An old article, but an interesting read nonetheless.
----------------------------------
CUBA'S ORGANIC REVOLUTION
Walter Schwarz
Resurgence, issue 212, May -- June 2002
Successful city farming.
ORGANIC AGRICULTURE is at a crossroads. Just as it breaks through into wider public awareness and achieves something more than grudging official recognition, it is in danger of being engulfed by a supermarket culture in which it becomes just another global commodity. Organic produce is no longer local and its producers can be squeezed until only the biggest survive. This is happening in Britain, the us and other industrial countries. Only in one country is organic food taken for granted by consumers and enthusiastically sponsored by the government.
In Cuba, a world-class model of organic practices has developed -- and most of the food is grown where it is eaten -- inside cities. This enterprise by the communist government was originally designed to fight economic isolation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Cuba could not import fertilizers, pesticides and fuel for tractors. But the organic mentality has taken hold and Cuba, despite its continuing poverty, is one of the healthiest countries to live in.
In the Cuban countryside organic sugar, coffee and orange groves are becoming established with official support -- but the spectacular success story is city farming, which produces a stunning 60% of Cuba's vegetables.
You see the veggie stalls on pavements, at street corners and under the covered walkways of Havana's elegant, crumbling colonial buildings. Inside the city, chemical fertilizers and most pesticides are forbidden.
Food grows in unlikely spaces between houses. Patios (or huertos) are the smallest unit. Over a million patios are registered in Cuba. Larger urban market gardens, growing vegetables on raised beds and selling them on site, are called organoponics -- a verbal adaptation of hydroponics which used to be in fashion here.
Ricardo Sanchez is passionate about organic gardening. He feeds his vegetables with compost from his kitchen, his catfish on worms and larvae, his rabbits on leaves and herbs. He makes natural pesticides to protect his produce. His tomatoes, guavas, avocados, mangoes, herbs and medicinal plants compete for space under the shadow of his beautiful and useful palm trees.
Ricardo's garden is just one of Havana's 62,000 huertos -- private urban plots of less than 800 square metres devoted to food production. All enjoy elaborate official support. A sign outside Ricardo's house proclaims that his garden is supported by three separate institutions: the people's Patio Movement for Eco-organic Production, the Agriculture and Pisciculture Network and the Municipal Food Development Committee.
In the Playa borough, the community garden boasts a hectare abundant with parsley, lettuce, spinach and tomatoes. As I arrived, members were tending the plants as volunteers, alongside paid workers. Andreas Verdecia, the technical manager, is employed full-time by Granja Urbana, the government's Urban Farming Institute. He said the produce was 100% organic. "We use compost made by worms. Against fungi we use other fungi:
we try to find the natural way."
At the start of the organic revolution, as the government gave unused city land to anyone who wanted to cultivate it, many first-generation city dwellers remembered their country childhood. Development officials encouraged their efforts, state shops supplied seed and tools. "The secret is in the high productivity of small urban units," Nelso Compagnioni of the Institute for Tropical Agriculture told me -- denying the conventional wisdom behind industrial farming. "Every dollar of produce on a small plot costs 25 cents to produce: as soon as you increase the area you get higher costs -- more workers, lower yields, more complex irrigation. And we have no need for transport: customers collect their food on the way home from work."
Not just sponsored by government, urban organic farming is also a grassroots movement. One of its pioneers is Vilda Figueroa, a chemist and animal nutritionist. She and her companion Jose Lama have converted their suburban house and garden into a demonstration centre with scores of labelled jars on shelves, plants in beds and pots all round the house and dried herbs in packs. "Organic growing is not a Cuban tradition," she said. "We were like missionaries, going round with our organic stuff in bags. We promote the style of life as well as the economic benefits: the health benefits of less sugar, more fresh vegetables. ..." She and José are regular radio and TV talk-show guests and receive thousands of letters a year.
CUBA'S ORGANIC EXPERIMENT was born of necessity when the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1989. This communist state, already under a trade embargo from the usa, lost its remaining sources of supply. In the Soviet era Cuba's economy had been tied to the Soviet bloc in conventional, capital-intensive chemical farming. After 1989 most imports were cut off.
"Our problems must be solved without feed-stocks, fertilizers or fuel,"
said Fidel Castro in 1991. Cuba's 'alternative model', a science-based, low-input sustainable agriculture, was launched -- the largest such conversion in history. Cuban agriculture became a laboratory for non-chemical fertilizers and pesticides, farming in small units with highly motivated producers, and growing food in and around cities.
With 2% of Latin America's population, Cuba has 11% of the scientists.
'Barefoot' agronomists, just graduated, worked in rural co-operatives to invent organic fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers rediscovered sustainable techniques of intercropping and, through necessity, replaced tractors with oxen. The experiment continues to evolve. More than 200 bio-tech centres produce and distribute non-toxic bio-fertilizers and pesticides based on local micro-organisms.
A crucial part of the drive to food sovereignty was the land reforms which switched 40% of farmland from state farms to incentive-based co-operatives. Farmers could sell to farmers' markets offering better prices than the state. Remaining state farms were broken up into basic production units in which the state owns the land but the members manage the business. In the cities, patio gardeners can sell their surplus in approved stalls.
'Checkmate to Neo-liberalism!' proclaims a poster in the offices of the Institute for Tropical Agriculture. Cuban policies have bucked the world trend. Cuban food is what we would call 'organically grown' yet there is not yet an organic certifying institution like our Soil Association. "What matters for us is that it's sustainable," said Leonardo Cirino, an assistant director of anap, the Association of Small Farmers. "Look what happens in Latin America. Organic coffee, but there's no education, no health services, bad housing. For us, organic growing is part of a culture."
Some day, us economic sanctions will be lifted. Cuba will be able to import chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fuel for tractors, foreign investors will want to buy profitable farmland, and urban land may become too valuable for mere gardening. But Cubans engaged in the organic effort are confident that the essentials of their revolution will be preserved.
Vilda Figueroa believes urban agriculture will survive. It created 200,000 jobs last year alone, including many for women. Family co-operatives pay the wages. "Organic growing is more economic because you get higher yields with lower costs. Urban agriculture was producing seven grams of vegetables per head in 1996. Today it's 450 grams."
Mavis Alvares, director of anap and an influential figure in ruling circles, said, "When the americans lift the embargo there will be tough negotiation. It simply isn't the policy of the government to have cheap imported food. We've put an immense educational effort into sustainability."
=======================================================================
Walter Schwarz is co-author with Dorothy Schwarz of Living Lightly published by Jon Carpenter Books.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Keep my food safe
The Environment Ministry has also sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.
Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said he proposes to have consultations with scientists, agricultural experts, farmers' organisation, consumer groups and NGOs in January and February.
"The decision will be made only after the consultation process is completed and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction," he said, a day after the government's biotech regulator gave nod for the commercialisation of the Genetically Modified vegetable whose suitability for human consumption has sparked a raging debate.
Except two, all the members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), after going through the recommendations of two expert panels set up to access the data on the transgenic vegetable, had approved its environmental release.
Sources said P M Bhargava and Ramesh Soni, members of GEAC, disapproved of its release. However, the government has reserved its decision amid dissenting voices from various quarters including civil society groups, NGOs and food experts.
Bt brinjal is a transgenic vegetable which carries a gene called "Bt" from a bacterium which releases toxin to kill fruit and shoot borer insects.
However, GM food is claimed to be more pest-resistant and high-yielding.
If approved, Bt brinjal will be the first GM food in the country being developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (Mahyco) a subsidiary of theUS
"The GEAC has given an independent decision in the matter. I will take a final call in the matter after the process of consultation is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied," Ramesh said.
The Environment Ministry has sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.
The NGOs and a section of experts have strongly condemned GEAC's decision alleging the approval for Bt brinjal was given without taking in account the scientists' opinion.
"The government should not clear any genetically modified food crop till the time we have strict provisions for labelling. Bt brinjal will be one of the few crops which are used for human consumption directly and not processed into bread," prominent NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said.
"Clearance of such a crop requires the authorities to practise extreme caution. Currently, inIndia
"Till this time this is done, regulators should not clear edible GM crops," said Sunita Narain, Director of CSE.
She said labelling of GM foods requires "a strengthened laboratory and regulatory framework."
Condemning the approval of Bt brinjal by GEAC, Coalition for a GM-Free India said "it is a shame that regulators in this country have put the interests of corporations over the interests of ordinary citizens."
"We are yet to see the expert committee report. But prima facie, it appears that the committee has not responded to all the issues raised about the safety of Bt brinjal adequately.
"More importantly, it appears that no satisfactory answers have been yet preferred about the very need for this Bt brinjal when safer, sustainable and affordable alternatives exist," the members of the coalition said in a statement here.
The Environment Ministry has also sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.
Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said he proposes to have consultations with scientists, agricultural experts, farmers' organisation, consumer groups and NGOs in January and February.
"The decision will be made only after the consultation process is completed and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction," he said, a day after the government's biotech regulator gave nod for the commercialisation of the Genetically Modified vegetable whose suitability for human consumption has sparked a raging debate.
Except two, all the members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), after going through the recommendations of two expert panels set up to access the data on the transgenic vegetable, had approved its environmental release.
Sources said P M Bhargava and Ramesh Soni, members of GEAC, disapproved of its release. However, the government has reserved its decision amid dissenting voices from various quarters including civil society groups, NGOs and food experts.
Bt brinjal is a transgenic vegetable which carries a gene called "Bt" from a bacterium which releases toxin to kill fruit and shoot borer insects.
However, GM food is claimed to be more pest-resistant and high-yielding.
If approved, Bt brinjal will be the first GM food in the country being developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (Mahyco) a subsidiary of the
"The GEAC has given an independent decision in the matter. I will take a final call in the matter after the process of consultation is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied," Ramesh said.
The Environment Ministry has sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.
The NGOs and a section of experts have strongly condemned GEAC's decision alleging the approval for Bt brinjal was given without taking in account the scientists' opinion.
"The government should not clear any genetically modified food crop till the time we have strict provisions for labelling. Bt brinjal will be one of the few crops which are used for human consumption directly and not processed into bread," prominent NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said.
"Clearance of such a crop requires the authorities to practise extreme caution. Currently, in
"Till this time this is done, regulators should not clear edible GM crops," said Sunita Narain, Director of CSE.
She said labelling of GM foods requires "a strengthened laboratory and regulatory framework."
Condemning the approval of Bt brinjal by GEAC, Coalition for a GM-Free India said "it is a shame that regulators in this country have put the interests of corporations over the interests of ordinary citizens."
"We are yet to see the expert committee report. But prima facie, it appears that the committee has not responded to all the issues raised about the safety of Bt brinjal adequately.
"More importantly, it appears that no satisfactory answers have been yet preferred about the very need for this Bt brinjal when safer, sustainable and affordable alternatives exist," the members of the coalition said in a statement here.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Climate Change - you and me!
In October 2007, Al Gore accepted his Nobel Prize with the words: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
Sometime on 11th October 2007, six Greenpeace activists -- one of them six weeks pregnant at the time -- entered a highly-secure coal-power plant and defaced one of its chimneys. Retribution was swift.For their crime of confronting the dirtiest fuel known to humankind, they were arrested and sent to jail. Nearly two years later, the incredulous charges against them are yet to be dropped. Their case, unreported by the media, drags on in court.In these two years, instead of shutting down coal-power plants, our government has been building more of them.
The unfair part is, the people building these coal-power plants won't be around when climate catastrophe finally hits us. They won't be running from refugee camp to refugee camp. They won't be escaping hunger and drought and famine and disease, but your child will.
It's for your child's sake, and for the sake of all children, that ordinary citizens like you and me must go beyond empty talk, and take direct action against climate change.
Why direct action? Because patient petitioning through the "proper channels" isn't working. Our Prime Minister has ignored over 50,000 people like you who have asked him for a Renewable Energy Law. He talked of climate change in his Independence Day speech, but has shown no sign that he intends to match his words with deeds.
It was to make climate change his No.1 priority that six of them went to jail. This is their story. I hope when you read it, you too will be inspired to act, and succeed where they failed.
In October 2007, Al Gore accepted his Nobel Prize with the words: "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
Sometime on 11th October 2007, six Greenpeace activists -- one of them six weeks pregnant at the time -- entered a highly-secure coal-power plant and defaced one of its chimneys. Retribution was swift.For their crime of confronting the dirtiest fuel known to humankind, they were arrested and sent to jail. Nearly two years later, the incredulous charges against them are yet to be dropped. Their case, unreported by the media, drags on in court.
This is their story.
The unfair part is, the people building these coal-power plants won't be around when climate catastrophe finally hits us. They won't be running from refugee camp to refugee camp. They won't be escaping hunger and drought and famine and disease, but your child will.
It's for your child's sake, and for the sake of all children, that ordinary citizens like you and me must go beyond empty talk, and take direct action against climate change.
Why direct action? Because patient petitioning through the "proper channels" isn't working. Our Prime Minister has ignored over 50,000 people like you who have asked him for a Renewable Energy Law. He talked of climate change in his Independence Day speech, but has shown no sign that he intends to match his words with deeds.
It was to make climate change his No.1 priority that six of them went to jail. This is their story. I hope when you read it, you too will be inspired to act, and succeed where they failed.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sacred Cow
A really neat article. Talks about the subtle aspects of the amazing thought process of our ancestors and why vegetarianism is important. Vegetarianism is the answer for the food-security of future generations.
Especially coming from a westerner, this article is so much more welcome :)
------------------
By Robin Winter
The world over, the term "sacred cow" has come to mean any stubborn loyalty to a long-standing institution which impedes natural progress. The term originates in India, where the cow is said to be literally worshiped, while thousands of humans suffer from undernourishment. The common, popular view of India in the West is that of an underdeveloped nation steeped in superstition. Overpopulated, overcrowded, undereducated, and bereft of most modern amenities, India is seen to be a backward nation in many respects by "progressive" Western civilization. "If only India would abandon her religious superstitions and kill and eat the cow!" Over several decades many attempts have been made by the "compassionate" West to alleviate unfortunate India's burden of poor logic, and to replace her superstitions with rational thinking.
Much of the religious West finds common ground with the rationalists, with whom they otherwise are usually at odds, on the issue of India's "sacred cow." Indeed, worshiping God is one thing, but to worship the cow while at the same time dying of starvation is a theological outlook much in need of reevaluation. Man is said to have dominion over the animals, but it would appear that the Indians have it backwards.
Popular opinion is not always the most informed opinion; in fact, this is usually the case. The many attempts to wean India from the nipple of her outdated pastoral culture have all failed. After 200 years of foreign occupation by the British, and after many subsequent but less overt imperialistic attempts, we find that although India has changed, the sacred cow remains as sacred as ever. In all but two Indianstates, cow slaughter is strictly prohibited. If legislation were passed today to change that ruling, there would be rioting all over India. In spite of considerable exposure to Western ideas, one late Indian statesman said, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "I think it is a good idea. When will they begin?"An unbiased look at perhaps the longest-standing culture of the world, its roots and philosophy, may help us to see things a little more as they are even about our own way of life. Sometimes we have to stand back to get the full picture. It is a natural tendency to consider one's own way the best, but such bull-headedness may cause us to miss seeing our own shortcomings. An honest look at the headlines of our home town newspaper may inspire us to question exactly what it is we are so eager to propound.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Western technological influence on India is found in the country's few "modern" cities. Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, and other cities can be most frustrating to the average Westerner. Crude attempts at modernization can be worse than none at all. Although India's technology lacks the polish and sophistication of the West, its employment in crude fashion nonetheless brings all of the adverse effects of a sophisticated form of the same amenities.Real India is rural India. Village life accounts for the bulk of India's population of 700 million, and best illustrates the nation's ancient culture. The simplicity of India is often mistaken for ignorance, and her peacefulness mistaken for complacency. The serenity of Indian village life is overlooked or mislabeled by those who in the name of progress may really only be operating under the axiom of "misery loves company."
Perhaps the people of India live as they do for a good reason: much of what goes along with Western "progress" themental anguish which causes us to do the most bizarre things that make many cities living hellsis relatively absent in India's rural lifestyle.It is particularly difficult for Westerners to appreciate India's worship of the cow. After all, we live in the land of the hamburger. The "American" restaurant abroad is McDonald's. "Ole McDonald had a farm /Did it ever grow!" Western economists often contend that beef alone can solve India's food problems and lay a foundation for a lucrative export trade. This has caused cow worship and cow protection to come under attack for centuries. Cow protection has been called a "lunatic obstacle" to sensible farm management.
India's cow is called the zebu, and an investigation of the controversy surrounding her brings us to the heart of village life in India. The average landholder in India farms approximately one acre. This is nowhere near enough land to warrant the purchase of a tractor. Even if the size of the land plots were increased to make the purchase of machinery cost-effective, the unique weather, a five-season year including the monsoon, would quickly render the tractor useless. After the monsoons, the soil is too soft for planting and must be quickly and efficiently prepared before the soon-to-follow intense heat brings an end to the very short growing season. The loss of even one day will considerably affect the overall yield. The zebu bullocks are ideal in this connection for they can easily plow the soft earth without overly compacting the soil as would heavy machinery.
Farming in India is a family affair, and the labor-intensive approach to cultivation involves everyone. This helps to sustain the family unit, which is sometimes considered to be the wealth of a nation. Thestaples of the diet are grains: wheat and rice. Most of India is vegetarian. While the bull plows the field, helping to provide the grains, the cow supplies milk from which many dairy products are produced. Day to day, year after year, the cow and bull are the center of rural Indian life.
According to Frances Moore Lappe in her best-seller, Diet for a Small Planet, "For every sixteen pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States, we only get one pound back in meat on ourplates. The other fifteen pounds are inaccessible to us, either used by the animal to produce energy or to make some part of its own body that we do not eat (like hair or bones), or excreted. Milk productionis more efficient, with less than one pound of grain fed for every pint of milk produced. (This is partly because we don't have to grow a new cow every time we milk one.)" If India, with its already strainedresources, were to allocate so much more acreage for the production of beef, it would be disastrous. Advocates of modernization maintain that with the application of the latest farming techniques, the yield per acre would gradually increase, thus making it possible for beef to be introduced over a period of time. Such advocates contend that with the introduction of beef into the Indian diet, the population's health would increase, thus furthering productivity. However, it is interesting to note that although India is far from being free of disease, its principal health problems are a result of urban overcrowding and inadequate sanitation and medical facilities. Whereas high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and cancer constitute the greatest health threats in the West, the Indian people are practically free from these afflictions. So the "fact" that India's health would increase with the introduction of beef into the diet is not likely to overcome the "superstition" of the people's religious beliefs which prohibit them from eating meat.
The religious "superstitions" of India are based on the Vedas, which constitute the most voluminous body of literature in the world. The Vedas and their corollaries deal elaborately with theism, describingmany gradations of the theistic idea. The idea that one should not eat meat, although central to Hindu philosophy, is only a secondary theme. To a large extent it amounts only to common sense and sensitivity. It is from this basis of sensitivity, an indicator of healthy consciousness, that higher spiritual principles can be appreciated. Actually, the Vedas agree with the West's contention that man has dominion over the animals; however, the West's way of dealing with its dependents is revolting to Indians. After all, we have dominion over our children and ofttimes elders as well, but would we be justified in slaughtering them for food? We become incensed if someone even abuses our dog!
The Vedas do not teach that the cow is superior to the human form of life and therefore worshipable. Rather, the she gives so much practical help to human society that she should be protected. Her assistance frees mankind from much of the struggle of life, thereby providing us with more time for spiritual pursuits. Although modern technology may be said to do the same, the fact is that it actuallycomplicates man's life more and more and distracts him from more simple living and high spiritual thinking. We may become so mechanistic that we can fool ourselves into believing that cows or pets have no feelings.For India, the cow represents the sacred principle of motherhood. She symbolizes charity and generosity because of the way she distributes her milk, which is essential for the nourishment of the young.
India's critics have pointed out that although Indian village life may be simple, it is a marginal existence; it is a life of little surplus. If a farmer's cow turns barren, he has lost his only chance of replacing the work team. And if she goes dry, the family loses its milk and butter. However the situation is not as bad as the technologically advanced may think. In village life, people are more interdependent. Helping one's neighbor is also considered sacred. Sharing is commonplace. All of the father's male friends are affectionately referred to by the sons and daughters as "uncle", while all of the village women are seen as mother. Often the responsibility of caring for and nursing the young is shared by several mothers.
Perhaps the heaviest criticism of the pastoral culture of India is directed at the insistence of the farmers on protecting even sick and aged cows. Westerners find this to be the height of absurdity. At least they could be killed and eaten or sold. But no. Animal hospitals or nursing homes called goshallas, provided by government agencies or wealthy individuals in search of piety, offer shelter for old and infirm cows. This is thought to be a luxury that India cannot really afford, as these "useless" cows are seen to be but competitors for the already limited croplands and precious foodstuffs. The fact is, however, that India actually spends a great deal less on their aging cattle than Americans spend on their cats and dogs. And India's cattle population is six times that of the American pet population.
The Indian farmer sees his cattle like members of the family. Since the farmers depend on the cattle for their own livelihood, it makes perfect sense both economically and emotionally to see to their well-being. In between harvests, the cattle are bathed and spruced up much like the average American polishes his automobile. Twice during the year, special festivals are held in honor of the cows. These rituals are similar to the American idea of Thanksgiving. Although in principle the same, there is a basic difference in the details of how we treat the turkey and how the more "primitive" Indians treat their cows.
India cares for over 200 million zebus. This accounts for one-fifth of the world's cattle population. Critics say that if India does not eat her cows, the cows will eat India. Exasperated critics feel that even the cow is underfed. However, in more recent years, India's critics have come to agree that she is essential to India's economy. Cattle are India's greatest natural resource. They eat only grass --which grows everywhere-- and generates more power than all of India's generating plants. They also produce fuel, fertilizer, and nutrition in abundance. India runs on bullock power. Some 15 million bullock carts move approximately 15 billion tons of goods across the nation. Newer studies in energetics have shown that bullocks do two-thirds of the work on the average farm. Electricity and fossil fuels account for only 10%. Bullocks not only pull heavy loads, but also grind the sugarcane and turn the linseed oil presses. Converting from bullocks to machinery would cost an estimated $30 billion plus maintenance and replacement costs.
The biggest energy contribution from cows and bulls is their dung. India's cattle produce 800 million tons of manure every year. The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms ofexcrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it ornot, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean.Most of the dung is used for fertilizer at no cost to the farmer or to the world's fossil fuel reserves. The remainder is used for fuel. It is odorless and burns without scorching, giving a slow, even heat. Ahousewife can count on leaving her pots unattended all day or return any time to a preheated griddle for short-order cooking. To replace dung with coal would cost India $1.5 billion per year.
Dung is also used for both heating and cooling. Packed on the outside walls of a house, in winter it keeps in the heat, and in summer produces a cooling effect. Also, unlike the stool of humans, it keepsflies away , and when burned, its smoke acts as a repellent for mosquitoes.
When technocrats were unable to come up with a workable alternative, they came up with a new argument for modernization. They suggested that the cattle culture be maintained, but that it should be done in a more efficient manner. Several ambitious programs were initiated using pedigree bulls and artificial insemination. But the new hybrids were not cheap nor were they able to keep up the pace with the zebus. The intense heat of India retired many of them well before old age. Although they produced more milk, this also created more problems, because there was no efficient system for distributing the surplus of milk throughout India's widespread population.
India's system of distribution is highly decentralized. Although the solution seemed simple, modernization again met its shortcomings. With bottling plants, pasteurization, and other sophisticated Western methods of distribution, it was thought that all of India could have fresh, pure milk. Behind the automats set up for the distribution of powdered milk, milk, and cream was the expectation that in time, people would begin to appreciate the abundant rewards bestowed by these new modern deities of technology, and worship of cows would gradually disappear. But in the end it was modernization that failed to prove its value.
Pasteurization proved to be a waste of time and money for Indians, who generally drink their milk hot, and thus boil it before drinking. With the absence of modern highways and the cost of milking machines and other necessities of factory dairy farming, it was seen to be impractical to impose the Western dairy system on India; the cost of refrigeration alone would make the price of milk too expensive for 95% of India's population.
Eventually, after repeated attempts to modernize India's approach to farming and in particular its attitude toward its beloved zebus it became clear that these technological upgrades were not very wellthought out.. They were not to replace a system that had endured for thousands of years; a system not only economically wise, but one that was part of a spiritually rich heritage. On the contrary, it may well be time to export the spiritual heritage of India to the West, where technology continues to threaten the tangible progress of humanity in its search for the deeper meaning of life.
Source:- http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.htm
A really neat article. Talks about the subtle aspects of the amazing thought process of our ancestors and why vegetarianism is important. Vegetarianism is the answer for the food-security of future generations.
Especially coming from a westerner, this article is so much more welcome :)
------------------
By Robin Winter
The world over, the term "sacred cow" has come to mean any stubborn loyalty to a long-standing institution which impedes natural progress. The term originates in India, where the cow is said to be literally worshiped, while thousands of humans suffer from undernourishment. The common, popular view of India in the West is that of an underdeveloped nation steeped in superstition. Overpopulated, overcrowded, undereducated, and bereft of most modern amenities, India is seen to be a backward nation in many respects by "progressive" Western civilization. "If only India would abandon her religious superstitions and kill and eat the cow!" Over several decades many attempts have been made by the "compassionate" West to alleviate unfortunate India's burden of poor logic, and to replace her superstitions with rational thinking.
Much of the religious West finds common ground with the rationalists, with whom they otherwise are usually at odds, on the issue of India's "sacred cow." Indeed, worshiping God is one thing, but to worship the cow while at the same time dying of starvation is a theological outlook much in need of reevaluation. Man is said to have dominion over the animals, but it would appear that the Indians have it backwards.
Popular opinion is not always the most informed opinion; in fact, this is usually the case. The many attempts to wean India from the nipple of her outdated pastoral culture have all failed. After 200 years of foreign occupation by the British, and after many subsequent but less overt imperialistic attempts, we find that although India has changed, the sacred cow remains as sacred as ever. In all but two Indianstates, cow slaughter is strictly prohibited. If legislation were passed today to change that ruling, there would be rioting all over India. In spite of considerable exposure to Western ideas, one late Indian statesman said, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "I think it is a good idea. When will they begin?"An unbiased look at perhaps the longest-standing culture of the world, its roots and philosophy, may help us to see things a little more as they are even about our own way of life. Sometimes we have to stand back to get the full picture. It is a natural tendency to consider one's own way the best, but such bull-headedness may cause us to miss seeing our own shortcomings. An honest look at the headlines of our home town newspaper may inspire us to question exactly what it is we are so eager to propound.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Western technological influence on India is found in the country's few "modern" cities. Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, and other cities can be most frustrating to the average Westerner. Crude attempts at modernization can be worse than none at all. Although India's technology lacks the polish and sophistication of the West, its employment in crude fashion nonetheless brings all of the adverse effects of a sophisticated form of the same amenities.Real India is rural India. Village life accounts for the bulk of India's population of 700 million, and best illustrates the nation's ancient culture. The simplicity of India is often mistaken for ignorance, and her peacefulness mistaken for complacency. The serenity of Indian village life is overlooked or mislabeled by those who in the name of progress may really only be operating under the axiom of "misery loves company."
Perhaps the people of India live as they do for a good reason: much of what goes along with Western "progress" themental anguish which causes us to do the most bizarre things that make many cities living hellsis relatively absent in India's rural lifestyle.It is particularly difficult for Westerners to appreciate India's worship of the cow. After all, we live in the land of the hamburger. The "American" restaurant abroad is McDonald's. "Ole McDonald had a farm /Did it ever grow!" Western economists often contend that beef alone can solve India's food problems and lay a foundation for a lucrative export trade. This has caused cow worship and cow protection to come under attack for centuries. Cow protection has been called a "lunatic obstacle" to sensible farm management.
India's cow is called the zebu, and an investigation of the controversy surrounding her brings us to the heart of village life in India. The average landholder in India farms approximately one acre. This is nowhere near enough land to warrant the purchase of a tractor. Even if the size of the land plots were increased to make the purchase of machinery cost-effective, the unique weather, a five-season year including the monsoon, would quickly render the tractor useless. After the monsoons, the soil is too soft for planting and must be quickly and efficiently prepared before the soon-to-follow intense heat brings an end to the very short growing season. The loss of even one day will considerably affect the overall yield. The zebu bullocks are ideal in this connection for they can easily plow the soft earth without overly compacting the soil as would heavy machinery.
Farming in India is a family affair, and the labor-intensive approach to cultivation involves everyone. This helps to sustain the family unit, which is sometimes considered to be the wealth of a nation. Thestaples of the diet are grains: wheat and rice. Most of India is vegetarian. While the bull plows the field, helping to provide the grains, the cow supplies milk from which many dairy products are produced. Day to day, year after year, the cow and bull are the center of rural Indian life.
According to Frances Moore Lappe in her best-seller, Diet for a Small Planet, "For every sixteen pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States, we only get one pound back in meat on ourplates. The other fifteen pounds are inaccessible to us, either used by the animal to produce energy or to make some part of its own body that we do not eat (like hair or bones), or excreted. Milk productionis more efficient, with less than one pound of grain fed for every pint of milk produced. (This is partly because we don't have to grow a new cow every time we milk one.)" If India, with its already strainedresources, were to allocate so much more acreage for the production of beef, it would be disastrous. Advocates of modernization maintain that with the application of the latest farming techniques, the yield per acre would gradually increase, thus making it possible for beef to be introduced over a period of time. Such advocates contend that with the introduction of beef into the Indian diet, the population's health would increase, thus furthering productivity. However, it is interesting to note that although India is far from being free of disease, its principal health problems are a result of urban overcrowding and inadequate sanitation and medical facilities. Whereas high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and cancer constitute the greatest health threats in the West, the Indian people are practically free from these afflictions. So the "fact" that India's health would increase with the introduction of beef into the diet is not likely to overcome the "superstition" of the people's religious beliefs which prohibit them from eating meat.
The religious "superstitions" of India are based on the Vedas, which constitute the most voluminous body of literature in the world. The Vedas and their corollaries deal elaborately with theism, describingmany gradations of the theistic idea. The idea that one should not eat meat, although central to Hindu philosophy, is only a secondary theme. To a large extent it amounts only to common sense and sensitivity. It is from this basis of sensitivity, an indicator of healthy consciousness, that higher spiritual principles can be appreciated. Actually, the Vedas agree with the West's contention that man has dominion over the animals; however, the West's way of dealing with its dependents is revolting to Indians. After all, we have dominion over our children and ofttimes elders as well, but would we be justified in slaughtering them for food? We become incensed if someone even abuses our dog!
The Vedas do not teach that the cow is superior to the human form of life and therefore worshipable. Rather, the she gives so much practical help to human society that she should be protected. Her assistance frees mankind from much of the struggle of life, thereby providing us with more time for spiritual pursuits. Although modern technology may be said to do the same, the fact is that it actuallycomplicates man's life more and more and distracts him from more simple living and high spiritual thinking. We may become so mechanistic that we can fool ourselves into believing that cows or pets have no feelings.For India, the cow represents the sacred principle of motherhood. She symbolizes charity and generosity because of the way she distributes her milk, which is essential for the nourishment of the young.
India's critics have pointed out that although Indian village life may be simple, it is a marginal existence; it is a life of little surplus. If a farmer's cow turns barren, he has lost his only chance of replacing the work team. And if she goes dry, the family loses its milk and butter. However the situation is not as bad as the technologically advanced may think. In village life, people are more interdependent. Helping one's neighbor is also considered sacred. Sharing is commonplace. All of the father's male friends are affectionately referred to by the sons and daughters as "uncle", while all of the village women are seen as mother. Often the responsibility of caring for and nursing the young is shared by several mothers.
Perhaps the heaviest criticism of the pastoral culture of India is directed at the insistence of the farmers on protecting even sick and aged cows. Westerners find this to be the height of absurdity. At least they could be killed and eaten or sold. But no. Animal hospitals or nursing homes called goshallas, provided by government agencies or wealthy individuals in search of piety, offer shelter for old and infirm cows. This is thought to be a luxury that India cannot really afford, as these "useless" cows are seen to be but competitors for the already limited croplands and precious foodstuffs. The fact is, however, that India actually spends a great deal less on their aging cattle than Americans spend on their cats and dogs. And India's cattle population is six times that of the American pet population.
The Indian farmer sees his cattle like members of the family. Since the farmers depend on the cattle for their own livelihood, it makes perfect sense both economically and emotionally to see to their well-being. In between harvests, the cattle are bathed and spruced up much like the average American polishes his automobile. Twice during the year, special festivals are held in honor of the cows. These rituals are similar to the American idea of Thanksgiving. Although in principle the same, there is a basic difference in the details of how we treat the turkey and how the more "primitive" Indians treat their cows.
India cares for over 200 million zebus. This accounts for one-fifth of the world's cattle population. Critics say that if India does not eat her cows, the cows will eat India. Exasperated critics feel that even the cow is underfed. However, in more recent years, India's critics have come to agree that she is essential to India's economy. Cattle are India's greatest natural resource. They eat only grass --which grows everywhere-- and generates more power than all of India's generating plants. They also produce fuel, fertilizer, and nutrition in abundance. India runs on bullock power. Some 15 million bullock carts move approximately 15 billion tons of goods across the nation. Newer studies in energetics have shown that bullocks do two-thirds of the work on the average farm. Electricity and fossil fuels account for only 10%. Bullocks not only pull heavy loads, but also grind the sugarcane and turn the linseed oil presses. Converting from bullocks to machinery would cost an estimated $30 billion plus maintenance and replacement costs.
The biggest energy contribution from cows and bulls is their dung. India's cattle produce 800 million tons of manure every year. The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms ofexcrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow's dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it ornot, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean.Most of the dung is used for fertilizer at no cost to the farmer or to the world's fossil fuel reserves. The remainder is used for fuel. It is odorless and burns without scorching, giving a slow, even heat. Ahousewife can count on leaving her pots unattended all day or return any time to a preheated griddle for short-order cooking. To replace dung with coal would cost India $1.5 billion per year.
Dung is also used for both heating and cooling. Packed on the outside walls of a house, in winter it keeps in the heat, and in summer produces a cooling effect. Also, unlike the stool of humans, it keepsflies away , and when burned, its smoke acts as a repellent for mosquitoes.
When technocrats were unable to come up with a workable alternative, they came up with a new argument for modernization. They suggested that the cattle culture be maintained, but that it should be done in a more efficient manner. Several ambitious programs were initiated using pedigree bulls and artificial insemination. But the new hybrids were not cheap nor were they able to keep up the pace with the zebus. The intense heat of India retired many of them well before old age. Although they produced more milk, this also created more problems, because there was no efficient system for distributing the surplus of milk throughout India's widespread population.
India's system of distribution is highly decentralized. Although the solution seemed simple, modernization again met its shortcomings. With bottling plants, pasteurization, and other sophisticated Western methods of distribution, it was thought that all of India could have fresh, pure milk. Behind the automats set up for the distribution of powdered milk, milk, and cream was the expectation that in time, people would begin to appreciate the abundant rewards bestowed by these new modern deities of technology, and worship of cows would gradually disappear. But in the end it was modernization that failed to prove its value.
Pasteurization proved to be a waste of time and money for Indians, who generally drink their milk hot, and thus boil it before drinking. With the absence of modern highways and the cost of milking machines and other necessities of factory dairy farming, it was seen to be impractical to impose the Western dairy system on India; the cost of refrigeration alone would make the price of milk too expensive for 95% of India's population.
Eventually, after repeated attempts to modernize India's approach to farming and in particular its attitude toward its beloved zebus it became clear that these technological upgrades were not very wellthought out.. They were not to replace a system that had endured for thousands of years; a system not only economically wise, but one that was part of a spiritually rich heritage. On the contrary, it may well be time to export the spiritual heritage of India to the West, where technology continues to threaten the tangible progress of humanity in its search for the deeper meaning of life.
Source:- http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/sacred-cow.htm
Monday, July 06, 2009
Renewable Energy Law
The monsoon is finally here. But while you waited, there were riots in New Delhi over water scarcity, and a nation of 1.3 billion prepared to deal with massive droughts, crop failure and starvation deaths.
This is what climate change looks like. It's the greatest threat facing humankind today, greater even than terrorism. Lord King admits it. Chris Patten admits it. Even L K Advani admits it.
Now, there are two ways to deal with such a threat. One way is to say "bring it on" (as Bush did). Another way is to look at the root causes and sort them out.
One of the root causes for climate change is coal. But instead of addressing that root cause and tackling it, our government is actually planning to have more of it. More coal-power plants. More CO2. More global warming. More climate change.
But all's not lost in the battle against climate change. You can stop it.
You can stop it by demanding a Renewable Energy Law now. A law that makes sure that India meets a significant part of its present and future energy needs from renewable sources. You know, stuff like the sun and the wind. There's a big opportunity in all of this: money, jobs, that kind of thing.
It sounds simple enough, but it isn't. Because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh believes that ordinary Indian citizens like you don't care where their energy comes from. He's wrong. And with one finger, you can tell him exactly what you think.
In the past one week, over 12,000 people have joined the fight against climate change, and demanded a Renewable Energy Law. That's a big number, but not big enough to worry our Prime Minister.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What is Genetic Modification (GM) or Genetic Engineering?
The process of taking a gene from one organism and inserting it into the genome of another unrelated organism to give it certain new traits is called GM. Genes can be found in the nucleus of every cell in all living organisms and are the very building blocks of life. They decide the characteristics, structure, growth and behaviour of all organisms, including us. They play the critical role of passing on genetic information from one generation to the other. If you are tired of people telling you how you resemble your parents, you can blame genes for that. In the 1970s, some clever scientists figured out that they could transfer genes of one species into the genome of another and that got them excited. What if we were to insert spider genes into the genome of goats? May be the goat milk would contain spider web protein? What if we were to insert cow genes into the genome of pigs? May be they would develop cowhides? And that’s how the whole genetic experiment began.
'The ability to introduce alien genes into a genome is an impressive technological manipulation but we remain too ignorant of how the genome works to anticipate all of the consequences, subtle or obvious, immediate or long-term, of those manipulations'.
David Suzuki, Geneticist, Author of more than 30 books, Awarded UNESCO prize for science
What can go wrong?
GM scientists would normally say ‘It is just like taking a page out of one book and putting it into another'. One can only wish it were that simple. The process of producing a GM crop can cause significant changes in the natural functioning of the plant's genome (gene sequence). Let's take the same analogy to see what can go wrong with a GM experiment?
The inserted page (gene) may turn out to be multiple identical pages, partial pages, or small pieces of text. Sections of the insert may be misspelled, deleted, inverted, or scrambled. Next to the inserts, the story may become indecipherable, with random letters, new text, and pages missing. There will now be typos throughout, sometimes hundreds or thousands of them. Letters may be switched, words scrambled, and sentences deleted, repeated or reversed. Passages from one part of the book, even whole chapters (chromosomes) may be relocated or repeated elsewhere, and bits of text from entirely different books can show up from time to time. Many of the characters in the story may now act differently. Some minor roles might become permanent, leads demoted and some may have switched roles from hero to villain or vice versa.
Quite simply, one may start with Rama and end with Ravan. Many things may happen to the plant's genome (gene sequence) that can not only cause problems for the plant and its environment, but also to those who consume it.
How can GM affect you?
When a foreign gene is inserted in to the cell of an organism, it can disrupt the genome (gene sequence) in ways one can't predict. These unintended side-effects of genetic modification can be harmful to those who consume it, to those who grow it and also to the environment. When GM food was tested on rats by independent scientists, the results were alarming. They had stunted growth, impaired immune systems, potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, inflamed kidneys and lung tissue, less developed brain, enlarged livers, pancreases and intestines and higher blood sugar. Even their offspring were affected, showing that there are even inter-generational effects with GM crops/foods.
The regulation for such harmful food is surprisingly lax. In US, for example, safety is the company's responsibility and their reports on studies are often not made available for public scrutiny. The food doesn't even carry a label, so the consumer has no knowledge or choice about GM. GM food is all set to be launched in India very soon and in all likelihood these foods may not carry a label. In any case, when the food is not packaged as it is mostly in India, labeling is not possible.
Check out the statements made by scientists the world over at : http://ngin.tripod.com/foodstatements.htm and http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm.
It is imperative to note that "Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics." Are we ready for this ?
The process of taking a gene from one organism and inserting it into the genome of another unrelated organism to give it certain new traits is called GM. Genes can be found in the nucleus of every cell in all living organisms and are the very building blocks of life. They decide the characteristics, structure, growth and behaviour of all organisms, including us. They play the critical role of passing on genetic information from one generation to the other. If you are tired of people telling you how you resemble your parents, you can blame genes for that. In the 1970s, some clever scientists figured out that they could transfer genes of one species into the genome of another and that got them excited. What if we were to insert spider genes into the genome of goats? May be the goat milk would contain spider web protein? What if we were to insert cow genes into the genome of pigs? May be they would develop cowhides? And that’s how the whole genetic experiment began.
'The ability to introduce alien genes into a genome is an impressive technological manipulation but we remain too ignorant of how the genome works to anticipate all of the consequences, subtle or obvious, immediate or long-term, of those manipulations'.
David Suzuki, Geneticist, Author of more than 30 books, Awarded UNESCO prize for science
What can go wrong?
GM scientists would normally say ‘It is just like taking a page out of one book and putting it into another'. One can only wish it were that simple. The process of producing a GM crop can cause significant changes in the natural functioning of the plant's genome (gene sequence). Let's take the same analogy to see what can go wrong with a GM experiment?
The inserted page (gene) may turn out to be multiple identical pages, partial pages, or small pieces of text. Sections of the insert may be misspelled, deleted, inverted, or scrambled. Next to the inserts, the story may become indecipherable, with random letters, new text, and pages missing. There will now be typos throughout, sometimes hundreds or thousands of them. Letters may be switched, words scrambled, and sentences deleted, repeated or reversed. Passages from one part of the book, even whole chapters (chromosomes) may be relocated or repeated elsewhere, and bits of text from entirely different books can show up from time to time. Many of the characters in the story may now act differently. Some minor roles might become permanent, leads demoted and some may have switched roles from hero to villain or vice versa.
Quite simply, one may start with Rama and end with Ravan. Many things may happen to the plant's genome (gene sequence) that can not only cause problems for the plant and its environment, but also to those who consume it.
How can GM affect you?
When a foreign gene is inserted in to the cell of an organism, it can disrupt the genome (gene sequence) in ways one can't predict. These unintended side-effects of genetic modification can be harmful to those who consume it, to those who grow it and also to the environment. When GM food was tested on rats by independent scientists, the results were alarming. They had stunted growth, impaired immune systems, potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, inflamed kidneys and lung tissue, less developed brain, enlarged livers, pancreases and intestines and higher blood sugar. Even their offspring were affected, showing that there are even inter-generational effects with GM crops/foods.
The regulation for such harmful food is surprisingly lax. In US, for example, safety is the company's responsibility and their reports on studies are often not made available for public scrutiny. The food doesn't even carry a label, so the consumer has no knowledge or choice about GM. GM food is all set to be launched in India very soon and in all likelihood these foods may not carry a label. In any case, when the food is not packaged as it is mostly in India, labeling is not possible.
Check out the statements made by scientists the world over at : http://ngin.tripod.com/foodstatements.htm and http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm.
It is imperative to note that "Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics." Are we ready for this ?
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Global Warming is killing 315,000 people annually
According to a new study, global warming is killing 315,000 people annually and creating $125B USD in damages. This impact is almost entirely shouldered by developing nations. (Source: j2fi). Meanwhile the 50 poorest nations only contribute 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The report says this situation -- and the death toll -- will only get worse, if action
is not taken. (Source: Global Envision) <http://dynamic1.dailytech.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=cb7063c >. According to a new Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) report, global
warming may be one of the deadliest threats to man yet.
Many question whether man is causing global warming <http://www.dailytech.com/New+Climate+Study+Indicates+Hottest+Decade+in+1300+Years/article12831.htm > , whether it is really occurring, and exactly how bad it really is. While the jury maybe out on the first question, recent studies have indicated that the world is indeed warming, either due to natural or
anthropogenic (human-induced) factors. Many put the blame on greenhouse gases <http://www.dailytech.com/Data+Places+Blame+on+Humans+for+Polar+W\
arming/article13340.htm > .
That debate aside, a recent study by the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) sought to answer the third question, looking at the impact of global warming on mankind <http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLS1002309 > .
What it claims is shocking -- it blames global warming for 315,000 deaths a year since 2003. The deaths are resulting from hunger, sickness and weather disasters attributed to climate changes. Further, based on current predicted temperature rises, it expects this death toll to reach half a million yearly by 2030.
The study also found that climate change impacts the lives of 325 million people worldwide, and that by 2030 it will likely impact 10 percent of the world's population (670 million, based on
current figures). It also placed the financial losses due to global warming at $125B USD per year, and expects this figure to rise to $340B USD annually by 2030.
Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president states, "Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions
of people worldwide. The first hit and worst affected are the world's poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem."
The report also found that nine tenths of the human and economic losses from global warming are borne by developing nations. Meanwhile, the 50 poorest countries only contribute 1 percent of emissions. He says 500 million people, living in poverty worldwide, are particularly vulnerable, as they live in locations extremely vulnerable to droughts, floods, storms, sea-level rise and creeping deserts caused by climate changes. Mr. Annan urges world leaders to adopt a binding and effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol at a planned December U.N. meeting
<http://www.dailytech.com/UN+IPCC+Shun+Meat+to+Stop+Climate+Chang\
e/article12903.htm > in Copenhagen.
Mr. Annan states, "Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration and mass sickness."
He says even the worst-case U.N. reports fall short of the true impact climate change may have. With new evidence he cites pointing to faster than previously predicted warming, he says the
time for inaction is past. He says funds to combat climate change will have to rise from the current level of $400M USD annually to an estimated $32B USD annually.
Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain and a GHF board member, chimes in stating, "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even 1 percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December."
______________________________
Read and ACT
Ever seen a greenhouse? They are the sheds with roofs and sometimes even walls made of glass and other transparent material. This lets a huge amount of solar heat in and warms the
air which is trapped inside by the roof and the walls, keeping the temperature inside the greenhouse much warmer than outside. In cold climates this helps certain species of plants that prefer a more tropical environment to thrive. The sun’s rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere and bring life and heat to the planet. However a huge amount of this radiation is reflected back by the planet. It’s a very delicate balance, because too much heat reflected would mean an ice age and too little would mean we would be a burnt toast! Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane and Water vapour are called greenhouse gases. These gases form a layer in the atmosphere and prevent the reflected radiation from leaving the Earth. Just like a greenhouse, this will make the temperature on the surface become steadily hotter. This effect is called Global Warming. 1998
and 2005 have been the hottest years in recorded history!
According to a study completed by researchers and scientists at MIT there has been a 100% increase in the intensity and duration of severe storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes since the 1970s. The study found that this is most likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The temperature of the Earth in the last 100 years has risen by 0.6 deg C and is
steadily rising, and according to scientists will rise further by 1.1 deg C to 6.4 deg C this century! This may seem like insignificant figures, but if the global temperature falls by just 4 deg C, we will experience an ice age, Canada will be under a mile of ice! A 6.4 deg C rise in temperature could well signal the end of life as we know it! Global Warming is insidious. It’s not like an earthquake or a tornado or a volcano. It’s a slow, steady march towards doom. And because
it’s slow, we tend to ignore the threat. We just turn on the air conditioner and complain about the weather and more or less go on with our lives as if nothing major is really happening. This attitude is not going to help us for long. Fortunately more and more people are becoming aware of global warming and are slowly accepting it as a serious problem, serious enough that they are willing to change their lifestyles. The top three causes of global warming are:
1. Power generation
2. The Meat industry
3. Transportation
I would love to add another cause there, it’s the United States of America. They have 4% of the global population and contribute to 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions. More than India, China and Japan put together!
Can an individual really make a difference to this very alarming problem? The answer is a
resounding Yes! After all, it’s just individuals who form the society. Each person makes life style choices every day. When each person starts to choose a greener more responsible way of living, then it’s still not too late to arrest planet meltdown.
Use less electricity. This is a no brainer. Turn off lights, fans, air conditioners, heater, etc.
Remember to turn off the switch in the wall.
Heating and Air conditioning are the two biggest power consumers. In cold weather, wear more clothes and insulate your house so you don’t need so much heating. Use a Solar geyser for heating bath water. In hot weather, keep the use of air conditioning to minimal and set the ac at 24 deg C or more.
Use energy saving devices, such as LED lights for lighting.
Don’t leave your computer on stand by or with a screen saver. According to the Clean Air-Cool Planet Website, one computer left on all day results in the emission of 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide in a year. It would take 100 to 500 trees to absorb that amount of extra carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Multiply this by the number of computers on the planet and the results will be pretty phenomenal. You will see that small actions, done with consistency and commitment will add up to a very big savings in the long run.
We all need to go places. But we can do it in healthy, responsible ways. Walk, run, bicycle, skate your way to places that are near. This not only reduces your ecological footprint, but also keeps the body healthy.
Use public transport. And if you have to use a car at all then try to use the option of car pool.
If you are in the market for a new car, choose one that gives more Kms per liter of fuel, rather than one that just looks good. Lobby for getting hybrid and other energy efficient cars to be made in India.
As far as possible, avoid flying.
Many corporations are choosing to have their employees work from home. This means a terrific saving in transportation costs as well as logistical costs of maintaining an office!
Here is a little known fact, one that many websites and even Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) or Leonardo Di Caprio (The 11th Hour) didn’t talk about. A meat based diet contributes to 40%
more greenhouse gases than the pollution generated by ALL the traffic in the entire world put together! All the cars, buses, trains, planes and ships of the planet don’t pollute as much as the meat industry. They actually pollute 40% less!!
There are billions of animals being slaughtered every year. In the US alone, the number of animals being “processed” every year is more than 6 times the human population on the planet. Understand that these animals need food to eat and water to drink. They also excrete. The
colossal amount of food and water that is pumped into this industry is enough to feed more than 50 times the current human population. In fact, if just 10% of the US population went vegetarian, there would be enough food for 800 million people and the entire world’s hunger problem would be solved! If you ate a plant based diet, you would save so much water, that
you could leave your shower on, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year and still save more water for the planet compared to a person having meat. A plant based diet is now accepted to be vastly superior for the human body than a meat based diet. The tremendous amount of resources needed to create meat translates therefore into billions of tons of greenhouse gases being
released into the atmosphere… Finally while you are combating global warming, by choosing to eat green, you also stand up for the meekest and smallest amongst us. Those helpless animals with no voice and no choice at all… So at every meal, each person can make a greener, healthier, more humane choice: Eating vegetarian food!
The above choices (there are many more green tips which are not mentioned here though) exercised made by more and more people on the planet will ensure more than anything else, the arrest and reversal of the very severe threat of Global Warming Please spread the word…
According to a new study, global warming is killing 315,000 people annually and creating $125B USD in damages. This impact is almost entirely shouldered by developing nations. (Source: j2fi). Meanwhile the 50 poorest nations only contribute 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The report says this situation -- and the death toll -- will only get worse, if action
is not taken. (Source: Global Envision) <http://dynamic1.dailytech.
warming may be one of the deadliest threats to man yet.
Many question whether man is causing global warming <http://www.dailytech.com/New+
anthropogenic (human-induced) factors. Many put the blame on greenhouse gases <http://www.dailytech.com/
arming/article13340.htm
That debate aside, a recent study by the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) sought to answer the third question, looking at the impact of global warming on mankind <http://www.reuters.com/
What it claims is shocking -- it blames global warming for 315,000 deaths a year since 2003. The deaths are resulting from hunger, sickness and weather disasters attributed to climate changes. Further, based on current predicted temperature rises, it expects this death toll to reach half a million yearly by 2030.
The study also found that climate change impacts the lives of 325 million people worldwide, and that by 2030 it will likely impact 10 percent of the world's population (670 million, based on
current figures). It also placed the financial losses due to global warming at $125B USD per year, and expects this figure to rise to $340B USD annually by 2030.
Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president states, "Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions
of people worldwide. The first hit and worst affected are the world's poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem."
The report also found that nine tenths of the human and economic losses from global warming are borne by developing nations. Meanwhile, the 50 poorest countries only contribute 1 percent of emissions. He says 500 million people, living in poverty worldwide, are particularly vulnerable, as they live in locations extremely vulnerable to droughts, floods, storms, sea-level rise and creeping deserts caused by climate changes. Mr. Annan urges world leaders to adopt a binding and effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol at a planned December U.N. meeting
<http://www.dailytech.com/UN+
e/article12903.htm
Mr. Annan states, "Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated. The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration and mass sickness."
He says even the worst-case U.N. reports fall short of the true impact climate change may have. With new evidence he cites pointing to faster than previously predicted warming, he says the
time for inaction is past. He says funds to combat climate change will have to rise from the current level of $400M USD annually to an estimated $32B USD annually.
Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain and a GHF board member, chimes in stating, "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even 1 percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December."
______________________________
Read and ACT
Ever seen a greenhouse? They are the sheds with roofs and sometimes even walls made of glass and other transparent material. This lets a huge amount of solar heat in and warms the
air which is trapped inside by the roof and the walls, keeping the temperature inside the greenhouse much warmer than outside. In cold climates this helps certain species of plants that prefer a more tropical environment to thrive. The sun’s rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere and bring life and heat to the planet. However a huge amount of this radiation is reflected back by the planet. It’s a very delicate balance, because too much heat reflected would mean an ice age and too little would mean we would be a burnt toast! Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane and Water vapour are called greenhouse gases. These gases form a layer in the atmosphere and prevent the reflected radiation from leaving the Earth. Just like a greenhouse, this will make the temperature on the surface become steadily hotter. This effect is called Global Warming. 1998
and 2005 have been the hottest years in recorded history!
According to a study completed by researchers and scientists at MIT there has been a 100% increase in the intensity and duration of severe storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes since the 1970s. The study found that this is most likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The temperature of the Earth in the last 100 years has risen by 0.6 deg C and is
steadily rising, and according to scientists will rise further by 1.1 deg C to 6.4 deg C this century! This may seem like insignificant figures, but if the global temperature falls by just 4 deg C, we will experience an ice age, Canada will be under a mile of ice! A 6.4 deg C rise in temperature could well signal the end of life as we know it! Global Warming is insidious. It’s not like an earthquake or a tornado or a volcano. It’s a slow, steady march towards doom. And because
it’s slow, we tend to ignore the threat. We just turn on the air conditioner and complain about the weather and more or less go on with our lives as if nothing major is really happening. This attitude is not going to help us for long. Fortunately more and more people are becoming aware of global warming and are slowly accepting it as a serious problem, serious enough that they are willing to change their lifestyles. The top three causes of global warming are:
1. Power generation
2. The Meat industry
3. Transportation
I would love to add another cause there, it’s the United States of America. They have 4% of the global population and contribute to 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions. More than India, China and Japan put together!
Can an individual really make a difference to this very alarming problem? The answer is a
resounding Yes! After all, it’s just individuals who form the society. Each person makes life style choices every day. When each person starts to choose a greener more responsible way of living, then it’s still not too late to arrest planet meltdown.
Use less electricity. This is a no brainer. Turn off lights, fans, air conditioners, heater, etc.
Remember to turn off the switch in the wall.
Heating and Air conditioning are the two biggest power consumers. In cold weather, wear more clothes and insulate your house so you don’t need so much heating. Use a Solar geyser for heating bath water. In hot weather, keep the use of air conditioning to minimal and set the ac at 24 deg C or more.
Use energy saving devices, such as LED lights for lighting.
Don’t leave your computer on stand by or with a screen saver. According to the Clean Air-Cool Planet Website, one computer left on all day results in the emission of 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide in a year. It would take 100 to 500 trees to absorb that amount of extra carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Multiply this by the number of computers on the planet and the results will be pretty phenomenal. You will see that small actions, done with consistency and commitment will add up to a very big savings in the long run.
We all need to go places. But we can do it in healthy, responsible ways. Walk, run, bicycle, skate your way to places that are near. This not only reduces your ecological footprint, but also keeps the body healthy.
Use public transport. And if you have to use a car at all then try to use the option of car pool.
If you are in the market for a new car, choose one that gives more Kms per liter of fuel, rather than one that just looks good. Lobby for getting hybrid and other energy efficient cars to be made in India.
As far as possible, avoid flying.
Many corporations are choosing to have their employees work from home. This means a terrific saving in transportation costs as well as logistical costs of maintaining an office!
Here is a little known fact, one that many websites and even Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) or Leonardo Di Caprio (The 11th Hour) didn’t talk about. A meat based diet contributes to 40%
more greenhouse gases than the pollution generated by ALL the traffic in the entire world put together! All the cars, buses, trains, planes and ships of the planet don’t pollute as much as the meat industry. They actually pollute 40% less!!
There are billions of animals being slaughtered every year. In the US alone, the number of animals being “processed” every year is more than 6 times the human population on the planet. Understand that these animals need food to eat and water to drink. They also excrete. The
colossal amount of food and water that is pumped into this industry is enough to feed more than 50 times the current human population. In fact, if just 10% of the US population went vegetarian, there would be enough food for 800 million people and the entire world’s hunger problem would be solved! If you ate a plant based diet, you would save so much water, that
you could leave your shower on, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year and still save more water for the planet compared to a person having meat. A plant based diet is now accepted to be vastly superior for the human body than a meat based diet. The tremendous amount of resources needed to create meat translates therefore into billions of tons of greenhouse gases being
released into the atmosphere… Finally while you are combating global warming, by choosing to eat green, you also stand up for the meekest and smallest amongst us. Those helpless animals with no voice and no choice at all… So at every meal, each person can make a greener, healthier, more humane choice: Eating vegetarian food!
The above choices (there are many more green tips which are not mentioned here though) exercised made by more and more people on the planet will ensure more than anything else, the arrest and reversal of the very severe threat of Global Warming Please spread the word…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)