I am no longer using this blog. Please visit my current blog, "The Farm Gate", where I continue writing on the themes of Organic farming, environmentalism, simple living and good food.
See you there!
Monday, January 28, 2013
Thursday, May 05, 2011
The State of Environmentalism 1
Here is the first of a series of articles by George Monbiot, Simon Fairlie and Paul Kingsnorth on the dilemma faced by the environmental movement in the wake of the Fukishima disaster.
The Lost World
By George Monbiot
The Lost World
By George Monbiot
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Bolivia at UN: “We cannot command nature except by obeying her”
Original article
April 28, 2011
Speech of Ambassador Pablo Solón, permanent representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, on the occasion of the General Assembly interactive dialogue on harmony with nature, April 20, 2011
Victor Hugo, the author of Les Misérables, once wrote: “How sad to think that nature speaks and mankind doesn’t listen.”
We are here today to attempt to have a dialogue not just among States, but also with nature. Although we often forget it, human beings are a force in nature. In reality, we are all a product of the same Big Bang that created the universe, although some only see wood for the fire when they walk through the forest.
These three questions are the point of departure for our discussion today:
The philosopher Francis Bacon said that we cannot command nature except by obeying her. The time for superheroes and superpowers is coming to an end.
Nature cannot be submitted to the wills of the laboratory. Science and technology are capable of everything including destroying the world itself.
It is time to stop and reaffirm the precautionary principle in the face of geo-engineering and all artificial manipulation of the climate. All new technologies should be evaluated to gauge their environmental, social and economic impacts.
The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature.
The green economy considers it necessary, in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity: the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climatic regulation.
According to the green economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services.
For the green economy, capitalism’s mistake is not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital. That is why its central proposal is to create “environmentally friendly” business and green jobs and in that way limit environmental degradation by bringing the laws of capitalism to bear on nature.
In other words, the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature.
This is not a hypothetical debate, since the third round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization will be about the trade in services and environmental goods.
Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that the guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System?
Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?
To speak of equilibrium is to speak of rights for all parts of the system. It could be that these rights are not identical for all things, since not all things are equal. But to think that only humans should enjoy privileges while other living things are simply objects is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. Decades ago, to talk about slaves as having the same rights as everyone else seemed like the same heresy that it is now to talk about glaciers or rivers or trees as having rights.
Nature is ruthless when it goes ignored.
It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.
Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
We have not come here to watch a funeral.
April 28, 2011
Speech of Ambassador Pablo Solón, permanent representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, on the occasion of the General Assembly interactive dialogue on harmony with nature, April 20, 2011
Victor Hugo, the author of Les Misérables, once wrote: “How sad to think that nature speaks and mankind doesn’t listen.”
We are here today to attempt to have a dialogue not just among States, but also with nature. Although we often forget it, human beings are a force in nature. In reality, we are all a product of the same Big Bang that created the universe, although some only see wood for the fire when they walk through the forest.
These three questions are the point of departure for our discussion today:
First, what is nature? Is it a thing, a source of resources, a system, a home, a community of living and interdependent beings?
Second, are there rules in nature? Are there natural laws that govern its integrity, interrelationships, reproduction and transformation?
And third, are we as States and as a society recognizing, respecting and making sure that the rules of nature prevail?
The philosopher Francis Bacon said that we cannot command nature except by obeying her. The time for superheroes and superpowers is coming to an end.
Nature cannot be submitted to the wills of the laboratory. Science and technology are capable of everything including destroying the world itself.
It is time to stop and reaffirm the precautionary principle in the face of geo-engineering and all artificial manipulation of the climate. All new technologies should be evaluated to gauge their environmental, social and economic impacts.
The answer for the future lies not in scientific inventions but in our capacity to listen to nature.
The green economy considers it necessary, in the struggle to preserve biodiversity, to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer humanity: the purification of water, the pollination of plants by bees, the protection of coral reefs and climatic regulation.
According to the green economy, we have to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be made subject to a monetary value, evaluate their current state, define the limits of those services, and set out in economic terms the cost of their conservation to develop a market for environmental services.
For the green economy, capitalism’s mistake is not having fully incorporated nature as part of capital. That is why its central proposal is to create “environmentally friendly” business and green jobs and in that way limit environmental degradation by bringing the laws of capitalism to bear on nature.
In other words, the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature.
This is not a hypothetical debate, since the third round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization will be about the trade in services and environmental goods.
Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that the guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System?
Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?
To speak of equilibrium is to speak of rights for all parts of the system. It could be that these rights are not identical for all things, since not all things are equal. But to think that only humans should enjoy privileges while other living things are simply objects is the worst mistake humanity has ever made. Decades ago, to talk about slaves as having the same rights as everyone else seemed like the same heresy that it is now to talk about glaciers or rivers or trees as having rights.
Nature is ruthless when it goes ignored.
It is incredible that it is easier to imagine the destruction of nature than to dream about overthrowing capitalism.
Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
We have not come here to watch a funeral.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
CAUTIOUS WELCOME FOR MANDATORY LABELLING OF GM FOODS
Biosafety in South Africa - Media Releases
5 APRIL 2011, Johannesburg, and Cape Town, South Africa.
The African Centre for Biosafety and SAFEAGE cautiously welcome the mandatory labeling regime established by the regulations made in terms of the Consumer Protection Act for GM food. According to Mariam Mayet of the ACB, “the mandatory labeling regime holds the promise of bringing to an end an era where consumers were deliberately kept in the dark about what they are eating.” Mayet, however cautions that the “regulations are fraught with legal uncertainties and ambiguities, which may give rise to interpretation problems, particularly with regard to the scope of the law.”
The groups also express concern that consumers could be faced with up to five labels on GM foods, owing to attempts by government to appease agribusiness. According to Fahrie Hassan of SAFAGE, “the labeling regime represents a compromise package, which allows industry to opt for labels where testing for GM content is undertaken, as well as for labels where no testing is required. This may result in consumers being confused about what the differences are between the various labels.”
From the 1 October 2011, food producers, importers and packagers will be required to choose one of three mandatory labels for GM foods and marketing materials. Where the GM content is at least 5%, the food will be labeled as ‘containing GMOs.’ Where the food is produced directly from GMO sources, there will be no need for testing, and food must be labeled as ‘produced using genetic modification’. Industry may also opt for ‘may contain GMOs’ labels in circumstances where they are able to argue that it is scientifically impractical and not feasible to test food for GM content. This provides industry with broad latitude to circumvent the labelling regime and the need for testing and in so doing, undermine consumer choice. According to Hassan: “We find this totally unacceptable.”
“ We support extensive public education and awareness programmes aimed at explaining to consumers what these different labels mean to them and hope that the Consumer Commission will assist with this task and ensure that groups such as ours, have a meaningful role to play in such a process,” said Hassan.
2 voluntary labels are also permissible; one denoting that the food “does not contain GMOs”, where the GM content is 0.9% or less and the other, stating that the “GM content is less than 5%”, where the GM content is between 1% and 4.9%. Few food products are likely to be labeled as not containing GMOs owing to the widespread contamination in South Africa between GM and non- GM food.
“We will remain vigilant and challenge labeling claims to safeguard the consumers Right to Know,” said Mayet.
Ends
Contact
Mariam Mayet, ACB 083 2694309
Fahrie Hassan SAFEAGE 072 4818835
Monday, April 25, 2011
New Blog
I have decided to split my blogging onto two different sites. This site, "Muthimuthi", will be mainly on environmental issues and will be more philosophical and activist in tone.
I have started a new site, "The Farm Gate", which will focus more on organic farming, gardening, food, health and living lightly, simply and sustainably.
I have started a new site, "The Farm Gate", which will focus more on organic farming, gardening, food, health and living lightly, simply and sustainably.
Monday, January 31, 2011
What is Green Politics
I came across this essay by Paul Kingsnorth, a writer and environmental activist from the UK. I think he illustrates the difference between the light green and the deep green perspective of politics. This same perspective can be applied to the green-washing of of our current economic system.
To be truly "green" is to identify oneself with a movement that is outside of the current political and economic paradigm. It is to be more radical than the Marxists!
Remember the original meaning of radical is 'to go to the root of'. I think this is appropriate to those who love Nature foremost.
To be truly "green" is to identify oneself with a movement that is outside of the current political and economic paradigm. It is to be more radical than the Marxists!
Remember the original meaning of radical is 'to go to the root of'. I think this is appropriate to those who love Nature foremost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)