Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts

26 May 2011

One-Third of World's Food Goes to Waste - UN

Reposted in full from The Guardian, 12 May 2011

'One-third of the world's food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted each year, according to a study (pdf) released on Wednesday by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Roughly 1.3bn tonnes of food is either lost or wasted globally due to inefficiencies throughout the food supply chain, says the report, based on research by the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (Sik). Amid rising global food prices, the study says that reducing food losses in developing countries could have an "immediate and significant" impact on livelihoods and food security in some of the world's poorest countries.

According to the report, industrialised and developing countries waste or lose roughly the same amount of food each year – 670m and 630m tonnes respectively. But while rich countries waste food primarily at the level of the consumer, the main issue for developing countries is food lost due to weak infrastructure – including poor storage, processing and packaging facilities that lack the capacity to keep produce fresh. Food losses mean lost income for small farmers and higher prices for poor consumers in developing countries, says the study.

The average European or North American consumer wastes 95kg-115kg of food a year, above all fruits and vegetables. In contrast, the average consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia or south-east Asia wastes only 6kg-11kg. The study notes that in developing countries poverty and limited incomes make it unacceptable to waste food, and that poor consumers in low-income countries generally buy smaller amounts of food at a time.

Food wasted by consumers in rich countries (222m tonnes) is roughly equal to the entire food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230m tonnes).

Looking for solutions, the report argues that reducing reliance on retailers such as big supermarkets could help cut food waste in the north, and suggests promoting the direct sale of farm produce to consumers. It also encourages retailers and charities to work together, to distribute unsold but perfectly edible food that would otherwise go to waste.

For developing countries, the study says the key lies in strengthening food supply chains, urging investment in infrastructure and transportation, along with increased attention to food storage, processing and packaging.

While world food prices fell slightly in March this year – after eight months of successive increases – the overall cost of food in April was 36% higher than it was last year. Prices of wheat, maize and soya reached levels last seen in 2008, when a global food crisis sparked food riots across the developing world. Last month, the World Bank said that rising food prices had pushed 44 million more people into extreme poverty, and the World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, added that an additional 10 million people could soon fall below the $1.25 a day extreme poverty line unless immediate action was taken to increase the supply of food.

But the FAO-backed report says: "Food production must clearly increase significantly to meet the future demands of an increasing and more affluent world population … In a world with limited natural resources (land, water, energy, fertiliser), and where cost-effective solutions are to be found to produce enough safe and nutritious food for all, reducing food losses should not be a forgotten priority."'

18 May 2011

OzHarvest Launches in Adelaide

Food rescue charity OzHarvest launched in Adelaide on 17 May. South Australian identity and Adelaide 5AA Radio's Keith Conlon, an OzHarvest Ambassador, offers a peek into how this free service (backed by philanthropic funding) works!

Sourced from 5aa Radio, 17 May 2011

16 May 2011

UK Company Implicated in Toxic E-Waste Trail from London to West Africa

I know for a fact there are a few causes for concern here in Australia also.

Do you know what YOUR workplace does with old computers? Would your boss want to be responsible for confidential information and records being recovered from hard drives and publicised? It's happened!

In Australia, it is a FEDERAL OFFENCE under the 1989 Hazardous Waste Act to export any such material without a permit (to make sure the stuff is not going to a developing country where there are either ineffective or absent OHS and environmental protection standards).



Reposted in full from The Ecologist, 14 May 2011

'The Environmental Investigation Agency and BBC Panorama use GPS to prove British electronic waste is being exported to poor African nations where it threatens the environment and human health

One of the UK's leading waste and recycling companies has been linked to the growing underground trade in e-waste after campaigners uncovered evidence that broken television sets deposited at the firms facilities were exported to Africa in contravention of regulations designed to stem the flow of electronic waste to developing countries, the Ecologist can reveal. 
 
Merseyside-based Environment Waste Controls (EWC), whose clients are reported to include ASDA, Tesco, Barclays, the NHS and Network Rail, has admitted that electronic equipment from its amenity sites in South London ended up in West Africa after being exported by a third party company and says it has taken steps to prevent this happening in the future.

Campaigners from the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) pinpoint the company in a report outlining Britain's role in the global e-waste trade, due to be published next week. The report details the findings of an 18 month investigation into how UK e-waste, much of it toxic, is ending up abroad where it is frequently processed in primitive conditions, posing a threat to the environment and human health.

A BBC Panorama programme to be broadcast on Monday night also investigates the trade and uncovers further evidence of UK electronics waste making its way to West Africa. 

As part of the probe, EIA staff visited civic amenity sites in Merton and Croydon where e-waste collection is run by EWC and were told that some of the electrical waste arriving at the facilities was routinely collected by a separate company who exported it to Nigeria and Ghana.

Investigators were told at the Merton amenity site that at least seven tonnes of TVs were being sold to the third party company each week, at a cost of between £1.50 and £2.00 per set. 

Under the Waste Electrical and Electronic (WEEE) Resources Regulations 2006, as long as the e-waste arriving at the sites was tested and found to be properly working its export would be permissible.

However, the EIA hid tracking devices inside television sets which had been disabled beyond repair and left them at the Merton and Croydon sites. Several weeks later, according to the group, GPS signals indicated that one TV had been shipped to Nigeria, ending up near a well known e-waste recycling centre, and one was found to have arrived in Ghana. 

The EIA says this evidence demonstrates that proper checks were not always being carried out and that the broken TV sets should, under WEEE regulations, have been be sent for recycling in the UK or another developed country, not shipped to West Africa. The campaigners believe this is not an isolated example and say that intelligence suggests that British e-waste is regularly diverted from local authority sites into the black market.

'When disposing of used electrical goods at civic amenity sites, the public has a right to expect that the equipment will be disposed of in accordance with the law,' the group states.

In a statement to the Ecologist, EWC said that it welcomed the EIA report and acknowledged that e-waste from its facilities had ended up in Africa in contravention of WEEE regulations: 'This is unacceptable and EWC has put in place measures to prevent a reoccurrence of this practice and to undertake a full investigation in cooperation with the regulator and relevant authorities. We have instructed all our sub contractors that no electronic equipment deposited at designated collection facilities operated by EWC should leave the UK until further notice.'

EWC, which runs 49 local authority waste sites as well as handling waste and recycling on behalf of the public and private sector, also told the Ecologist that it has not worked with the third party company involved in exporting the faulty TVs to Africa since October 2010.

E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the UK, with more than one-million tonnes being generated annually according to some estimates. The UN has stated that global production of e-waste now totals at 50 million tonnes, of which only ten per cent is recycled.

E-waste can be hazardous to the environment and people - computer processors contain a mixture of chemicals and cathode ray tubes fitted in many older style TVs can contain lead. These substances are released when e-waste is stripped down in destination countries, often on vast unofficial waste dumps where workers lack protective clothing and health and safety regulations are poor or non-existant.

In recent years the UK authorities have stepped up efforts to combat the illegal trade in e-waste following growing concern about the scale of the activity.

The Environment Agency has a National Intelligence Team and an Environmental Crime Unit working to tackle the issue and has recently brought prosecutions against a number of individuals involved in e-waste trafficking. There are concerns however that funding for the Agency's e-waste work will be slashed as part of current cost-cutting measures.

Earlier this year the Environment Agency's head Paul Leinster said the body had found evidence of e-waste from government departments forming part of illegal exports.

As the Ecologist revealed in December 2010, the e-waste trade has attracted the interest of highly organised criminal gangs who see it as a lucrative and relatively risk-free activity. The EIA says its investigations have established how a complex network of brokers and middlemen are increasingly facilitating the movement of e-waste, making detection even harder for legitimate companies and the authorities.

'E-waste isn't a new problem and it isn't going away. It's time for the government and enforcement agencies to give this issue the resources and attention it warrants,' EIA's Fin Walravens said.'

06 May 2011

The Rise of Collaborative Consumption

Sourced from YouTube, 31 May 2010

Rachel Botsman, co-author of "What's Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption", at TEDx Sydney, 2010


Excerpt from Grist, 4 May 2011

'Lots of the most interesting changes in the direction of sustainability are happening outside green politics (ie. the stuff I'm always writing about). One that's always fascinated me is the spread of sharing economies, or "collaborative consumption." Grist had Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, authors of What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, in to visit the office a while back and they got me fired up about it all over again.

Now there's a big feature piece in Fast Company, "The Sharing Economy," in which Botsman and others discuss a dazzling variety of new start-ups based on peer-to-peer sharing of things, spaces, and services. They're popping up like dandelions in my backyard...

The key to this extraordinary surge is information technology, which has lowered transaction costs by orders of magnitude. It has become incredibly cheap to connect people so they can coordinate and exchange information. When I was a kid, growing up in Ancient Times, if I wanted to sell my old banana-seat bike and get a bike with gears, I had to call the newspaper, dictate a for-sale ad, and mail them a check. Or tack up flyers around public places. I might have found a buyer, but the time and effort required would have been substantial. And I would have had no way to pinpoint the real market value of the bike, ie. how much the person who wanted it most would pay.

Today, I can post a quick ad on Craigslist, sift through email responses (effectively an ad hoc auction), and arrange for someone to arrive at my door with money for the bike, and it costs me virtually nothing, maybe a half-hour of work. As these tools get easier and easier to use, bikes will circulate more. They will be used for more of their productive lives, instead of rotting in garages and landfills. Fewer new bikes will be needed than would otherwise have been the case. That's the idea, anyway.

The same is true for cars. The average car in the U.S. spends about 90 percent of the time just sitting there, taking up space. Now, there are more and more services that allow peer-to-peer car rental and ride sharing, which means, over time, existing cars will get used more often and fewer new ones will be needed. (Again: hopefully!) The same goes for other "underutilized assets" like tools (the average power drill is used 15 minutes over its lifetime) and sports equipment.

Another underutilized asset? Space: guest rooms, unused garage or shed storage, vacant apartments, summer homes, hotels during off seasons, etc. It's becoming easier for those with idle space to connect to people who happen to need it. Again: as existing spaces are utilized more fully, fewer new ones will be needed...or so goes the hope...

From an environmental perspective, it's a way for that fond and long-held hope, dematerialization, to start getting real traction. It turns out the ownership model, in and of itself, builds in a huge amount of resource inefficiency. We buy things that, by definition, as individuals, we cannot utilize fully, and they spend most of their time simply being owned (think of all your books and CDs, if you still have them). Now the ownership model is beginning to give way to the access model, wherein what's prized is access to services and experiences.

From a sustainability perspective, the crucial thing about an access model is that efficiency and durability are baked in; the profit incentive is naturally oriented toward getting the maximum number of human use-hours from the minimum amount of stuff. Just where we want the incentive to be! So greens have direct stake it seeing sharing models spread and flourish.

From an economic perspective, this puts real stress on the conventional ways of assessing an economy's performance. As sharing spreads, more and more socially productive activity will be "off the books" - no money will exchange hands, or if it does, it will be be a direct exchange, which, if it can be tracked at all, will basically count as a gift. Enterprises like Wikipedia, YouTube, and open-source software, which are based on the coordination of distributed, voluntary efforts ("social production"), add hugely to consumer welfare but do not produce much if any in the way of profits.

John Quiggin, in a great piece on this subject, notes one of the implications: "if monetary returns are weakly, or even negatively correlated with the value of social production, there's no reason to expect capital markets to do a good job in allocating resources to supporting innovation." If venture capitalists systematically underinvest in social production innovations, there's a good argument for government intervention.

Quiggin also notes another implication: "If improvements in welfare are increasingly independent of the market, it would make sense to shift resources out of market production, for example by reducing working hours." (Matt Yglesias also discusses this.) If jobs can be shared, just like things and spaces, then people will have more free time to engage in non-market but value-added activities, on what amounts to a hobbyist basis.

All this socially productive activity will not count toward GDP and will not be captured as value by traditional economic models. Eventually, it will militate in favor of alternative economic measures like nef's Happy Planet Index or Bhutan's gross national happiness, which try to capture well-being directly.

From a social perspective, it seems to me sharing models answer a deep need among those in rich developing nations (particularly the US) for an increased sense of connection and community. We tried retreating to our well-appointed redoubts in the exurbs and accumulating stuff, and it's not working. We're getting richer but not any happier - widening inequality and social distance are hurting us more than increased consumer power is helping us. People yearn to be knit into networks of trust and support. Peer-to-peer sharing is one way to start building that kind of social capital...'

22 March 2011

NeighborGoods

Facilitating sharing, renting and selling among neighbours...

16 March 2011

Australia's National Television and Computer Product Stewardship Scheme


The Australian government is about to start consultation on a national product stewardship regulatory framework for e-waste - it's not the whole solution (which is to address ever-increasing demand), but it will go a long way to recovering materials like coltan, rare earth minerals.

This law would demand that companies, importers and manufacturers of TVs, computers and related technology finance/operate a national collection and recycling scheme under product-stewardship legislation, designed to encourage manufacturers to recover & recycle more resources contained in products sent to landfill.

19 February 2011

Reducing Food Waste in UK Schools

More brilliant work from WRAP in the UK

Reposted in full from Warmer Bulletin e-News, 18 February 2011

'Insight into the reasons behind the estimated 80,000 tonnes of food wasted in schools each year is revealed in a new report launched by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme).

The research, Food Waste in Schools, was undertaken to understand more about which types of food are wasted and the reasons why this happens. It is hoped the findings can identify opportunities for schools and caterers to reduce food waste in schools.

The study looked at both the detailed make-up of the waste and where in the process the waste arose. It also talked to schools and school meal providers to understand their views about why they thought food was being wasted. Wastage seemed to be higher in primary schools than secondary schools - estimated at 50,000 tonnes compared to 30,000.

Phillip Ward, Director of Local Government Services at WRAP, said: "It doesn't make sense for food to be wasted if that can be avoided and in most cases it can. Apart from the cost and the carbon emissions, this waste means that pupils are missing out on balanced nutrition they need."

The research summarised possible changes into three main areas:

cooking meals to order

improving the dining experience

improving familiarity and appreciation of school meals.

The research was supported by some small scale trial interventions which suggest school-level changes can positively impact on food waste, without any negative implications for nutrition - indeed, many of these interventions might improve nutritional intake, if students are happier eating different and more varied foods, or less inclined to leave meals unfinished.

The reasons food is wasted are wide ranging, but can be grouped as operational - relating to policies and practices around school food, situational - relating to the environment in which school meals are eaten rather than the food itself, and behavioural - relating to individual actions and preferences. As the specific combination of causes of food waste will vary from school to school, a one size fits all approach to minimising food waste is not available.

In the cooking to order trial 71 per cent of all respondents rated the intervention as "highly successful" or "successful". Pupils received information on menu options in advance. Menu choices were recorded during registration each day and this information was communicated to the kitchen staff by 9.30am every morning. Pupils were given a coloured wrist band identifying their meal choice so there was no confusion at lunch time. This intervention requires a pre-pay system for meals within the school, as well as an efficient way to record and communicate student meal choices in a timely manner.

Information about the approaches tested in the trials is available for schools who would like to take action, at:

www.recyclenow.com/schoolsfoodwaste

The report is available, in two forms, as follows, from WRAP's website:

Food Waste in Schools Summary Report (0.3 MB)

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Food_Waste_in_Schools_Summary_Report.3754c9f2.10459.pdf

Food Waste in Schools Full report (1 MB)

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Food_waste_in_schools_full_report_.7c8da0c7.10460.pdf

Clothes Made From Used Blow-Up Dolls: Has Recycling Gone Too Far?



...highly amusing!

Sourced from Ecouterre, 7 December 2009

'Consider this NSFW attire: A Dutch artist by the name of Sander Reijgers is recycling inflatable sex dolls into clothing. Instead of shying away from the more anatomically correct “bits” (so to speak), however, he’s placing all the parts that make a blow-up doll a blow-up doll front and center. His raunchy, waterproof windbreakers and tracksuits are not for the prudish, but if you’re looking to make waves at your local Starbucks or, better yet, next PTA meeting, sporting one of these should draw some stares.

To make the clothing, Reijgers customized existing tracksuit tops with heads, breasts and other pieces from 50 blow-up dolls that he received from a “sponsor.”

“These dolls are so ugly and vulgar that turning them into something beautiful has become a challenge for me,” he says of the process. His inspiration came from reading The Malady of Death by Marguerite Duras, in which the main character is incapable of feelings for people. Reijgers says his goal was to allow the dolls to perform normal day-to-day tasks—and free them from their original purpose—by turning them into clothing...'

16 February 2011

Changing Models of Ownership



Excerpt from
Shareable, 8 February 2011

'From cars to CDs, houses to handbags, people are no longer aspiring to own. Belongings which used to be the standard by which to measure personal success, status, and security are increasingly being borrowed, traded, swapped, or simply left on the shelf. Various factors – arguably the most important being an increasingly connected and digitally networked society, regardless of economic development – are causing revolutionary global shifts in behavior. As quickly as a new laptop becomes yesterday’s technology in a brittle plastic shell, or a power tool idly collects dust in the garage, it seems that material possessions are changing from treasure into junk, from security into liability, from freedom into burden, and from personal to communal.

Through global research conducted as part of an investigation into the concept of ownership, Claro Partners was able to draw some conclusions about why it’s more appealing to have a car only when you need to move from A to B. We also started to ask questions about what new challenges people face in a climate where transient access to services – rather than permanent acquisition of products – is more efficient and actually makes more economic sense. Furthermore, from the cloud to the crowd, we asked whether the concept of ownership is even applicable to today’s world.

Ownership becomes a burden
In societies saturated by hyper-consumption, the joy of acquiring, of holding the new object in your hands and knowing with satisfaction that it’s yours, is familiar. Equally recognizable, though, is that creeping anxiety when the sheen starts to fade and your mind gets distracted with a new, better, life-improving version, and at this intersection, ownership becomes a pain, a burden. The product’s value becomes outweighed by concerns of maintenance, optimization of use, and finding a good home for your once-loved product, be it through recycling or re-use. This cycle seems to be becoming ever-shorter, especially in the Western world where gadgets rule and electronics are designed to fail, and both people and businesses are developing strategies to deal with the highs and lows of ownership.

The trade-off of ownership for access


Despite the infinite diversity of the human race, we’re actually quite similar in the kind of things we want to achieve on a day-to-day basis and, collectively, we’re beginning to realize that there’s little reason not to share the resources necessary to achieve these goals. With increased connectivity through modern technology, networks at both a global and local level are growing rapidly whilst new communities can develop and flourish through digital channels. These, in turn, allow for resources to be shared, swapped, borrowed, and traded while providing a platform where exclusive belongings are simply irrelevant.

As suggested by Rachel Botsman in What’s Mine Is Yours (2010), four factors – environmental concerns, reduced spending power, the resurgence of communities, and new technological platforms – have facilitated the rise of collaborative consumption and, in the current climate, alternatives to ownership are starting to seem like a good trade-off for not having the CD on your shelf or the car in your driveway.

Equally, this environment encourages new systems to grow organically from the bottom up, naturally streamlined and designed to be resilient from the start. Effectively, access to the products or the means to achieve a specific goal has become good enough in these circumstances and a viable and appealing antidote to individual ownership. Of course, Shareable.net is both an expert and a product of this movement and many examples of this approach to consumption/acquisition/life can be found within the pages here.

Filtering the data we can access


Replacing ownership with access is not without its challenges to consumption, however. As well as providing a platform on which to connect with people, the Internet has provided us with more data than we could ever want at our fingertips and, consequently, means that we have to spend effort in handpicking what we really want to focus on.

As stated by Seth Godin and later quoted by Chris Anderson in Free (2009): every abundance creates a new scarcity. Our finite time and attention is faced with a sheer abundance of information wanting to be found, read, heard, watched, and consumed, and we are faced with the problem of digital noise. Unfortunately, one Googler’s junk is another Googler’s treasure, and that means there’s no one definitive filtering solution, so people are adopting their own systems to deal with the influx of information, driven to use various ad-hoc methods to curate the content they encounter.

For example, in Sao Paolo, we spoke to someone who no longer reads newspapers and magazines, but instead displays constant Twitter feeds from friends on a large TV screen for a source of real-time news with the added value of the attached commentary. Another tech-minded interviewee in San Francisco collected films based on their ratings on a collection of trusted movie review sites and another relied on his network of friends for the latest YouTube memes.

Social networks play an important role in the filtering of the constant flow of new data; according to a recent study, 48% of young Americans find out about news through Facebook. Likewise, strategies for streamlining belongings are being applied to the physical world, where quality and access are ruling over quantity and material possessions. A U.S. research respondent consciously subscribed to a “less stuff, but better stuff” lifestyle, making decisions to acquire, consume, and keep only the things that he saw to be of value and never a burden...'

14 February 2011

India's Rural Commons at Odds with Surging Industrialization

Excerpt from Shareable, 7 February 2011

'One issue largely absent from the agenda of this January’s global commons conference in Hyderabad, India was the idea of limits to consumption and material accumulation. There were presentations aplenty on how commons are being limited and threatened by development, land-grabbing, and ecological decay, but little discussion of how global consumption, notions of material ‘progress,’ and ‘development’ factor into the evolving equation of how humans and the planet will survive.

With Indian media reporting the likelihood of its nation producing the world’s seven-billionth human sometime this year, the 'inconvenient' question must be addressed forthrightly: how many cars, cell phones, satellite dishes, television sets, and other emblems of material ‘progress’ can the globe withstand? Beyond the more obvious urgency of climate change — the immediate need for radical emissions reductions and greatly expanded carbon sinks, among others — how much more room do the earth and the sky have for the material advancement of our ballooning populace?

I have long resisted the population question myself, rooted as it has been in subtle and sometimes blatant racism as well as echoes of imperialism. The blaming of poorer, developing nations for overpopulation neglects America’s vastly higher per-capita (and until recently, aggregate) carbon footprint — and the profound unfairness of limiting growth in these nations after the industrial and carbon-spewing excesses of the U.S. and Europe must be addressed.

But the facts of climate chaos and the dire need to cut global emissions require an aggressively honest assessment of limits starting with U.S. and other ‘first world’ nations’ concepts of growth and materialism, but also more critically re-defining ‘developing world’ growth in the context of ironclad climatological and earthly limits.

This challenge is acutely of the moment, not only in climate change negotiations, but for another reason that is as inspiring as it is distressing: the agrarian and pastoral commons of India and other developing nations are still with us, and their survival holds the key not only to rural livelihoods for hundreds of millions of people across the world, but very possibly for the planet itself.

While the survival struggles of small Indian farming villages may seem remote to our global future, these are, in fact, contested terrains that the planet-threatening industrialization process has not yet conquered — where there’s actually something left to fight for.

These are the very commons that more than 600 activists and scholars from across the globe defended at the International Association for the Study of the Commons 13th biannual conference in India — common pasture lands, forests, and arable lands upon which millions have relied for basic survival for centuries, under threat now from the unrelenting growth imperative.

Just as the U.S. features deep poverty and undernourishment amid phenomenal wealth and technological advancement, India's development is wildly uneven. A 2010 report by the United Nations found India has far more cell phones than toilets — 45 percent have cell phone access, while just 31 percent are afforded basic sanitation. ''It is a tragic irony to think that, in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones," so many do not have "the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet,'' said Zafar Adeel, Director of United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health.

The core problem is this: how do ‘developing’ nations, and the rural poor within those countries, improve their livelihoods and opportunities for a more comfortable and stable existence without replicating unsustainable Western-style ‘progress’? How can India, Bangladesh, and other nations with huge, largely impoverished agrarian populations find a new path for growth that does not entail climate-battering industrialization and mass material consumption?

These questions percolated as a smaller group of conference-goers ventured deep into the south Indian countryside to visit tribal villages dealing with ecological scarcity and the encroaching pressures of industrialization....

India is at once rising and crumbling. Even as the reminders of British colonialism are everywhere (from accents and a troubling economic and social subservience to an obsession with rules and hierarchy), India is surging economically, relentlessly growth-hungry, energetic, seemingly tossing away the final shackles of imperialism. There is an impatient industriousness in the air, furious activity, and plenty of pollution.

There is also a clear and decisive trajectory of industrialization and GDP growth at rates hovering around 9 percent, unheard of outside China. It’s true, as one businessman insists on a flight to Mumbai, that India is growing so rapidly in part because there’s so much room for growth. But there’s no denying that India is on a fast-track to Western-style development replete with booming industrialization, rising corporate power (both economic and political), and a ravenous thirst for middle- and upper-class lifestyles.

And India’s thirst for growth is nearly unrestrained; there is a significant state presence, but no communist- or socialist-style central planning to, at least, potentially check capitalism’s feverishly anarchic path (though state planning in China hasn’t led to any serious checks on air-choking industrial pollution, either).

Instead, what stands in hyper-development’s path are some concerned NGOs like my host and guide, the Foundation for Ecological Security, and a handful of politicians such as Jairam Ramesh, India’s controversial and erudite Minister of Environment and Forests who has blocked a number of dams on the upper Ganges River, much to the fury of fast-growth advocates and big business...

The question that simmers throughout my trip is how can India (not to mention China) possibly continue to ‘grow’ and ‘develop’ in the Western industrial manner, mining its earth and waters and farmlands for GDP and middle-class consumption without destroying itself, eroding its rich and vital agrarian lands, and hastening our ecological demise?

It is profoundly unfair to demand restrictions on India, China, and other emerging nations after the U.S. and Europe have sucked the planet dry for the past century and a half. But this is where we stand now, and reams of climate-change evidence show there is no turning back the ecological clock.

And as 'emerging' nations pursue the classic 'modernization' model of favoring industrial manufacture over agriculture, how will this undermine domestic and global food security? How do we create a new economic system that promotes sustainable agrarian and pastoral lands and livelihoods — beyond preserving selected commons even as the rest of the countryside is imperiled?

How can we ask India to restrain itself as it hurtles ahead to the very material comforts, profits, and pleasures that so many Americans and Europeans take for granted? The U.S. has zero — actually negative — credibility when it comes to setting ecologically responsible global standards, or for relinquishing any of its material excesses which contribute mightily to climate chaos. Not only have we already ‘had our fun’ plundering the planet, we continue to do so with the world’s largest per-capita carbon footprint, even as we pressure India and China to restrain their emissions.

Before demanding slower growth or less industrialization from India and China, it’s essential that the U.S. show some leadership in diminishing both production and consumption of non-essential goods mined from the earth. But that would require a direct confrontation with capitalism’s growth imperative (the unrelenting need for new markets and products, for ‘built-in obsolescence,’ and maximum profit). And that would run counter to the central underpinning of the once-vaunted American economy, now being replicated and steadily surpassed by other nations, eager to join the party.

Will anyone — can anyone — challenge the growth and consumption imperative, before it consumes us all?'

11 February 2011

Getting 'FoodWise' About Wasting Food

Reposted in full from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8 February 2011

'Food is the one thing that unifies us. We love it. We eat it. It brings us together and it sustains us. The sights and smells of food encourage us to eat more, but as we do, we also throw more of it away.

The latest Federal Government figures indicate that Australians are throwing out 7.5 million tonnes of food waste every year. Some 4.45 million tonnes of this is from households and 3.12 million tonnes is from commercial and industrial sources. Research by Do Something shows that Australians are spending $7.8 billion on food that we buy but don't eat. When you consider how many people worldwide are starving, it's almost criminal that Australians are wasting so much food.

Food waste is a waste of money

IBISWorld research shows that Australians are spending $71 billion each year on food that we consume in the home. On top of that we spend $16.5 billion on takeaway food and a further $7.7 billion on food that we buy in restaurants and cafes. With so many household budgets under strain, it's surprising how much food Australia throws away. Every day we literally create mountains of food waste.

Garbage bin analysis in NSW, Victoria and South Australia shows that 40 to 41 per cent of the contents of our household garbage bins is food.

Overseas, the story is the same. Every single day, Britons throws away five million potatoes, a million slices of ham, four million apples and seven million slices of bread.

In Australia, some experts believe that we're throwing away at least 20 per cent of the food that we buy. That's the equivalent of buying five bags of groceries and throwing one away. Given the cost of today's food, that's clearly not sustainable for the family budget.

The environmental impact

Neither is it sustainable for the environment. When food waste rots in landfill it produces methane, a greenhouse gas that's 25 times more potent than the CO2 pouring out of your car's exhaust. The British Government estimates that the UK food chain accounts for a fifth of their carbon emissions. That problem has become so big that stopping food waste in the UK would be equivalent to taking one in five cars off their roads.

In preparing this article, I rummaged through people's bins and took long walks on landfill sites. It wasn't pleasant. There's something rather sad about seeing so much good food turning into a rotting mash of glunk. For me, it was an eye opener into what's wrong with our modern busy lives.

Indeed, the explosion in resource use that has come from the growing, processing, packaging and transportation of modern food is frightening.

A recipe for disaster

When I was a child, I grew up in a country community where food production and consumption was a far simpler process. Farmers grew the food and brought it fresh to the local market. Food was grown seasonally and people adjusted their meals to match their locally available food.

Today's food system, however, is a recipe for environmental disaster.

Food is often grown, refrigerated and transported hundreds of kilometres into centralised warehouses. From there, it's trucked to supermarkets spread out into distant communities. The pre-packaged convenience food we buy contains ingredients that can criss-cross a continent. Even out of season food is flown around the world to ensure that nature doesn't cramp our ability to eat what we want, when we want it.

As a result, when we throw away food, we also waste all of the resources, fuel and energy that was used to get that food from the paddock to our plate. That's even if it gets to our plate. Far too much of our food doesn't even get that far before we bin it. In Queensland, research revealed that 60,000 tonnes of bananas don't even make it past the farm gate every year.

The 'cosmetic retail standards' required by major supermarkets and others, means that millions of bananas are chopped up and put straight back on to the land. According to Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin, nearly a third of the crop is graded out. The reason? They're too small or they have minor blemishes.

Australians also throw away food because we forget about it. We leave it lingering in the depths of our fridges and cupboards, unused and unloved. When we do use it, we use too much and even then we don't use the leftovers. It's an approach to food that's anathema to older generations.

Learning from the past

What I loved about my grandmother was that she could always make meals from leftovers. I'm not sure that I ever got to see the original meal, but she could make a meal from anything. She was from a wartime generation that truly valued food and made the most of every scrap. This cooking of leftovers was the earliest form of recycling and your table options were to take it or leave it. If you left it, you went hungry. So you ate it.

Take water, for example. Australians live on the world's driest inhabited continent, but we were profligate with the amount of water we used. Recent droughts combined with education saw us cut our water use in record numbers. We changed for the better. But despite that, most of us are still unaware of how much water we waste when we throw out food.

According to CSIRO data, dumping a kilogram of beef can waste the 50,000 litres it took to produce that meat. Throwing out a kilo of white rice will waste 2,385 litres. The water and energy used to produce our crops and livestock is out of sight and out of mind when we throw it in the bin.

To that end, there's a real disconnect between the food we buy and the impact that it has on the environment when we waste it. Values such as moderation and thrift have seemingly bypassed a younger generation of Australians. It's far easier to throw out food and buy more. With eyes bigger than our bellies, too many of us fall prey to 'two for one' deals and supersize offers. The result? More discarded food.

How do we solve the problem?

So what's the solution? Despite the popularity of cooking shows, there is still a poor understanding among Australians of how to store, purchase and prepare food.

Whether we like it or not, the price of petrol and the cost of living will continue to rise. One simple way to offset this increase is to become 'foodwise' and save money. When it comes to food shopping, the first rule is to get a lot smarter about what you buy and when you buy it.

Eradicating bad shopping habits is crucial. Planning for what you're going to eat for the week ahead is the first place to start. Writing a shopping list that takes into account the existing food in your pantry or fridge is essential if you're only going to buy what you need. Thinking twice about 'two for one' offers is also vital and don't go food shopping when you're hungry. You'll always buy more than you need.

Keeping an eye on the 'best before' and 'use by' dates in your pantry and fridge is also essential. You must always abide by 'use by' dates but lots of food can be eaten after the 'best before' tag (except for eggs - they should be thrown out when they reach their 'best before' date). Plain common sense and your eyes and nose should tell you whether it's usable or not. If it starts to wilt, you can always throw it in a soup.

Cooking extra portions for the freezer or freezing your leftovers in airtight containers saves food for another day. If you do end up with food waste, composting at home can reduce landfill and provide you with free nutrients for your garden. If you don't have a garden, get yourself a worm farm. Worms can eat their own weight in food every day and their castings are great for household plants.

It's time to get FoodWise

By now, you're hopefully aware of the scale of the problem. So how do we change?

George Bernard Shaw once said "there is no love sincerer than the love of food." He was right. We should love food. We just need to hate waste. It's vital that we change our behaviour and learn new food habits.

If we can switch to green bags and shorter showers, then surely we can learn to save food? That is why I launched Do Something's FoodWise.com.au campaign.

Wasted food is a waste of money. Eradicating the waste and being wiser with food means you'll end up saving the planet and your wallet at the same time.

From an environmental standpoint, we're currently eating ourselves out of house and home. If we don't mend our wasteful ways, we'll be eating ourselves out of an environment that can sustainably support future generations of Australians.

That's not an outcome any of us want. It's not just caring about food and saving money. It's about creating a safer future for Australia's kids. That's a responsibility we must all live up to.'

25 January 2011

The Future of Food & Farming - UK Report

Reposted in full from the Resource Recovery Forum newsletter, January 2011


'A new report, published today by Foresight, the UK Government's futures think tank, argues for fundamental change to the global food system, and beyond if a rapidly expanding global population is to be fed over the next 40 years.

The Foresight project 'Global Food and Farming Futures' has examined how a rapidly expanding global population can be fed in a healthy and sustainable way. Multiple threats are converging on the food system, including changes in the climate, competition for resources such as water supply and energy, and changing consumption patterns provide considerable challenges to sustaining the world's food supply.

The report's main findings are:
  • threat of hunger could increase: Efforts to end hunger internationally are already stalling, and without decisive action food prices could rise substantially over the next 40 years making the situation worse. This will affect us all - as more of the world suffers from hunger social tensions will increase, as will the threat of conflict and migration. Wider economic growth will also be affected.
  • the global food system is living outside its means, consuming resources faster than are naturally replenished. It must be redesigned to bring sustainability centre stage: Substantial changes will be required throughout the food system and related areas, such as water use, energy use and addressing climate change, if food security is to be provided for a predicted nine billion or more people out to 2050.
  • there is no quick fix: The potential threats converging on the global food system are so great that action is needed across many fronts, from changing diets to eliminating food waste.

Three important areas for change include:
  • minimising waste in all areas of the food system: An amount of food equivalent to about a quarter of today's annual production could potentially be saved by 2050 if the current estimate of global food waste is halved.
  • balancing future demand and supply in the food system: This could include helping businesses to measure the environmental impacts of food so that consumers can choose products that promote sustainability.
  • improving governance of the global food system: It is important to reduce subsidies and trade barriers that disadvantage poor countries. The project's economic modelling shows how trade restrictions can amplify shocks in the food system, raising prices further.

The challenges identified in the report show an urgent need to link food and agriculture policy to wider global governance agendas such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity and international development. Without this link a decision in one area could compromise important objectives in another.

The report, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Development, outlines the findings of an extensive two-year study. It has involved around 400 experts from about 35 countries and considered food and farming in oceans and freshwater environments as well as on the land.'

Responsible Recycling of E-Waste in South Australia

Sourced from YouTube, January 2011

21 January 2011

Why Food Security Must Be Viewed as a Strategic Threat - British MP

Laura Sandys is a Conservative MP for South Thanet

Reposted in full from The Ecologist, 18th January, 2011

With cheap food pricing, over-reliance on imports, and the pressures of a growing population, the UK's food security is set to rise up the national agenda. The Coalition Government must be prepared for the challenges aheadFor too long we have been avoiding one of the biggest threats to this country’s domestic security – food. Deluded by cheap food prices, importing over 50 per cent of what is on our supermarket shelves, and dismissing the calls from UK farmers and fishermen to focus more on national food production; food insecurity is an issue set to rise up the national agenda. It is time that Government understood and prepared for the challenge ahead.

I am pleased that our Government scientists are taking the issue of food security seriously with the future launch of the Foresight Report on Global Food and Farming Futures. Following a 20 per cent drop in Britain’s food self sufficiency over 10 years, the report will constitute an important and timely step in addressing the threat to Britain’s food security. Only last week, the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation reported record food price hikes of 4.2 per cent - double the national wage increase.

Food is a truly globalised business – a fact which enhances Britain’s vulnerability given its reliance on food imports. Events in recent weeks will undoubtedly be reflected in our pockets. Australia – the fourth largest producer of wheat – has lost tons of its crops in floods; conflict in the Ivory Coast has limited cocoa exports; and poor harvests due to La Nina have reduced global food supplies. Such events reflect in world food prices and result in greater unpredictability in securing food staples.

A new era of trade protectionism in food could well be on the horizon - not for economic gain, but to ensure domestic stability. Policy makers have perhaps lost sight of the domestic, regional and international tensions that could arise should access to food be curtailed. Only last week, the rising price of onions resulted in India banning exports to Pakistan which worsened tensions with its neighbour. On Friday, the world witnessed Tunisia’s people overturn their President as a peak in global food prices contributed to national unrest. Whitehall must take heed of these international lessons and prepare.

But just how vulnerable is the UK, and how should we go about securing our future food supply? We must assess the risk – a risk that is growing and will only accelerate exponentially due to a global population reaching 9 billion by 2050. Further, over 25 per cent of the world’s productive land will be lost due to rising sea levels and desertification. The government should halt development on grade one agricultural land – the means and resources for food production must be regarded as a national priority.

There is also a role for our defence capacity in safeguarding Britain’s food security. Policy makers must carefully consider what threats might arise due to resource scarcity. Piracy is one. Last year alone, pirates abducted 217 merchant ships. Even the British Chamber of Shipping has stated: 'Climate change and scarcity of resources will bring unknown and destabilising influences at sea – as we all fight for vanishing resources.'

Although it is presently the Horn of Africa that is blighted by pirates, if food is to become a more valued commodity and energy costs are to increase, piracy could soon plague other major trade routes.

Special Forces with specialist knowledge could provide logistical assistance to support our vessels transporting vital food supplies. Our aircraft carriers and frigates could assist Britain’s food importing vessels by protecting from the threats of piracy and keeping trade routes open.

But some of the answers also lie closer to home. We must rethink the way we use food. I was recently part of a TV programme that highlighted that up to 30 per cent of food – good food – is thrown away every year. Supermarkets reject fruit and vegetables that do not fit their so called 'aesthetic standards'; sell by dates encourage us at home to throw away food that
is perfectly fresh; and meat cuts such as offal are discarded as we have forgotten how to eat or cook them. In my constituency of Thanet, fishermen are compelled to discard 50 per cent of their catch due to an outmoded quota system.

A further step towards greater food security is needed to develop and invest in world class food production technologies. Food production will - and must - become one of Britain’s industries of the future. Schools must encourage the young to look at the food and agricultural sector as exciting and offering challenging futures, and universities must take steps to draw together the best brains and resources to address the challenge of dealing with food security.Up until rationing was lifted after the war, food security was regarded as a strategic issue for Government. It is important that food inflation and scarcity are understood throughout Whitehall and that the warnings of our leading scientists are heard.'

14 January 2011

The Impossible Toaster

Sourced from TED, January 2011



'It takes an entire civilization to build a toaster. Designer Thomas Thwaites found out the hard way, by attempting to build one from scratch: mining ore for steel, deriving plastic from oil ... it's frankly amazing he got as far as he got. A parable of our interconnected society, for designers and consumers alike.'

04 January 2011

Bearing Witness: Chris Jordan on Art, Grief, and Transformation



Check out Chris's amazing work at www.chrisjordan.com

Reposted in full from YES! Magazine, 14 April 2010


'Photographer Chris Jordan is used to working on the large scale. His most famous works try to capture the sheer scope of American consumer culture: discarded circuit boards spread out like a city, teetering stacks of crushed cars, two million plastic bottles (the number Americans use every five minutes) compiled in a single photograph.

But with his most recent project, Jordan is narrowing his focus. Last fall, he led a team of artists to Midway Atoll, a tiny, remote island in the middle of the Pacific where throw-away culture is having a major impact: albatross chicks are dying by the thousands, choking or starving after trying to eat small chunks of plastic carried to the island by the North Pacific Gyre (also called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch). The result is a relentless series of photographs of decomposing birds with bright, colorful plastic where their stomachs used to be.

For Jordan, opening himself up to the horror of what’s happening on Midway—all the while recognizing that it’s “just one of the tragedies that’s happening in our world”—was painful and intensely demoralizing. But, together with the writer Terry Tempest Williams, he’s now planning to return several more times to further immerse himself in the island’s hard truths—and to discover whether transformation can be found on the other side of grief.


Brooke Jarvis: Some might expect that, having seen one photo of an albatross killed by unknowingly eating plastic, you’ve seen them all. But it really does get sadder the more you see. What was it like to actually be there?

Chris Jordan: The experience of being out on Midway, for me, was mostly an experience of pure shock. Despite my efforts to allow myself to feel the tragedy that I was witnessing out there, I was working so much that it was difficult to be really present. It took a couple of months for the experience to really hit me on an emotional level. The way it happened for me, it was a kind of descent into something that looked a lot like hopelessness.

I’ve realized that the metaphor that I carried with me when I went to Midway was that Dante's Inferno scenario—you walk through the fire, and you come out the other side with renewed energy or perspective. What actually happened, though, is that I felt like I walked through the fire and then just burned up in it.

For example, I thought that after returning from Midway, I would much more rigorously eliminate my consumption of plastic. What actually happened was a feeling like, “No matter what I do, this problem is not going to be affected.” So I kind of let go—for a while there, I didn't even care if I used single-use disposable plastics. The problem was just so huge and overwhelming that I didn't feel like I could make any difference one way or another. It's taken me a lot of work to begin to have more of a perspective on that issue for myself personally.

Brooke: What has that work consisted of?

Chris: Right now I’m trying to focus on being more present, on trying to experience what's happening right now, on letting go of the future and circling the wagons in the present moment. For me, that means focusing on who I am and what my values are; working out how to connect with others and how to live with integrity; and keeping right on doing my work.

Brooke: When you went to Midway, you assembled a team of artists. Not, say, an artist and a biologist and an anthropologist. Why?

Chris: One of the fundamental problems of our world, underlying a lot of the disasters that are happening, is that we’re disconnected from what we feel. I think it would be fair to say that American culture is the culture that is most detached from its feelings of any culture in the world. We've become separated from nature and urbanized in this weird, new, overwhelming way—and the only way many of us have found to cope is to disconnect from the anxiety and the fear.

The nature of the information that we have to deal with compounds that disconnection even further. We converse daily in numbers of millions and billions as if we understand them. When I say we use 210 billion plastic bottles in the United States every year, I assume that I understand what that number means, and whoever is listening assumes they do, too. In fact it's totally incomprehensible. There are all these sociological studies that demonstrate vividly that the human mind cannot comprehend numbers higher than a few thousand. There are all these phenomena around the world, whether it's the 1.2 billion people in the world who lack access to safe drinking water or the 10 million tons of plastic that are swirling around in the Pacific Ocean. We can't see those phenomena, and the only information we have available to try to relate to them is in the form of numbers we absolutely cannot comprehend. It’s no wonder that we can’t relate to our global culture on any kind of feeling level.

That's where I think art comes in, and why I think it's so important right now, because feeling is the kingdom of art. I've gotten to meet lots of scientists who are uniformly wringing their hands in frustration at their inability to convey to the public any sense of the extreme urgency they feel about the issues that they're studying. The underlying phenomena are profoundly important, and yet the information we're receiving is fundamentally dry and incomprehensible. Art can act as a mediator between science and the public, translating what science can tell us into a visual language that we can understand, that allows for personal connection and feeling. My hope for all my work, and especially my Midway work, is to make the global personal.

Brooke: Your series Running the Numbers: An American Self Portrait dealt with the same problem: trying to literally, visually represent those vast numbers we can’t conceptualize. Now, it seems you’re saying that the best way to relate isn’t to try to show the whole problem at once, but to ask how we can understand a huge problem by looking at one very small, but more emotional, part of it.

Chris: I was looking at these huge global issues and trying to figure out a way to make them personal. To some extent, with the Running the Numbers series, I had to let go of the personal a little bit. If I were to critique it myself, there's a kind of conceptual coldness to that work. It felt like a sacrifice I had to make to be able to address those giant issues, but I wanted to figure out a way to get out of the conceptual and into something that's more about direct feeling.

You know, just an infinitesimally tiny percentage of all the plastic that's in the Pacific Ocean ends up inside the stomachs of dead baby birds on Midway Island. But where else is there? That’s what’s so hard about these mass cultural issues—there’s nowhere you can see the full impact of the problem. We try to relate to these issues through the neocortex, the intellectual part of our mind that analyzes numbers, but that’s not the part of our mind that feels things. I wanted to really feel the Pacific Garbage Patch. There's no way that I know of other than going to Midway.

Brooke: Earlier, you used the word “witness” to describe your role on Midway. Is bearing witness a useful way to think about your work?

I talk a lot about despair and shame and hopelessness. People come up to me and say they feel such a relief to talk about those emotions.

Chris: Yes—in fact, I spent time recently with the writer Terry Tempest Williams, who talked to me quite a bit about the value of bearing witness. It means more than just going there and seeing something. There's a kind of holding that happens, and a making of meaning. I stand in awe of how fearless she is to go all the way into grief and pain. I told her about my hope of going all the way into the horror and grief of what’s happening on Midway as a way of trying to come out the other side. And she said, "There is no coming out the other side. You just learn to live with the grief."

What I realize now, after talking to Terry, is that I need to go back there. The project is just not finished—there’s more to uncover, more to witness.

Brooke: In what way?

Chris: Well, when we were there we never saw a live albatross on the island. The birds are born in the spring and die through the summer, but decompose so quickly due to the heat, rain, and insects that by November or December there’s nothing left but piles of plastic. So we went in September, which happens to be the time of the year when all the albatross are out at sea.

Terry's going to go with me when I return there in June, and again in the fall, and possibly also for the winter solstice. By June the albatross will all be close to adults—almost a million of them. There will already by thousands of dead birds on the ground, and we’ll see more dying.

I’ve been told that we’ll actually see toothbrushes going down throats and chicks whose body cavities are filled all the way up to their necks with plastic—their parents try to feed them one more piece of plastic, one more cigarette lighter or magic marker, and the baby chokes to death. It's a long process of the babies just kind of flapping around, making an awful gagging sound, and then crashing into the ground and expiring. There’s a huge abundance of life and an overwhelming noise, day and night—and at the same time there’s death all around.

Brooke: And that emotional experience is very different from an intellectual one.

Chris: It’s the only way we really believe what’s happening, or how wrong it is. Even in the green movement, there's a tremendous amount of denial about how bad things are. I constantly hear the message, "We're just about to save the world. There’s going to be a giant transformation. It's just around the corner."

But there's a dark side that we aren't facing. Until we do, I don't think we're going to make any progress. You know what it's kind of like? The alcoholic who says, "I can stop whenever I want. It's going to be tomorrow. Please pass the vodka bottle." Until we start acknowledging the scope of our problem and face what we actually feel, the conversation can’t change.

Brooke: How can giving up on denial change the conversation?

Chris: I don't know. I don’t think we can know. It seems to me that that's a portal we have to step through. We have to let go of what's on the other side, and go through.

That’s the intention for my Midway work. I'm allowing myself to fully experience the horror of just one of the tragedies that's happening in our world. I'm letting go of how that's going to affect me.

How do we face our grief and despair without getting lost in them?

When I do my public talks, I talk a lot about despair and shame and hopelessness. People come up to me and say they feel such a relief to talk about those emotions. We’re all feeling lost and disempowered and like some things are fundamentally wrong. And yet people are pretending things are fine: The economic bailout's going to get us right back where we were a few years ago and we're going to keep right on with the party. But I think we all know that isn't going to happen.

I believe that we need to allow ourselves to feel grief deeply. Anger and rage and shame—those are surface feelings. Grief is deep. Grief and love might be the two deepest human emotions. When we allow ourselves to really grieve, it's a transformational experience.

People I've known who have gone through the long slow death of a loved one from cancer, who have fully grieved and fully said goodbye and fully experienced the process, have come out of that experience transformed. They know more deeply who they are and what their priorities are. The Dalai Lama is not the only person in the world who has access to that kind of wisdom. We all do, but it gets clouded and fogged over by our daily rush and the messages we keep getting from our consumer culture, that material things will bring us happiness. We're all so involved in this headlong rush to a more materially luxurious lifestyle that we forget who we are and what really matters. We so badly need to reconnect with that right now.

If the conversation is going to turn in the direction of collective cultural wisdom, I believe we need to grieve first.'

01 January 2011

The Economics of Happiness

Sourced from the producers of The Economics of Happiness documentary, International Society for Ecology & Culture (ISEC).



'Economic globalization has led to a massive expansion in the scale and power of big business and banking. It has also worsened nearly every problem we face: fundamentalism and ethnic conflict; climate chaos and species extinction; financial instability and unemployment. There are personal costs too. For the majority of people on the planet life is becoming increasingly stressful. We have less time for friends and family and we face mounting pressures at work.

The Economics of Happiness describes a world moving simultaneously in two opposing directions. On the one hand, government and big business continue to promote globalization and the consolidation of corporate power. At the same time, all around the world people are resisting those policies, demanding a re-regulation of trade and finance—and, far from the old institutions of power, they’re starting to forge a very different future. Communities are coming together to re-build more human scale, ecological economies based on a new paradigm – an economics of localization.'

30 December 2010

The Fixer's Collective

Sourced from Kickstarter, 30 December 2010



'The Fixers’ Collective is a social experiment in improvisational fixing and mending. Our goals are:

1/ To increase material literacy in our community by fostering an ethic of creative caring toward the objects in our lives.

2/ To displace cultural patterns that alienate us from our things, by collectively learning the skills and patience necessary to care for them.

3/ To promote a counter-ethos that values functionality, simplicity, and ingenuity and that respects age, persistence and adequacy.

4/ To encourage our communities to take liberties with designated forms and purposes, resulting in mended objects that exist both as art and within a utilitarian context.'

05 December 2010

A Vision for Sustainable Restaurants

Wow!!! This guy is a lot more than a chef...

Sourced from TED, December 2010

'If you've been in a restaurant kitchen, you've seen how much food, water and energy can be wasted there. Chef Arthur Potts-Dawson shares his very personal vision for drastically reducing restaurant, and supermarket, waste - creating recycling, composting, sustainable engines for good (and good food).'

26 November 2010

Auction Unwanted Items, Raise Funds for Charity

This is a clever way of incentivising reuse and raising funds for charity - when the proceeds from successful auctions are deposited into the charity's bank account, the seller receives a receipt enabling them to claim a tax deduction.

Reposted in full from ProBono Australia, 25 November 2010

Australian community organisations are benefiting from an initiative, which enables people and companies to donate and sell goods and services online with the proceeds going to their preferred charity.

AidArena has been established by a group of Queensland business people and developed over the past two years. AidArena provides an online market place to help charities nationwide by capitalising on the value of items often thrown or given away by householders.

AidArena Spokesman Don MacMillan says the online platform is excited to provide an equal opportunity for all Australian Charities, regardless of their size, or nature.
He says the Salvation Army, the RSPCA and CanTeen are among the high profile charities to join forces with AidArena. However, AidArena is available to any organisation with a DGR status, including school funds.

MacMillan says the motivation for setting up AidArena was to assist a wide variety of charities in challenging economic times and help fill the donation shortfall by utilising goods and services rather than seeking cash.

The concept of AidArena was to provide a means for people and companies to donate goods and services while receiving a tax benefit. A tax deductible receipt is issued for the full sale price of the donated item when the resulting cash donation is deposited into the bank account of the chosen charity.

MacMillan says individuals can donate any household items they aren’t using anymore such as appliances or other electrical goods, sporting equipment, furniture, art works or valuables such as jewellery.

He says instead of donating money, companies can donate obsolete or dead stock and feel great that their goods and services are being auctioned for a good cause.

AidArena uses PayPal to provide buyers with a secure online account for the payment of items. Distribution of funds is handled by AidArena, which allows the charities to seamlessly receive the funds directly into their account.

AidArena is free for everyone to use, there are no joining or subscription fees. All donated items are being welcomed but must have a starting value of $9 and already high value items have been listed.

MacMillan says besides donating goods; trade, business or professional people, could auction their services online to raise funds for charity. The donor creates an online voucher and when successfully sold it is automatically emailed to the winning bidder.

He says the AidArena website – www.aidarena.com – was designed to be easy to use and navigate even for people with limited online skills, and if donors can use a digital camera and a computer they are well on their way to enjoying tax effective giving.

AidArena is free for everyone to use, there are no joining or subscription fees. AidArena will take care of all the administration work, monitor the auctions, and will transfer the funds raised (less the administration fee that ranges from as little as 4.4% to 14% depending on the final sale price) to the charity.

AidArena asks that all charities involved promote AidArena to their support base and corporate sponsors and encourage them to donate items for auction on their behalf.

Charities, buyers, and donors, and the general public, are encouraged to follow AidArena on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/aidarena) and Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/AidArena).