends 24 grams of fibre help balance blood sugar levels. However, the serving size in Monavie and Sambazon’s açaí range from 1 to 3 grams. Açaí is not a drug, a cure for any disease or weight loss supplement. It is simply a very nutritious food, that, when used in conjunction with other strategies, supplements and foods, can contribute to a healthy lifestyle. As “Genesis Today” states in its magazine ad for açaí: “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”. And no, in case you were wondering, it does not increase penis size.

Overlooked Questions

In the middle of all this hype, there are questions about the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest in the process of açaí berry harvesting, as well as the workers who are involved in the growing and harvesting of the berries.

The cotton, sugar cane, coffee and cocoa industries are all examples of industries in which the Western “developed world” has exploited the people and environment of developing countries such as Brazil. Only recently has some of the sugar, cocoa, coffee and cotton industry become regulated through Fair Trade practices and regulations. However, there is still much work to be done in these areas. Thus, it is only natural to consider the health and safety of the farmers, workers and local ecosystem in this açaí berry boom.

I contacted three companies who make, distribute, and promote açaí products: Genesis Today, Sambazon and Monavie. I asked them all the same questions: “Where are how do you harvest the berries? Is your company directly involved in the berry harvesting or does another company do that for you? Is the process sustainable? Is your company doing anything to preserve the natural state of the ecosystem? Are the workers protected by any local laws? What are they paid? Is your company doing anything to protect the workers?”

Company Profile: Sambazon

Sambazon deals exclusively with wild harvested açaí. Their products include juices, smoothies, supplements in powder and capsule form, energy drinks, and even sorbet. Sambazon’s products are Certified Organic through the USDA.

Sambazon was extremely quick to respond to my queries, and provided me with plenty of information about both the preservation of the rainforest, as well as the well-being of the workers there. First of all, Sambazon is Ecocert Fair Trade certified, ensuring that an independent governing body oversees Sambazon’s practices. As well, Sambazon has also founded the Sustainable Amazon Partnership (SAP), supported by the Nature’s Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund.

According to Sambazon, “Greenpeace claimed that açaí may be one of the best ways to “save the rainforest”.”  (http://sambazon.blogspot.com/2009/05/açaí-postitive-force-in-amazon.html)  While quoting slightly out of context, this is more or less true. Greenpeace actually said that while there is no one way to save the rainforest, the açaí industry, among others has the “potential to provide communities living in the forest with a sustainable means of income”. (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/solutions/amazon-case-study) Greenpeace also concludes that because of the açaí palms rapid growth and the large quantity of berries that each tree produces, açaí can be considered the Amazon’s most financially viable non-wood crop. Thus, Sambazon is correct in their statement that  “locals could earn more harvesting Açaí than clear-cutting the forest.”

Company Profile: MonaVie

In contrast with the two other companies, MonaVie is sold through a multi-level business model, where customers buy the juice from a MonaVie sales representative. As well, MonaVie does not deal exclusively with açaí. Their blended beverage also contains other fruits and berries, such as grape, apple, blueberry, pear and banana. Thus, the açaí content is lower than that of other companies. However, the açaí in the juice is the most publicized and marketed.

The açaí berries in MonaVie are wild harvested, as are the other companies. However, Monavie is not Fair Trade or organic. This is a section from Monavie’s reply to my questions:

“We pay the harvesters substantially more to harvest the açai berry than they would otherwise to harvest the hearts of palm. Also, the education we have given to the harvesters of the hearts of palm has shown very beneficial results. Many of these harvesters have begun planting more açai trees when one has died. In this way we have contributed to the preservation of the rainforest and helped the economy in these regions.”

MonaVie has also founded (and funds) “The MORE project”, to “change lives and restore families through a variety of specific programs” in Brazil (http://www.themoreproject.org/). They focus on education and healthcare, and recruit volunteers to visit the region and help out. The website also features a store where the public can purchase products such as clothes, books, CDs, and jewellery made from açaí berry beads.

Company Profile: Genesis Today

Genesis Today’s “Açaí 100” is the pure juice. Unlike açaí juice blends such as MonaVie , “Açaí 100” contains no added sugar, water, other fruit juices, preservatives, flavours or sweeteners. Their products are available at most health food stores.

Unfortunately, Genesis today did not reply with information about their product or business practices, and there is only minimal information available on their website.

Is Açaí Worthwhile?

The verdict supplied by the companies is that açaí is a positive force in the Amazon. However, since this information comes straight from the companies themselves, its doubtful that it would be anything other than positive. Independent information is hard to come by, and even Greenpeace’s comments about açaí were from 2005, already out of date.

The World Wildlife Fund cited research conducted on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs), such as açaí, in a recent report about the Amazon (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wnf_amazonerapport_def.pdf). Although it was stated that NTFPs “provide the people inhabiting the forest with both a means for living as well as a cash income” and açaí has been successfully marketed, there were some disappointing results. For instance, Arnold and Perez (2001) as well as Kusters et al. (2006) refute the theory of a straightforward link between NTFPs and conservation. Instead, “extraction of NTFPs can cause forest degradation, especially if repeated harvesting occurs at close intervals. Demand for NTFP products is selective, which could lead to domestication and loss of diversity. NTFPs are mostly used to supplement diets in particular seasons, but generally do not represent a road to prosperity for poor communities, due among other things to the high transaction costs of marketing them.” Also to be considered is the problem of unpredictable markets, as trends like açaí come and go fleetingly (Belcher and Schreckenberg, 2007). Belcher and Schreckenberg (2007) also note that once a exported product like açaí becomes successful, domesticated and synthetic variations are created.

That being said, the question remains: is it possible to get açaí’s health benefits without the high price tag and food miles? Simply put: yes. Regardless of all the advertising and marketing hype, the same nutrients are found in many other foods. Essential fatty acids can be found in fish, flax oil and nuts, fibre can be found in psyllium and flax seeds, amino acids can be found in all protein sources, antioxidants can be found in pomegranate, blueberries and green/white tea, just to name a few. Cinnamon has even been shown to lower blood sugar levels and reduce cholesterol. Health food stores carry natural vitamins, herbs and remedies that don’t have to be shipped from the Brazilian rainforest, but provide the same effects.

However, it doesn’t seem like the little purple berry that everyone’s talking about will go away in the near future. As it’s difficult get a clear picture of the situation at this point in time, we may have to wait and see what happens in the future. As always, I encourage comments about this issue. And if you know something I don’t, I’d love to hear it!

Photo credit: Deivis

During a recent visit to Cuba, we stopped by an agricultural cooperative on the outskirts of Havana. Its farmers and cooperatives across the country are part of what’s widely acknowledged as the world’s largest organic farming experiment. Hundreds of thousands of farmers at the grassroots proudly proclaim themselves part of Cuba’s “environmental movement.”

In 2008 Cuba was devastated by three full force hurricanes that caused some $10 billion in damage, including 400,000 homes destroyed and widespread crop damage. Cubans link the growing destructive power and frequency of the hurricanes with global climate change. Understandably, environmental awareness and the need for radical measures to curb global warming run high.

Remarkably, in 2006 the World Wildlife Federation rated Cuba as the only country that combined high human development standards as defined by high literacy and health indexes with a low ecological footprint including electricity consumed and carbon dioxide emitted per capita.

This got me interested in the path of sustainable socialist development Cuba has chosen and how environmental consciousness developed. How could an underdeveloped country with limited economic resources have an environmental record better than its wealthy neighbor to the north? The story gives one great hope that planet Earth can be saved.

The effort to reverse environmental destruction and follow a path of sustainable development is all the more remarkable considering Cuba’s history, the US blockade and continuous efforts to overthrow its government.

The Revolution charts a new course

When Christopher Columbus first landed on Cuban shores in 1492 he was taken by the beauty of the island, then covered 95% by forests. Soon Spanish and later US colonialists began a slash and burn destruction that transformed Cuba into a sugar colony and wiped out the indigenous population. By the late 1800s the land had been largely stripped of the trees and one-fourth of the world’s sugar was produced there. By the 1950s only 14% of the forests remained.

In Dialectics of Nature, Frederick Engels illustrated how the capitalist drive for profit in Cuba was destroying the island’s ecology. Spanish planters “burned down forests on the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertilizer for one generation of highly profitable coffee trees … what cared they that the heavy tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the unprotected upper stratum of soil, leaving behind only bare rock!”

But there was also a parallel history – those patriots who treasured the land and its beauty, those who formed the growing independence movement. The acknowledged father of the country Jose Marti wrote in the 19th century, “To live on earth is more than duty to make it well.”

When the Cuban Revolution took place in 1959, environmental protection became a priority because leading revolutionaries were already ecologically committed. The first Agrarian Reform in 1959 nationalized the large landed estates and contained a clause on “The Conservation of Forests and Soils,” setting aside large preserves of some of Cuba’s greatest natural treasures including the famed Zapata Swamp and wetlands with the endangered Cuban crocodile.

In subsequent years advanced environmental legislation was adopted and codified in the Constitution, although laws were not always enforced. Scientists and educators were among those leading the environmental movement and headed up the agencies responsible for implementing a new policy.

Many organizations were founded that comprised a grassroots environmental movement including the National Zoological Society, Pro Naturaleza, the Foundation for Man and Nature, the National Association of Small Farmers, the Confederation of Trade Unions and Federation of Women. The Communist Party of Cuba and former president Fidel Castro are leading environmental advocates.

The Cubans have made serious mistakes over the years under the immense pressure of economic development and scarcity. But they have also learned from their mistakes and adjusted policies. Not surprisingly they began constructing socialism by largely copying the Soviet model that stressed industrialization without full regard to environmental impact. They soon realized the resulting damage and also that a model fitting their particular circumstances was needed.

For example, by the 1980s industrial pollution had grown, algae blooms appeared, hotel construction in Varadero had caused beach erosion and large scale industrialized farming using irrigation had caused widespread salinization and degraded the soil. This sparked a debate over the course of agricultural development and Cuban government officials began to consider a new direction.

In 1992 under the impact of the growing global environmental movement, the World Summit at Rio de Janeiro was held. Castro attended and delivered a ringing call to address economic and social underdevelopment and poverty with sustainability. He remarked,

“If we want to save humanity from destroying itself, we have to distribute more equitably the riches and available technologies on this planet. Less luxury and pilfering from a few countries for less poverty and hunger for the rest of the Earth. No more transfer to the Third World of lifestyles and habits of consumerism that ruin the environment.”

While the Cubans had already begun to implement some sustainable practices it was the crisis of world socialism and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that radically accelerated the process. Eighty-five percent of Cuban imports including oil, farm implements, chemical fertilizers and foods stuffs came from the socialist community. When socialism collapsed Cuba was forced to change overnight.

Change was most dramatic in the agricultural sphere. The Cubans turned to organic farming using oxen, natural means of pest control and by spreading the manure of draft animals on the fields. Farmers emphatically told us when the blockade ends they will continue organic farming because it is better for the environment, the working conditions of the farmers and produces healthier food for the people.

In addition, the Cubans found the highly centralized model of agricultural production inefficient, so they broke up the large state enterprises into smaller cooperatives. This allowed decentralized operation and created the basis for grassroots democratic management and local responsibility.

Over one million bicycles were imported from China and five new bicycle production plants were built. Over 500,000 bikes were put in operation in Havana.

The Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (like our EPA) was created to oversee environmental policy and its enforcement.

In 1993 the National Energy Sources Development Program was adopted whose first aim was conservation and energy efficiency and to begin to use more renewable energy sources.

As Renewable Energy World Magazine noted,

“All rural schools, health clinics, and social centers in the country, not previously connected to the (electric) grid, were electrified with solar energy, and today 2,364 of the solar electric systems on the island are on rural schools. Making lights, computers, and educational television programs accessible to every school child in the country; this program won Cuba the Global 500 award from the United Nations in 2001.”

The Energy Revolution

However these measures proved inadequate. So in 2006 Cuba adopted what was called the Energy Revolution consisting of five aspects: conservation, upgrading the electric grid, greater use of renewable resources, greater exploration of local gas and oil and greater international cooperation.

Conservation was deemed the key element. Castro remarked,

“We are not waiting for fuel to fall from the sky, because we have discovered, fortunately, something much more important – energy conservation, which is like finding a great oil deposit.”

The program has proved a great success in part because the whole country has been mobilized to participate through a mass education campaign. An army of young social workers is responsible for going door to door to convey the latest environmental practices.

Cuba became the first country to totally replace incandescent bulbs with energy saving compact florescent bulbs. Inefficient and highly polluting kerosene stoves were replaced by electrified rice cooking pots bought from China.

The national power grid has been modernized and decentralized. Hundreds of micro hydroelectric systems were built; urban farming and the use of hydroponics have been expanded.

Two large wind farms have been constructed on the coast; a 100-kilowatt solar electric power plant and thousands of independent solar powered systems have been built in rural areas. Recycling sugar waste products is producing bio-fuels.

Another important result of the Rio Summit was a call to preserve the world’s biodiversity. Cuba was among the first countries to embrace this challenge. Biodiversity was seen as an integral part of sustainable development and led to environmental protection by law. After a countrywide discussion, it adopted the National Strategy and Plan of Action for Biodiversity in 2000 and identified 42 different ecosystems including 17 that were described as ecologically sensitive.

Reforestation has increased to 21% and is growing. Forests and trees are under strict protection.

Because of the global economic crisis, Cuba is paying more on the world market for food imports. During the recent July 26th celebrations President Raul Castro called for food sovereignty to reduce costs. But this will also lower Cuba’s carbon footprint further by reducing the use of global transport. Local transport is being reduced by the expansion of urban farming.

Because Cuba’s beautiful coastal areas haven’t been stolen by the rich, carved up and sold off for summer homes or profit, but instead remain under public ownership, it’s possible to offer protection of coastal wetlands, mangrove swamps, beaches and the coral reefs which are said to be among the best preserved in the world.

Cuba has established coastal zones out to sea where construction is banned and protection zones of highly limited development inland 60-80 meters beyond the vegetation line. The true test will come when new facilities are constructed to accommodate the influx of US tourists anticipated when the blockade falls. Can development and environmental protection be meshed with the many joint construction projects?

Cuba’s example shows that a society geared toward socialist development, where working people hold economic and political power, is far superior to capitalism when it comes to dealing with the environmental crisis and actually reversing environmental destruction.

Monopoly corporations who constantly obstruct passage of environmental laws or thumb their nose at enforcement because it conflicts with their drive for maximum profits do not dominate Cuba. There is no bribing legislators and spreading of phony science.

Cuba’s example illustrates how socialism puts people first, how economic development and sustainability can be synonymous, how a country can learn from its mistakes and have the flexibility to deal with problems and crises as they arise. At a moment when the global economic crisis, vast inequality and poverty are inextricably linked to the global environmental crisis – socialism offers the only viable path to ensure humanity’s future.

Author: John Bachtell
People’s Weekly World Newspaper, 09/03/09

The day has finally come for industrial hemp. Hemp products are reaching mainstream markets and becoming more and more popular. However, although hemp crops have been around for literally thousands of years, the benefits of this important crop are still being overshadowed by its controversial stigma as marijuana. 

What is Hemp?

Hemp (also known as Cannabis sativa L.) is a diverse plant encompassing over 500 varieties. This article refers to industrial hemp, used for food, cloth and other commodities, as opposed to marijuana.

Contrary to popular belief, marijuana and hemp, though related, are not synonymous. The levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (the psychoactive chemical in marijuana) are less than 0.3% in hemp. Conversely, industrial hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another chemical called CBD, which actually impedes psychoactive effects of marijuana. Therefore, eating hemp, smoking hemp or using hemp products will not get you high.

Benefits of Hemp

A highly renewable resource, hemp’s adaptability, sustainability and durability set it apart from other natural plants. Compared to cotton crops, which require enormous amounts of pesticides and herbicides to grow, hemp thrives without chemicals and without much water. In fact, hemp crops actually enrich the soil, instead of depleting it of nutrients. Plus, hemp grows quickly, making it a perfect sustainable crop.

Products Made From Hemp

Next time you go shopping, keep an eye open for these great hemp products:

• Clothing: As clothing, hemp stays cool in the heat and warm in cold weather. Hemp cloth is more durable than cotton, but just as comfortable. Its cloth is naturally resistant to mold and mildew. These days, hemp clothing doesn’t mean burlap sacks—there are tons of comfortable, trendy clothes for men and women made from hemp or hemp/organic cotton blends. It’s not just t-shirts either; look for hemp underwear, pyjamas and even wedding gowns. Plus, it is a great vegetarian alternative to leather or synthetic fibres in wallets, purses, bags, belts and shoes.

Brand to check out: The Hempest (http://store.hempest.com/catalog/)

• Food: Hemp seeds (also called Hemp Hearts) are extremely high in protein, fibre, and omega 3 fatty acids (the “healthy fats”). They are also delicious and have a nutty taste, similar to sunflower seeds. Try some sprinkled over your oatmeal, cold cereal, yogurt, or straight out of the package. Other hemp products include protein powder, oil, flour, and “hemp milk”—a vegan alternative to milk!

Brand to check out: Manitoba Harvest

• Body Care: The natural, healthy oils in hemp makes great, moisturizing lip balms, body lotions, shampoos and conditioners and even massage oils.

Brand to check out: The Merry Hempsters

• Cleaning Products: Hemp produces all-purpose, all-vegetable, liquid soap that can be used for bathing, dishes, laundry and more.

Brand to check out: Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap

• Household Products: Rope, twine and yarn made from hemp is very strong. Try using hemp twine in the garden to support and tie climbing plants, such as tomatoes. Paper products include journals, napkins and greeting cards. Products for the kitchen range from pot holders and oven mitts, to aprons, towels and more.     

Brand to check out: Rawganique (http://www.rawganique.com/index.htm)

Of course, there are hundreds more brands and stores that carry hemp products. Try this search engine to find hemp products and stores near you (in Canada and the US): http://www.hempstores.com/. Better yet, do some research of your own and see what you come up with.

Regulatory Issues

Since 1998, Canada has grown industrial hemp. It is federally regulated and all hemp crops must legally be GMO free.

Unfortunately, hemp is still facing obstacles being seen as a valuable, environmentally friendly crop and not a drug. In the US, where hemp is continually associated with marijuana, hemp crops are illegal without a permit. There, hemp is regulated under the Drug Enforcement Administration instead of the Department of Agriculture, where it belongs. Thankfully, there is a growing movement against these regulations. Visit their website Vote Hemp (http://www.votehemp.com/) for more information and to learn how to get involved.

As of September 23 we humans have used all the resources our earth can produce this year. That means we are borrowing resources from 2009 and that we are literally consuming our children’s resources.

And as each year passes Earth Overshoot Day happens earlier and earlier. Last year Earth Overshoot Day happened on October 6. Then we consumed 30% more natural resources than what the earth can reproduce under a whole year. Now in 2008 that number has increased with 10% as the Global Footprint Network expects us to use 140% of the Earths resources.

“Globally, we now require the equivalent of 1.4 planets to support our lifestyles. But of course, we only have one Earth. The result is that our supply of natural resources — like trees and fish — continues to shrink, while our waste, primarily carbon dioxide, accumulates.”

Some countries contribute more to these numbers than others do. If everyone lived like a resident of the following countries we would need this many earths:

• United States 5.4 Earths
• Canada 4.2 Earths
• United Kingdom 3.1 Earths
• Germany 2.5 Earths
• Italy 2.2 Earths
• South Africa 1.4 Earths
• Argentina 1.2 Earths
• Costa Rica 1.1 Earths
• India 0.4 Earths

What do you think? How can we manage to overcome our increasing consumption rate and overpopulation? And how can one personally contribute to ending the Overshoot Day?

Some of the solutions presented to prevent or decrease the effects of global warming are, as we all know: Drive you car less times, use public transports, shutdown all electric devises when they are not in use, recycle etc.

Though we would like that every person in the world stopped using their personal car and started using public transports, shutdown all electric devises, stopped wasting energy and water. The truth is that won’t happen in the near future, because there will be always some “fool” doing the exact opposite of what is needed and because people don’t change their habits in a couple of days. So what we need is to develop new technologies to the max, only they will make us save this planet. Only technology will make us use less oil and start using renewable energies.

I don’t know if you have noticed already but everything you use on your day, from your clothes to the computer you are using to read this, is a product of human technology. So, as good old human technologies they are, they consume energy produced mainly by the burning of oil, and this is the main cause of global warming, as the most of you may know. Because of that some years ago the idea of using wind, water, the sun and others as energy sources came out to outcome the global warming problem. But, has many new technologies, they had a lot of downsides that kept people way from them.

Though they’ve improved a lot since those days, due to scientific research, they still have a long way to go, for example: windmills need to become noiseless, and harmless to birds and bats; solar panels need to improve their efficiency, now days it’s only of 25%; electric dams need to decrease their impact on the surrounding environment; and so on… But when we talk about new technologies, renewable energies are only the tip of the iceberg. There an entire world of electronic devices that need to become more energy efficient; cars need to stop having their engines working on gas; houses need to have better isolation, to avoid energy losses.

Those are some of the reasons for why we should invest more and more on new technologies and on their research. Without them the planet we know and love won’t last much longer…