Sisyphus' Peak

A Boss is Still a Boss

2008-09-06T06:18:00.003+08:00

NOTE: During my first few months in Gainesville, I worked at a "mom and pop" grocery store called Ward's Supermarket. Though a long-standing Gainesville institution, the bosses there are pretty tyrannical and I was happy to leave at the end of the summer. I wrote and published the below essay anonymously, during my employment at Ward's, in order to stimulate some much-needed conversation amongst area Leftists on the supposed virtues of "buying local."

In the May/June Iguana, Kevin Bond makes a good case for buying local. Research by Civic Economics—an economic analysis and strategic planning consultancy—has documented the tangible economic benefits of buying local in a variety of communities throughout the U.S. Dollars spent with locally-owned businesses tend to circulate through our economy longer than, for instance, shopping at Wal-Mart, which sends a hefty cut of each customer’s dollar to its shareholders’ pockets elsewhere. Moreover, smaller, non-chain restaurants are able to utilize more flexible menus which allow for a wider selection of in-season and locally grown food. Economic arguments aside however, as someone who has spent the better part of their life working for the “mom and pop” establishments Mr. Bond extols, I feel the need to refine his argument.

There is nothing inherent in locally-owned businesses which bestows them with “strong concerns for environmental and sustainability issues…and for issues of globalization…”, nor will these businesses necessarily “serve us socially and environmentally responsible goods and services.” I applaud those local businesses which do strive to meet these criteria, but I have also worked for plenty which exemplify the polar opposite. In many of my jobs at “mom and pop” businesses, including the one where I currently work, I have witnessed gross violations of environmental responsibility, worker safety, and basic human dignity. There are countless small business owners and managers who differ from the most truculent corporate CEO in opportunity only; given the chance, many of them would gladly take their exploitation to the global scale.

Further, since small businesses are more likely to avoid the scrutiny of large regulatory agencies or citizen watchdog groups, they frequently have less incentive to pay attention to issues such as discrimination, pollution, and workplace safety. Yet these are issues which larger companies can scarcely afford to ignore—just ask Publix, which settled a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination back in ‘97. The settlement resulted in damages of tens of millions of dollars, as well as a significant restructuring of the company’s Human Resources Department. Meanwhile, the blatant yet tolerated sexual harassment by managers at my current job continues unabated.

And finally, when it comes to the service industry, regardless of whether we’re talking about a corporate chain or a locally-owned business, very few workers are actually being paid a living wage. Many of these workers are then trapped in a cycle of poverty and forced to shop wherever they can find the lowest prices—locally-owned or otherwise. Therefore, building strong community organizations and ethics which promote environmental stewardship while amplifying the voices of working people and aggressively supporting their rights is at least as important as buying local. Otherwise we are likely to end up with nothing more than a polluted community and a local economy dominated by petty thugs and wannabe tyrants.

If locally-owned businesses have an advantage over corporate chains with regard to environmental and social justice, it’s that the people who make such decisions are our neighbors—not faceless bureaucrats in a corporate headquarters far, far away. Since we often know where they live, work, and recreate, local managers and business owners can more easily be held accountable for their actions. But this advantage only means something if we, the local consumers, capitalize on it. There are some encouraging examples that strong consumer preference partnered with business acumen can make a positive difference for our health and the environment. Witness the rise of the natural foods movement, once solely populated by low-to-the-ground independent stores who were able to respond to human needs and a growing market much quicker than the corporate behemoths; ditto for much of the green products industry. Whether customer demand can spark a similar revolution in favor of workers’ rights and a just economy, however, remains to be seen. The “fair trade” movement has some interesting prospects; but does our sense of solidarity extend throughout the entirety of the supply chain—from the peasant farmer who grows our coffee to the worker who stocks it on the shelves or the barista who brews it?

So the next time you’re patronizing your favorite locally-owned business, pondering where the item you’re about to purchase was produced, I hope you’ll consider a few additional questions:
*What is a living wage for the Gainesville area?
*Are workers in this establishment paid a living wage, treated with respect, and allowed to organize for their collective self-interest if they so choose?
*What recourse exists in our community for workers who are not being treated fairly in the workplace?

If you find that you don’t know the answers to these questions, try asking the person who’s serving you. Such conversations could go a long way in giving our community the “unique, vibrant, and sustainable” local economy that Mr. Bond, and all of us, would like to see.

Sethusamudram Shipping Canal

2008-04-06T02:10:00.009+08:00

The Sethusamudram Shipping Canal: still dredging up controversy

An abbreviated, *heavily-edited* version of this article appeared in the April 2008 issue of Gobar Times, a youth magazine published by the Centre for Science and Environment.

In the Hindu epic Ramayana, Lord Ram constructed a magical bridge from India to Sri Lanka so that he and his army could rescue his kidnapped wife, Sita. Many people believe traces of that bridge still exist and that it is in danger of being destroyed by a controversial canal project called Sethusamudram (SSCP). If completed, the 167 kilometer (km) channel would link the Bay of Bengal with the Gulf of Mannar and provide a continuous navigable route around the Indian peninsula. Currently, ocean-going vessels must navigate around Sri Lanka rather than passing through the Palk Bay, thereby increasing shipping time and costs and diminishing the development potential of much of Tamil Nadu’s coast.

Yet the channel’s current proposed alignment puts it on a direct collision course with a site considered sacred by many Hindus. Proponents of the project contend that the so-called “Rama Setu,” a chain of shoals running between northwestern Sri Lanka and southeastern India, is merely a collection of sand resulting from natural geological processes such as sedimentation; there is little if any physical evidence which links the shoals to the bridge depicted in the Ramayana. Yet others point out that the reality of how these structures were formed is secondary to the cultural importance which people have assigned to the site over the ages. Picking up on these concerns, some politicians and Hindutva groups have vowed ongoing demonstrations until the project is stopped. For the moment, the Supreme Court (SC) has acceded, putting a halt on any part of the channel’s construction which would damage the Rama Setu. In a landmark ruling that will likely have significant implications for similar controversies in the future, the Court will soon decide whether the purported benefits of the canal outweigh the religious and cultural values of the existing structure. While on its face the issue may appear to be a classic question of superstition versus progress, or cultural preservation versus material gain, a closer look reveals that there may be much more at stake.

The purported benefits of the canal include advancing India’s national security via increased freedom of movement for the Indian Coast Guard and Navy; boosting trade by reducing maritime shipping costs; and improving the livelihoods of coastal residents via expansion of economic opportunities in the region. Mr. Maravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan, a retired marine biologist based in Chennai who has studied this project extensively and given public seminars on the topic, calls it “viable, development-oriented, futuristic, and beneficial to both countries [India and Sri Lanka].” Yet comments such as Mr. Sachithananthan’s, combined with repeated references to Sethusamudram as the “Suez canal of the East,” imply that this project may also have a lot to do with international prestige. As with similar projects in China and other “rising” nations, the completion of large-scale, technically-challenging development projects sends an important message to the rest of the world. In its 2004 ruling on this issue, Madras High Court stated: “We must never overlook the basic aim of our country which is to make India a powerful and modern industrial state. Today the real world is cruel and harsh. It respects power, not poverty or weakness…if we wish to get respect in the world community we must make our country highly industrialized and prosperous.”

Yet despite its concern for “prosperity,” the High Court refused to hear arguments that the channel would cause irreparable harm to the coastal ecology of Tamil Nadu and the fisher-folks whose livelihoods depend upon it. Nor has the Supreme Court adequately examined the ecological and livelihood objections pending before it. Yet clearly many people are concerned; at the official opening of the project’s construction in 2005, hundreds of people protesting the canal on these grounds were arrested. A month later, one of the dredger ships had to be defended by police and naval personnel as 1,500 fisher-folk attempted a blockade. Now, this coalition of fisher-folk, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens is watching to see what the SC will decide while continuing to amass evidence to support their cause as well. An SC decision allowing continued work on the canal will likely lead to renewed grassroots opposition by an “alliance” of religious fundamentalists and those who oppose the project for more secular reasons.

Much of the environmental critique of the canal is related to its proximity to the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park—only a few kms away at its nearest point. The National Park is the core area of India’s largest Biosphere Reserve and the first of its kind in all of South and Southeast Asia. It is prized both for its world-class marine ecology as well as its historical and cultural significance. Yet there is already one major port and a handful of minor ports located within or directly adjoining the Reserve, not to mention the 100,000 residents, many of them fisher-folk, along its coastline; between natural resources extraction and industrialization of the coast, preservation of the region’s biodiversity is already a considerable challenge. By enabling a dramatic expansion of ship traffic so close to the Park, environmentalists allege that the Ministry of Environment and Forests is violating the spirit of international agreements as well as its own rules regarding species protection and buffer zones surrounding protected areas.

Sethusamudram’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), carried out by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), asserts that the canal will have “insignificant” impacts on the Reserve. Yet opponents maintain that the EIA was biased in favor of the project, non-comprehensive in scope, and based on faulty data. As if to underscore this point, a dredger working in the Rama Setu area was seriously damaged in May 2007 when it unexpectedly struck a rock bed. This discovery was particularly troubling because it meant that explosives would likely have to be used to clear a path through Rama Setu, a scenario that was not envisioned by the EIA or by the “Detailed Project Report” (DPR) submitted in 2005. Critics allege that other aspects of the proposal have also not been adequately modelled.

Moreover, the effects of increased shipping and coastal development which the Assessment predicts will result from the canal have been mostly overlooked; similar to road construction into land-based conservation areas, it is likely that the major damage will result not from the project itself, but from the further incursions that it facilitates. For instance, significant port development is being proposed for Thoothukudi, Puducherry, and Rameswaram in tandem with the construction of the Sethusamudram canal. Yet the EIA repeatedly refers to the synergistic effects of these activities as outside of its scope, therefore they have not been taken into consideration.

The EIA also acknowledges that there will be “significant, adverse impacts” from the canal’s construction on fishing activities, and that displacement of current residents may occur, although “…the extent of land acquisition, the need for resettlement and rehabilitation of affected population, if any, could not be assessed at this juncture.” The Coastal Action Network (CAN), a group representing fisher interests in Tamil Nadu, believes it has a better sense of what this project will entail for fisher-folk in the region. Jesu Rethinam, one of CAN’s convenors, offers a conservative estimate that “The one lakh fishing families who will be immediately affected by the SSCP will incur losses of Rs 24,000 crores in terms of household assets and loss of livelihood assets, marine resources, land and housing, and social goods…This is a conservative estimate accounting for only the next 5-7 years and does not include environmental destruction of the coastal environment, biodiversity, etc.” Yet it is obvious that any activities which further damage the marine ecology and fisheries of the region will have substantial impacts on fisher-folk, and CAN claims that some fisher-folks are already reporting decreased fish-catch during the construction phase of SSCP. Greater ship traffic will also undoubtedly exacerbate already-existing conflicts between traditional fisher folk and industry. Rethinam continues, “In the last two years, dredging ships have destroyed fishing nets worth Rs 2.5 crore…No action was taken despite fishermen’s complaints to the District collector and the police. Instead, fishermen who ventured too near the dredging area have been harassed by the Coast Guard.”

Given that the project will affect at least six of Tamil Nadu’s thirteen coastal districts, including hundreds of fishing villages and lakhs of fisher-folk, such impacts are no small matter. Yet the level of consultation with these communities in the lead-up to construction was poor. Though there were public hearings held from September 2004 to February 2005 in the districts to be affected, these meetings were racked with protest and interrupted by the December 2004 tsunami; in some instances vocal critics were barred entry or removed from the premises. As with the environmental assessment, the project’s social accounting also appears to have fallen short. The shortcuts the government took in securing local support have resulted in conflicts during the construction phase of the channel and ongoing resistance from the fisher community.

But perhaps the most critical weakness of Sethusamudram is from the economic perspective, as re-assessments of the canal’s DPR have undermined some of its key arguments. Even if the project were to remain on-budget—which is unlikely due to underestimations of dredging costs, its primary expense—some recent economic analyses demonstrate that the canal will also fall short with regards to revenue. Jacob John, an economist based in Bangalore, is the author of one such analysis. John estimates that there will be significantly less financial incentive for foreign ships to use the canal than the DPR has suggested; this projection does not bode well for the canal given that revenue from these ships was supposed to provide two thirds of its income. Further, the channel’s limited depth means that only ships with a draught (the distance from a ship’s lowest point to the water’s surface) of 10 meters or less will be able to use it. Therefore as the shipping industry moves towards ever larger ships, and Indian ports are being deepened to accommodate them, NEERI’s EIA states that deepening the Sethusamudram channel would be both economically and environmentally unviable. These facts bring the actual usefulness of the project, and hence its ability to generate a profit, into serious question. Beyond the concerns about revenue, interest rates have risen substantially since the initial planning stages, meaning that the loans which would be used to finance Sethusamudram will now be much more expensive to repay.

For all of these reasons, the canal is obviously in need of a mid-term assessment even if the SC overrules the religious opposition. As John argues:
Given the likelihood of overestimation of the revenues and underestimation of costs, it is a big question on whether the project will be viable on the grounds it was granted approval. Therefore, do mechanisms need to be built into project design, that stop projects that have significantly changed vis-à-vis the original approval documents…At the heart of this debate is the way many projects are projected to give stratospheric gains for the economy, employment, GDP, etc, but in reality there is little check once the entire project has been approved and operationalized… there is a duty of those promoting projects to consider the impacts it has on people, and allow people to review these impacts especially in the early years of a project.

On the other hand, if the SC does rule to halt destruction of Rama Setu, thereby putting it on indefinite hold, the situation could become even more complicated. Since the canal project was initially put forward more than 140 years ago, there have been numerous proposed routes. Despite their other shortcomings, NEERI is correct in the assessment that, from the ecological and livelihood perspective, the current route is the least destructive. As CAN asserts: “There is no scientific justification for a realignment of the canal. The destruction will be the same or worse.” Regardless, many religious opponents of the canal’s current alignment would support the project if it were to utilize one of the alternate routes, thereby causing a split between those who oppose the canal on religious grounds and those who oppose it for environmental or economic reasons. Revathi, a journalist who has studied the issue closely and is currently producing a documentary film on Sethusamudram, says, “A true ‘coalition’ with the religious fundamentalists does not exist. The BJP and RSS were sitting quietly during the early stages of the project; their motivations for becoming involved at this late stage are purely political and self-serving. I don’t see any big commitment from them for the environment, for the fisher-folk, for the taxpayer.” Yet reconsideration of alternate routes would at least delay construction and hopefully open Sethusamudram up to a fresh round of environmental and economic assessments.

Two and a half years after its official unveiling, the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal continues to dredge up controversy. There are still no definitive answers on the probable environmental, economic, and livelihood outcomes of the project, and we will likely never know whether the Rama Setu is a natural formation or one built by a god thousands of years ago. But what is clear are the deep-seated problems with the process through which the GOI continues to define and implement development. Take, for instance, the blatantly biased perspective of the Madras High Court, which concluded that:
We should not obstruct the scientific and technical progress of the country in the name of environment protection. No doubt, the environment has to be protected, but… industrialization itself ensures a good environment…

Yet progress should not be imposed on people from on high, and discussion, planning, and implementation of development objectives must make a thorough accounting of all stakeholders and their rights as well as employing the precautionary principle with regards to potential social and environmental impacts. While all the legal wrangling and citizen unrest may be a serious inconvenience to those who want to see this project completed anytime soon, it presents new possibilities for the GOI to open up to the public and address the critiques which have been raised by all sides. If the SSCP turns out, as its critics assert, to be a terrible idea, then the time, resources, and acrimony wasted on it will hopefully be a reminder to the government that full involvement of stakeholders, responsiveness to criticism, and ongoing assessment is central for any future endeavors. Yet even if supporters are right that this is a meritorious project whose time has come, then they obviously need to learn how to do a better job demonstrating those benefits and marketing such projects to the public in the future.

Works cited:
*personal interviews with Mr. Maravanpulavu K. Sachithananthan and Sudarshan Rodriguez
*“Sethusamudram Canal: An Expensive Voyage?” Economic and Political Weekly July 21, 2007; Jacob John
*Rodriguez, S., J. John, R. Arthur, K. Shanker, A. Sridhar. 2007. Review of Environmental and Economic Aspects of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP). pp 76.
*SWAMINOMICS “150-year dream for 150-year old ships” 23 Sep 2007, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar.
*“Sethu project faces 20-30% cost surge” Animesh Singh / New Delhi September 20, 2007;
*Tamil Nadu State Forest Department
*Wikipedia
*”In Short” 11/15/07
*”Sethusamudram's financial woes”
*”Ecological reasons to oppose Sethusamudram project” 10/15/07,
*”Political Dredging” 7/31/05
*”Sethusamundram project is unviable” 6/15/07.
*“After 150 Years”
*”Deep Waters” & “Blueprint Blues” 5/15/07.
*focused analysis on project in 3/15/06 issue of DTE.
*”Neighbours Worry”, 10/15/05.
*”Strait Hit”, 6/30/05.
*”Green Light?” 6/15/05.
*”A very heavy metal load” 2/28/01.
*”Saving a reserve” 1/15/98
*”Threat to dugongs” 7/31/01
*”Reserved!” 10/31/01
*”Assessing Marine Threat” 5/15/02
*”PMO exposes system slip-up” 4/15/05
*”Supreme Court stays DMK-sponsored Tamil Nadu shutdown” By ANI (www.aniin.com) Sunday September 30, 03:07 PM;
*”Setu- Faith vs national interest” Central Chronicle, 9/19/07;
*“Silence, controversy shroud…” 9/10/07;
*”Project a recipe for disaster, scientists say” 9/12/07;
*”Centre criticized for excluding key experts from Sethu panel” 10/23/07;
*”SC rejects Swamy plea for reconstitution of Sethu committee” 10/24/07;
*”Govt on back foot, withdraws affidavit” 9/15/07;
*”No one benefits from a Rs2,600 crore channel” 9/13/07;
*”Lack of Access to Sethu Panel Criticized” 10/30/07;
*”Channelling religious sentiment into rare political opportunity” 9/14/07;
*Interview w/ T.R. Baalu, 2/6/08;
*W.P.NOS.33528 AND 34436 OF 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.40521 and 41570 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS; DATED: 17.12.2004 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KADJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
*”Adam’s Bridge,” Encyclopedia Britannica online
*Sethusamudram Corporation Limited
*”Environmental Impact Assessment for Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project.” National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)
*”Tuticorin port has potential to be global container hub: PwC” by Raja Simhan T.E; The Hindu Business Line 6/16/05
* “DMK has been isolated on Sethu issue: TN BJP” The Hindu, February 5, 2008
*”Sethu project: Centre counters environmental concern.” March 2, 2008.
*”Centre files fresh affidavit on Sethu project in SC.” The Hindu, 2/29/08.
*”Role of Fisherwomen in Coastal Eco-system of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and TamilNadu—an Overview” by Vijaya Khader and R. Sathiadhas; prepared for the 22nd Annual Conference Proceedings of the AIAEE in Clearwater, FL.
*“Govt should declare Sethu heritage: BJP” NDTV.com; 2/1/08
*“Yes to Ram, no to sethu: Govt” NDTV.com; 1/31/08
*“Coast Guard 'torpedoes' Sethu project” The Economic Times, 2/1/08
*“Sethu project to raise security issues: Coast Guard DG” The Economic Times 1/31/08
*”The Sethu gridlock” by Professor Willie Mendis. The Island online edition.
*”Cong files affidavit in SC to give Sethu its go-ahead.” IBN Live, 3/1/08.
*”Government seeks apex court’s nod to Sethusamundram project“ Thaindian News, 2/28/08.
*”Doublespeak On Ram Sethu” Tehelka, 3/7/08.
*”Sethu project will trap government in immeasurable debt: experts” The Hindu, 2/19/08
*”Rama Sethu in the mist of political prejudices” Mynews.in, 2/7/08.
*Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy, 10/1 interview with Shobha Warrier of Rediff, which is one part of Rediff’s ongoing coverage the project
*”Impacts of the Proposed Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (An Alternate Report).” Coastal Action Network, 3/12/04.
*Tuticorin Port Trust, “Final Detailed Project Report.” Feb. 2005
*”Review of the Environmental Impacts of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP),” by Sudarshan Rodriguez. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter No. 6, July, 2007.
*”A Status Report on Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project & the Struggles against the project.” The Movement Against Sethusamudram (Sea Channel) Shipping Canal Project.

Canary in the Coalmine

2007-11-13T18:39:00.001+08:00

An abbreviated, *heavily-edited* version of this article appeared in the November 2007 issue of Gobar Times, a youth magazine published by the Centre for Science and Environment.

As George Bush’s escapades in the Middle East continue to sour and petrol prices rise ever higher for the American citizen-consumer, more and more voices are clamoring for “energy independence” and “freedom” from foreign oil. While U.S. environmentalists have long called for a strong emphasis on efficiency and increased investment in renewable energy technologies, their demands are being diluted and sidetracked as big business interests and their political cronies join the bandwagon. Their goal: massive government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in hopes of developing a technological fix which will preserve the (wasteful) “American way of life.” So-called “advanced” coal technologies, such as coal-to-liquid and coal-to-gas, are prime examples of such hopeful techno-fixes. Actually both of these technologies have been around for some time, but have not been utilized extensively because of their inefficiencies and/or high costs. It is important that we understand the full implications of these technologies before they become more widely implemented.

Coal-to-gas

The gasification process used for coal is essentially the same as that used for other carbon-based “feedstocks” such as biomass and waste materials. The coal is subjected to carefully-controlled chemical processes under high temperature and pressure, ultimately resulting in a gaseous mixture. The contents of this mixture, consisting of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and other compounds, can then be used for fuel or other commercial products. A new generation of U.S. power-plants, with two already on-line and a few dozen more proposed as of 2007, will utilize this coal gasification process and are known as Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle, or IGCC.

While proponents of these plants promise higher levels of efficiency and better reduction/capture of pollutants, to-date the significantly higher capital costs of IGCC plants means that they can only function with large government subsidies. The U.S. state of Minnesota has already rejected one proposed IGCC plant because of its high costs and relatively low guarantee of pollution reduction as compared to standard coal-fired power plants updated with the latest pollution control technologies. Additionally, some researchers have raised concerns about increased wastewater and mercury pollution using IGCC technology.

Coal-to-liquid

If coal gasification is questionable, coal-to-liquid is downright shady. In order to liquefy coal, it is first gasified, as in the process described above. The gaseous mixture is then converted, via a chemical process known as “Fischer-Tropsch” (FT) into a number of liquids such as ammonia, naphtha (petroleum ether), methanol, and diesel. As with gasification, the FT process can be used with a wide variety of feedstocks. Proponents of this technology argue that by ramping up the U.S.’s consumption of coal and converting this coal into liquid fuel for transport, the U.S. could eliminate its current importation of >10,000,000 barrels of oil/day.

The problems with this approach are many. For one thing, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that to replace U.S. oil needs, coal consumption would have to increase several-fold. Meanwhile, the National Coal Council has stated that even a doubling of domestic coal production would require “major investment and effort” and could not be accomplished for another twenty years. Not to mention the estimated 132 massive new power plants which would be required to manufacture this fuel, with each plant taking in between 40,000-80,000 tons of coal/day (depending on the quality of coal used) and churning out 80,000 barrels of oil/day. Each of these plants would cost approximately four times as much to build as an equivalent petroleum refinery.

Coal-to-liquid is a losing proposition for the climate as well, producing nearly twice the CO2 as the petroleum refining process; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns that replacing petroleum with liquefied coal would lead to a 119% increase in greenhouse gas emissions—an increase the planet can hardly afford given the U.S.’s already record-high emissions. The sizable investments required and low payback make this technology uneconomical without massive government subsidy, which is why to-date it has only been used on a large scale in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa, two regimes which were cut off from international oil supplies and hence had no other options.

Coal woes

Indeed, these proposed technologies spell bad news for our global environment all-around, since their underlying purpose is to replace part of the U.S.’s petroleum and natural gas use with increased coal consumption. A resource that is relatively cheap and plentiful within North America, coal consumption increased nearly 11% between 1996 and 2006. Under these schemes proposed by coal interests, coal consumption would rise even more dramatically. Already, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates 139 GW of new coal-based generating capacity will be added to U.S. energy grids by 2030.

As with any potential energy source, we must evaluate the entire life-cycle costs of coal: these include mining, transportation, and processing of coal as well as power plant and pipeline construction, the air/soil/water pollution and greenhouse gases emitted through burning coal, and the disposal of the coal waste that remains after it has been burned. On all these fronts, coal gets extremely low marks and has been deemed “the dirtiest of all fuels” by the U.S.-based Clean Air Task Force. Worldwatch estimates that coal-fired power plants cause >40% of the U.S.’s annual mercury emissions, and that Americans spend more than $160 billion/year in medical expenses resulting from power plant-generated air pollution. In addition, coal is the most CO2-intensive of any fossil fuel, emitting approximately three pounds of CO2 for every pound of coal burned. Coal currently supplies more than half of the U.S.’s electricity and accounts for 40% of its overall CO2 emissions.

The U.S.’s “energy sacrifice zones”

As is often the case when examining the full costs of environmental degradation, we find that these costs have not been distributed equitably. For instance, one report which examined the how the effects of coal combustion are distributed found that African Americans are significantly more likely than white Americans to live near coal-fired power plants and power plant waste sites, and a likely result of that proximity is that African Americans suffer from higher rates of asthma and other air quality-related health problems. Similarly, the nation’s first proposed coal-to-oil facility is to be sited nearby a prison in a poverty-stricken area in eastern Pennsylvania.

Residents of the Appalachian coalfields, another community which has been disproportionately affected by U.S. coal consumption, have good reason for concern when they hear of schemes that would increase coal mining in the region several-fold. Appalachia is named for the ancient mountain range that defines the region’s geography; it includes parts of 13 U.S. states and is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom. Originally inhabited by Native Americans, the area was re-settled by immigrants of largely Scottish, Irish, German, and English descent in the 18^th century. Due to the mountainous terrain and relative isolation of the region that resulted, much of these immigrants’ culture remained relatively intact. Today however Appalachia is home to over 20 million people and is undergoing rapid economic, cultural, and demographic changes.

The region is also known as the home to some of the richest coal seams in the world, and has for generations supplied that fuel to the U.S. and other nations, too often at great ecological and social costs. Teri Blanton, a native of Appalachia and a long-time anti-mining activist, has stated: “Harlan County [a coal mining county in Appalachian eastern Kentucky], my home county, has produced over 1 billion tons of coal in the past century, yet…coal has left us with polluted water, a corrupted political system, poor schools, too many unhealthy people, and a disappearing heritage. And today the destruction is increasing.”

Among the many unfavorable consequences resulting from coal mining in the region, perhaps the most striking is the proliferation of a destructive form of surface or strip mining known locally as “mountaintop removal.” Mountaintop removal uses heavy machinery and high-powered explosives to literally destroy the part of the mountain which covers the coal seam, dumping the resulting “waste” into nearby valleys and streams. Seen as a labor and money-saving method of mining by the coal companies, strip mining and other technological advances have been replacing underground mining for a few decades now. In the past 50 years, the mining workforce has decreased from 335,000 coal miners working in 7,200 mines to 104,824 miners working in less than 2,000 mines. This declining workforce has occurred despite an 83% increase in production over the past 30 years.

In addition to a decline in some of the best-paying jobs the region has to offer, Worldwatch estimates that mountaintop removal has already “buried or polluted more than 1,200 miles [>1900 kilometers] of streams, destroyed more than 7 percent of Appalachia’s forests, and eliminated entire communities. If current trends continue over the next decade, affected land will cover 2,200 square miles [nearly 5,700 square kilometers]...” These “affected lands” of Appalachia include people’s homes, farms, places of worship, and family cemeteries, lands that the current residents are not willing to give up without a fight.

Already hard-hit by coal mining and supplying up to 1/3 of the U.S.’s coal consumption per year, Appalachia obviously has a huge stake in any proposals which would increase that consumption, especially given that the “most accessible” coal seams have largely already been mined out. While coal companies pay off local politicians to do their bidding and try to seduce citizens with promises of jobs and wealth, residents of these sacrifice zones know better and have started organizing against increased coal mining. In the words of one resident of the coalfields, “…coal has been dominant in Appalachian economies for a hundred years now and they are still some of the poorest counties in the U.S.”

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC), one group of concerned citizens, has founded a statewide “Canary Project,” the aim of which is to move their communities beyond the long-standing domination of the coal industry. Explains KFTC, “For years, coal miners would take canaries into the mines to warn of dangerous gases. When the canaries died, the miners knew it was time to get out of the mine. Now, we are the canaries, warning everyone about the dangers of coal before it is too late. We no longer believe the big lie that coal is a cheap source of energy, and we are no longer willing to have our homes and lives sacrificed for coal company profits.”

To raise awareness of their concerns, coalfield inhabitants have also created a virtual “memorial for the mountains." This website uses Google Earth software to tell the stories of coalfield residents and more than 470 mountains destroyed by mountaintop-removal through photos, stories, and interviews; stories such as those of the students at Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, West Virginia, whose school is located directly downhill from an impoundment holding back 2.8 billion gallons of coal sludge. If this impoundment were to become breached, the students would have only a few minutes to evacuate before being buried under several feet of coal sludge.

As in India and throughout the world, the livelihood of one group of people is being sacrificed so that others can enjoy wasteful lifestyles and outsource the consequences. But the citizens of Appalachia have had enough and are busy opposing the implementation of any technologies that will lead to increased coal consumption and increased destruction of their communities. Instead, they have joined forces with other environmentalists in calling for environmental justice and a clean energy future for the U.S. and the planet.

Sources:
*KFTC’s website & newsletters, Balancing the Scales

*EIA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html as well as stats on coal consumption)

*DOE (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html)

http://www.energyjustice.net/

http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/about.htm

http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com

*EPA (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/coal.htm)

*“Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts of Coal.” Clean Air Task Force, June 2001 (also has a great graphic, “Figure 1 illustrates the numerous ways that contaminants from coal end up in the environment”)

*“Air of Injustice: African Americans and Power Plant Pollution,” Black Leadership Forum et al, Oct. 2002

*“American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security,” Worldwatch Institute & Center for American Progress, Sept. 2006

*Wikipedia “Appalachia”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

India & Burma: “Look East” or look the other way?

2007-10-19T20:52:00.001+08:00

This article was originally published in the November 2007 issue of the Industrial Worker, my union's newspaper.

On October 6, 2007 people in dozens of cities around the world took to the streets in solidarity with activists inside Myanmar/Burma. The aim of these actions was to both call attention to 45 years of harsh military rule and to put an immediate global spotlight on the upsurge of protest within Burma in recent weeks. Dubbed the “Saffron Revolution,” these are the largest and most vociferous demonstrations that have taken place inside the country since the protests of August 1988, which ended in a military coup and the massacre of thousands of civilians.

As in ’88, the current protests within Burma were catalyzed by increased economic austerities imposed by the Burmese government, but quickly assumed a pro-democracy character given the harsh suppression of any form of public dissent. Organizers are now demanding, in addition to economic relief, national reconciliation and the release of movement leaders such as May Win Myint, Dr. Than Nyein, and Aung San Suu Kyi. Myint and Nyein have been imprisoned without a trial since October of ‘97, while Suu Kyi has spent more than 11 of the last 17 years under house arrest.

Predictably, the Than Shwe regime’s response to the protests has been violent, resulting in hundreds of injuries and at least nine deaths. Many activists are calling for immediate intervention by the international community. In particular, organizers have implicated Burma’s main ally, China, as well as multinational corporations doing business in Burma. October 9^th was an international day of action against Chevron for its ties to the Burmese government, and a global advertising campaign has targeted the Chinese Communist Party for its support via “investment, imports, and armaments.” Somewhat overlooked in this focus is the important role of Burma’s other major neighbor, India.

In addition to long-standing cultural ties, India and Burma have a shared political history, dating back to their former integration under the British Empire. Sizable numbers of ethnic Indians continue to reside in Burma, and vice versa, again owing to the upheavals of colonialism and its aftermath. Burma also served as a headquarters for the Indian revolutionary Subhash Chandra Bose and his anti-colonial Indian National Army from 1943-5, thus playing a significant role in India’s struggle for independence. Yet what role will an independent, democratic India play in the modern-day struggles of the Burmese people?

While India’s response to the Burmese government’s crackdown in ‘88 was decidedly pro-democracy, in recent years New Delhi has become much more pragmatic in its relations. Cooperation with Burma is in fact a central facet of India’s important “Look East” policy, and India continues to increase its military, diplomatic, and financial ties to the Than Shwe regime, often at the expense of the Burmese democracy movement. High-level diplomatic relations have grown significantly between the two countries, and India’s former Minister of External Affairs Natwar Singh declared India’s desire for a “long-term partnership” with Burma in 2005. India is currently seeking to expand its bilateral trade with the country, has extended millions of dollars in grants and loans, and is engaged in several joint development projects. Indian oil and natural gas companies also continue their explorations in Burma unabated.

Might these deepening economic ties somehow compromise India’s purported interests in supporting the growth of democracy in the country? Mani Shankar Aiyer, Minister in-charge of Development of India’s North Eastern Region, thinks not: “We have long been champions of democracy. We haven't compromised on that, but ground realities are ground realities.'' India's Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Murli Deora, who paid a visit to the Than Shwe government within days of it opening fire on nonviolent protestors, was even more straightforward: "We have a good understanding with the military junta and we are confident that our companies will do big business there in the direction of seeking energy security for the country."

Military relations with Burma have also grown, and serve multiple purposes for India, including securing both countries’ borders and counteracting China’s increasing influence in the region. Earlier this year India’s Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee promised a continued flow of military equipment to Burma. The two countries have also conducted joint military operations along the Indo-Burma border with the aim of neutralizing separatist groups that have been troubling India on its northeastern frontier. Yet these actions not only lend legitimacy to Than Shwe’s government, they also subvert U.S. and E.U. bans on the importation of military items into the country, with India acting as a middleman for the transfer of Western technologies and expertise. Further, India’s military aid (along with the handful of other nations which continue to arm Burma) undermines both armed and nonviolent resistance movements within the country, thereby prolonging the lifespan of the Than Shwe government.

Not surprisingly, there is no evidence of any October 6 protests in China, but India’s rich civil society has begun to step up to the plate. Activists in at least three Indian cities have staged solidarity demonstrations. A small protest march and rally took place October 6^th in central Delhi, followed by a candlelight vigil that evening at nearby India Gate. The recent tumult in Burma is receiving significant media attention, and numerous Indian opinion leaders are calling on the country to increase diplomatic pressure and pay attention to more than just its own short-term interests. In response, Indian leaders are attempting to negotiate a tricky middle way which will encourage reform in Burma without jeopardizing India’s own economic and security goals.

Whether Burma’s Saffron Revolution will indeed bring about substantive change in the country, or give way to business as usual, remains to be seen. What is imperative however is that we not give Burma the Las Vegas treatment; despite Than Shwe’s attempts to quash Burmese civil society and isolate it from the outside world, what happens in Rangoon will not stay in Rangoon. The international community must act in solidarity with the people of Burma, and any actions that solidify Than Shwe’s grip on power are a crime against humanity.

Sources:

-www.Wikipedia.com

-www.Avaaz.org

-http://protestchevron.blogspot.com/

-“Burmese army opens fire in monks' clash” Bangkok Post, 9/7/07

-“India’s Untold War of Independence” Amitav Ghosh, The New Yorker, June 23 & 30, 1997

-“Protests against Myanmar junta go global” AP, Sunday Times of India, New Delhi, 10/7/07

-Amnesty International

-“Candlelight protest in Delhi against Myanmar junta” Headlines India, 10/7/07 http://www.delhi.headlinesindia.com/index1.jsp?news_code=58767

-“Indian oil PSUs jittery over Burma unrest” Syed Ali Mujtaba, Mizzima News (www.mizzima.com).

September 29, 2007

-ONGC Videsh, the International Petroleum Company of India, http://www.ongcvidesh.com/index.asp

-“Indian govt: Business as usual with Myanmar” October 9, 2007 (NDTV News), posted on http://www.indoburmanews.net/

-“India opposes sanctions against Myanmar” October 9, 2007 (Zee News), posted on http://www.indoburmanews.net/

-“Indian envoy met Suu Kyi, Delhi backs talks with junta” October 10, 2007 (Indian Express) posted on http://www.indoburmanews.net/

-“Burma visit highlights India’s “Look East” strategy” Sarath Kumara, 6 April 2005, published on the World Socialist Website: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/indi-a06.shtml

-“Look Immediate East” Sanjoy Hazarika October 07, 2007, Hindustan Times

Special Economic Zones in India

2007-10-19T19:52:00.001+08:00

Special Economic Zones in India, or Hey, They Worked Great in China, Right?

This article was originally published in the October 2007 issue of the Industrial Worker, my union's newspaper.

In one of his recent works, How Much Should a Person Consume?, noted Indian historian Ramachandra Guha points out that developing nations currently on the rise, such as India and China, do not have the same opportunities for colonial plunder that were available to the West. While these budding economic superpowers are increasingly pursuing stronger "relationships" with other developing nations, to date they have relied largely on plundering their own human and natural resources in the name of development. Indeed, to quote Gandhi, "the blood of the villages is the cement with which the edifice of the cities is built."

Immediately upon arriving in India in March of this year, I found such sentiments underscored by events in the village of Nandigram in the state of West Bengal. According to official accounts, open warfare erupted between as many as 5,000 enraged villagers and paramilitary police aided by supporters of the ruling Communist Party of India. The conflict, which resulted in hundreds of injuries and the deaths of more than a dozen protestors, captivated the nation and received wide-scale media coverage. The source of the conflict: the proposed creation of a “Special Economic Zone” (SEZ) in the region and resulting eviction of agriculturalists from land that they depend upon for their livelihoods.

This outbreak of violence was but a crescendo however to ongoing struggles in the region, and throughout the country, around SEZs. Less than two months prior, the IWW’s International Solidarity Commission had issued a letter in support of a rural workers’ union (the Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, or PBKMS) in West Bengal. Yet it would be naïve to allege that India’s land struggles originated with the nascent SEZ approach to development. Rather SEZs are merely the newest public face to the liberalization of the Indian economy (dating back to the early 1960s, and intensifying in the 1990s), and to the politics of rich and poor going back much, much further. As noted by the PBKMS: “The legal mechanism for these land seizures—the Land Acquisition Act—derives from [British] colonial law.” Guha also points to an “imperial model of [natural resources] management” that runs throughout modern Indian history, the aim of which has been “…to legislate commercial exploitation of [natural resources] as the only legitimate use, thereby denying traditional subsistence use by locals. Such an approach inevitably resulted in ongoing breaches of policy and even open rebellion by locals.”

A far cry from the economies of the North, in India a vast proportion of the population still relies directly on the agricultural sector for their livelihood. While academics speculate as to whether the nation’s economy has entered a “new phase” of development, a whopping 60+% of Indians still rely upon natural resource-based livelihoods, declining only 15% over the past 50 years. Agriculture directly employs 234 million Indians, and these agriculturalists, again in contrast to those in the North, run predominantly small, subsistence-based operations, with 90% of landowners still tilling their own fields. In India, as in much of the global South, land is life. Contrast this economic reality with a brutal history of land-grabs and displacement and the outcome is not hard to imagine. Indeed, India’s poor have good reason to view “development” schemes with hostility; the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) estimates that since 1950, 40 million people (the majority of whom are tribal people and Dalits, or “untouchables”) have been displaced from their land due to large industrialization projects; at least 75% of them still await rehabilitation and resettlement. As reported in the pages of the Industrial Worker in recent months, similar State-sponsored land grabs, also in the name of development, have resulted in mass civil uprisings in Vietnam and in China.

Though India first began experiments with free trade zones (under the rubric of “Export Processing Zones”) back in the 60s, the more recent rush to develop SEZs is frequently attributed to the “success” of this model in China. Yet as Shankar Gopalakrishnan points out in a recent re-assessment of Chinese SEZs, “The general impression that China’s special economic zones are a remarkable success is an incomplete one. Left out of the picture are inequities in development, arable land loss, real estate speculation and labour violence…What is happening in SEZs can be seen as progress, therefore, only insofar as aggregate investment is concerned; socially it is nothing but regression.” Further, he concludes that while Indian states are scrambling to emulate and even intensify the Chinese SEZ model, they have utterly failed to address the aspects of this model which have led to such regression.

Special Economic Zones in India, as in other countries, have been established with the ostensible goals of attracting greater foreign and domestic investment, improving productive capacity, and boosting employment and exports. This model typically involves a “streamlined” regulatory environment, enhanced infrastructure, tax breaks, government subsidies, and other forms of State support. And according to the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, SEZs are yielding great results, with an increase of hundreds of thousands of new jobs and several billion dollars of private investment predicted by year’s end. Yet these rosy statistics leave many questions unanswered and gloss over a few important facts on the ground.

Already mentioned is the highly contentious issue of displacement of those dependent upon natural resources, such as the Mundra SEZ in Gujarat, whose development undermines the livelihoods of local fisher-folk and pastoralists, or the proposed Midnapur petrochemical SEZs in West Bengal, which would be built alongside and over top of the area’s freshwater supply and farmlands. In addition to dispossessing locals and the specter of environmental spillover, SEZs are also specifically designed to create “industrial townships” or “countries within a country,” thereby removing authority from local governments and even township residents and relaxing important labor, health and safety, and environmental legislation. If SEZs are truly being established to advance the common good, then they should obviously be beholden to citizens and to laws enacted to protect residents and the natural environment. In the words of one local NGO critical of the SEZ model, “…this is a new form of the East India Company establishment.”

Indeed, the SEZ debate epitomizes the competing interests of rich and poor so frequently glossed over in “development” schemes. By simply designating their project a SEZ, developers are able to (sometimes forcibly) acquire land at rock-bottom prices, fueling a highly-speculative real estate boom with powerful ripple effects for neighboring farmers struggling to hold on to their land as well as landless agricultural laborers. While the robber barons make a fortune, those most ill-prepared to adapt to the rapid economic, demographic, and ecological shifts accompanying the SEZ model of development are left behind. Further, since no more than 50% of the overall land area of the SEZ is required to be devoted to manufacturing, the rest can be used for “support infrastructure” such as housing developments, shopping malls, and other amenities aimed at India’s growing middle class—all subsidized at taxpayer expense. As with China’s SEZ experience, rapid development in a few privileged pockets will likely be exchanged for revenue shortfalls in the country’s poorest districts—a policy which can only exacerbate regional inequalities.

Critics of SEZ policies can be found even within the ranks of the Indian bureaucracy, with the Finance Ministry bemoaning an estimated 1,750 billion rupees (>$43 billion) in foregone tax revenues by 2011—a hefty price tag for a cash-strapped government unable to deliver basic services to much of its populace. To-date it has not even been adequately demonstrated that the private sector investment flowing into the SEZs is a direct result of the policy itself, as opposed to capital which would have been invested in the fast-growing Indian economy anyway but is simply being redirected towards the path of least resistance (as capital is wont to do). Sunita Narain of CSE points to Korean giant Posco's mega steel plant as a case in point: “It 'managed' to get categorized as an SEZ, well after it had already come into the country to set up shop.”

Given the high social costs and inequitably-distributed benefits of current models of development, citizens’ groups across India are agitating for alternatives. Sadly, scenes such as those witnessed at Nandigram are likely to reoccur. Today there are few regions of India which are not caught up in one way or another with contentious land disputes that pit the State and moneyed interests against the working poor, many of whom with little left to lose. In response to this public outcry, the government has taken a number of steps, including limiting the size of SEZs and stripping state governments of the power to acquire land on behalf of developers. The Ministry of Rural Development is also formulating a much-needed overhaul to the State’s approach to resettlement and rehabilitation, and political leaders have suggested that productive farmland should not be diverted to SEZ projects. Whether these reforms will address criticisms of SEZs without also undermining the professed goals of the program remains to be seen, but for the moment at least, the SEZ march continues largely unabated. As of this summer, a total of 339 SEZs had been formally approved by the central government, with another 170 projected approvals on the way.

WORKS CITED:

-Guha, How Much Should a Person Consume?

- Guha chapter in Environmental Issues in India for commentary on how British colonialist policy/relations w/ rurals has continued under independent India (e.g., 1935 declaration re: State’s role in land acquisition)

-ISC solidarity letter re: West Bengal: http://lists.iww.org/private/isc/2007-January/000881.html

-IUF statement on violence/repression in West Bengal: http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=4017&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1

-“India: General strike called after 14 protesters killed” http://libcom.org/news/india-general-strike-called-after-14-protesters-killed-20032007

-“Special Economic Zones: Are They Good for the Country?” by Ram Krishna Ranjan, Centre for Civil Society

-Shri Kamal Nath, India’s Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, addresses University of Oxford (University College) re: the Doha round of the WTO negotiations. May 4, 2007. http://commerce.nic.in/pressrelease/pressrelease_detail.asp?id=2025

- March 2005, IMF Country Report No. 05/87. “India: Selected Issues”

-Economic and Political Weekly May 26, 2007 “Nandigram and the Question of Development” MALINI BHATTACHARYA

- Economic and Political Weekly May 26, 2007 “Help the Rich, Hurt the Poor: Case of Special Economic Zones” E A S SARMA

-Shankar GOPALAKRISHNAN, “Negative Aspects of Special Economic Zones in China” Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2007.

-CSE’s Natural Resources Management and Livelihoods “Towards Green Villages” workshop materials

-Website, Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce: http://sezindia.nic.in/HTMLS/about.htm

-“Prowling tiger: India pushes anew for special economic zones”

Jul 9th 2007, From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9462984

-“A peasant surprise: A scheme to provide land for industrial development hits the skids”

Jan 25th 2007 | GAR CHAKRABERIA, From The Economist print edition: http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8597150

-“Cash cows: They worked in China. But will India's zones boost investment, or just divert it?”

Oct 12th 2006 | DELHI, From The Economist print edition: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8031219

-Editorial Note: SEZ Policy “Ceiling on size will limit growth” by Savita Kulkarni

-website and research paper of Paryavaran Mitra http://paryavaranmitra.org.in/

-“A concession called SEZ, all for foreign exchange: Special Economic Zones barter away democracy” by MAHESH PANDYA AND HIRAL MEHTA; http://downtoearth.org.in/Full6.asp?FolderName=20061031&FileNAme=news&sid=30&sec_id=18

- Sunita Narain editorial in Down to Earth 10/25/06

-Gobar Times, 30/6/07 http://www.gobartimes.org

-Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Outlook 2007

-Down to Earth, “Freeze on special economic zones lifted” 4/30/07: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070430&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=12

-“Background Paper: Land Acquisition and Displacement” Shri. Sanjay Upadhyay, Supreme Court Advocate, New Delhi

-“Land Sovereignty and Food Sovereignty the Key Issue in the Land Debate,” Dr. Vandana Shiva

-“Testimonies from Nandigram,” April 15, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070415&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=1

-“Mundra SEZ Spells Displacement for Fisherfolk” March 31, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070331&filename=news&sec_id=50&sid=18

-“UP Farmers Continue Protest Over Land Acquisition by Reliance” February 15, 2007, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070215&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=6

-“Update” Dec. 31, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/Full6.asp?FolderName=20061231&FileNAme=news&sid=60&sec_id=4

-“SEZ, How Special” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sid=58&page=1&sec_id=9&p=1

-“Scratched record: Will SEZs succeed, where precursors failed?” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=59

-“Zones of conflict: Land acquisition has united farmers” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=61

-“Not wasted: New compromise excuse to grab” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=63

-“Windfall loss:Tax breaks: Public money for private gain” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sec_id=9&sid=64

-“New nabobs” November 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061115&filename=news&sid=66&page=2&sec_id=9

-“SEZs get a social face” Down to Earth, Oct. 31, 2006: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20061031&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=8

-“Union ministries clash over SEZ” September 30, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060930&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=8

-“Gujarat NGOs demand separate environment court” July 15, 2006 Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060715&filename=news&sec_id=49&sid=51

-“SEZ who?: No industrial revolution this“ March 15, 2006, Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20060315&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=17

-“Protests against land acquisitions in India intensify“ 8/22/07, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/152479/1/

-“Medha Patkar criticises Indian govt's new SEZ policy” April 9, 2007, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/148030/1/

-“Nandigram bloodbath puts WB’s land acquisition policy on hold” March 20, 2007 http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/147295/1/

-“India:Special Economic Zones on the Backburner” Feb. 12, 2007, http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/146035/1/

-“Indian economic zones 'hitting the poor'” http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/145038/1/ 1/21/2007

-“Modhwadia smells foul play in land allotment to DLF” September 6, 2007 http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=254904

-Shoma Chaudhury interview with Arundhati Roy, March 31, 2007, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main28.asp?filename=Ne310307Its_outright_CS.asp

Final Watson report

2007-09-06T00:20:00.000+08:00

I submitted this report to the Watson Foundation in early September, 2007:

5/20/2006
When I leave Berea in a few more days headed south, it will officially begin my 14-month stretch of homelessness. My final two months in the U.S. will be a practice run of sorts for living out of a backpack, being perpetually on the move, and packing in as much life per square minute as possible. I enter this moment with prayerfulness and requests for guidance. More than anything else, I want to live well, to walk through this world with love and courage, and to find purpose and understanding. For my part, I promise to listen carefully, to tread lightly, to cultivate mindfulness and compassion, and to be strong.

I appreciate the opportunity to write this summary, as well as our presentations at the Scripps conference; both have provided me with a good excuse to go back through my journal and reflect more critically upon this incredible year I have just completed. My journal entries reflect a roller-coaster of emotion and experience; moments when I felt I could burst open, unable to contain my joy, and times when my heart was so heavy I thought I might sink. Since the first time I heard of the Watson Fellowship, I wanted this opportunity more than just about anything else I could think of; and yet, as a mentor chided me shortly after winning it: “God sometimes punishes us by answering our prayers.”

Some time later, a few days before I would leave the U.S. to begin my fellowship year, I was sitting on my roof with a friend, watching the stars and sharing some celebratory beers. He asked what I wished for now that I had been handed this fantastic opportunity. I answered that what I wanted most out of my life was simply to understand it, and to be in love. I realized in that moment that the true reason I had longed for the Watson experience was not primarily because of the prestige, the money, the travel, or honestly even the opportunity to devote my time and energies to a long-standing interest, it was because it offered me the chance to spend a year walking the Earth, unfettered by responsibility or personal connection, trying to understand my life and learning what it means to be in love. I got exactly what I prayed for.

Fast-forward to a few weeks ago, only days before the Scripps conference, I was sharing a meal with a newfound friend who had herself undertaken a Watson fellowship a few years prior. She has kept up with several former Fellows, and noted with some irony how emotionally and spiritually jarring the experience had been for many of them, that some of her Watson friends seemed to be left in sort of a limbo they had not yet fully recovered from. And now here I sit, back in New Delhi in my rented flat, all the hubbub of the city just outside my window, going on about a life in this surreal environ which so overwhelmed my senses and sensibilities only one year ago. Contradictions still abound, more complicated questions arise each day, and yet I feel a much greater willingness to, as Rilke has suggested, live my way into the answers.

In a few more months I will likely leave India (though I doubt I will ever be finished with it), and I will return home to Florida to be near my family, become rooted in a community again, and slowly re-engage in some of the political-intellectual projects I left behind, albeit with new insights and motivations gained in this time abroad. In general, I feel much more at ease and almost aimless than at just about any other time in my life; I feel less self-imposed pressure to achieve, less certainty about what the world needs and what my place is in it, and am overall simply less optimistic of a favorable outcome for humankind. At the same time, I feel more adventurous, confident, grateful, and serene than I probably ever have. Contradictions abound.

It has been most interesting trying to explain to people I met on my travels, as well as to my working class family who had never even heard of a “fellowship,” what exactly I have been up to these past twelve months. Most of the time I would tell them that I was exploring a wide range of issues related to science, technology, environment, and development in an Asian context. “That seems like a lot,” was usually the response. Yes, indeed it was. Yet as I discussed in my presentation at Scripps, the aspect of the Watson experience I most appreciated was the opportunity to pursue my curiosities and instincts wherever they led me, to basically be an intellectual sponge and just soak in as much as possible. I also had the freedom, once I was properly saturated, to drop out for awhile and take some long, quiet walks, to be left alone with my thoughts and reflect upon what I had learned. This experience has profoundly influenced my thinking about the purpose of education and the processes of pedagogy.

What I learned about myself in the process is how much I value community, and public scholarship, and how fascinating I find the confluence of economics, ecology, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology in modern-day struggles related to development. Conflicts around what constitutes progress, around who wins, who loses, and who decides, are everywhere apparent throughout Asia as these nations industrialize in a much-compressed time frame and in a wholly different global context than the West underwent. In each of the diversity of situations I encountered, I witnessed some common themes, centered on the de/valuation of certain groups of people and certain ways of knowing, and on processes of ex/inclusion based upon these valuations. I learned how important it is that we ask the right questions in formulating development objectives, and how those questions are shaped by the processes employed and the interests involved.

Yet when I look back upon my original research proposal it is difficult not to feel as though I failed in some important ways. My proposed topic was not only overly-broad, it set me up to spend far too much time enmeshed in books and scholarly pursuits rather than the fantastic environs in which I found myself. I also misjudged the extent to which my diffidence would be magnified in such a foreign context, how time-consuming dealing with basic logistical issues would be, and how exhausting it would be to have to seek out not only mentors and resources, but also companions. Hence I struggled with feelings of purposelessness, irresponsibility, and alienation throughout my fellowship year. Especially after spending a few days with the other returning Watson fellows and hearing more about their projects, observing how easily they navigated social situations and how rooted they were in their research topics, I could not help but feel as though this opportunity had perhaps been wasted on me. But then, as I have realized most fully these past months, we are always simultaneously failing some challenges and overcoming others.

The extremes of poverty, oppression, and environmental degradation I witnessed during my travels were also unsettling, to say the least. What was equally unsettling, in some respects, was my ability to acclimate, to go on about my day in the midst of such affliction. Some days as I sat eating a meal that likely cost the equivalent of some worker’s full day’s wages, I tried to reason with myself as to why I should not just go empty my bank account and distribute my Watson funds to NGOs or even some random poor person on the streets. In the final analysis, reason had a lot less to do with my decision than the fact that I was thoroughly enjoying the meal; instead I moved on to pondering what invisible barrier was keeping people in situations of such desperate poverty from resolving matters violently. I harbor no illusions that they deserve their circumstance in life any more than I do.

Another issue I struggled with was being cut off from my community, and this experience more than perhaps any other confirmed the importance of that facet of my life. Despite the Foundation’s admonitions, from time to time I did find myself devoting significant energies to communicating with my people back home. I maintained a detailed travel log of my adventures (mostly focusing on the more cultural/touristy aspects of it which I thought they would find interesting) and tried to keep up with the happenings in the people’s lives that I love. These efforts were richly rewarded, and I am learning that the relationships in my life are more important than probably anything else—more than accomplishment, material gain, or even some sort of generalized sense of “saving the world.” Instead, I am finding that my relationships both encompass and transcend all these areas, as I look to the people that I love for intellectual stimulation, guidance, material as well as emotional support, and even a sense of community that propels me to want to make the world a better place. I feel that in some sense, several of my loved ones accompanied me on the trip, offering support and guidance, and, even if only virtually, engaging in this learning endeavor that I had undertaken. I am all the more thankful for their presence in my life now and do not feel that our semi-regular communications distracted significantly from my experiences.

All these lessons have led me to this present moment back in India, examining a variety of the country’s development objectives on the basis of processes of exclusion and inclusion, as well as the formulation of holistic, participatory indicators of progress. I am already seeing some ways in which this ongoing work will influence my pursuits once I return home in a few more months. As I alluded to earlier, I am not optimistic my efforts will be successful. In short, I have a more articulated vision now than ever before for the sort of world in which I would like to live; at the same time, I have less optimism that it will actually be realized, and to a degree, less of a sense of responsibility or attachment. But what I also realize more fully now is that it is the effort, the process, which is most important. At some point during my Watson year, one of the many friends I carried along in spirit shared the following quote with me: “I wake up every morning torn between a desire to savor the world and to save it. This makes it rather difficult to plan my day.” The tension between those two poles has truly frustrated me over the years, and yet I feel closer to resolving it now than ever before.

I will close with a few specific recommendations for the Watson Foundation, for whatever they are worth. As I have already mentioned, I struggled a lot with justifying this experience and these resources in light of all the pressing needs I encountered, and part of me would like to see the Foundation fundamentally alter its course and begin using its resources to more directly address those needs. I think of how many hungry mouths could be fed, how many degraded landscapes restored, with the resources that are instead being devoted to supporting globe-trotting, novel experiences for a mostly over-privileged group of youngsters. On the other hand, I clutched so greedily to my own Watson experiences that it seems profoundly hypocritical to even entertain such a suggestion. Provided that the Foundation continues in basically the same direction, here are a few other suggestions which I hope you will take into consideration:

Increased material support.
This issue came up at the conference. Of course, people’s experiences varied pretty dramatically depending upon where their fellowship took them, but whether or not the Foundation increases the actual amount of the stipend, it should definitely consider a variety of ways in which it might increase other forms of material support. For instance, since every fellow will have to pay taxes on their stipend and purchase health/travel insurance, and overlooking either of these might lead to significant detriment, the Foundation could simply agree at the outset to take care of these costs, similar to what it has done with our student loan expenses (much appreciated, by the way!). Alternately, the Foundation could provide fellows with a list of resources suggested by previous classes, such as couchsurfing, which might help stretch their resources further and/or provide valuable contacts.

Greater “fellowship.”
Though I can appreciate the Foundation’s emphasis on students immersing themselves in the cultures they choose to visit, I do not necessarily agree that walking into a situation with minimal familiarity is generally the best way to do so. When I passed through Mumbai for a few days, I think that my experience would have been enriched immensely by meeting up with another fellow who had been there for several months and could have helped me navigate my surroundings, recharge, and get to know parts of the city that I would likely miss otherwise. Similarly, when other fellows passed through Delhi, or Beijing, I was able to inform them based on my own experience whether or not they were being ripped off for accommodations, the easiest way to get around, etc. Such networking could be facilitated, and with little real distraction for the fellows, through the use of social networking websites such as Myspace, Facebook, or any number of online travel logs.

Even greater freedom of movement.
I do not know whether it is simply well-intentioned caretaking or some sort of legal/fiscal responsibility which leads the Foundation to limit their fellows’ choice of destinations, but I sincerely hope you will revisit this policy. We are all aware that significant threats to fellows’ safety and wellbeing exist everywhere, and that the U.S.’s designation of which countries are safe to visit has at least a little bit to do with politics. Some of the most so-called dangerous locales in the world today are also some of the most fascinating, and if the fellows can make a compelling case that they have adequately considered safety issues and have a sound plan of action, they should perhaps be allowed to proceed. Besides, denying fellows access to some places while simultaneously providing so little day-to-day oversight can too easily translate into them visiting these places surreptitiously, and with no foreknowledge or support from the Foundation.

And on that note I will close. My sincerest thanks to the staff at the Watson Foundation office. Though our contact was infrequent, I appreciated knowing that you were always only a phone call away, as well as the little things you did to enrich our year, such as the excellent feedback on our quarterly reports and well-wishes around the holidays and our birthdays. All the best with this year’s group of Fellows, and as an Australian tour guide once told me, “May you dream of places you’ve never been, and visit places you’ve never dreamed of.” A dubious benediction indeed.

People, like places, assigned borders and designations.
Governed by law?
Fragile yet enduring. Dynamic terrains acquire unique yet familiar contours, shaped by forces not entirely known to them.
Built layer upon layer, histories buried and unearthed. Futures uncertain and yet seemingly predestined.
Emergence, potentiality.
And we pass through these alien landscapes, sometimes as a ghost, sometimes with the force of a hurricane, but always, always taken with what we see.
An entire life’s devotion and I could still not fully know even one. And yet as I stare into the sea, the skies, another’s eyes, they sing back a song of myself.

China's Environmental Challenges and the Next Generation of Green Leaders

2007-08-30T12:44:00.002+08:00

This article was submitted to me by Zhang Dongli during my tenure at the Centre for Science and Environment. It was intended for publication in CSE's youth magazine, Gobar Times. However, I became impatient waiting for them to publish what I think is an excellent and inspiring article, so I decided to at least publish it here. If anyone is interested in being in touch with the author, let me know.

The world has watched in amazement in the last ten years as China has transformed its economic and social system to become the fourth-largest economy in the world. It has also become increasingly apparent, however, that this rapid growth has come at a severe price for China’s environment. Because of China’s high population and generally poor enforcement of environmental standards, pressure on natural resources and the resultant environmental problems have become acute. For example, one-third of China is affected by acid rain; 16 of the world’s twenty most polluted cities are in China; and over 300 million rural people lack access to clean drinking water. Some of the biggest threats to China’s environment, health, and future sustainable development include water pollution and scarcity, air pollution, and climate change.

China is facing a severe water crisis, with regard to both water quality and water supply. Continuous discharge of untreated sewage from major cities, as well as pollution from mining, paper-making, and other industries has taken a severe toll on China’s waterways. In 2006, 26% of the water flowing in China’s major watersheds was essentially dead, classified by the State Environmental Protection Administration as having lost all basic ecological functions. It is estimated that 660 of China’s cities are affected by serious groundwater pollution. Water supply is also a vital concern; China has 8% of the world’s fresh water but 22% of the world’s population. More than 130 cities in China, including Beijing, face severe water shortages. In order to deal with water shortages in the relatively arid north of China, China has embarked on the world’s largest water diversion project, which will take water from the Yangtze River in the south to northern China. This project involves the construction of 3 canals, totaling more than 3,000 km, and is expected to be completed around 2050 at a projected cost of more than US$60 billion. The full ecological consequences of this large-scale re-engineering of China’s major river systems remain unknown, but environmentalists doubt that it is sustainable to divert so much of the Yangtze’s water.

Air pollution is another serious problem, especially in China’s major cities. According to the World Bank, four of the world’s ten cities with the worst air pollution are in China. About 300,000 deaths each year are attributed to air pollution. Because of China’s huge coal resources, coal accounts for more than 60% of China’s primary energy supply, a much higher percentage than in developed nations like the United States. In cities like Beijing, increased automobile traffic and poor urban planning have also played a critical role in the air pollution problem. When the Chinese government ordered 800,000 cars off of the streets of Beijing to clear the air for the China-Africa summit in November 2006, a type of nitrogen oxide pollution decreased by 40%.

Finally, climate change has been recognized as an increasing threat to China’s environment. According to China’s National Climate Change Program, published by the central government in June, climate change is likely to cause a decrease in the yields of China’s main agricultural crops (corn, wheat, and rice), increased desertification, and sea level rise. Climate change will also make China’s water problems even more acute. Glacial water supplies 23% of China’s population, but it is estimated that China will lose two-thirds of its glaciers by 2050, putting at least 300 million people at risk.

Government and NGO Actions

China’s environmental crisis is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The central government has issued dozens of regulations designed to improve energy efficiency and crack down on polluters. The government’s targets for 2010 include a 10% reduction in air pollution and a 20% reduction in energy intensity of GDP. China has set ambitious targets for the development of wind and biomass electricity generation. In addition, the government has introduced fuel taxes to discourage the purchase of inefficient vehicles and a 5% tax on wooden disposable chopsticks (which consume 25 million trees each year). A new regulation issued in May requires all companies to disclose their environmental information to the public voluntarily or by force.

There has also been a rapid increase in the number of non-governmental organizations working on environmental issues. There are more than 3,000 registered environmental NGOs in China today, a rapid increase from less than 50 only five years ago. These NGOs are gradually becoming more sophisticated and effective. For example, one of the most innovative NGOs is the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs, founded in 2006 by Ma Jun, author of the influential book “China’s Water Crisis.” Ma Jun was inspired to become an environmental activist because of his experiences as a journalist researching the Yellow River. His Institute has created an online map of water pollution in China, and is using this information to pressure multinational companies to green their supply chains and stop purchasing from polluting factories. Chinese NGOs have also started to pay more and more attention to the problem of climate change. Although NGOs generally lack experience in dealing with climate change, they are rising to the challenge, networking with foreign NGOs and building capacity to effectively address this problem.

The Student Environmental Movement

China’s youth are the ones who will have to deal with the future consequences of today’s environmental pollution. Fortunately, the last 10-15 years have seen a rise in environmental activism among Chinese youth and the rise of a new generation of leaders who are dedicated to solving China’s environmental problems.

Unlike their counterparts in developed countries, Chinese youth often face serious barriers to environmental activism. Since the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989, the Chinese government has actively discouraged any attempts at national-level campaigns by university groups. Student groups generally receive no funding from their university, and their ability to fundraise from outside sources is also restricted. All projects must be approved by the university, and it is easy for a university administration to shut down student organizations.

Despite these challenges, there is a tight-knit and growing community of Chinese students from campuses throughout the country working on environmental issues. Nearly every university in the country has an environmental club, many of which are linked into regional and sometimes national networks. It is almost impossible to describe a “typical” club, since the large regional differences across China lead to different environmental concerns, and government control prevents students from organizing nationally. In the words of Zhang Dongli, a leader in the national College Environmental Forum, “there is more and more diversity in the students' environmental activities now. They used to be more nature-focused, just working on issues of forest preservation, endangered species protection, etc. Now they are reaching out to many aspects of the environmental movement, such as urban rivers, green architecture, public transportation, [and] organic farming.” Here we profile a sample of some of the rising student environmental leaders and their organizations.

Li Li, the College Environmental Forum

Li Li is one of the leaders of the College Environmental Forum, the main national student environmental network in China. CEF provides an online forum for college activists to share news, advice, and success stories; it also organizes an annual conference which attracts leaders from the major regional networks and university environmental organizations. This year’s forum focused on climate and energy; students presented recent projects related to issues like on-campus energy conservation, carbon audits, and wind power. Li Li, a recent college graduate and former president of the regional network Green Henan, was heavily involved in organizing this year’s conference. He has also been involved in organizing tree-planting and bird-watching activities, planning student conferences, and developing summer environmental research projects for college students. His goal is “to inspire more people and bring them into environmental protection through my activism.”

Luo Rui, Peking University CDM Club and JIFF (Joint Initiative for the Future)

Luo Rui, a master’s student in environmental science at Peking University in Beijing, is a leader in the CDM Club, Peking University’s environmental club, and a founding member of a new network called JIFF (Joint Initiative for the Future). The CDM Club was founded in 2006 with the goal of promoting awareness and action on climate change at Peking University and beyond. Luo Rui is passionate about climate change, which he first became concerned about as an undergraduate student. In his opinion, this past year was a significant turning point for climate change activism in China: “climate change and related energy issues become the central discussion over one night.” He currently directs the green campus program of the CDM Club, which is working on a greenhouse gas inventory of Peking University and plans to use the results of the inventory to promote investments in energy efficiency on campus.

In 2007, Luo Rui worked with other Chinese and foreign youth leaders living in Beijing to create JIFF, which was designed to provide a bridge for communication between foreign and Chinese climate activists. JIFF aims to build on and adapt the knowledge and resources already developed by the American student climate movement to develop a platform for helping students run green campus projects in China.

Su Jianhua, Green Student Forum

Su Jianhua, a recent graduate of China Mining University, now works for Syntao, an NGO focusing on corporate social responsibility; she was previously a leader in the Green Student Forum, one of the oldest and best-known student environmental organizations in China. GSF runs leadership and capacity-building trainings for students, and publishes a quarterly newsletter featuring student activities from all over China. Su has been concerned about environmental issues since she was in elementary school, when she was shocked by the serious pollution of the river in her hometown. In college, she became involved in the Green Student Forum, and last year she also helped develop a project investigating energy waste on her campus.

Zhang Dongli, the College Environmental Forum

Zhang Dongli, another CEF leader, is currently a junior at Bryn Mawr College in the United States, where she majors in urban studies. She is using her unique position as a Chinese student environmental leader studying abroad to help bridge the American and Chinese environmental movements. She has organized Chinese students to translate campaign resources from American student environmental organizations into Chinese. She has also helped to initiate CEF’s new focus on climate change. Due in part to her leadership, CEF has formed a climate committee, which presented its “Declaration of Chinese Youth and College Student on Climate Action” to the Live Earth concert in Shanghai this past summer. CEF is planning to promote climate projects on university campuses, ranging from greenhouse gas emissions inventories to green building campaigns, and promote the integration of courses on climate change into the university education system. They hope to issue a guide to youth climate activism next year. Zhang Dongli believes that CEF’s leadership on climate change will help “raise the student environmental movement to another level.”

“A long way to go”

Despite the difficulty of organizing in China, the urgency of China’s environmental problems has inspired a new generation of students to take action. Although the student environmental movement in China is young, student leaders are excited that the movement is learning and growing rapidly. Today’s generation of student environmental leaders are increasingly sophisticated, learning from their counterparts in developed countries and creating a new brand of student environmental activism to fit within the Chinese system. Their work reaches from the campus to the national level and covers issues from biodiversity to climate change. Yet despite their passion and enthusiasm, the student leaders are under no illusions about the severity of the threats to China’s environment. As Su Jianhua put it, “we are not satisfied with China's progress on this issue and it is a long way to go to improve the [situation].”

Bangladesh: National Garment Workers Federation

2007-07-10T23:41:00.001+08:00

Abbreviated report from June 2007 Dhaka meeting between the Bangladeshi National Garment Workers' Federation and a representative of the IWW’s International Solidarity Commission

This article was originally published in the August 2007 issue of the Industrial Worker, my union's newspaper.

Many readers of the Industrial Worker are already acquainted with the ongoing struggles in Bangladesh’s garment sector, as well as the activities of one of its most vocal unions, the National Garment Workers Federation (NGWF). Over the past three years numerous Wobblies have worked to build solidarity with the NGWF, most notably in Pittsburgh and upstate New York. At a “Labor Notes” conference in May 2006, Fellow Worker Greg Giorgio met with the NGWF’s General Secretary, Amirul Haque Amin. When asked how the IWW’s International Solidarity Commission (ISC) could best be of help to the NGWF’s struggles, FW Amin replied: “We need continuous support. But before providing support, we need more (time to learn) about each other. So, I will be happy if someone from the IWW visits Bangladesh...the NGWF...our members, share their struggles, share their information.”

In early June of this year, I was able to accept Amin’s invitation and visit the NGWF office in Dhaka on behalf of the ISC. Our meeting took place barely one year after “a wave of fierce class struggle” brought Bangladeshi garment workers (and others) into direct clashes with police and the military. This months-long conflict resulted in several workers killed, thousands more injured or imprisoned, and over a dozen factories burned to the ground. The current atmosphere, though tranquil by comparison, was nevertheless foreboding; early monsoonal rains had already flooded out some parts of Dhaka, and a government-imposed “State of Emergency” remained in effect, with general elections postponed indefinitely and a resulting backslide in labor rights and civil liberties.

It was heartening however to learn that despite government restrictions on public protest, the NGWF’s union-building activities continue apace, including membership recruitment, worker education and organizer trainings, and provision of legal assistance. NGWF membership now stands at >22,000 workers, 5000 of whom are classified as “regular subscribers” (i.e., members who regularly pay union dues of 10 Takas/month), with the remainder classified as “subscribers.” Currently the NGWF has 30 factory-based unions, and 1000 “factory committees” (a factory committee is a first step towards forming a union in the workplace).

Amin views these membership numbers as a real victory given the extreme difficulties with forming unions in Bangladesh. When the NGWF was founded 23 years ago, they had no office space and organized their meetings in parks, cheap restaurants, academic institutions, and other public spaces. Now the union has grown to 7 offices, including 6 branch offices covering all the industrial zones plus their central office in Dhaka. The NGWF also now has 11 full-time organizers and 8 part-time. Yet despite the union’s growth, Amin still refers to the NGWF as “small and not well-funded compared to the trade union organizations elsewhere.”

Another striking feature of the NGWF, and of the Bangladeshi garment sector, is its gender composition: 80-85% of Bangladeshi garment workers are reportedly women. The NGWF tries to reflect this demographic reality in its organizational structure and according to the NGWF’s constitution, at least 50% of any committee must be comprised of women. The union’s National Council, its highest decision-making body, currently has 16 women (out of 30 members), including a female President, both Vice Presidents, the Treasurer, and other officers. Of their 19 staff, 11 are women. The NGWF’s gender composition has also influenced its campaigning, and one of the union’s primary campaigns has been for the implementation of maternity leave.

Other NGWF campaigns in recent years have included:

*campaign for the implementation of free trade union rights (respective to International Labor Organization conventions 87 & 98--the right to organize and collective bargaining)
*campaign for a six-day work week
*campaign for improved health, safety, and security
*campaign for a paid May Day holiday
*campaign for an annual (Muslim) festival bonus

Throughout the sector, forcing bosses to simply follow Bangladesh’s existing labor laws has been a major ongoing struggle, and a much more difficult one while the State of Emergency is used to repress workers’ direct action.

Apart from gathering more in-depth information on how the union operates, another major purpose of our meeting was to discuss continued collaboration between the IWW and the NGWF. Amin reiterated in no uncertain terms that pressure from consumers onto multi-national corporations, and from these corporations onto their sub-contractors, is extremely important. Unions such as the NGWF will continue their fights at the local level, but they are limited in what they can accomplish without the solidarity of people outside the country. Basically, there are millions of unemployed Bangladeshis, and the bosses can fire with impunity, knowing that they can easily replace however many workers they need to. What is much more difficult is for the individual factories to continue to receive orders once their reputation has been damaged publicly. As such, according to Amin, international pressure on the brand-companies is as important, and some times even more important, than anything the workers can do locally. Amin insists that the NGWF and their allies in the West have to build capacity and partnership, acknowledging that a key aspect of that partnership is information exchange linking conditions in specific factories with particular brands/corporations. From their end, the NGWF would like to commit two additional staff-people specifically to such a focus, and Amin estimates that the total cost for the organizers would be $200/month. Realizing such a proposal obviously requires more detailed discussion.

Also on the topic of information exchange, Amin agreed with FWers in Pittsburgh that the formation of not only North-South, but also South-South communication networks is crucial. As such, he thinks that the possibility of the IWW facilitating exchanges between the NGWF and workers’ organizations in Latin America is a “very interesting and useful concept.” He requests that the IWW play a central role in such a project, making the initial introductions between the NGWF and groups in Latin America, from which point the three groupings (NGWF, IWW, and Latin American unions) could have ongoing conversations.

Amin is also very interested in the idea of organizing along the entirety of the supply chain. He supports projects which would, for instance, connect U.S. workers in Wal-Mart’s distribution centers with Bangladeshi garment workers sewing the clothes with Latin American workers producing the fabric. Amin believes that such an approach is essential if workers are going to win in the long-run and suggested Wal-Mart as an appropriate target, stating that “all workers throughout the world” need to be targeting the company—due both to the sheer size of their supply chain as well as the symbolic value of all that the company represents.

And finally, we discussed more immediate and concrete means of increasing the levels of communication between the two unions. The NGWF would like to begin receiving a few additional copies/month of the IW to share with their branch offices, and agreed to submit more regular updates to IW regarding their activities. Amin is also interested in having a few key IWW materials translated into Bengali and perhaps doing a sizable print run of these materials to distribute to NGWF members.

Overall, our meeting was both comradely and productive. While no major breakthroughs were accomplished, some small steps were made, and a relationship that could with time become very important for both unions was strengthened. I will be based in India until at least the end of 2007, possibly longer, and if the ISC requests another trip to Dhaka during that time I will gladly oblige. In the meantime, the ISC, as well as Fellow Workers who support this budding IWW-NGWF relationship, have much to discuss and follow up on.

During the period of writing and researching this article Jason Fults was a Thomas J. Watson fellow based in New Delhi, India. To obtain a complete copy of his 4500-word “Bangladesh Report,” more photos, or an audio recording of the meeting, reply to this post.

Green Generation: Environmental education in China

2007-05-07T20:22:00.002+08:00

An abbreviated, edited version of this article appeared in the June 2007 issue of Gobar Times, a youth magazine published by the Centre for Science and Environment.

China’s consumption and pollution trends will continue to have important consequences for the entire planet. As such, ever-greater attention is being paid to gauging and influencing the environmental consciousness of Chinese citizens. Many scholars and eco-advocates view increased and more widely-distributed environmental education programs as one important way to improve environmental awareness in China. While such programs, like the Chinese environmental movement, are still in their infancy, they provide a key nexus for cooperation between government agencies, Chinese environmentalists, and international NGOs.

Nearly every facet of Chinese society has undergone significant reform in recent years, including the education sector. As part of this reform, the central government began encouraging the inclusion of environmental curriculum in China’s schools and universities in the 1980s. The most recently released curricular guidelines, which the Ministry of Education has called central to China’s sustainable growth strategy, were developed in a high-profile collaboration with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Over the next few years these guidelines will be implemented across China’s elementary and middle schools, reaching as many as 200 million students. Perhaps of greatest interest to Gobar Times readers is a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Education and China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA); now more than twenty years old, this collaboration has resulted in a “Green Schools” program which encourages multi-disciplinary coursework focusing on environmental content, and involves hands-on, community-based activities. The number of “green schools” participating in this program has grown from around 3,200 in 2000 to more than 20,000 presently.

China’s first civic environmental organization, Friends of Nature (FON), was registered in 1994. While still a relatively new presence in China, both domestic and international civic environmental organizations have already made significant contributions to a number of areas, including environmental education. A recent survey of these organizations shows that there are nearly 3,000 officially operating within the country, and a sizable proportion of these are carrying out environmental education activities, both formally and informally. FON’s environmental education efforts began in 1997 when they facilitated a teacher exchange with counterparts in Europe. Since then they have developed a number of other initiatives, including a mobile classroom project and a focus on oft-neglected rural areas. A recent FON newsletter estimates that "…more than 1,500 schools, 2,500 teachers and about 170,000 people have taken part in the environmental education programs of FON with 500 volunteers involved in various activities.”

More recently, international non-governmental organizations such as WWF are emerging as major players in Chinese environmental education efforts. In addition to its collaboration with the Ministry of Education on national curriculum development, WWF has helped the Ministry create an Environmental Educators’ Initiative which will provide ongoing support to teachers in an effort to “mainstream” the curriculum. Their work has included establishing Teacher Training Centers, developing resource materials, and working directly with a number of pilot schools and universities/professional training institutions.

Despite these exciting advances, significant challenges to furthering environmental education in China remain. Lack of training for existing teachers is a huge issue, especially as environmental education often requires not only new knowledge, but also different teaching methods and the ability to negotiate multiple disciplines. Studies have also revealed a dearth of effective teaching materials and inadequate implementation of environmental education objectives at the high school and secondary vocational schools level. In addition to efforts such as WWF’s to address these concerns, Chinese educators have also stepped up. A professional journal, “Environmental Education” (Huanjing Jiaoyu), has been established, and more than 120 Chinese colleges/universities now offer environmental education training programs. Qinghua University has even launched a full-scale “Green University Campaign.”

One of the most significant challenges to real change, however, lies not in the classroom but in the marketplace. Youth nearly everywhere are being seduced by consumerism and urbanism, and Chinese young people are no exception. Yet this newest generation will exert unprecedented influence on the global environment, and the decisions they make will help determine the habitability of this planet for future generations. Hopefully, thanks to the work of an impressive collaboration of government, civil society, and educators, their decisions as consumers and citizens will be informed by a heightened understanding of the interactions between humans and their environment.

Sources:

-Journal of Contemporary China (2003), 12(36), August, 519–536. The Environmental Awareness of University Students in Beijing, China. KOON-KWAI WONG

- China Environment Series #7, Jing Lin and Heidi Ross, “Addressing Urgent Needs: The Emergence of Environmental Education in China”

-Chinese Education and Society, vol. 37, no. 3, May/June 2004, pp. 39–45. EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT. “The Environmental Education Outline and the Environmental Education Magazine”

-Chinese Education and Society, vol. 37, no. 3, May/June 2004, pp. 34–38. TIAN QING.

“Historical Review of Environmental Education in China”

-Chinese Education and Society, vol. 37, no. 4, July/August 2004, pp. 32–38. JIANG KEQIN. “Analysis of Research Findings on Environmental Education in Secondary Vocational Schools in Shanghai”

-All-China Environment Federation website: http://www.acef.com.cn/english/

-“Interview: ‘Constructive engagement is the only option’ for Nature”

Wed, 2003-10-01, http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.com/node/131

-ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 1, January 2006 5-21. ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES AND BEHAVIOR IN CHINA: Synopsis and Bibliography. PAUL G. HARRIS.

-Shen, J. S. (2002). Huan bao yi shi yu pei yang [Environmental consciousness and nurturing]. Huan Jing Jiao Yu [Environmental Education], 4, 28-29.

- Fang, X. Q. (2002). Xiang cun shi fang sheng huan jing yi shi de tiao cha [Village teacher students'environmental consciousness survey]. Huan Jing Jiao Yu [Environmental Education], 4, 24-25.

- Zhou, X. (2002). Huan jing jiao yu dehe xin li nian hemubiao [The core meaning of environmental education and its goal]. Bei Jing Shi Fan Da Xue Xue Bao [Beijing Normal University Journal], 118-122.

3rd Quarter Watson report

2007-05-02T12:49:00.000+08:00

I submitted this report to the Watson Foundation in early May, 2007:

Namaste, Watson people, aap kaisa hain? Greetings from New Delhi, my new home base and the final destination of my Watson year. I have been here for a little over a month now, arriving at the tail end of Delhi’s most pleasant season—a much-too-brief interval between “the hot, the wet, and the cold.” So spring has now sprung, gracing us with flowering bougainvillea and palas, but also besieging us with daytime temperatures routinely reaching 108 degrees. Fortunately, the good folks at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) have offered me a place in the shade—a small desk in the corner of their basement, a fan, an internet connection, and unfettered access to their library, staff, and ongoing seminars.

I feel like a very lucky fella. Last August my eyes were new to Asia, and still fairly new to the harsh realities of the industrializing world, and truth be told I remember questioning whether this place was really where I wanted to spend nearly half of my Watson year. But those eyes must have been misplaced somewhere amidst the hustle and bustle of Beijing or Hong Kong, Hanoi or Phnom Penh; this time Delhi seems exciting, alive, magical, even in spite of the withering heat. And though all the problems I left behind remain, this time I have begun to root myself in a community of people who are facing them head-on. I have comrades and mentors in Delhi, friends that I enjoy spending time with, and an overwhelming array of opportunities to truly engage with foreign cultures. Some days I think I could stay here forever.

Quite a contrast with how I was feeling just a few months ago. I do not know what it was about Kuala Lumpur (KL), perhaps I was just spoiled by my experience in Hong Kong, but something about the city felt incredibly inhospitable to me. Maybe it was the disdain for pedestrians or the difficulty with finding reasonably-priced accommodations; or maybe it was that the city felt very segregated and insular, but within just a few weeks there I was ready to move on. One day as I was searching for housing I came across an ad for a small, inexpensive apartment in the sleepy beach town of Lumut. It seemed terribly impractical at first glance, but the more I considered it the better an option it became. I had not had much luck in terms of contacts in KL, and most of the resources I wanted access to were in print or available on-line. Besides, Lumut was only a short bus ride away from KL if things did change. But perhaps most of all, I felt myself in need of some quiet time, a chance to reflect and take some long brooding walks on the beach.

I know we are supposed to be fully immersed in our Watson year, but it was inevitable, especially for a hyper-planner like me, that as I crossed the half-way point thoughts of home and what comes next would begin creeping in. I needed an opportunity to just step back from the whole experience, to reflect upon what I had learned so far and to consider where this path might be leading. So I spent several weeks in Lumut, quietly engaged in reading, writing, and sorting through my thoughts. Of course, Malaysia was not all seclusion. I visited Putrajaya, Malaysia’s in-progress administrative capital; an experiment in hyper-modern Islamic architecture, green design, and urban planning. I also rounded off my Asian megalopolis tour by visiting Singapore, and attended the largest Hindu festival in Southeast Asia, and probably one of the largest in the world: Thaipusam at KL’s Batu Caves. And somehow I found myself adopted by the Chinese-Malay family who rented me the apartment in Lumut, but who absolutely could not conceive of why a feller would want to spend all that time alone out there. They insisted that I come visit them for a few days at Chinese New Year, and bowled me over with that Chinese notion of hospitality that I have so grown to adore.

Then when it was all said and done, I found my way onboard a freighter boat bound from Malaysia’s Port Klang to Nhava Sheva, the port of Mumbai. As I mentioned in my last report, I am no fan of air travel and have avoided it wherever I could. Given the off-limits terrain between Malaysia and India however, I had nearly resigned myself to what seemed like the inevitable. Then a friend informed me of this rather eccentric and under-utilized mode of transport, and as it turned out there happened to be a 200 meter, 24,000 horsepower container-ship headed in just the right direction at just the right time. M/V Kota Pertama was her name, and her German/Filipino crew seemed quite happy to entertain a lone human passenger amongst the thousands of containers they were hauling across the Malacca Straits and Indian Ocean. So for seven days and nights I rocked to the rhythm of the ocean, watching it change colors and demeanor like moods, communed with the wind, and tracked the movements of the sun, the moon, and the night sky like close friends. Sitting perched atop the ship’s bow for long stretches, I watched countless flying fish glide across our path, and laughed like an excited child as entire pods of dolphins played chase with the ship—streaking ahead of us like little blue torpedoes. When I wasn’t busy being enraptured, I read, wrote, and slept my fill, studied Hindi, and whiled away the evenings watching movies or drinking German beer and listening to age-old bluegrass tunes with cantankerous seamen.

Upon arrival in India I spent a few days in Mumbai, finding my land legs again and visiting the Bhaktivedanta Institute. BI is a Hare Krishna-affiliated research institute that considers itself to be at the forefront of “consciousness studies,” and particularly a consciousness-based approach to the questions of modern physics. A short train ride later and I was back “home” in Delhi. I showed up in Greater Kailash Part 1, at the ground floor of house number C-96, early one March morning, where I found the familiar Mr. Gupta and Vishnu (along with a new tenant, a Libyan computer programmer named Mohamed) waiting to greet me. Though I have very much enjoyed this incredible loop around Asia, I cannot adequately express how comforting it felt to unpack my bags for (almost) the last time. I always suspected that I had some homebody tendencies, a deep-seated, even if somewhat repressed, need for community; but these last several months have confirmed and strengthened those longings in a big way. I know now that once I am finished here in Delhi, regardless of what else I do, I am going to be headed back home to Florida to just sit still in one place again for a lengthy spell.

But for now, Delhi continues to work its magic on me. There have been some exciting developments at CSE in my absence, including the opening of a new research and advocacy unit (Natural Resource Management & Livelihoods), as well as a new educational facility (Anil Agarwal Green College), and my friends in the Environmental Education Unit have begun work on a new project which is also quite interesting to me. Called the “Green Habitat Manual,” it is an exercise in participatory, sustainability-based research which brings together students, educators, and community members in an effort to assess and track the state of their local environment. I am currently working with the project coordinator, Ashish Shah, to come up with a model set of indicators that reflect both environmental quality and human development and would be accessible at the local level. I feel very fortunate to be involved with this project, as it brings together several of my core interests. The funny thing is that the project is brand new and has only begun in the few months since I first visited CSE—quite a synchronicity! The folks here are also intrigued by my experiences throughout the rest of Asia, and have been asking me to write short articles and give brief presentations on a variety of issues facing the region. And finally, I have open access to workshops and courses that CSE organizes, like the “Towards Green Villages” workshop that I took part in a few weeks ago. This workshop was an excellent opportunity to visit some rural areas and learn more about issues of ecological poverty, grassroots management of natural resources, and participatory research. Since all of my classmates were Indian scientists and development professionals, it was also a great chance to make some contacts with people outside of Delhi, who I will hopefully get to visit in the coming months.

I generally spend a few days per week at CSE. Otherwise, I have been working under the tutelage of Dr. Irfan Habib of India’s National Institute of Science, Technology, and Development Studies. Dr. Habib is an important author on history and sociology of science here in India, and is also very well-connected to other scholars with whom I share interests. I check in with Dr. Habib regularly, at which times he usually drops some great books into my lap and informs me of interesting lectures and other opportunities. Otherwise, I have been continuing with my Hindi study, which is enjoyable despite my rather slow rate of progress.

So all in all, Delhi is shaping up to be the pinnacle of my Watson year. Having several friends who were at one time Watson fellows and hearing about their experiences, I was initially concerned that I might be feeling a bit burnt by this point in the trip. But a few weeks ago as I found myself eagerly checking the Watson website to see if my Berea friend Fred Rweru would be one of this year’s winners, I was reminded of a March morning a year prior when I had stopped by a Miami public library to check email and learned that my life was about to take a very interesting turn. After getting a few disapproving looks for breaking the library’s code of silence with a raucous “whoop, whoop!” I stepped outside to just lie in the sun and give thanks. More than a year later I remain so excited that most days I still pinch myself just to make sure this is not all a dream.

Solidarity across Borders

2007-03-15T15:43:00.001+08:00

Solidarity across Borders: Western and Chinese Workers

This article was originally published in the April 2007 issue of the Industrial Worker, my union's newspaper.

"Our factory was bought up by a capitalist. They got everything and paid next to nothing for it. They said that government policy allows it. They got the lot! They promised capital infusions, higher wages, new products, new projects - but none materialized. The police protected the capitalists! But the capitalists are the ones with all the power…workers only have their fists…hundreds of migrants were hired at 50 yuan a day to beat up the workers."
-anonymous Chinese worker

As most Western workers are keenly aware, China has experienced tremendous economic growth in recent decades, averaging more than 9% annually for nearly the past 30 years. We see the effects of that growth on our own shores in the form of an ever-widening trade imbalance (the U.S.-China trade deficit rose to $202 billion in 2005), a steady loss of manufacturing jobs, and the ubiquitous "Made in China" labels on the consumer products we buy. But what has this rapid growth meant for Chinese workers?

Since the late 1970s, China has been restructuring its economy more towards a model of privatizing state-owned enterprises, opening up to foreign capital, and dismantling the welfare state; what has been referred to as "neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics." This restructuring has led to unprecedented economic opportunity for some, but has been accompanied by deterioration of job security and basic economic rights, staggering income inequality, and dangerous levels of pollution. In addition, Chinese factories have become synonymous with sweatshops, and independent investigations have routinely uncovered 90+ hour work-weeks, abusive management, below-subsistence wages, wage arrears, and exposure to occupational diseases such as silicosis experienced by Chinese jewelry workers. Under this new model, factory owners can rely upon lax enforcement of existing labor laws at the local level, and have done their part to undermine worker solidarity and evade closer scrutiny. Commonly-cited company tactics include hiring workers through employment agencies, pitting workers from different regions or ethnic groups against one another, targeting potential militants, fines and illegally withholding wages, and false record-keeping.

Under conditions such as these, one would hope that workers, especially workers long-inculcated with a Marxist analysis of capitalism, might have recourse in the form of a fighting union. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Not only is China’s sole union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), largely viewed as ineffectual and pro-management, most private sector workers are not even represented. Perhaps most egregiously, neither independent labor organizing nor the right to strike has been protected under Chinese law and has in fact been brutally repressed. A few Hong Kong-based pro-labor NGOs have maintained online listings of dozens of Chinese activists who are currently incarcerated (some for twenty years to life) for organizing outside the confines of the ACFTU.

It appears that many Chinese workers are caught in an ever-tightening vise grip between unsympathetic and repressive elements within their own government, a weak and unrepresentative workers’ organization, and the forces of international economics. In particular, two groups of Chinese workers have borne the brunt of this assault perhaps more fully than most: migrant laborers (disproportionately young women) and workers who have retired or been laid off from formerly State-Run Enterprises (SREs). As foreign investment has flooded China's manufacturing sector and privately-owned workplaces have replaced the socialist danwei, or work unit model of production, up to 200 million rural Chinese have migrated to the cities in search of employment and a better way of life. Many of these workers haven't been provided with legally-required labor contracts by their bosses and aren't officially registered in their new residences; hence they have been more susceptible to abuse and less able to effect recourse or access public services.

Meanwhile, nearly 40 million former SRE workers had been laid off by 2001, often leaving them with only a meager and temporary unemployment compensation package. The dismantling of the danwei system and its impact on these workers cannot be understated, as the former SREs were an essential staple of the pre-reform economy. They provided workers with not only secure employment and a meaningful, well-respected role in Chinese society, but also basic amenities such as housing and health care. In both instances the ACFTU's frequent silence on issues of worker wellbeing while instead "educating" workers to support the government's reforms has highlighted where the union’s true accountability lies.

With few other options open to them, these groups have resorted to the same strategy as beleaguered workers elsewhere: direct action, and at a startling rate. According to official government statistics, 3.76 million Chinese took part in 74,000 "mass incidents of unrest" in 2004, rising to 87,000 "incidents" in 2005. That’s 200+ demonstrations per day, and a six-fold increase over the number recorded in 1993. The motivations behind such protests vary widely, including environmental injustices and local government corruption, but many of them are in direct response to employer abuses and other economic concerns.

One factory in Dongguan, which had been criticized by China Labor Watch since at least 2001, was recently "victim" to this worker outrage. Tired of forced-overtime and below-subsistence wages, these workers decided that their livelihood was more important than the Happy Meal toys they were producing and took to the streets. In the open conflict that followed, more than 1,000 workers clashed with security personnel and destroyed company property until riot police regained control of the factory. A separate incident in a Xianyang textile factory in 2004 involved as many as 7,000 former SRE workers. These workers took pre-emptive action when a new majority shareholder of their factory proposed changes that would affect wages, seniority rights, and working conditions. After their initial efforts to form a worker-run branch of the ACFTU were rejected by union officials they waged a six-week, 24-hour a day picket line. This action brought them into direct conflict with local authorities who attempted to forcibly break the strike and arrest its leadership.

Such large-scale and highly-charged direct actions present an apparent paradox with the notion of an authoritarian society. Yet it has been observed that some Chinese authorities exhibit significant "class consciousness" in their responses to worker unrest. For instance, protests by retired and unemployed workers are treated more delicately than those which actually threaten to halt production. In addition, authorities seem much more willing to tolerate unrest when it involves only one factory or industrial sector, but respond with brutal efficiency if these actions begin to draw wider support from the public or other sectors.

Still, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has genuine cause for concern. The CCP’s legitimacy as a tightly-controlled, monopolistic ruling party that supposedly represents workers’ interests stems largely from its ability to deliver the goods in the form of an increasing standard of living for the citizenry. At the same time that it is facing growing, dangerous levels of unrest, the CCP is also in a weaker position in terms of its control over the economy--thanks largely to the very reform policies it has adopted in the name of economic growth. To address these concerns, the government has sought to upgrade its existing labor laws and to strengthen the role of the ACFTU in the nation’s workplaces. Recent developments on these fronts are instructive.

In a move last summer that took many by surprise, Wal-Mart’s China division announced that it would facilitate the establishment of ACFTU branches at each of its 60 stores, covering around 30,000 "associates." Why would a company that is internationally-recognized for its labor rights violations and aggressive union-busting voluntarily unionize all of its stores? One of China’s many under-enforced labor laws states that if even a single employee expresses an interest in being a member of the union, then a branch must be set up in that workplace. In what some consider an opening bid to unionize all foreign-owned companies, the government apparently decided that the time was right to begin enforcing this law. Despite long-standing attempts to resist unionization, Wal-Mart didn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing and likely recognized that it would be much more prudent to make nice with ACFTU officials early on. Notably, the changes apply only to Wal-Mart’s retail employees and not the Chinese manufacturing companies that make up 80% of Wal-Mart’s suppliers.

In another much-publicized development, China’s National People’s Congress has in recent months drafted new legislation which will affect important issues such as the ACFTU’s collective bargaining rights, control over factory rules, and job security, among others. Further, the draft legislation could raise the stakes significantly for companies that continue to violate the country’s labor laws. This aspect of the legislation will be key, and underlies long-standing difficulties in enforcing central government policies—especially those related to labor and environment—that may be perceived as inhibiting economic growth. As an old Chinese idiom notes, "Tian gao, huangdi yuan," or "heaven is high and the emperor is far away."

Apparently the bosses, thoroughly dismayed at these reform efforts, have been exercising a bit of direct action themselves as of late. As an academic and organizer of a recent conference to discuss the proposed legislative changes recounted:
"We should keep alert on the intention to destroy the labor law. During the conference, some people want to replace labor law with corporate social responsibility and criticize labor law with [Human Resource Management] theory. What’s more, someone from [American Chamber of Commerce Shanghai office] led more than 20 human resource managers of US enterprises to crash into our conference room, threatening us that they would withdraw capital if we would not revise the draft according to their demands. I was angry about that…" While an official from the Chamber office later denied that these "protesters" were actually Chamber agents, there is no denying that both the American and European Chambers have been actively trying to shape the government’s reforms to suit their own interests. Sadly, the ACFTU has not waged a grassroots campaign to counter their influence.

With regards to both the new labor law and the unionization drive, the CCP is working to either appease the angry masses or to at least channel their frustrations into State-controlled institutions, thereby reasserting its role in managing the economy while also maintaining social order. Noticeably however, an approach the government has not tried is to allow Chinese workers significantly greater latitude to take matters into their own hands. This model of governance fits into an overall pattern characterized as "consultative Leninism" by China scholar Richard Baum: "By substituting paternalistic consultation for autonomous political participation, cooptation for representation, advice for empowerment, and consensus-building for the clash of conflicting interests, the CCP has arguably been able to avoid much of the putative clutter and chaos of democratic pluralism."

There are differing opinions amongst labor scholars as to whether the barriers to a true workers’ movement in China are insurmountable, at least for the immediate future. Clearly though, workers need and deserve a greater degree of political freedom in order to collectively advance their interests, and either reclaim or perhaps even replace existing structures that have failed them. It is shameful though sadly unsurprising that there has not been greater pressure from the West for China to "open up" to more than just foreign capital flows. Yet this strategic inaction reminds us that workers in both industrialized nations and elsewhere must strengthen and unify our struggles against the bosses, who are working ever harder to realize their own economic vision not only at home, but abroad. As noted in a recent issue of Asian Labour Update, "…there is virtually no voice on this issue from any international trade union expressing solidarity with the Chinese workers in fighting for better labour rights by denouncing or condemning the foreign business bodies publicly." So we must speak out where others cannot in order to advance both our interests.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the Chinese government is not a monolithic whole and that there are factions which are speaking out ever more loudly on behalf of workers from within the system. Some observers express optimism that these advocates, coupled with the reforms underway, will in fact better the situation of Chinese workers. Anita Chan, a labor scholar at the Australian National University, suggests that the ACFTU is struggling to redefine its role within an economy and society that is dramatically different from the one in which it was created. She warns that any strategy which further isolates the ACFTU will only undermine genuine efforts to improve the livelihood of Chinese workers and that international unions should instead work with the ACFTU to help build its capacity.

Yet perhaps our most efficacious avenue for building solidarity with Chinese workers lies in forming relationships with the NGOs and independent workers’ organizations who are striving to advance workers’ rights. Many of the more "radical" of these organizations have apparently found it conducive to locate their offices in Hong Kong; due to the "one country, two systems" approach that the CCP agreed to upon reclaiming Hong Kong from the U.K., there is significantly greater freedom of expression there. Most of these organizations also have operations on the mainland and monitor developments there quite closely, produce regular and informative publications, and even organize campaigns against particular corporations or on behalf of workers in specific industries. These organizations not only need our expressions of solidarity and participation in their campaigns, due to the severe lack of an NGO-infrastructure they also need more direct support.

China is without a doubt a nation on the rise, and what happens within its borders will have profound implications for the entire planet for generations to come. Rising labor, land, and energy costs coupled with the government’s emphasis on becoming an "innovation society" may indicate that China’s days as the maker of Happy Meal toys are numbered. The government continues to make significant investments in education and scientific/technological development, and increasingly it is not just bottom-of-the-barrel manufacturing firms that are seeking to set up shop on the mainland. China was one of the only developing nations to participate in the Human Genome Project, for instance, and is also making sizable allocations towards research in the cutting-edge field of nanotechnology.

Whether all of these developments taken together will in fact help to raise China’s standard of living while building a "harmonious" society remains to be seen. While no one can predict exactly what the outcome will be, a growing number of academics, politicians, and bosses are watching the numbers and hedging their bets. People who hold genuine concern for our planet and its inhabitants have no such luxury, however. For us, the path is clear, and we must heed the simple yet sage advice of Gandhi, "The future depends on what we do in the present."

Works cited:
*"China Drafts Law to Empower Unions and End Labor Abuse" October 13, 2006,
By DAVID BARBOZA (NYT); Business/Financial Desk
*Adam Greene, NYT Letter to the Editor, 10/13/06
*"No Labor Shift Seen at Wal-Mart" By Abigail Goldman and Don Lee; The Los Angeles Times; 11 August 2006
*"Government pledges to get serious about labour rights" in China Development Brief ‘01
*" Wal-Mart Wins Ruling on Foreign Labor" NYT 12-19-06
*NYT August 26, 2006 "Rising Production Costs Join the List of What China Exports"
*" Official Union in China Says All Wal-Marts Are Organized" By DAVID LAGUE; NYT 10/13/06
*"Chinese Workers Protest at Factory Making Toys for McDonald's" NYT July 28, 2006
*"BUSH REJECTS CHINA INQUIRY" NYT BUSINESS BRIEFS July 22, 2006
*"A.F.L.-C.I.O. Files a Trade Complaint Against China's Labor Practices" NYT June 9, 2006
*"Hotel Worker's Murder at Work Leads to Thousands-Strong Protest Signaling Deep Discontent with Widespread Corruption and Impunity in China" from http://asianfoodworker.net/china/070125dazhu.htm 1-25-07
*website of Institute of Contemporary Observation
*"A SHARP DEBATE ERUPTS IN CHINA OVER IDEOLOGIES" NYT March 12, 2006
*"CHINESE WOMEN WORKERS ORGANIZE IN THE EXPORT ZONE" in New Labor Forum, Spring 2006; Jenny Wai-ling Chan
*"Is there a labour movement in China?" John Chen, June ’06 issue of "Asian Labour Update"
*"A new class war is brewing in China" June ’06 issue of "Asian Labour Update" Apo Leong
*"Causes, Implementation, and Consequences of Xiagang" June ’06 issue of "Asian Labour Update" Apo Leong and John Chen
*The Worldwatch Institute’s "State of the World 2006"
*"A Second Attempt at Looking for Mickey Mouse’s Conscience: A Survey of the Working Conditions of Disney’s Supplier Factories in China." 12/06 report by Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior.
*"Falling Through the Floor: Migrant Women Workers’ Quest for Decent Work in Dongguan, China" September 2006 by the China Labour Bulletin
*"Hivac Startech Film Window (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., An Investigative Report on Labor Conditions." 8/23/06 report by Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior
*Woodrow Wilson Center, Asia Program Special Report, June 2006, "China and Democracy: A Contradiction in Terms?"
*Woodrow Wilson Center, Asia Program Special Report, September 2004, "ACTIVE SOCIETY IN FORMATION: ENVIRONMENTALISM, LABOR, AND UNDERWORLD IN CHINA"
* COMPETITION & CHANGE, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2005 181–200. "Globalization and Paradoxes of Ethical Transnational Production: Code of Conduct in a Chinese Workplace" by NGAI-LING SUM1 and PUN NGAI

How Much Should a Person Consume?

2007-02-17T14:32:00.001+08:00

Ramachandra Guha, How Much Should a Person Consume (2006)

Currently based in Bangalore, Guha has also been a visiting professor at the Indian Institute of Science as well as a number of universities in the U.S. and Europe.

Other works include:

Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, His Tribals, and India

Environmentalism: A Global History

An Anthropologist Amongst the Marxists and Other Essays

The Last Liberal and Other Essays

The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya

Social Ecology (ed.)

Nature, Culture, Imperialism: Essays on the Environmental History of South Asia co-edited with David Arnold

A 1989 essay that critiqued the deep ecology movement and appeared in the journal Environmental Ethics, titled “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique.”

A 1998 essay that details some environmental justice struggles in India called “The Environmentalism of the Poor,” in Richard G. Fox and Orin Starn, eds., Between Resistance and Revolution: Cultural Politics and Social Protest.

How Much Should a Person Consume is a comparative history of environmentalism between the U.S. and India, and more broadly, between North and South. There has been much discussion of the origins of environmentalism in the social sciences, and some of the ideas put forward include environmentalism as a “full-stomach phenomenon” (i.e., primarily concerning the affluent), an outgrowth of “post-materialism,” and a manifestation of culture-based cosmologies such as religion. Guha calls the economic explanation an example of disciplinary chauvinism (i.e., a belief that all social and cultural changes can be explained through one academic lens).

He also warns that claims that some cultures may be inherently more or less environmentally conservative could stem from or result in cultural chauvinism. See, for example, the classic essay by Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” which made strong claims re: Christianity’s supposed “domination” tendency towards nature. Interestingly, while “cultural chauvinists” often cite ancient scripture in discussing the ecological ethics of their chosen cosmology, such discussions/claims themselves are a relatively modern phenomenon.

In addition to dispelling notions of cultural and disciplinary chauvinism in explaining the roots of environmentalism, Guha also discusses the role of nationalist and ideological chauvinisms which have influenced various environmental ethics. For instance, he cites quotes by Marx and Trotsky re: bending the natural world to humanity’s will and dominating nature through technology. And whereas the U.S. green movement came of age within the context of a post-industrial capitalist society, and nature protection was its primary focus, in India early environmental conflicts were more directly related to issues of livelihood and survival. Such historical differences help to explain the range of analyses, ideologies, and tactics employed by environmental movements in different contexts, such as the relatively limited use of direct action by U.S. environmentalists as compared with Indians.

Alternatively, Guha’s theory is that environmentalism (understood as a wide-ranging social ethic rather than simply a “sensibility”), while its evolution may certainly be influenced by cultural, economic, and ideological qualities within a given society, is primarily “…a product of and reaction to the Industrial Revolution.” The broad societal changes taking place during the period (roughly 18^th and 19^th centuries) that we over-generally term the Industrial Revolution dramatically expanded the reach of the average (“modern”) human. Humans have always caused ecological changes, but until modern times, these changes and their consequences were mostly localized. Thus, while varying environmental sensibilities have existed in different times and places, it took the scope and scale of industrialization to birth a more civilization-wide environmental ideology or social movement, what we today call “environmentalism.”

Guha traces the interconnected histories of industrial forestry and environmental activism through a variety of European states, then into their colonies, and finally under post-colonial governments which continued to follow the “…imperial model of forest management.” During the 19^th century, the British were, for instance “…unquestionably world leaders in deforestation, having burnt or felled hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland in [its colonies].” India’s Himalayan forests were used to fuel the British war machine during the two World Wars. The model used throughout the colonies was to legislate commercial exploitation of the forests as the only legitimate use, thereby denying traditional subsistence use of forest products by locals. Such an approach inevitably resulted in ongoing breaches of forest policy and even open rebellion by locals.

The environmental movement that sprouted in the U.S. has been appropriately labeled a single-issue movement, and one concerned primarily with relationships between human and nature rather than human and human. In India, on the other hand, “…issues of ecology are often linked with questions of human rights, ethnicity, and distributive justice…a defense of the locality, or of the local community, against the nation.” Exceptions to these generalizations of course exist, and the environmental justice movement in the U.S. may very well be more similar to broader movement struggles in India than in its own country. Further, Guha notes that “more recently, there have been signs of the emergence of a classically ‘bourgeois’ environmentalism in India, initiated by the middle class in the cities and seeking the protection of urban parks as well as the shifting out of municipal limits of aesthetically defiling factories.”

Yet despite these exceptions, Guha reports that, in general, the prevailing environmental ideology in India is based upon the “agrarian ideal,” while in the U.S. it is “wilderness thinking” (see the following section for further discussion of these utopian ideologies).

United States

An important biogeographical feature that Guha claims has influenced American wilderness thinking is its temperate climate. Compared with tropical climates, “temperate ecosystems are benign and hence more amendable to scientific exploitation for utilitarian ends. At the same time, for the ordinary city dweller the temperate forest is a good deal more welcoming than the tropical forest.” This point alone would make for an interesting thesis comparing wilderness ethics of North and South; apparently A. Huxley explored this idea in a work titled “Wordsworth in the Tropics.”

Guha describes three distinct environmental responses to industrialization: “agrarianism, wilderness thinking, and scientific industrialism.” Each of these responses “rest on a distinct theory of history which outlines where society is coming from, where it seems to he heading, and in what direction it should go,” i.e., each of them are “utopian.”

Agrarianism “…works to resist the onslaught of commercialism and industrialism where they have not yet made inroads; and where they have, to resolutely turn one’s back on modern society and go ‘back to the land.’” According to agrarians, human societies’ downfall came as they moved away from agrarian-based civilizations. Materialistic philosophy and industrialization are its enemies. Its focus includes right relationship between urban dwellers and farmers, and appropriate technology. Its champions include Wendell Berry (who’s “The Unsettling of America” remains probably his greatest work advocating the agrarian perspective, according to Guha).

Wilderness thinking, which Guha claims came of age in the U.S. The viewpoints within this utopian ideal range from wilderness appreciation and preservation to deep ecology/primitivism, with its utter disdain for modern society (and even to some degree humanity) altogether. Some wilderness thinkers actually look to humanity’s turn towards agriculture as the beginnings of our ultimate ecological downfall.

Scientific Industrialism is a philosophy of wise, science-driven use of “resources” to replace the blindness of the free market. It sees the further development of technology and scientific thinking as harbingers of a sustainable future, and as such enshrines the importance of technocratic “experts” in guiding us towards that future. Unlike Guha, I think that at least in recent years the “scientific industrialist” ideology probably more closely aligns with the generally modern perspective of American environmentalists than the primitivist wilderness ethic. Very few Americans are truly interested in much more than an occasional weekend camping trip in “the woods” and would seriously entertain the idea of giving up a modern lifestyle in exchange for living more intimately with nature.

While Guha sees each of visions as being fully utopian in that none of them can ultimately be achieved, he also thinks that specific values from each can combine into a new synthesis which is achievable. From primitivism he takes the value of diversity, from agrarianism the value of sustainability, and from the modern society in which scientific industrialism arose, he takes the value of equity. “In the modern world and nowhere else challenges to principles of hierarchy have gained moral currency.” I also take some lessons from each of these viewpoints in constructing my own utopian ideal. From agrarianism, I take the central importance of right food production and relationship between the urban and the rural. From wilderness thinking, I take a more biocentric perspective and desire that the human species would reduce its population/consumption sharply in order to leave more available energy/space for many other species to thrive and for the evolutionary process to continue to do its work. And from scientific industrialism I take the importance (though not all-consuming) of looking to the findings and methodologies of science in guiding human decision-making. As a central aspect of all these visions, I adopt the profound sense of wonder that comes with truly seeking to understand and live in harmony with the natural world. I can only imagine how different a place our world might be if, for instance, most of our scientific resources were devoted towards exploration of the natural world rather than building a better Ipod or missile; or if more people spent their free time gardening, bird-watching, or scuba diving rather than watching TV.

In addition to these basic descriptions, Guha also discusses the traditional hostilities which have existed between different camps of both U.S. and Indian environmentalism—e.g., hostility between wilderness advocates and agrarians, and their shared disdain of the scientific industrialist.

Popular histories of U.S. environmentalism point to figures such as John Muir and Aldo Leopold as the movement’s forefathers, yet often neglect the equally important visionary thinker Lewis Mumford. Unlike more celebrated figures, Mumford turned his attention less to nature-appreciation and more towards an inclusive ecological history of human civilization and envisioning of a sustainable, democratic economy and culture. He referred to this vision as “regionalism,” and its focus was decentralization and planned urban communities that were human in scale and existed in greater harmony with their surrounding environs. He also recognized the fact, where the modern U.S. environmental movement has still failed to, that the “destructive potential of modern warfare” represents one of the greatest threats to civilization and the biosphere upon which it depends. In fact, it was likely his witness of the massive destruction wreaked by WWII which dulled his earlier optimism regarding the inevitability of human society’s evolution in a more sustainable direction. Guha notes “Abandoning the hope that modern technology would develop in a benign direction, [Mumford] now believed that modern science and technology bore the impress of capitalism.” Further, “The development of atomic energy and the perfection of weapons of mass destruction, he argued, undermined democracy by fostering secrecy by and within the state…He compared the state of American democracy unfavorably to the USA of a century earlier, when there had indeed been a great diffusion of property, wealth, and political power…The humanizing of technology and the protection of diversity were both contingent on a fundamental change in values. As Mumford’s biographer has perceptively noted, while other radicals ‘expected such a value change to occur after the revolution, for Mumford this value change was the revolution.’”

India

India, says Guha, “…certainly has the most vigorous environmental movement in the non-Western world.” According to Guha, “the first wave of Indian environmentalism ran from the early twentieth century to the outbreak of WWII.” The intellectuals associated with this first wave included individuals close to the Indian national movement, as well as “dissident scientists working within or on the fringes of the colonial administration.” These prophets were largely ignored by the colonial government and by India’s indigenous leadership post-independence, the former because of rapaciousness and the latter (somewhat more innocently) because of a desire to industrialize India as rapidly as possible. Hence ecological concerns would be largely relegated to the backburner until the early 1970s, until the second wave of Indian environmentalism would begin.

Among the first-wave intellectuals were Patrick Geddes, a Scot born in 1854. The intellectual influences which shaped Geddes’ perspective included English craft socialists, from whom he learnt to view industrialism with a critical eye; Continental historical geographers, from whom he learnt to view culture and economy in their ecological context; and Russian anarchists, who reinforced his ecological focus while also promoting skepticism towards centralization. He became a “prophet” of the burgeoning urban planning movement, advocating intentional allocation of green space for recreational and cultural purposes, as well as for the ecological services such spaces provide. He also detested the automobile and the disproportionate amount of urban space devoted to it. Lewis Mumford, discussed earlier, became his greatest-known disciple.

Another disciple of Geddes was Radhakamal Mukerjee, born in 1889. Mukerjee worked early on to establish a different industrial path for his native India, through works such as his 1916 Foundation of Indian Economics. He was also an early advocate of “an ecological approach to sociology,” and what has come to be called “social ecology” through an important article in the American Journal of Sociology and a book entitled Social Ecology. Finally, in his Regional Balance of Man: An Ecological Theory of Population, Mukerjee utilized a set of social and ecological indicators to distinguish between “social regression” and “social evolution” in the development process.

Another early Indian intellectual cited by Guha is J.C. Kumarappa, born in 1892. “In a number of books written in the 1930s and 1940s Kumarappa attempted to formalize a Gandhian economics…Kumarappa was virtually the only economist to question the centralized and resource-intensive path of development adopted in independent India.” For instance, this classic quote “Under the economic system of [industrial society]…we find that variations from nature are very violent in that a large supply of goods is produced irrespective of demand, and then a demand is artificially created for goods by means of clever advertisements.” The American Gandhian Mark Lindley has just completed a study of Kumarappa’s economic ideas.

One important note re: all of these early figures is that they were all committed public intellectuals, and saw that “…theoretical reflection was merely the prelude to prescription and social action.”

With regards to the history of industrial forestry in India, a few individuals stand out. The first is Verrier Elwin, a Briton born in 1902. Elwin was an Oxford scholar and “renegade priest who became the foremost interpreter of adivasi (tribal) culture in India. He was also a pioneer of ecological anthropology. Elwin was the first foreigner granted citizenship of free India after 1947, and continued to work until the end of his life on a sustainable and just Indian forest policy, especially with regards to India’s tribals. Dietrich Brandis, India’s first Inspector General of Forests, became yet another important advocate of community-based forestry, although unfortunately too far ahead of his time. Only in the 1920s and 30s, and only in response to serious rebellion in a “…sensitive and strategically important border region,” did the British government experiment with community forestry models, establishing the van panchayat (community forests) system in Kumaon and Garhwal. In the Indian National Forest Policy of 1988, the nation would finally begin to articulate a forestry policy which emphasized sustainability and human needs. This legislation authorized the formation of Village Forest Protection Committees and an underlying Joint Forest Management model in West Bengal. This model, while still imperfect, has enjoyed enough success for “…scholars, activists, and sympathetic civil servants to demand its replication in other parts of India.”

The second wave of Indian environmentalism (beginning in the 1970s) was largely an outgrowth of popular movements against destructive industrial development (e.g., pollution, dams, mining) and infringements on local peoples’ access to natural resources (forests, fish, grazing resources) that they depended upon for survival. Collectively known as the Chipko movement, Guha credits it as being the first major environmental movement anywhere outside the Western world. The first publicly-acknowledged protest of these sorts took place on March 27, 1973, when a group of peasants in the upper Gangetic valley blocked a group of loggers from felling a stand of hornbeam trees that they themselves had previously been denied access to. The difference was that the peasants wanted the trees to make farming implements, while the loggers intended to cut them on behalf of a sporting goods company in distant Allahabad. The Forest Department was an early target of these movements, owing to its possession of more than a fifth of India’s land. In some northeastern Indian states, such conflicts have even resulted in or contributed to secessionist sentiments by people feeling abused and abandoned by India’s industrial development.

The often unacknowledged founder of Chipko, according to Guha (though there are different versions of the movement’s history, such as Sunderlal Bahuguna and Vandana Shiva, who trace this vein of direct action as far back as the 17^th century), was Chandi Prasad Bhatt, a native of the region and a man who has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to service to his people. Bhatt first became publicly active in his early 20s (mid 1950s), through the post-Gandhian social movement Sarvodaya (or “Service-for-All”). He started a labor cooperative, and was involved from the early stages in “Dashauli Swarajya Seva Sangh” (DGSS), the organization considered the “mother organization of the Chipko movement.” Apparently, it was he who suggested that the villagers take to “hugging” the trees to prevent them from being cut. Calling him the “first environmentalist of the poor,” Guha praises Bhatt for his holistic approach to community organizing, emphasizing both resistance and renewal, and for his understanding of the limitations and opportunities inherent in modern science, a view which Guha states is “far closer to Gandhi’s position.”

A striking feature of environmental movements in modern India has been the crucial role played by women. For instance, Medha Patkar, “the most celebrated environmental activist in contemporary India” and leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (andolan=”movement”); and Gaura Devi in the Himalayas, leader of the first group of women in the Himalayas to take part in Chipko actions. Ultimately, women would play a central role in the Chipko movement and related actions, and it is unfortunate that Guha does not offer more thorough biographical sketches of some of these women leaders.

Since the early 1970s, Indian environmental activists have passed through roughly three broad phases, according to Guha. The first he characterizes as “the struggle to be heard,” which lasted through much of the 1970s, and throughout which much of the grassroots action and protest was broadly ignored by the central government. The second stage, corresponding with the 1980s, saw broader recognition of environmental issues by the media and wider society, and more slowly, by the State. The Centre for Science and Environment (where I’ll be interning), was founded by “…the engineer turned campaigning journalist Anil Agarwal” in 1980. The third phase, brought about by changing global geopolitics and an industry-propagandist sponsored backlash, has been a counter-attack on environmentalists. In this latter phase, the American model of a consumer-driven economy without limits has found many powerful proponents, while discredited critics such as environmentalists have struggled to voice a critique to this development path.

In a modern adaptation of the State-peasant conflicts over access to forest resources, many “farmers, herders, swiddeners, and hunters” throughout the developing world, who have long depended upon nature for subsistence, are now finding themselves under attack by so-called “conservationists.” Guha notes: “The rise of conservation biology in the late twentieth century has an uncanny similarity to the rise of scientific forestry in the late nineteenth century.” These conservationists—an ideologically heterogeneous mix of ruling elites and urbanites, foreign tourists and international conservation organizations, government bureaucrats charged with protecting state-owned wild lands, and conservation biologists—have frequently demonstrated little concern for the human inhabitants of the natural areas they seek to conserve. In response to the eco-imperialist notions of the Westerners in this group, Guha observes “…what we have here is an ecologically updated version of the white man’s burden.” Efforts to find a middle way which preserves both wild lands and the communities that depend upon them and would set India upon a more sustainable development path have frequently been assailed by conservationists as inadequately biocentric or by the State as too unfriendly to economic interests. What both these groups tend to overlook is that the primary reason these areas are threatened to begin with is encroachment caused by the ever-widening ecological footprint of the urban-based “omnivores.”

One Indian thinker whose work presaged these debates is Madhav Gadgil, an activist scientist “whose lifelong endeavor has been toward democratizing science, democratizing the state, and not least democratizing the environmental movement,” according to Guha. Guha’s account of Gadgil is probably my favorite section of the book dealing with Indian history, not only because I strongly resonate with Gadgil’s work and analysis, but also because Guha uses this part of his narrative to provide some insights into modern Indian scientific communities. Harvard educated and a mentee of E.O. Wilson, Gadgil nevertheless demonstrated a level of “patriotism” rare for Indian scientists by returning to India and waiting to have children until he had done so, and by publishing much of his most important work in Indian journals. In the mid-1970s, both Gadgil and his wife—a top-notch atmospheric scientist in her own right—were invited to join the Indian Institute of Science’s “Centre for Theoretical Studies” in Bangalore. The IISc, according to Guha, is the “leading center of scientific and technological research in India.” All the more appropriate then that the Gadgils would take a position there, given that the Institute often seems in the past to have contributed to the “brain drain” phenomena and has arguably done much more for the careers of the individual scientists there than it has for India as a whole. Shortly after the Gadgils joined the IISc, a new program arose called the Centre for Appropriate Science and Technology for Rural Areas (ASTRA). ASTRA was a truly ground-breaking institution in the history of Indian academe, and it “developed and widely disseminated a range of environmentally sound, low cost, decentralized technologies…conducted studies of the flow of energy and biomass in village ecosystems [and]…was also alert to the sociological dimension; to the interplay of caste and gender within the village and to factors that constrained or promoted the social adoption of new technologies.”

Early on, Gadgil also broke ground rarely tread by natural scientists through forming an enduring academic partnership with anthropologist Kailash Malhotra, a partnership which has borne much fruit over the years. The two were early and strong proponents of the democratization of natural resource management and the use of “techno-environmental-socio-economic” indicators to assess India’s development path in a 1980 survey they carried out on behalf of the government titled “A People’s View of Eco-Development.” And their partnership extended to more direct activist efforts, such as their involvement in the “Save the Western Ghats” movement in the late 80s. Gadgil’s own research focus has been on indigenous conservation systems, forest policy, and biodiversity conservation, and throughout each of these realms he has been able to offer both critique of and alternatives to official government policy. Guha notes that in contrast to many of the so-called “conservationists” he discusses earlier in the book, “no scientist worldwide has done as much as Gadgil to deepen and democratize the idea and ideal of biodiversity conservation.” Beyond all this, he has also pioneered some very interesting environmental education programs in order to more fully engage future generations in the cause of environmental conservation. This work is much-needed in light of a recent Supreme Court of India mandate that “awareness of the environment and its problems…should be taught as a compulsory subject” across the Indian school system, despite a severe lack of training for Indian teachers on this subject.

Upon more fully examining the histories and lessons of environmentalism in the Indian and American contexts, Guha begins in the third section of his book to more fully articulate what he sees as something of a response to these lessons. He refers to this new utopian vision, one which places sustainability, equity, and diversity at its core, as social ecology, a phrase adopted by thinkers within both contexts. But first he returns to the question raised by the title of his book, and traces the history of dialogue (and silence!) surrounding the unprecedented model of human consumption that the U.S. has built at home and marketed to the world. The title of his book, it turns out, is a throwback to a 1958 essay by John Kenneth Galbraith called “How Much Should a Country Consume?”, which raised warning flags about the cult of consumption and the worship of “growth” that were being imposed upon the post-war consciousness of Americans. As Guha paraphrases Galbraith, “…this was a society so dedicated to affluence that the possession and consumption of material goods was its exclusive standard of individual and collective achievement.” This ideology not only infected the average American, but could be observed even in the selective analysis of the American conservation movement (with some exceptions, Wendell Berry being foremost among them), which instead focused largely on pollution and wildlife preservation, disconnecting these concerns from an emphasis on American consumption patterns. As a sort of synthesis to the endless appetite of the consumer and the shortsightedness of the environmentalist, the U.S., through the glories of globalization, has been able to have it both ways—preserving (to some degree) its own landscapes while pillaging the resources of other lands. What Guha does not point out is that this process is actually just a continuation of the colonialist program, with the great “accomplishment” of the U.S. its ability to more successfully distribute the wealth of its plunder to the largest and most profligate middle class the world has ever seen.

Guha contrasts the green movements of the U.S. and western Europe in this regard, and shows significantly more awareness on that end of the Atlantic when it comes to the relationship between consumption and sustainability. Such prescience was also apparent in Indian visionaries such as Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialization after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million [now more than 1.1 billion] took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts” and “…the distinguishing characteristic of modern civilization is an indefinite multiplicity of wants.” Unfortunately, India, as with much of the developing world, has not heeded Gandhi’s advice, and instead charges headlong into designer clothing, personal automobiles, and fast food. Without the same access to foreign environs to plunder that the West had, these nations initially have instead pillaged their own natural resources and rural populations. As a result, a “key contribution of the Indian environmental movement has been to point to inequalities of consumption within a society or nation.” Guha characterizes this inequity as a conflict between two groups, the “omnivores” and “ecosystem people,” distinguished from one another by the difference in size of their “resource catchments.” Whereas omnivores are able to draw upon resources from throughout the whole of India, and increasingly, the globe, ecosystem people, “who include roughly 2/3 of the rural population or about 400 million people—rely for the most part on the resources of their own vicinity, from a catchment of a few dozen square miles at best.” He goes on to characterize the dominant paradigm of “economic development” over the past sixty years as “…the channelizing of an ever-increasing volume of natural resources, via the state apparatus and at the cost of the exchequer, to serve the interests of rural and urban omnivores.” As a result of this model of development, inequity multiplies, communities are uprooted causing ecological refugees to relocate to the cities, and our societies move ever farther away from sustainability. In the process, the larger nations such as India and China begin to move on the resources of their more impoverished neighbors, expand their militaries, and become less forthright players on the international stage as their economic interests, like those of the West have for centuries, begin to expand far beyond their own borders.

Contrasting with that of the globalizers, who believe fallaciously that everyone can become omnivores if the market is given free reign, Guha offers the vision of social ecology. This vision embraces neither the unrealistic optimism of the globalizer nor the eco-imperialism of the conservationist, both of whom force their ideals upon ecosystem people. The primary elements of this vision, which Guha unfortunately fails to elaborate on at any real depth, include:

-participatory democracy and strengthening of local governance,

-ending the economic practice of undervaluing natural resources and the externalities of industrial production,

-conscious design of sustainable policies for specific resource sectors (e.g., transport, energy, agriculture, and water),

-and a greater emphasis on equity as a core societal value (with strong implications for areas such as education, health care, and land reform).

Of course, as Guha acknowledges, such a tremendous reorganization of society, especially in the decadent West, would involve tremendous upheaval, and, if not handled carefully, significant backlash: “The social needs and demands of the economy have to be made consistent with the natural constraints of ecology; and both have to be harmonized with the political imperatives of democracy.” Especially in the face of a global advertising machine which incessantly promises more and better things to come, the vision of social ecology may well be utopian indeed. Yet Guha closes by predicting that, ready or not, “sometime in the middle decades of the twenty-first century, Galbraith’s great unanswered question ‘How Much Should a Country Consume?’—with its Gandhian corollary, ‘How Much Should a Person Consume?’—will come finally to dominate the intellectual and political debates of the time.”

2nd Quarter Watson report

2007-01-31T12:10:00.004+08:00

I submitted this report to the Watson Foundation at the end of January, 2007.

Back in October when I last checked in, I was starry-eyed and infatuated with Beijing, mixing seamlessly with Chinese and international scholars and activists and feeling as though I could truly make a home for myself there. I spent my remaining few weeks in Beijing enjoying the sights, making preparations for my Hong Kong stay, and wrapping up my survey of the Beijing environmental NGO sector. I had been feeling a bit frustrated however because I had amassed a significant amount of information and analysis, yet was not sure what purpose it might serve beyond my own edification. Fortunately, I met a few other young Western scholars towards the end of my stay that shared my interests, and was able to provide them with a summary of my work and contacts that they might find useful.

In the process I realized how pretty much my entire life to-date has been geared towards being productive, and that one of the strangest aspects of this whole Watson experience is that no one is really asking me for any sort of a concrete outcome. I remember, early on, turning to one of my mentors and asking him what he thought I should try and do with the experience and resources that I had just been handed. His advice was that I should walk through the world with my eyes and ears open, engaging in as rich an experience as possible and reflecting upon what I observed. Beyond that, he said, I should not concern myself too much with what comes out of it—as what will surely emerge is a more knowledgeable and experienced person, one who is likely much more capable of both producing and discerning what it is that needs to be produced. Wise words, but as with any good advice, easier said than done.

I spent about a week traveling from Beijing to Hong Kong, and took the opportunity to visit a few smaller cities along the way. As in much of the developing world, the gap in living standards is quite extreme between urban and rural areas, and China has, by its own pronouncements, perhaps the largest such gap. Having spent a couple months being struck by Beijing’s dizzying heights, my little excursion was certainly a strong reminder of the many challenges the nation faces on the path to development, especially on the environmental health front. The contrast was even more striking upon reaching Hong Kong, which is probably the wealthiest city in Asia that I have visited thus far.

Long a home to Westerners, Hong Kong was quite easy to navigate and I fell into a rhythm there almost immediately. Civic Exchange, an environmental and pro-democracy NGO that a friend introduced me to, was more than willing to take full advantage of my past NGO/research experience and to satisfy my desires to be productive. They put me to work examining local discourse around Hong Kong’s air quality, an issue of serious and ongoing contention which has involved the scientific community, local government, and civil society. Since air quality is a continuing focus, there was a variety of different research possibilities and they allowed me a high degree of autonomy. I ended up spending a significant chunk of my time surveying the minutes from meetings of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. LegCo, as it is called locally, is one of Hong Kong’s primary governing institutions since the British handover in 1997. The fascinating thing about reading through the reports from LegCo’s meetings is that I really got a feel for Hong Kong as its own unique entity under China’s “one country, two systems” policy. I observed how significantly the city differs from the mainland, and how it has grappled with a range of issues—environmental, social, and political. On the environmental front, Hong Kong has actually made some substantial and quite progressive strides in recent years—often using the European Union as a model for its efforts. Unfortunately however, pollution does not recognize borders, and as Hong Kong has cleaned up, the neighboring Shenzhen "Special Economic Zone" in mainland China has become a highly-polluting "factory to the world." Most of the rest of my time at Civic Exchange was spent examining Hong Kong’s legislative efforts to ameliorate air pollution, and increasingly, its cooperative exchanges with Shenzhen on this front.

When I was not busy “being a geek,” as my roommates so aptly put it, I was getting to know my latest geographical crush. Hong Kong is one of the loveliest cities I have ever spent time in, and certainly the nicest in Asia, and kindled in me a growing interest in envisioning sustainable urban landscapes. This interest is no simple academic exercise, either—according to a recent report issued by the Earth Policy Institute, 2007 marks a significant turning point in human history, as we become, for the first time, a predominantly urban species. China and India, as well as many other industrializing nations, are struggling to meet the needs of their rapidly growing urban populations as people flood into the cities seeking employment and a better way of life. Given its geography and history placing it at the crossroads of East and West, Hong Kong has evolved into a truly unique urban entity. With dense human habitation (around seven million people squeezed into a little over 100 square kilometers), excellent public transit, a tropical climate, lots of green space, and countless cultural amenities, it is a veritable metropolitan paradise in some respects, at least by my reckoning.

Being more of a small town kind of fella in my past life, I remember early on looking at my overall itinerary for this year abroad and wondering if I was going to be able to survive such an intense urban experience. But as I move through it, I have to say that my thoughts about cities and about urban living are changing, and Hong Kong has played a pretty big role in that. Of course, one downside to such attractive settings is that they can be quite expensive places to exist, and that is certainly the case with Hong Kong. After a little over a month there, I was richer in experience, but also poorer in the pocket, and it was time to move on to Southeast Asia.

Partly due to environmental concerns, and partly because I simply find it to be a more enriching way to travel, I prefer to utilize overland routes wherever possible. As mentioned above, I did so from Beijing to Hong Kong and found the experience quite rewarding. Emboldened by that first endeavor, rather than fly directly from Hong Kong to Malaysia I chose instead to spend a couple weeks making the trip overland. This itinerary brought me through Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand using a variety of transportation modes including train, bus, boat, car/minibus, motorcycle, and even bicycle. Along the way, I made a few quick stops to take in some sights, but mostly just spent long days staring from windows at stunning landscapes and a wide variety of lifestyles. The trip was a nice change from what had been a hectic pace of life in Hong Kong, and provided me with plenty of time to catch up on some reading and reflect upon my experiences thus far. But it also provided further insights into environment-development struggles taking place in the region, especially given the significant human and natural calamities that these countries have witnessed within my lifetime. Further, Cambodia and Thailand were my first window into Theravada Buddhist culture, as my experiences to-date have exposed me only to the Mahayana school.

Since arriving in Malaysia, I have been reconnecting with my research partners, trying to find an affordable place to live, and just getting to know the place a bit. Malaysia is the first Muslim country I have ever visited, and the sizable Indian and Chinese communities here also make life much more interesting. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the experience at Civic Exchange in Hong Kong, I have decided to forego further NGO involvement, at least until I get back to India. This decision was a difficult one to make, especially given my ongoing struggle with feeling like I need to be useful and productive, but ultimately I decided to make this period more academic rather than activist-focused. Both the University of Malaya’s Science and Technology Studies department and the Malaysian Academy of Sciences have a lot of interesting resources to offer, resources which I am certain will keep me well-occupied. In addition, I would like to begin giving some serious attention to Hindi study, and between some online resources I found and the Indian Malay community, I should be able to do that.

I am also happy to announce that I think I might have narrowed the focus of my research to a somewhat more manageable topic. In my initial proposal I referenced Yale University’s Environmental Sustainability Index. As I have continued my research, and particularly as a result of my experiences in China, I am becoming increasingly interested in this and other approaches to defining sustainability and developing indicators of sustainability at the local, regional, and national levels. Such indicators incorporate social as well as environmental measurements and therefore serve as an important nexus between science and culture. I have learned that in a wide range of nations, quantitative yet holistic indicators are increasingly being explored as an alternative, or at least supplement, to traditional measures such as GDP (e.g., China’s “Green GDP”). Additionally, a contemporary and influential Indian thinker I have come across has formulated a proposal to build a nationwide network of schoolchildren, all involved via their curricula in gathering local information which could be compiled into a national indicators effort. Following up on this proposal will hopefully comprise the bulk of my partnership with Delhi-based Centre for Science and the Environment upon my return to India in a few more months, and I am currently in discussion with my contacts at CSE about this idea.

I was fortunate to have dinner recently with my fellow Berean and Watson winner Isaac Bingham and his wife Alice on their way out of Malaysia. In some ways Isaac and I, as well as our proposals and overall Watson experience thus far, are about as different as could be imagined. For a minute I even found myself questioning how it is that we are both recipients of the same grant. But listening to Isaac talk about his experiences and observing how animated we both were in describing our passions cleared up any doubts. It also helped me to see how transformative this adventure is, and the importance of simply being immersed in it rather than preoccupying myself so much with the longer-term implications. I look forward to our Watson gathering this summer and to hearing more about how others have grappled with these same struggles, and have been set alight by being given this incredible opportunity.

1st Quarter Watson report

2006-10-26T05:20:00.000+08:00

I submitted this report to the Watson Foundation in late October, 2006.

Last night I was sitting in on an “environmental English” class held at the office of the Global Village of Beijing—founded in 1996, it is one of China’s oldest environmental NGOs. Towards the end of class, the teacher asked me to give an impromptu “speech” about my background and research interests. When I had finished, an environmental journalist named Ling Hua asked, “When you say ‘sustainability,’ do you think that means something different in your country than in China?” I responded that, indeed, her perceptive question is a pivotal facet of what I am trying to figure out myself, then gave the class an overview of an insightful book I have been reading by Indian environmental historian Ramachandra Guha (How Much Should a Person Consume?). And so it has gone these past three months, though I can hardly believe that I am already a quarter of the way through my Watson year.

From the moment I stepped off the plane in New Delhi, my jaw has remained in dropped-open position, and I have had to watch each step ever-so-carefully to keep from falling off this marvelously steep learning curve I am on. I began this trip feeling knowledgeable and self-confident almost to a fault, but along the way have had so many pre-conceptions about myself and the world challenged that I already feel, in some ways, like a very different person than the one who left behind the comforts of home only a few weeks ago. I have been both terrified and bold, homesick and liberated, brilliant and ridiculous, and every shade in between; probably the only sensations I have not experienced thus far are boredom or a lack of enthusiasm. On the Watson website, you say that “When they wake up in the morning most Watson Fellows ask themselves, What am I going to do today?” and that Fellows should be comfortable with that degree of freedom. Though I have not previously been offered such incredible latitude in life, I must admit that I have adjusted quite well. Thus far, the experience has been a wonderful mix of stimulating interaction and engagement, self-reflection, and communicating my lessons and joys with my wider community. I still do not possess too much of a sense as to where this whole experience is leading me, but I do know that whatever opportunities present themselves at the other end, I will be better prepared to take full advantage.

The learning began before I ever reached India, when I took advantage of a lay-over in London to meet and interview staff at the E.F. Schumacher-inspired NGO Practical Action, formerly known as the Intermediate Technology Development Group. There I spent two days digging through their extensive library, and interviewing their Policy and Programs Director and Development Education Manager, among others. Upon arriving in Delhi, I made contact with two of my primary Indian research partners—the government-sponsored think tank National Institute of Science, Technology, and Development Studies and the NGO Centre for Science and the Environment, the latter embroiled in a very interesting recent public debate with government and business leaders about perceived levels of pesticides in soda products. I also took care of some logistical issues such as securing a place to live when I return for a longer stay next March.

Almost immediately upon arriving, however, an old college roommate and fellow expat who has become something of a Tibetan studies scholar informed me that the Dalai Lama would be giving a several-day teaching at his residence-in-exile in McLeod Ganj (north India). So a significant chunk of my initial stay in India was devoted to somewhat of a crash course in Tibetan Buddhism. As I mentioned in my research proposal, understanding the philosophical traditions of a people is key to understanding their contemporary views on important issues such as science and sustainability. Tibetan Buddhism offers a particularly pertinent example of this intersection, as the current Dalai Lama has devoted significant time and resources to interacting with the Western scientific community, even issuing a number of statements on the relationship between spirituality and science and co-founding the think tank Mind and Life Institute.

From India I headed to Beijing, where I am becoming completely enamored with China’s culture and history and frequently wish I could break off a piece of myself to leave behind. As anyone who has been keeping up with world events must know, it is an incredibly exciting and fascinating time to be in China. The country is in the midst of significant upheaval on nearly all fronts, and you can literally observe tremendously important historical events taking shape right before your eyes. Were I a social scientist with an interest in taking up Mandarin, I would likely relocate here, as so many Chinese-Americans appear to be doing. I am sure that the near-perfect climate of autumn in Beijing must be playing a role in this newly-sparked love affair, and like a true feckless lover, I am readying myself to head south as the leaves change and the air turns crisp.

But in my first two months in China, I have been quite successful in accomplishing my research goals. Thus far, I have had volunteerships and interviews with important Chinese NGOs like Friends of Nature (China’s oldest environmental NGO), the Global Environmental Institute, and the Global Village of Beijing. I have helped spread the word about and organize FON’s “Beijing for Bikes” photo exhibit, helped with proofreading these organizations’ English-language publications, and been a teaching assistant at environmental English classes. As a result, I have been fortunate enough to get to know some of the pioneers of China’s environmental movement, as well as the scholars who are documenting it, and to learn firsthand about some of the pressing environmental challenges the country faces.

I also participated in a week-long “U.S.-China Science and Technology Policy Forum,” jointly organized by the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the George Mason University China Program. At this Forum, I was able to interact with and learn from a host of high-level policy-makers and academics, and took part in tours of several premier Chinese research universities and think tanks. Through these interactions, I learned much about how China’s scientific community interacts with the State, the government’s efforts (and shortcomings!) with regards to sustainability, and the evolving role that China’s growing civil society is playing in these affairs. Throughout it all, I managed to begin some basic Mandarin lessons (“Ni hao ma?” “Ma ma huhu, xiexie.” “Ni shi naliren?” “Wo shi mei guo ren.” “Fuwuyuan, qing zai lai yi ge.” “Wei sheng jian zai na lee?”), which I hope to complement with some more extensive Hindi lessons when I return to India. In a few more weeks, I will begin the second leg of my China stay, and will interact with some Hong Kong-based NGOs, as well as the Center for Applied Ethics.

Not to imply that I haven’t snuck in some fantastic sightseeing along the way, or that my fellowship has been without any sort of challenges or difficulties. One thing I realized fairly early on is just how broad my research topic is. I sort of knew that going into it, but this awareness has been reinforced by meeting plenty of scholars along the way who devoted years and significant intellectual effort towards understanding just one small piece of the overall big picture that I am interested in. So, while on the one hand it has been wonderful to be able to wake up and say “Today I am going to read about nanotechnology, or about Hindu bioethics, or about China’s scientific elite, or compare consumption patterns between the U.S. and various Asian nations…” my regular interaction with other scholars has reminded me of just how little I really know about any of these topics. I am optimistic that as I gain a clearer idea as to exactly where life is headed post-Watson, a sense of focus will also naturally begin to develop; but I am truly appreciating the opportunity to try and ascertain the lay of the forest before I really get to know any particular tree.

The language barrier has also been more significant than I had anticipated, and hence basic logistics take up more of my time than I would have guessed. While in India one can count on the educated elite being pretty fluent in English, that sure does not help when you are trying to catch a cab or pick something up from the store. The Chinese, on the other hand, seem every bit as obstinate about learning foreign languages as we Americans. I knew that ignorance of Mandarin would make life a bit more difficult here, but honestly, in many parts of the city it seems like a fella could starve to death for not knowing the language. Fortunately, I found a few helpful individuals, such as my Mandarin tutor, who is more than willing to move our classroom outdoors into the markets or restaurants, and who has some other English-speaking friends that are able to act as translators. A huge lesson though, and one I probably would not have found quite so surprising had I of spent significant time in a developing country prior to this trip, is just how much we Americans take for granted in terms of health, safety, and just basic conveniences. Like nearly every Westerner I have spoken with, I fell ill, most likely due to a mild case of food poisoning, in India. I am also becoming a gold medal finalist in what will surely be the hottest new competition in Beijing 2008: “Street-crossing in Hostile Urban Environments.”

But perhaps the most heart-wrenching challenge I have faced is simply coming to grips with the astonishing poverty I witnessed these past few months. Given who I am and where I come from, it has frequently been a real struggle for me to justify my existence out here in this world of such great need. So many people with so little, and me with relatively so much. Why do we each deserve our collective lots in life? As with so many of the other questions I set out with, I have not answered this one yet either, but I will certainly be interested to hear the other Fellows’ reflections. Perhaps the best response I can come up with thus far is that the lessons I am learning out here in the world will undoubtedly remain with me for the rest of my life, and will certainly shape my future course. And as I ask these sorts of questions aloud to my family, friends, and people I meet along my journey, hopefully, in some small way, I am already contributing to bringing into existence the sort of world I hope to see. Given all that I witnessed these past few months, it would be easy to become disillusioned or pessimistic about humanity’s future prospects. But perhaps, in the words of French author Antoine de Saint-Exupery, “As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it.”

2006 Endorsement of John Russell for Florida's Fifth Congressional District

2006-10-14T00:39:00.002+08:00

I am writing to urge your editorial endorsement of Congressional candidate John Russell. As a fourth-generation resident of Florida’s fifth Congressional district, I have observed a lot of changes in our region; and as someone who only came into legal voting age a few political cycles ago, I have witnessed some dramatic changes in our political landscape as well. I was not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but one thing I appreciated about the Clinton years was that there was at least a significant array of opposition (from a wide ideological spectrum) that held his feet to the fire and challenged many aspects of his agenda. Throughout most of Clinton’s presidency, for instance, we had a Republican-controlled Congress that was anything but concessional.

A primary rationale for having different branches of government is so that we can maintain a system of checks and balances and no one branch becomes too powerful. This arrangement is one of the most crucial aspects of our democracy. Yet with a Congress controlled by Republicans like Ginny Brown-Waite, who have spent the past several years basically rubber-stamping President Bush’s agenda, our system of checks and balances has essentially been chucked. As such, many of the bad decisions President Bush has made have not been adequately scrutinized.

When we examine a wide range of issues that are important to the citizens of the fifth District—such as national security and foreign policy, health care, the economy, veterans’ issues, social security, and the environment—it becomes clear that our nation is in need of some new direction. While Brown-Waite’s opponent, John Russell, might not have a voting record that we can look to for comparison, he certainly seems to have put serious thought into the challenges facing our country and has many vibrant new ideas. Besides, any serious scrutiny of Brown-Waite’s record tells us it would be hard to do worse.

A thoughtful, informed candidate, John Russell is unfortunately currently the underdog in this race. Not only is he taking on an incumbent in what is considered by some political analysts a “safe” district for Republicans, he is also seriously outspent by Brown-Waite by a margin of nearly 10-1. In today’s political environment, too often the issues take a backseat to “the money race.” But such a vast margin begs the question: where is Brown-Waite’s funding coming from and who is she really going to be representing if we send her back to Washington? A quick look at the Federal Election Commission data displayed on the website of the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that 57% of Brown-Waite’s campaign funding derives from “Political Action Committees,” or “PACs,” versus only 2% for John Russell. Especially in light of the ever-widening Abramoff scandal, I would much rather send an idea-rich and money-poor candidate to D.C., secure in the knowledge that he would be representing the concerns of folks back home and not the big-money interests that bankrolled his campaign.

I have already written to the Russell campaign to discuss a number of issues, and each time I have gotten a personal and thoughtful response. I believe that if elected, John Russell will be a conscientious and vigilant representative of our district, not someone who is more concerned with repaying his campaign sponsors, toeing the party line, and rubber-stamping George Bush’s flawed agenda.

Sincerely,

Jason Fults

A Postcard to Google from Tibet

2006-10-04T08:58:00.000+08:00

In recent weeks, my travels have led me to an unexpectedly heavy dose of Tibetan culture and Buddhism, mostly thanks to my pal and fellow expat Hotfoot, who's spent a significant amount of time volunteering in the Tibetan settlement community in McLeod Ganj, India and studying the Tibetan language. Along the way, I've learned about torture and imprisonment of Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese government, seen artwork created by young Tibetan children filled with violent imagery that should never exist in a child's mind, and was fortunate enough to be in the presence of the Dalai Lama, who, along with other leaders of Tibetan Buddhism, has been forced to flee his homeland.

Shortly after leaving McLeod, I traveled through Tibet--part of a larger trip from Delhi to Beijing. I chronicled my experiences somewhat, also online, and would be happy to share those with anyone who's interested. In Tibet, I visited numerous holy sites, and also experienced firsthand the police-state atmosphere that exists there. One conspicuous absence is the lack of photos of the Dalai Lama anywhere--apparently they've been banned. In McLeod, every shop I went into had his photo on the wall; but when I bought some books and scrolls there with the DL's picture and quotes on them, I was warned not to bring them into China.

Another strange phenomenon, especially for anyone who might be interested in reading more about the relationship between Tibet and the People's Republic, involves the internet. As I was considering taking the new Lhasa-->Beijing train, I wanted to do a bit more reading on the human rights organization Free Tibet's objections to it. Interestingly, I wasn't able to access their website from within China. Nor was I able to access a number of other sites that might be considered objectionable from the standpoint of Chinese authoritarian orthodoxy. It turns out that while China may very well be modernizing with respect to communications technology (there are internet cafes in any decent-sized city, and these are mostly swamped with Chinese youth playing online video games), they are most certainly not "Westernizing," at least with respect to values such as free speech. See this brief article, "The Great Firewall of China," for more details (though again, good luck accessing it from within China). As author Richard Taylor states in the article, "China is proof that the net can be developed and strangled all at once." [Another great article to take a look at appeared in the NYT a few months back (thanks, Molly!). And here's an interesting report by the OpenNet Initiative.]

Aiding in this simultaneous development and strangulation are companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, all Western-based but with a huge financial stake in accessing Chinese markets. The first two--Microsoft and Yahoo--were frankly no surprise, as they're big-money corporates from way back. But Google, a hip modern company which markets itself with slogans such as "You can make money without doing evil," "Democracy on the web works," and "The need for information crosses all borders," has apparently been neglecting a few border-crossings as of late.

According to Free Tibet, who is calling for a boycott of Google products, "In January 2006 Google announced that it is to capitulate to political pressure from China and provide a web-based search engine for the Chinese market that will prohibit access to information about Tibet and other sensitive political issues, such as Taiwan and the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989." I've been trying real hard to imagine the initial interactions between representatives from Google and the People's Republic. It must have felt a bit awkward, perhaps even embarrassing, for Google to be systematically figuring out how they would build customer loyalty amongst the Chinese while simultaneously preventing their access to such important information. A more recent article from the Sydney Morning Herald indicates that they may be having second thoughts about their capitulation, and I hope they'll act on those twinges of guilt.

As an avid user of Google products, such as Gmail and, obviously, Blogger, I'm having a few twinges myself. As such, I sent Google a postcard from Lhasa, pictured above, and am awaiting an appropriate response. Until I get one, or until they take it down, the postcard will remain here for other potential Google customers to see.

For further information regarding internet censorship and what we can do to fight back, check out this new campaign from Amnesty International

POSTSCRIPT:
This morning, just before posting this essay, I received an email from Google in response to my postcard. Strange coincidence. Here is their response, in its entirety:

"Hi Jason,

Thank you for contacting us about Google.cn. We launched Google.cn for our users in the People's Republic of China who want to search and browse in Simplified Chinese. Making our site available to millions of users in
their preferred language is a critical part of our mission to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful.

At first, Google.cn will serve Google Web Search, Google Image Search, Google Maps, and Google News. Over time, we'll provide more Google services tailored for the China market. In launching Google.cn, we aim to
balance three important values: users' interests, expanding access to information, and responding to local conditions in the markets we serve. Prior to this launch, many users in China were unable to access our site,
and those who were able to access it often experienced persistent latency, delay, and time-out issues. With Google.cn, users can now access much more information, much more quickly.

As you may know, to operate a web service in China, we must remove a small percentage of content from the search results available on Google.cn. The decision to do that was not an easy one for Google, in light of our
mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." After a long process of study, analysis, and debate about the many technical, business, and ethical considerations, we concluded that the best available option was to provide our Chinese users with a search service that, while filtered, will be faster, more reliable, and, overall, more comprehensive than what's available today. Given the current filtering that's performed on the entire internet in China, Google.cn will provide no less information than would otherwise be
available. In fact, we believe that our advanced, innovative search technologies will make a noticeable net increase in the amount of information accessible to our Chinese users.

So, while removing this content may seem inconsistent with our mission, we believe that Google.cn will significantly improve the user experience and increase the overall accessibility of information in China. Our view is that providing as much information as possible is better than providing no information at all -- or providing such a heavily degraded user experience that it basically amounts to no information. Moreover, we think it's important to give users some meaningful disclosure whenever some results have been removed; in those cases, Google.cn clearly presents a message that says, "In response to local laws, regulations, or policies, one or more search results do not appear." It's also worth noting that Google.com will continue to be available, unfiltered, for all internet users worldwide, including those in China.

China is developing rapidly, thanks in no small measure to the internet. We firmly believe that with Google's culture of innovation, we can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of
development in China.

We appreciate your interest in Google and your taking the time to share your concerns with us.

Regards,
The Google Team"

Summary: "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond

2006-09-21T19:39:00.000+08:00

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is one of those rare books that I think pretty much everyone needs to read--especially Westerners. It is a sizable book, and a bit of an undertaking, but even for people who probably won't get around to reading it, I think at the least that everyone should try to be familiar with the basic analysis Diamond puts forward.

Having just finished it for the second time (I rarely read the same book twice), I decided to make a basic outline of Diamond's arguments both for the benefit of others and so that I can refer back to it as I continue to study world history. I quote Diamond pretty liberally, so I hope I'm not violating any sort of copyright laws that are going to get me into trouble. If so, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to inform me ;)

People should also feel free to contact me if they have any questions about any aspects of this summary, or suggestions as to how it could be made more useful.

Otherwise, I hope to read "Collapse," a more recent work by Diamond, at some point. But if somebody out there has put together a summary similar to this one I'd sure like to check it out.

Enjoy,
j

5-9 million years ago: "...a population of African apes broke up into several populations, one of which proceeded to evolve into modern gorillas, a second into the two modern chimps, and the third into humans."

Homo erectus, the 1^st human ancestor to spread beyond Africa about 1-2 million years ago, had a similar body size to modern humans but about ½ our brain size

Homo sapiens date back about ½ million years; this also corresponds to human ancestors' earliest entry into Europe and the beginning of our use of fire

Homo neanderthalensis populated Europe and West Asia 40,000-130,000 years ago and were the first humans to leave behind strong evidence of burying their dead and caring for their sick

Cro-Magnon humans represent the "Great Leap Forward" in human evolution, taking place around 50,000 years ago; "...biologically and behaviorally modern humans." Evidence of stone and bone multi-piece tools and weapons, jewelry, houses, sewn clothing, carefully buried skeletons, and artwork. Proposed explanations of the "Great Leap" include the perfection of the voice box, changes in brain organization, either/both of which could have enabled the development of modern language. These developments coincide w/ the "extinction" of the Neanderthals and "...the first proven major extension of human geographic range since our ancestors' colonization of Eurasia." This geographic extension, reaching in Australia and New Guinea, provides the first evidence in human history of the use of watercraft.

11,000 B.C. (note Diamond's distinction between "calibrated" and "uncalibrated" radiocarbon dates.): end of most recent Ice Age. All peoples on all continents were still hunter-gatherers, most still living in nomadic bands of no more than a few dozen members; corresponds to the beginnings of village life in some parts of the planet, the first undisputed peopling of the Americas, the "Recent Era." W/in 1500 or so years, humans will begin domesticating plants and animals in southwest Asia, then elsewhere. By way of contrast humans did not even begin entering the Americas (via Alaska) until 12,000 B.C. Earliest sites of plant/animal domestication correspond w/ earliest instances of what we now refer to as "civilization."

8,000-2,500 B.C.: all species for whose dates of domestication we have archaeological evidence were domesticated during this period, after which, there have been no significant additions

5,500 B.C.: the evolution of chiefdoms in the Fertile Crescent region (larger, more centralized organization w/ more complex economies than tribal configurations)

4,000 B.C.: the domestication of horses begins in the "steppes north of the Black Sea." This development would change the face of warfare all the way into the First World War.

>3,000 B.C.: first known independent invention of a writing system by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia; may also have been invented independently later by Chinese, Egyptians, and Mexican natives. All early writing societies were agrarian, socially stratified societies with complex and centralized political institutions. Writing was initially a tool of the ruling classes to facilitate the maintenance of their empires.

2,500-1,500 B.C.: eastern U.S. "founder crops" were domesticated during this period, though farming did not begin to supply a major part of the diet until around 500-200 B.C., and farming did not develop such that densely populated chiefdoms arose until >900 A.D.

1,000 B.C.: the evolution of chiefdoms in Mesoamerica and the Andes

2^nd century B.C. China achieves significant political unification, and remains largely thus for the rest of its history (this unification will have significant effects on China as compared with Europe later on)

300-800 A.D.: Austronesians arrive on the African island of Madagascar after crossing 4,000 miles of Indian Ocean from modern-day Borneo (Indonesia). Diamond refers to this colonization as perhaps the single most astonishing fact of human geography. This fact is perhaps explained by a well-documented trade route that linked India w/ Indonesia to the east, and India to Egypt and the coast of East Africa to the west. This route was written about as early as 100 A.D., but is well-documented after 800 A.D.

Medieval Europe (500-1500 A.D.): beginnings of an Industrial Revolution based upon water and wind power; by late Medieval or Renaissance period, most of Eurasia had come under the rule of organized states, even empires

1500 A.D.: beginnings of European worldwide colonial expansion; peoples on different continents differed greatly in technology and political organization. Indigenous population of West Indies exceeded one million when Columbus arrived. The first European colony was founded on the American mainland around 1508, at the Isthmus of Panama, followed by the conquest of the Aztecs and Incas in 1519-1520 and 1532-33, respectively.

European "superiority": some of the suggested primary reasons for Europe's advances include genetics, the stimulatory/inhibitory effects of cold/hot climates, and large-scale irrigation systems-->centralized bureaucracies; none of these explanations stand up to scrutiny however, according to Diamond

Human-animal co-evolution: the survival of megafauna, which existed on most all continents, into the modern era, depends largely upon how long these critters had co-evolved w/ proto-humans before being confronted by modern humans possessing fully developed hunting skills. E.g., Eurasia and Africa vs. Australia, New Guinea, and the Americas. Whether or not, and what kind, of megafauna were available to developing societies ended up making a pretty profound difference in the course of their evolution.

Other environmental factors that Diamond cites as being important in a society's evolution: climate (e.g., favorable Mediterranean climate), presence of plant species favorable to human cultivation, geological type, marine resources, area, terrain variety & geographic fragmentation, axis orientation (e.g., east-west vs. north-south), and isolation.

Axis orientation: "Localities distributed east and west of each other at the same latitude share exactly the same day length and its seasonal variations. To a lesser degree, they also tend to share similar diseases, regimes of temperature and rainfall, and habitats or biomes (types of vegetation)...the germination, growth, and disease resistance of plants are adapted to precisely those features of climate." This similarity of condition facilitated the spread of plants much more quickly east<-->west than north<-->south. With regard to the possibility of the axis direction also affecting the diffusion of technologies and ideas, Diamond notes "In general, societies that engaged in intense exchanges of crops, livestock, and technologies related to food production were more likely to become involved in other exchanges as well."

Isolation is an interesting variable, because, on the one hand, how long did a given society have to develop on its own before coming into interaction with other societies which might potentially conquer or contaminate it (e.g., 3,200 years for the Polynesians vs. 13,000 years for Native Americans)? On the other hand, there are some obvious, powerful benefits to interaction between societies, provided they don't conquer you. We might think of competing, or at least intermingling societies the same way we think of interactions between individual critters w/in a given species. It's the aggregate effect that's important from a historical perspective, not the effect on one of the individual societies; hence regardless of which individual societies have come out on top and which were assimilated/destroyed/plagued, the aggregate effect is that competition/interaction has tended to strengthen human society as contrasted with isolation.

Variation in environment--> variation in subsistence.

Subsistence methods--> population size/density:

There are probably less than 10 places on Earth where food production arose independently. By food production, we mean domestication of plants and animals--i.e., taking control of a species' reproductive cycle such that we alter it genetically towards a form more useful to human beings. This sort of inter-species co-evolution has long existed in nature (e.g., "ripe" vs. sour fruits that attract animals only once the seed is fully-matured), domestication is simply more conscious and directed. This process began simply enough, w/ human hunter-gatherers tending to harvest fruits most pleasing (and convenient) to them, and hence disperse the seeds of those individual plants more widely.

With regards to animals, there are a few very important characteristics that determine whether or not a given species can be domesticated (and only a small fraction can): 1) lower on the food chain (i.e., no carnivores) for reasons of bio-efficiency, 2) fast growth rate (aids in selective breeding), 3) must be willing/able to breed in captivity, 4) not too nasty (e.g., bears and hippos), 5) not a "nervous" species (e.g., deer) that don't function well in captivity, 6) "herd" species rather than territorial.

Similarly w/ plants, only a fraction of the overall available species have been domesticated, and pretty much all of these were discovered and domesticated in ancient times.

Farming offers more calories available/acre; permits or requires people to adopt sedentary living; creates seasonally pulsed inputs of labor (making food producers available for other activities after harvest season); leads to a shortened birth interval (approx. two yrs for farmers vs. four for hunter-gatherers) because one doesn't have to wait for their child to be as old before they can safely have another; provides food surpluses that can be more easily stored w/in a settlement; food surpluses in turn allow for non-farming "specialists" (e.g., leaders/bureaucrats, soldiers) to devote less time to gathering food; additionally, domesticated animals provide food, fertilizer, fiber, labor/transportation, and acquired immunity to certain epidemic diseases.

[Interesting note on the evolution of monoculture farming: Diamond claims that monocultures developed in places where large animals were domesticated and could be hitched to plows, thereby tilling the fields and allowing for broadcast of a single type of seed. Alternately, in places where these animals weren't available, fields tended to be planted by hoe and stick, individually planted seeds, and a mix of species.]

Of course, not all of the "benefits" of farming would have been immediately recognizable to early farmers, and according to Diamond, some archaeologists have demonstrated that early farmers were perhaps less well-off than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. [Note: not all ancient hunter-gatherers were nomadic, just as not all food producers were/are sedentary.] The transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer took place over thousands of years for the earliest farmers, and did not involve one big decision, but many smaller ones. What were the factors that contributed to this decision? 1) declining availability of wild food (e.g., megafauna extinctions); 2) climate changes which expanded the range of some domesticable plants; 3) development of improved technologies for collecting, processing, and storing wild foods; 4) availability of a suitable "basket" of potential domesticable plants/animals, such that farming begins to offer a reasonable alternative to hunting-gathering (see the global distribution of high quality, domesticable plants/animals in antiquity for a powerful hint at why farming began in some places and not in others)

There is also a correspondence between primary food-gathering technology and population density; i.e., hunter-gatherers-->less dense (e.g., 5 people/square mile), while farming-->more dense (e.g., 1100 people/square mile even in "primitive settings"). Population density for our purposes is most appropriately defined as people/square mile of arable land. Once a society begins to go down the road of increased population density, it's difficult to "go back" w/out mass die-off, so they tended to get caught in a cycle of food production-->higher density populations-->require particular patterns of food production.

High-density societies (i.e., farming societies) tend to have more people, a more complex system of organization, & greater trade specialization--all of which offer certain advantages in contrast with societies which do not have these characteristics. In general, hunter-gatherer societies, when confronted with farming societies, have either 1) joined them, or 2) been replaced by them.

Correspondence between space for a society to expand and its methods of conflict resolution? One example Diamond cites is the Moriori tribe (of the Chatham islands) who were isolated and could not expand; they renounced war, and "reduced potential conflicts from overpopulation by castrating some male infants." Could the Caribbean islanders that Columbus massacred be another example of this correspondence?? [Later in the book Diamond cautions against the assumption that people w/in a society are not violent simply because one does not actually observe this violence taking place. Methods other than direct observation, such as gathering peoples' family histories, can reveal otherwise.] Population size certainly plays a role in conflict resolution w/in a given society, with a monopoly on the use of force becoming necessary as a society increases in size. In smaller societies, there are still enough kin-based bonds between members that there is plenty of impetus to nip conflicts in the bud. Additionally, communal, non-centralized decision-making becomes increasingly difficult in larger groups. Population densities in a given region also help determine how interaction and warfare between groups may play out. Whether a conquered group will simply relocate, or become annihilated, enslaved, or vassalized may depend upon the population density of the region in which the conflict takes place and the population density of the societies in question; e.g., a society must have a fairly complex system of organization in order to be able to make any sort of use of slaves on a large scale.

Germs: Epidemic diseases, not conquistadores, were the real shock troops of European colonization, advancing well ahead of the would-be conquerors and wiping out untold numbers (perhaps as high as 95%) of vulnerable natives. This fact is seen most readily in the colonization of the Americas, although epidemic disease also provided significant barriers to European colonization in tropical Asia, Africa, Indonesia, and New Guinea. Some major epidemics which have evolved from diseases of animals: smallpox, flu, tuberculosis, malaria, plague, measles, yellow fever, and cholera. Until WWII, more victims of war died of war-borne microbes than of battle wounds.

Characteristics of epidemic diseases: 1) pattern of infection; epidemics produce no cases for a long time, then a whole wave of cases, then no more cases again for awhile. 2) spread quickly through an entire population. 3) they are "acute;" w/in a short time hosts either die or recover completely; 4) those who recover tend to develop immunity from future infections of the same disease; 5) microbes causing epidemic diseases tend to be restricted to human hosts and do not move freely between other mediums; 6) require populations that are sufficiently numerous and dense in order to sustain themselves--hence smaller populations cannot generally evolve epidemic diseases to pass on to others, because the disease cannot sustain itself. This latter characteristic also implies that epidemic diseases are relatively new to humankind, since we have only recently begun (since onset of agriculture) acquiring population sizes/densities adequate to maintain them.

Other ways in which farming contributes to the spread/evolution of epidemic disease: creating sedentary as opposed to nomadic societies, use of humanure for fertilizer, attraction of disease-carrying rodents to farmers' stored food, domestication of other social animals who have epidemic-disease causing germs of their own, and the development of vast trade routes amongst numerous sedentary societies, each w/ their own set of epidemic diseases.

Other kinds of diseases (i.e., non-epidemic types) can either maintain themselves in other mediums (e.g., soil or other animals), are chronic (i.e., they take a long time to kill their victim), or are nonfatal and thus survivors may not have immunity

Technology: e.g., weapons, writing/communication systems, political organization, transportation.

Each society has its own set of values and conditions which influence which technologies it accepts, and when, as well as its overall level of innovation and receptivity to innovation. These values of course differ between neighboring societies, and w/in a given society over time. Additionally, much if not most new technologies that a society encounters are not invented locally but are instead borrowed from other societies. Hence diffusion of technology between societies becomes very important, especially w/ increasing technological complexity. Proximity to competing societies may encourage a particular technology to be adopted; proximity also affects whether a particular technology, once adopted, is maintained. So again, Diamond comes back to a bio-geographical explanation for technological superiority in some societies as trumping any sort of a cultural explanation, because what mattered most ultimately was 1) time of onset of food production, 2) barriers to diffusion of technology and ideas, and 3) human population size. And again, Eurasia is at the advantage. Further, since technological development tends to catalyze greater technological development, early head-starts have a tendency to become exaggerated over time.

In the final section of his book, Diamond takes a brief (130 page) look at global history and applies the lessons learned thus far to explain the rise and fall of different societies, as well as examining the varying results of major population movements throughout history. His focus is on Australia/New Guinea/Polynesia, China/Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Americas, and he cites both archaeological and linguistic evidence to reinforce his analysis.

In the last chapter, Diamond sets the stage for his more recent book, "Collapse": "Even from A.D. 1000-1450 the flow of science and technology was predominantly into Europe from the Islamic societies stretching from India to North Africa, rather than vice versa. During those same centuries China led the world in technology, having launched itself on food production nearly as early as the Fertile Crescent did." So then why did the center of power in the ancient world shift continually westward, from the Fertile Crescent to Greece, then Rome, and finally to northern and western Europe? A major contributor appears to have been ecocide. "...Fertile Crescent and eastern Mediterranean societies had the misfortune to arise in an ecologically fragile environment. They committed ecological suicide by destroying their own resource base. Power shifted westward as each eastern Mediterranean society in turn undermined itself, beginning with the oldest societies, those in the east (the Fertile Crescent)...In effect, Europe received its crops, livestock, technology, and writing systems from the Fertile Crescent, which then gradually eliminated itself as a major center of power and innovation."

With regards to China, Diamond largely faults political centralization, which enabled the Chinese empire to completely isolate itself through the decisions of a few individuals; compare this w/ politically dis-unified Europe, which consisted of numerous smaller nation-states locked in competition w/ one another. He gives numerous other examples to further illustrate this contrast between China and Europe, specifically around decisions to adopt or abandon particular technologies and/or technological processes.

The historical forces that Diamond cites are however just that--historical. And while he is of course correct in his assertion that "...the hand of history's course at 8000 B.C. lies heavily on us...", in that it is unlikely that sub-Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians, and Native Americans will be dominating world affairs any time soon, it is also clear that powerful new forces have arisen in the modern world, forces which he cannot fully account for in Guns, Germs, and Steel. It begs the question, which environmental/geographical determinants are still relevant and most important in the modern world, and I am hoping that he poses somewhat of an answer to this question in his later work. He does at least entertain "...the broad range of questions concerning cultural idiosyncrasies [and the idiosyncrasies of individuals, hence acknowledging the "Big Man" historians], unrelated to environment and initially of little significance, that might evolve into influential and long-lasting cultural features..." and acknowledges that "...their significance constitutes an important unanswered question." Yet his initial thesis remains intact, as "[this question]...can best be approached by concentrating attention on historical patterns that remain puzzling after the effects of major environmental factors have been taken into account."

In addition to this set of questions--perhaps the biggest, most important mysteries of human history left unaddressed by the book--I also finished Guns, Germs, and Steel with more of an interest in the role that North Africa and the Indian subcontinent played in the development of ancient human civilization, as these areas were largely glossed over by Diamond.

The book also had a number of excellent charts and graphs which contributed significantly to the overall argument. In particular, I found the illustrations on pages 37, 87, 99, 135, 140, 162, 167, 177, 268-9, 362-3 quite useful, and have copies of them on-hand if anyone would like to see them as something of a supplement to my outline.

A Pre-Emptive Epitaph for a Failed Policy

2006-08-08T01:55:00.000+08:00

I arrived in New Delhi a week ago, and my jaw remains in dropped position. I’ll get some photos and reflections up on my travel log soon. I’d like to say I’ve been 100% engaged in the experience, but admittedly, given prevailing world events, my eyes keep being drawn home.

Recent reports and speculation about Cuban President Fidel Castro’s state of health have brought a lot of attention to U.S. policy towards that country. I was fortunate enough to spend a few months studying Cuban history and a few weeks visiting the island during my time as a Berea student. During that period and since I have come to recognize the complexities involved in assessing the victories and failures of the Cuban Revolution.

What is not complex to me, however, is the abject failure of 47 years of U.S. policy towards Cuba since Fidel Castro came to power. In the words of Buddha, “There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth -- not going all the way, and not starting.” Clearly, the U.S. has not even started down the path of assisting Cuba in the full attainment of an open society, and the regressive policies of the Bush Administration have only made matters worse:

What sort of policy would curtail the flow of humanitarian aid between ecumenical groups in the U.S. and Cuba?

What sort of policy restricts personal exchanges between Cuban-Americans and their Cuban families, as well as between Cuban and American students, scholars, humanitarian aid workers, and church groups? How is Cuba ever to be exposed to treasured U.S. ideals around freedom and democracy if we’re not allowed to interact with one another?

What sort of President assures the Cuban people that he stands ready to help them “…enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy” while meeting openly with individuals who are working towards the overthrow of their government? I think the $80 million that the Bush Administration has pledged towards subverting the Cuban government over the next two years could be better spent on other priorities.

What sort of Administration criticizes Cuba’s lack of civil liberties while itself refusing to release Cuban political prisoners even after their convictions have been overturned? It’s quite likely that some of the worst human rights atrocities being committed in Cuba today are taking place within the (illegally) U.S.-occupied Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

I believe that Condi’s speech on “Radio Marti” (a propaganda program that the US broadcasts into Cuba) a few nights ago was as much a message to the US citizenry as those in Cuba: “The United States respects your aspirations as sovereign citizens…” As a result of their ongoing foreign policy blunders, I think the Republicans are feeling the angst of an alarmed populace in an election year. We must let them, as well as their Democratic opposition, know that we are watching closely and that we demand a policy of “constructive engagement” with Cuba.

Please join me in contacting President Bush and your Congressional delegation to let them know that it’s time for the U.S. to rethink its Cuba policy, and that the recent report by the Administration’s so-called “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba” takes our Cuba policy in precisely the wrong direction. For ongoing news and action alerts related to US relations with Cuba, as well as other nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, I have found the Latin America Working Group helpful. Finally, for a much more thorough and articulate critique of U.S. policy towards Cuba, see the Emergency Network of Cuban American Scholars and Artists for Change in U.S.-Cuba Policy.

As always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions for further action on this issue. Thanks!
jason

Up, up, and away

2006-07-25T09:14:00.000+08:00

I fly out of Tampa Wednesday afternoon, with final moments until then spent packing, hanging out with the family, and trying to untie this big ol' knot in my stomach.

I'm thinking a lot about the state of global politics as I leave the comforts of home. I also made a final call to my Congresswoman today, asking her to do what she can to end the war in Iraq and Lebanon--two conflicts that I feel are making the world immeasurably more dangerous for all of us.

At the same time, I'm inspired by friends and loved ones who are doing what they can to bring these conflicts to an end. Please support their efforts:

*Military Families Speak Out against the war in Iraq

*Hold Israel accountable for using US-supplied weapons to target Palestinian and Lebanese civilians

For my environmentalist pals, I came across an article in "The Nation" the other day that discusses new directions for the environmental movement: Green Grows Grassroots. If you've got an interest and a little spare time, I'd love to hear your response. I liked a lot of what I read, and will probably pick up Hertsgaard's book, "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future." I couldn't help but question though if there weren't still some serious contradictions that he failed to address in this article. Overall it reminded me how divergent our analyses are of what exactly lies at the base of the "environment problem" and what that means in terms of addressing it.

Anyway, below are my new contact details, best as I can muster. Please keep me in your thoughts and posted on your happenings. I'll do the same.

Much luv,

jason fults
c/o S. C. Gupta
C-96, Ground Floor
Greater Kailash Part 1
New Delhi 110048
India

Jason's Travel log

"...PRONOIA. Ever heard the word? The opposite of 'paranoia,' it means a sneaking suspicion that the whole world is conspiring to shower you with blessings."
--Rob Brezsny, Salon.com, August 2000

Letter to the President

2006-06-24T04:51:00.000+08:00

“The hip-hop generation and culture by…traditional mainstream America has been talked down, and it’s only viewed in a very narrow scope as people who disrespect women, who don’t go to school, who sell dope…which is ignorant.”
--Kwame Kilpatrick; Mayor, Detroit, MI

My long-time pal, Moses, who has turned me on to some incredible hip-hop over the years, dropped a DVD in my lap several months back called “Letter to the President.” Written and directed by Thomas Gibson and narrated by Snoop Dogg, the documentary provides a history of hip-hop through the eyes of activists, scholars, and indeed some of the hip-hop community’s most vibrant actors*. I highly recommend this film for anyone who even thinks they know something about the story of hip-hop and the contemporary history of African Americans in these United States.

The story begins in the 1980s Reagan/Bush America as lyrical masterminds like Grandmaster Flash utilized poetic wordplay to paint a picture of the socio-economic climate of that era. As many of us are already aware, the policies of the Reagan/Bush movement hit the working class and people of color the hardest, all while seeking to dismantle the gains of the Civil Rights era. The children and grandchildren of the people who led Civil Rights struggles of the 1950-60s, increasingly feeling the brunt of this assault, utilized the environments and resources they had at their disposal to speak out and fight back.

Ironically, the practices and perspectives of this youth-centered movement often brought them into direct conflict with the old guard of the Civil Rights era. Take this exchange between Civil Rights activist Calvin Butts and hip-hop legend KRS-ONE:

“This generation was empowered by the Civil Rights generation; our picketing, our protesting gave this generation the ability to express themselves, to be arrogant, to stand up and to face authority…” Reverend Dr. Calvin Butts, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York, NY

“The difference with the Sixties generation is that they wanted to be part of America; we said ‘fuck America.’” KRS-ONE

The documentary also discusses the roots of the crack epidemic in the U.S. and its devastating effects on urban communities, as well as its alleged government connections, including extensive interviews with recently-deceased journalist Gary Webb, author of Dark Alliance. Both the crack phenomenon as well as the government’s incredibly punitive response had powerful and long-lasting effects on both people of color and the development of hip-hop. “Letter to the President” also details the hip-hop community’s responses to related social ills such as racial profiling, mandatory minimum sentencing, police brutality, and the prison industrial complex.

Finally, “Letter to the President” discusses a newly revitalized political and “conscious” hip-hop in the dark days of the Bush II/post-September 11th era. Modern hip-hop artists grapple with issues such as a PATRIOT Act security culture, covert surveillance of hip-hop artists, and the Iraq war. These artists continue the hip-hop community’s long-standing interest in political critique and action, including the unprecedented participation of the hip-hop generation in the 2004 elections.

A weakness of the film is that it does effectively gloss over much of the legitimate criticism of hip-hop’s misogyny and homophobia, as heard even in the lyrics of “conscious” rappers such as Dead Prez. Even the line-up of talking heads in the film reflects this, being comprised almost entirely of men. Where’s the voice of someone such as Sarah Jones, for instance? The closest that the film actually comes to a real critique of hip-hop culture is in its discussion of hip-hop’s commercialization and the racist censorship of the entertainment industry.

Finally, as a teacher friend has pointed out to me, the film is decidedly aimed at "the chorus," and doesn't do such a great job of really introducing the issues it discusses to folks who aren't already on-board. Hence in her particular case she decided that it probably wasn't appropriate for her white, upper-class college students.

I’ll leave you with these two quotes, both from rapper Saigon, and hope that you’ll check out the film for yourself. It can be purchased online, or hopefully rented at your local video store; but for anyone who can’t afford it, holler at me when I get back to the States and I’ll try to burn you a copy.

“I got a prediction: 20 years from now, the rappers that right now with the pimp hat and the pimp cup, they’re gonna look just like those people who used to dance around in blackface.” Saigon

“Hip-hop is a weapon, and it’s the most powerful weapon we ever, ever had. What else could we do that touches so many people to where people all around the world are trying to dress like us, they’re trying to talk like us, or trying to emulate us?” Saigon

*Featuring commentary by: Davey D., Sonya Sanchez, James Bernard (founding editor of “The Source” magazine), Mystic, Common, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Jeff Chang (author of “Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation”), Chuck D., M1, Quincy Jones, Michael Eric Dyson, KRS-ONE, Kool Moe Dee, 50 Cent, Notorious B.I.G., Dick Gregory, Immortal Technique, Jay-Z, Ice T, Russell Simmons, Ghostface Killah, Ice Cube, Tavis Smiley, Luther “Luke Skywalker” Campbell, Eazy-E, Method Man, Mario Africa, Wyclef Jean, Amiri Baraka, Slick Rick, Larry Flynt, and yes, even MC Hammer, among others.

Goodbye Berea

2006-06-11T21:51:00.000+08:00

My last day in the 'reer, and the parting is bittersweet. Today I officially pack my belongings into the back of the Jeep and begin an indefinite stretch of "walking the Earth." Following a road trip around the Southeast with my little sis and my two youngest cousins (ages 13-15), I'll spend the next 1.5 months bouncing between family and friends in Florida, D.C., Philly, NYC, and the northeast. On July 20, I depart the U.S. for what will tentatively be 17 months of travel through the U.K., India, China, and Malaysia.

Currently, the ever-evolving itinerary is looking something like:
*July 20-31: London and southwestern Ireland
*Aug-early September: India, mostly in and around Delhi
*September: depart for overland route from Delhi to Beijing (a bit iffy at the moment, but hopefully I can work this one out)
*September-late December: China, mostly Beijing and Hong Kong
*late December-late March '07: Malaysia, mostly in Kuala Lumpur, hopefully w/ some backpacking and diving in east Malaysia
*late March-late December '07: back in India, based in Delhi, but hopefully w/ some opportunities to jaunt about.

As I've said before, friends and family are not only welcome, but ENCOURAGED to come visit. It's going to be lonely out there for an inexperienced southern boy far from home, so I hope at least some of y'all will take me up on this offer. I'll also post my Watson and Fulbright research proposals + personal statements online in case you want to get a sense of where my head will be at with all this researchy stuff.

Finally, while I've got your attention, I want to point to one other item that really has nothing to do w/ my travel plans, but which I think is important nonetheless ;)

This story may be old news to those of you who, unlike myself, have had no difficulty traversing the ol' "digital divide" in recent weeks (alas, the life of a construction worker...). But here's a recent note from the good folks at Riseup.net, my email provider:

==> Stop AOL Email Tax <== AOL is adopting a system called CertifiedEmail, which is a threat to a free and open Internet. This system would create a two-tiered Internet in which affluent mass emailers will pay for the ability to deliver mail to AOL users but the rest of us will be left with increasing unreliable service. The "email tax" works by requiring a payment for each message sent to an AOL user. If your email provider doesn't pay, your message is more likely to get blocked. This will have grave consequences for small email providers like riseup.net and any non-profit which sends out large email blasts to its members. For more information, or to sign the protest letter to AOL, see http://www.dearaol.com.

==> Yahoo is evil <== In addition to being boring capitalists, yahoo.com is in the practice of helping to jail Chinese reporters and dissidents. On December 2003, Chinese dissident Li Zhi was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for inciting "subversion" using evidence provided by yahoo. On April 2005, Shi Tao (a journalist working for a Chinese newspaper) was sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking details of a censorship order, again using evidence provided by yahoo.

This horror is not isolated to yahoo: gmail, hotmail, and aol all make it standard practice to turn over requested documents without even attempting to contest the request. The much reported refusal by google to turn over historical search statistics to the US government misses the fact that they already allow the government to scan all gmail traffic (as do yahoo, hotmail and aol).

We encourage you to stop using yahoo and the other services it owns (flickr, del.icio.us, and geocities, to name a few).

Well, that's it for now folks--I've got some packing and driving to do. Sorry for my slackness in corresponding in recent weeks; I promise to try and do better.

Till then, much love to you all,
j

Research Proposal for Fulbright Fellowship

2006-05-24T01:18:00.001+08:00

As a biology student, I have been taught that scientific method is the most reliable process for understanding the natural world. As an environmentalist, I have learned that science is by no means a value-neutral activity. When science is defined simply as “observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena,” (1) it is clear these activities have likely taken place in a wide variety of cultures throughout human history. What remains less clear are the ways and extent to which culture shapes our evolving conceptions of science. If science is to be relied upon as a tool for achieving environmental sustainability, it is imperative that we explore the tension between science as a source of knowledge versus science as a social construct deeply situated within a particular culture.

As someone trained in a particular scientific tradition, I can learn much about the nature of science by viewing it through another lens. Through a combination of independent research and personal interactions which take me outside of my cultural context, I hope to explore the science-culture symbiosis and discern its implications for addressing modern environmental crises. This examination will better prepare me for my future as an educator, scientist, and activist, and the knowledge gained will become increasingly important as human societies are forced to renegotiate their relationship with the biosphere.

India is an ideal setting for this inquiry because of its non-Western influences and its escalating importance in global markets and international scientific communities. While little non-Indian scholarship exists on the history of science and technology in India as compared with other parts of Asia, the Indian subcontinent has a long-standing tradition of scientific/technological development and cultural exchange. Science developed in India prior to significant contact with the West, and India made significant contributions to the early development of Western sciences. India is also home to diverse philosophical traditions, including long-standing Hindu and Buddhist traditions, as well as one of the most sizeable Muslim populations in the world. With its blending of diverse philosophical customs and significant integration of Western epistemology, India offers unique opportunities to explore the tension between modernization and Westernization in a scientific context and to approach the question of how science is influenced by cultural contexts.

The initial stages of my study, which are already underway, involve cultivating a deeper historical understanding of how, and why, science developed in India. An exploration of science history offers important insights into how people’s conceptions of science have changed over time. I want to comprehend how indigenous scientific traditions have compared with Western notions of science and whether contemporary scientists view science as a “universalizing force.” More specifically, I want to understand these individuals’ awareness of science history and philosophy in their respective contexts, their interactions with international scientific communities, and their perspectives on the roles of science and technology in achieving environmental sustainability. I intend to gain these insights through independent research, but also more directly through observation and interviews with science practitioners, as well as science educators and students.

An increased understanding of Indian history, culture, and popular conceptions of science should provide powerful insights into how bio-ethical concerns are both defined and negotiated within India’s societal discourse. While there are numerous contemporary bio-ethical case studies which merit investigation, I have chosen Indian responses to environmental concerns as my primary focus. This approach builds upon my previous research and organizing experiences while offering new insights on the pursuit of environmental sustainability. While India has demonstrated some mid-range successes in this pursuit, (2) it will continue to face many challenges along the way. These challenges include balancing environmental concerns with development needs, as well as overcoming the environmental and social consequences of rapid population growth and industrialization. Through observation and interviews with participants in Indian environmental advocacy organizations, I will gain broader perspectives on the roles science and technology play in both ameliorating and exacerbating environmental crises. In particular I am interested in Indian approaches to defining sustainability and efforts to develop indicators of sustainability at the local, regional, and national levels. In the United States and elsewhere, quantitative indicators are increasingly being relied upon to help guide individuals and policy-makers in assessing the efficacy of their decisions. These indicators incorporate social as well as environmental measurements and therefore serve as an important nexus between science and values.

I have already identified and corresponded with several potential research partners in India. Taken together, these contacts would provide me with access to a wide range of Indian society and hence a significant spectrum of opinion with regard to issues of science, technology, and sustainability. I would like to affiliate with the Centre for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP) at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The CSSP is a premier Indian research center which focuses on many issues germane to my interests. Its faculty members specialize in important areas such as development and globalization, science and the environment, and international scientific communities. The CSSP is also well-situated within a university that has a strong emphasis on the physical sciences, and within New Delhi, the home of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA). INSA provides scientific advice to Indian governments and serves as a national and international scientific forum. The Academy also strives to “maintain liaison between science and humanities” and publishes the Indian Journal of History of Science. I would also like to examine the work of the Indian Space Research Organization’s Science Education Program, which aims to “educate young people around the proliferation of science and importance of scientific method.” Additionally, I have corresponded with a potential NGO partner—the Barefoot College network. The Barefoot College utilizes over twenty informal campuses throughout the country to address pressing local development needs such as clean water, energy, and women’s rights, and employs the concept of appropriate technology (3) in its sustainable development efforts.

It is vital that we examine the question of science’s universality in light of international dialogue concerning development and sustainability. Can we presume that all nations approach science and sustainability with the same assumptions and insights? Although the U.S. prides itself on being at the forefront of scientific innovation, we have much to gain from a citizenry which employs a more sophisticated and cosmopolitan understanding of how science operates. As citizens in a global society with finite resources, we have much to lose by failing to secure environmental sustainability. Through an exploration of science which connects these concerns, I believe I can yield valuable research outcomes in the nine month period (August-April) offered by the Fulbright’s India program. These outcomes will better prepare me for a life of public service and better prepare our nation for the uncertain future ahead.

(1) The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition.
(2) Yale University’s most recent Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) ranks India 101 out of the 146 nations examined, and gives India an ESI score of 45.2 compared with its “peer group” ESI score of 46.7. The ESI is one of several attempts to formulate quantitative indicators that assess nations’ efforts at achieving environmental sustainability.
(3) Appropriate technology utilizes ecological as well as social criteria to design technological solutions fitting the context in which they are utilized.

Personal Statement for Fulbright Fellowship

2006-05-24T01:16:00.003+08:00

As one of my favorite folk singers, Utah Phillips, likes to remind us, “the past didn’t go anywhere.” Yet an interest in the past is a relatively recent development in my life. When I was a youngster I viewed history as boring and mostly irrelevant, and my own past was something I preferred not to dwell on. Unlike many of the kids from my neighborhood, I escaped my past, or so I thought. I found a one-way ticket out of town as soon as I was able to and swore I would never look back. I thought I had left the past behind and could magically transform into a completely new life, a completely new me. I had a lot to learn.

The Job Corps offered me a way out of my home town and taught me there were many kids like me and some who had it far worse. I watched one young person after another slip back into the self-destructive patterns they had been taught their entire lives, but I also learned that not every older person harbored the same disdain and distrust to which I had grown accustomed. I could scarcely comprehend why, but there were people who seemed genuinely interested in being a positive force in our lives and believed we could make something of ourselves if only we were offered a real opportunity. Perhaps most importantly, my time in the Job Corps taught me that people can claim some degree of power over their lives if they put their collective will to the task. It seems in retrospect that lesson was much more important than I realized at the time. Once people begin to perceive a sense of agency over their lives the feeling can become addictive; for me it meant the beginnings of an improved self-assessment and a commitment to struggle against oppression which has continued to shape both my understanding of my origins and my ongoing experiences.

Consequently, the environmental and social justice struggles I have invested so much of myself in and my aspirations to become an educator and work closely with young folks who share my class background are a direct result of my lived experiences and evolving self-perception. In the nine years since leaving the Job Corps, and especially during my time at Berea College, I have learned that not only do I not have to leave the past behind, but my history is an integral part of who I am, how I see the world, and what I have to offer. As a mentor and close friend once told me, “the fact that your mom was a waitress is not parenthetical.”

Just as personal discovery can shed new light on one’s origin, the study of history also offers fresh perspectives on unexamined social dogma. The history many science students receive, for instance, under-emphasizes how scientific communities operate and the often circuitous path knowledge takes to arrive at its present position. As a result, students fail to understand the myriad ways ideology is injected into scientific processes and take for granted the supposed objectivity of scientific knowledge. As I survey the world unfolding around me, I am constantly reminded of dystopian novels such as Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World in which science was used to enslave rather than to liberate. I am increasingly concerned that unless we cultivate a deeper understanding of how science operates, scientific progress is unlikely to bring us any closer to the sort of world we would like to inhabit and may do the opposite.

These days I am growing increasingly enamored with the past. Whether it is the sense of lasting camaraderie which results from exchanging personal stories with other working class young folks or the use of historical research as a means of illuminating the nature of science, I find that history makes the present come alive in ways I never knew it could. Consequently, I am becoming a bit of an exorcist—dragging long-hidden and at times malevolent apparitions into the light of day and forcing them to justify their existence or be banished. I am learning that our past is comprised of more than painful secrets which must be kept hidden; rather, it is an opportunity to let down our defenses and see the world, and one another, with new eyes.

Personal Statement for Watson Fellowship

2006-05-24T01:14:00.000+08:00

“I will save the world from death, disease, and war. I will be the best scientist that ever lived. I will discover, design, and make things that will help mankind. I will help conserve water, electricity, and other things that are important to mankind. I will do all of this when I grow up...”

Jason Fults, age 9, “I Can, I Will” Essay Contest

June 12, 2005, 6:30am; Wombarra, Australia. Why Travel?

It is nearly dawn, my first morning back beneath the shadow of the Illawarra escarpment, but I have been awake for hours; quietly anticipating the moment I could slip out of bed and back onto these once-familiar shores, climb atop this rock on the other side of the planet and sing the Sun into waking. I love these spaces in between—between day and night, between sleep and waking, between being here and where I came from. It is in these spaces insight is revealed. I suppose the longing for insight is why I left home again—to remove myself from a familiar context, to peel away some layers and discover what lies beneath.

Admittedly I surprised even myself with this trip. The past three years working as a full-time organizer for the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) have been among the most unsettled of my life. At times I lived on the road, visiting one campus after another, one training, one conference after another—it was dizzying. No one could have blamed me for wanting to just stay put for awhile, to be comfortable and at home. Yet the sense that something important is happening inside of me is what drove me here—to be with myself again in this place I visited four years ago, to juxtapose my own inner landscape with the ever-changing, ever-constant sea. The insight will come, I am certain, there are many weeks ahead. For this moment though, calm is settling in, the ocean hums, the Sun awakens, I am here.

June 29, 2005; Sydney, Australia. My story.

Thirty years old—how did that happen? I was in the sixth grade when my mom—a waitress, two kids, recently divorced—turned thirty. I remember that year vividly; the year circumstances compelled us to move away from what had passed for stability—four years living under the same roof. Now we inhabited a duplex just on the outskirts of “The Highlands” in Lakeland, Florida, the so-called “rich” part of town. The banal, upper-class existence we witnessed there was a stark contrast to the working-class environs I had always known and I became aware of being “underprivileged” for perhaps the first time. School proved an inhospitable social environment for kids from my side of the tracks so I got my first job and began pursuing my own budding curiosities.

By age seventeen I was working full-time and nearly quit high school, but also began to develop a nascent political awareness, albeit mostly supplanted by the competing, self-destructive pursuits typical of many working-class adolescent males. When I wasn’t occupied by a soul-deadening job, I spent time at the library looking for some way out which I hoped might be found on a dusty, neglected bookshelf. By age twenty I had begun to find my own ways out. Short, cautious steps at first, like visiting friends who had successfully escaped our home town; then bolder moves: my first protest in D.C., hitchhiking trips cross-country, and joining the Job Corps—which brought me, indirectly, to the steps of Berea College.

What I initially intended to be a five-year degree at Berea was “interrupted” by a few years spent as a full-time grassroots organizer with SEAC. Unlike most of my classmates who seemed intent on plowing through their college experience as quickly as possible, I always felt that life experience supplemented rather than detracted from what we were learning in the classroom. My formal education changed my approach to political work, just as my evolving political analysis altered my conception of what it means to be educated. In retrospect it seems several lifetimes have passed between me and the kid who got dropped off by the Greyhound bus in Berea, Kentucky that drizzling February morning. No experience had yet stretched me, had yet nourished me the way Berea has. I co-discovered aspects of myself I never knew existed and learned the responsibilities that are entailed in being part of a community. At the same time, it becomes more apparent with each passing day that my tenure at SEAC changed how I experience the classroom. As if offering me a final opportunity to contemplate these experiences, the College has enabled me to return to Australia for an incredible internship with AID/WATCH and all that comes with it; reuniting with old friends and discovering entirely new aspects of this place, and sitting here sipping hot chocolate on the shore of Sydney Harbor, contemplating thirty years of life on this planet.

August 8, 2005; in bed. Asking the right questions.

Relaxing after a birthday party for one of my AID/WATCH co-workers which kept me out way too late. During a more lucid moment in the evening I had a good yarn with Tim—my internship supervisor—about our childhoods, becoming politicized, and the importance of asking good questions. One of AID/WATCH’s goals is to uncover and challenge assumptions embedded in economic and development ideologies. They assess how Australia’s foreign aid and trade policies affect the social and ecological environments of others. I discovered AID/WATCH four years ago when I last visited Australia and have been interested in the sorts of questions they were asking ever since. This lust for questioning must be the common thread drawing me both to scientists and to rabble-rousers. Different questions, different methodologies, but at the heart of both groups lies a passionate desire to get to the bottom of things.

As a student researcher in the Department of Energy’s Global Change Education Program I worked with top-notch scientists to predict how climatic change might affect deciduous forests. The prognosis was grim and this research fueled my efforts within SEAC to help build a youth movement for clean energy. While at SEAC and during my time with the Madison County Action Team in Berea we questioned dangerous assumptions embedded in U.S. energy policy and campaigned for changes at the local, national, and global levels. My internship with the Chemical Weapons Working Group—where we challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s inadequate regulation of the carcinogen dioxin—instilled in me the importance of both using science as a tool for change and understanding how scientific and technological institutions function. These are lessons I will retain for the rest of my life and tools which I will continue to hone.

Everywhere I have been people look to the experts for direction—the doctors, the economists, the engineers. We often fail to recognize that while these experts may know much about a particular subject, they also come to the conversation with their own interests, ignorance, and ideological commitments. Further, many of the problems we look to experts to solve are not fundamentally technical in nature. AID/WATCH points out, for instance, that the problems faced by so many people in the developing world cannot be solved solely by the cadre of technicians Australia sends to their rescue, but instead demand a fundamental reordering of the power dynamics existing between the rich and the poor. Similarly, while my enthusiasm for the possibilities science offers remains high, my understanding of science’s role in society has changed dramatically. As I survey the world unfolding around me I am constantly reminded of dystopic novels such as Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World in which science is used to enslave rather than to liberate. I am increasingly concerned that unless we get a better grip on relationships between science and culture, between the questions and the questioners, scientific progress is unlikely to bring us any closer to the sort of world we would like to inhabit and may do the opposite.

August 30, 2005; Land O’ Lakes, Florida. Looking ahead.

Back in the northern hemisphere and it feels wonderful to be home. I am readjusting to a new time zone and catching up with a nephew who turned two and a sister who started high school while I was away. Hardly anyone from my large family has ever left the southern U.S. They have a hard time understanding my yearning to “see the world,” as they say, but enjoy the travel stories, photos, and new recipes I always bring home. Throughout my stay my mind has wandered ceaselessly and I cannot stop thinking about graduation and my excitingly uncertain future.

My arrival at Berea was like opening a hidden door in a tiny apartment and realizing I had occupied but one room of a vast mansion all my life. My forays into public citizenship have been equally revelatory. It now appears obvious to me that my relationship with science has changed dramatically, yet before I rush off to graduate school I need to spend some time figuring out what those changes mean. Similarly, the perpetual motion of political work too often leaves little time for reflection. My commitment to the movement remains rock-solid yet I feel I have much more work to do understanding the complexities the future offers and figuring out how I can most effectively intervene in that future. What I most want at this moment is the opportunity to step back, take in the grand view of a yet unexplored physical and intellectual terrain, and further discern what I and the world can make of each other. This opportunity to cultivate one’s vision and to learn from the visions of others is exactly what a Watson fellowship offers.

I am eager to step into places significantly unlike my own to interact with other individuals engaged in the pursuit of scientific knowledge and environmental sustainability. I want to better comprehend how they perceive their work and what our exchanges tell us about the sort of future we can create. I also want to better arm myself for what will certainly be an interesting future whatever its outcome. I believe I have something to contribute to making this world a better place, and I think the nine year-old who set me off on this journey, his optimism and naiveté abounding, might still recognize something of himself if we could somehow meet again. There is a wide, old world awaiting and many important questions still in need of asking. I think this will be a fruitful year.

Watson Fellowship proposal

2006-05-24T01:12:00.000+08:00

Ti-Yong (1): Perceptions of Science and Nature beyond the West

As a biology student I have been taught that scientific method is the most reliable process for understanding the natural world. As an environmentalist I have learned that science is by no means a value-neutral activity. When science is defined simply as “observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (2),” it is clear these activities have likely taken place in a wide variety of cultures throughout human history. What remains less clear are the ways and extent to which culture shapes our evolving conceptions of science. If science is to be relied upon as a tool for achieving environmental sustainability, it is imperative that we explore the tension between science as a source of knowledge versus science as a social construct deeply situated within a particular culture.

As someone trained in a particular scientific tradition, I can learn much about the nature of science by viewing it through another lens. Through a combination of independent research and personal interactions which take me outside of my cultural context, I hope to explore the science-culture symbiosis and discern its implications for addressing modern environmental crises. This examination will better prepare me for my future as an educator, scientist, and activist, and the knowledge gained will become increasingly important as human societies are forced to renegotiate their relationship with the biosphere.

The nations I am proposing for this inquiry—India, Malaysia, and China—are relevant because of their non-Western influences and their escalating importance in global markets and international scientific communities. In each of these settings science developed prior to significant contact with the West, yet each nation also offers unique opportunities to explore the tension between modernization and Westernization in a scientific context. The initial stages of my study, which are already underway, involve cultivating a deeper historical understanding of how, and why, the sciences developed in each of these contexts. I want to explore how indigenous scientific traditions contrast with Western notions of science, and how contemporary scientists view this contrast. More specifically, I want to examine these individuals’ awareness of science history and philosophy in their respective contexts, their interactions with international scientific communities, and their perspectives on the roles of science and technology in addressing environmental concerns. I intend to gain these insights through independent reading, but also more directly through observation and interviews with science practitioners, as well as science educators and students.

Important historical connections exist between cultural views of nature and epistemology; i.e., our view of nature informs how we might best gain knowledge about it. An increased understanding of history, culture, and popular conceptions of science should provide powerful insights into how bio-ethical concerns are both defined and negotiated within societal discourse. While there are numerous contemporary bio-ethical case studies which merit investigation, I have chosen these nations’ responses to environmental concerns as my primary comparative framework. This approach builds upon my previous research and organizing experiences while offering new insights on the pursuit of environmental sustainability. The three nations I have chosen also represent a significant range of success in the pursuit of environmental sustainability. For instance, Yale University’s most recent Environmental Sustainability Index ranks Malaysia 38, India 101, and China 133 out of the 146 nations examined. In the United States and elsewhere, such quantitative indicators are increasingly being relied upon to help guide individuals and policy-makers in assessing the efficacy of their decisions. These indicators incorporate social as well as environmental measurements and therefore serve as an important nexus between science and culture. Through observation and interviews with participants in environmental advocacy organizations in each of these nations, I will gain broader perspectives on the roles science and technology play in both ameliorating and exacerbating environmental crises.

India

Relatively little Western scholarship exists on the history of science and technology in India, as compared with much of the rest of Asia. Yet the Indian subcontinent has a long-standing tradition of scientific/technological development and cultural exchange. India is also home to incredibly diverse philosophical traditions, including ancient Hindu and Buddhist traditions, as well as one of the most sizeable Muslim populations in the world. As the world’s largest modern democracy and one of its fastest growing economies, India is poised to take center-stage in the 21st century. However, it will face many challenges along the way, including overcoming the poverty experienced by much of its population and the environmental and social consequences of rapid population growth and industrialization.

I would like to spend the first five months of my Watson year in India. A strong contact for the initial stages of my study will be the Centre for Studies in Science Policy (CSSP) at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The CSSP is a premier Indian research center which focuses on many issues germane to my interests. The CSSP is also well-situated within a university that has a strong emphasis on the physical sciences, and within New Delhi, the home of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA). INSA provides scientific advice to Indian governments and serves as a national and international scientific forum. The Academy also strives to “maintain liaison between science and humanities” and publishes the Indian Journal of History of Science. In addition, I have identified and corresponded with an NGO partner—the Barefoot College network. The Barefoot College utilizes over twenty campuses (3) throughout the country to address pressing local needs such as clean water, energy, and women’s rights, and employs the concept of appropriate technology (4) in its sustainable development efforts.

Malaysia

I would like to spend the following three months of my Watson year in peninsular Malaysia. Malaysia is a founding member, and one of the more developed, of the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (5). In addition, Malaysia is a charter member of The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) (6). Through its participation in both ASEAN and the OIC, Malaysia is pursuing the formation of a more cohesive international scientific community. ASEAN is also working towards a regional approach to environmental challenges, via several Environmental Working Groups. Given the degree of ASEAN’s cooperation and the diversity of its member nations, it is a microcosm for the integration of diverse scientific traditions and multilateral approaches to environmental sustainability. As such, Malaysia serves as a unique vantage point for exploration of emerging global scientific and civil society communities. It also offers a perspective on how these communities are overcoming, and perhaps benefiting from, what have traditionally been cultural and political barriers to cooperation.
In addition to collaboration with Tata Energy and Resources Institute, whose Southeast Asia office is in Darul Ehsan, I would like to interview and observe scholars in the University of Malaya’s Science and Technology Studies (STS) department, which is unique due to its placement within the natural sciences faculty rather than the social sciences faculty as is found with most Western STS programs. My primary contact in the Malaysian scientific community will be the Malaysian Academy of Sciences (Kuala Lumpur), which facilitates Malaysia’s international scientific partnerships such as those found in ASEAN and the OIC.

China

I would like to spend my final four months in China, primarily Hong Kong and Beijing. Due significantly to the scholarship of Joseph Needham, in recent years Westerners have gained a better understanding of the history of Chinese science. Scientific development in China occurred with little Western influence throughout much of its history, and as such offers exciting opportunities for exploring interesting philosophical questions regarding the relationship between science and culture. Beyond purely philosophical objectives, China’s role in world affairs and the global scientific community, as with both India and ASEAN, is of increasing importance. China is also under significant scrutiny by much of the West, who view its environmental and human rights policies as deeply flawed (7). Given the size of China’s population and its growing industrial might, these issues can scarcely be overlooked.

My initial contact in China is the Global Environmental Institute, co-founded in 2003 with Worldwatch, who alleges it is “China’s first independent, knowledge-based environmental NGO.” In addition, I have been invited to collaborate with a Chinese NGO “Friends of Nature,” which is currently creating a “Green Exchange” program with the aim of facilitating information and resource exchange between Chinese student environmental groups and their international counterparts. I also plan to draw upon the resources of the U.S. Embassy’s “Environment, Science, Technology and Health Section,” which is located in Beijing and has researched China’s environmental policies extensively. Finally, the Center for Applied Ethics (Hong Kong) has expressed an interest in collaboration. An interesting backdrop to these interactions will be China’s preparations for the 2008 Olympics, particularly its efforts to meet the environmental standards required by the Olympic Committee.

In discussing his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein acknowledged not only his colleagues in the scientific community, but also David Hume, a philosopher whose work helped Einstein to recognize the anthropocentric assumptions buried deep in Newtonian physics. As a nation which prides itself on being at the forefront of scientific innovation, we have much to gain from a citizenry which employs a more sophisticated and cosmopolitan understanding of how science operates. As citizens in a global society with finite resources, we have much to lose by failing to secure environmental sustainability. As a Watson fellow, I believe I can yield valuable knowledge through connecting these concerns, knowledge which will better prepare me for a life of public service and better prepare our society for the uncertain future ahead.

(1) Ti-Yong is a Chinese phrase reflecting ongoing debates about the possibility of importing foreign methodologies (e.g., technology) while maintaining traditional culture. Ti means "substance" or "essence" and yong means "function" or "utility." A popular phrase in this debate is "Chinese essence, Western utility," or zhongti xiyong.

(2) The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition.

(3) Barefoot College is not an accredited university, but something more akin to a network of extension agencies like those found in rural areas of the United States.

(4) A phrase derived from Gandhian economic principles, appropriate technology utilizes ecological and social criteria to design technological solutions fitting the context in which they are utilized.

(5) ASEAN has a combined population in excess of 500 million, a GDP of $737 billion, and is working towards a significant integration of its member nations on nearly all fronts.

(6) The OIC is a 57-member international body which aims to “safeguard the interest and ensure the progress…of Muslims in the world over.”

(7) E.g., China’s low Environmental Sustainability Index rating; in addition, Freedom House’s 2005 “Freedom in the World” report ranks China as “not free.”