The Turkish Taksim Gezi Park Protests: Not Just a Green or Political Protest!

Taksim Gezi Park (www.showdiscontent.com)

Taksim Gezi Park (www.showdiscontent.com)


The recent and ongoing protests in Turkey related to the Taksim Gezi Park redevelopment are not only an example of a lack of participatory and community decision making that serves to make cities and urban spaces less sustainable and /or equitable. The protests also serve to highlight the importance of Public Open Space (POS), and specifically soft and green POS in the creation of sustainable cities.

We all know that sustainable cities need effective public transportation systems and high density mixed land uses. However, often during the planning process; public transportation, density, efficiency and the need for mixed use urban environments as well as politics and economics tend to overshadow the need for soft and green POS. This ultimately results in urban environments which are lacking in softer spaces.

In order to create sustainable and equitable urban environments it is essential that we are able to balance the needs of public transportation, density, the need for mixed use urban environments, politics and economics with the societal, cultural and environmental needs. We need to always bear in mind that there is a great deal of value in soft green public open spaces that is often overlooked in the search for the creation of sustainable cities and a focus on energy efficiency and density. This has resulted in the undervaluing of soft, green public open spaces.

If we increase the value we place on soft and green public open spaces we will be able to move towards ensuring that such open spaces are able to compete with and balance out the need for harder public open spaces such as service roads, malls and parking lots during the planning process. In so doing we may be able to prevent protests and political unrest such as we are experiencing in Turkey.

The Park after site clearing prior to construction (www.showdiscontent.com)

The Park after site clearing prior to construction (www.showdiscontent.com)

Some of the key and important services provided by soft or green public open spaces are;
•As spaces for cultural and social interaction
•As breathing spaces from the urban activities
•In the provision of essential ecosystem and climate change mitigation and adaptation services offered by such as;
oClimate regulation
oReducing air pollution and acting as carbon sinks though the provision of ecosystem services provided
by trees and vegetation.
oActing as wetlands and sponges to facilitate a more effective and less expensive way to manage storm
water runoff (than building systems of concrete sewers and drainage ditches etc).
oActing as biodiversity islands

The Turkish government’s proposal to redevelop the existing Taksim Gezi square and park reveals the need for not only participatory planning, transparency of government and accountability but also a need to ensure that a balance is found between social, political, economic and environmental needs.

Protesters (www.showdiscontent.com)

Protesters (www.showdiscontent.com)

Additional reading on the Turkish Taksim Gezi Park Protests;
on usatoday
on wikipedia
on Taksim Platformu
on showdiscontent

Greening or Green Washing Gucci!

Gucci's Green Range

My initial reaction to the launch of the Gucci ‘zero-deforestation’ handbag collection was a combination of disbelief and suppressed excitement. Excitement… if I saved enough I could possibly buy myself an awesome bag that is sustainably produced. Disbelief… nothing is ever as green as it seems, intentionally or unintentionally.

One of the biggest “issues” in my life is trying to balance my love for pretty-blingy-fashiony- baubles and my need to be sustainable and minimize my impact on nature…. This is not an easy issue to overcome… however, I try to not fall for the pretty things that the world throws my way by buying long-lasting classic items of clothing that are sustainably and equitably produced etc. Unfortunately, as we already know labels and greening campaigns etc are often nothing more than green wash and marketing campaigns that have little sustainable substance and tend to complicate matters.
So I set out to determine whether I could buy a bag from Gucci’s Green range without negatively impacting my ecocred.

On the plus side the range;
•Is made from zero deforestation-certified Amazon natural calf-skin leather hand-and originating in Brazil
•Is crafted with craftsmanship respecting important environmental issues such as traceability and anti-deforestation.
•Involves Gucci pledging to donate 50,000 euros to the National Wildlife Federation, an organization that works to promote sustainable, ecologically-sourced Brazilian leather.
•Only organic cotton is used in the construction of the bag inners.

On the negative side:
•There is no (know) independent non-fashion industry related audit or traceability process to prove that the leather is in fact Zero deforestation-certified. Each handbag comes with a “passport” that provides the history of the product’s supply chain going back to the ranch that produced the leather. There is no evidence to suggest that the passport is audited by a reputable organization etc
•We know that organic cotton is not necessarily good for the environment due to production processes, and agricultural practices including child labour, large water footprints and mono-culture etc (See previous ecocred articles on organic cotton and Victoria’s (not very angelic) Secret and the Levis article.)

So where does that leave me and my attraction to shiny-fashiony baubles?

Well… I like the idea and concept and applaud the effort. I would however like to see a more integrated and holistic approach to the marketing of the range of bags that discloses the fact that certain aspects of the bag may not be as sustainably produced as initially thought, such as the supposedly organic cotton. My reasoning behind this is that by being honest about the challenges that we face in creating totally green and sustainable products we are in fact increasing the knowledge of consumers and also making people realize that is it not a simple thing to produce 100% sustainable and equitable products. A product having some sustainably sourced and produced components does not comprise a sustainable product, if other unsustainably sourced components form part of the same product. Such knowledge could help consumers move to more sustainable consumption patterns and also better understand the complexities and challenges related to enabling a transformation to sustainable production and a sustainable economy.
Maybe, Gucci need to disclose the not so 100% greenness of the bag and use the opportunity to show how they intend to and hopefully eventually get to the point when they can truly say that they have a range of bags that is truly green. This would in my humble opinion be a more honest and credible and sustainable way of marketing the Gucci Green range.

So in conclusion, yes I would like a Gucci bag, though, I think I need to wait and save up for the bag as well as to see if the bag is in fact as green as all the hype!

References and additional reading
Ecocred Victorias Secret Article
Monga Bay
Luxury insider
Gucci Green Carpet challenge
Ecocred Levis article

Earth Hour 2013: Try And Make Your Earth Hour Action Really Sustainable ….

It’s been a year since Earth Hour 2012 and I really hope that whatever it was that you did for Earth Hour last year has made a meaningful difference to the Earth and to your Ecocred.

My view on Earth Hour hasn’t changed in the last year, click here for my 2012 post on the subject.

There have been quite a few similar blog and news articles with similar thoughts on the Earth Hour debate. This is positive and I guess points to the fact that people are beginning to understand that we should be making sustainable and longterm Earth Saving commitments and not commitments that comprise primarily of greenwash, feel good, short term actions. So …. if you do decide to do something for Earth Hour try and commit to making your Earth Hour action something long term sustainable and not greenwash! That in my opinion would be the best thing to do to make Earth Hour really make a difference!

20130323-151030.jpg

20130323-152248.jpg

Joining the Climate Change Dots and an Awesome How To Win Any Climate Change Argument Flow Chart!

20130304climateFlowchart_jpg_CROP_article920-large

At least once or twice a week I end up having to explain, discuss, or argue my view on climate change. Often the discussion, (civilised or not so civilised) results in a stand-off. Leaving me thinking that; either some people are just not able to join the climate change dots or I am terrible explaining simple concepts.

Fortunatetly, a friend of mine (thanks, you know who you are) came across an awesome “How To Win Any Climate Change Argument Flow Chart” and sent it through to me. Because we all know that it is all about winning and helping others I thought I would share the awesome flow chart with your guys! So… below you will find the flow chart that was created as part of the Climate Desk collaboration by James West.

Your Opportunity To Influence the Millenium Development Goals!

save_earth_poster_by_mythshift

A few months ago I posted a piece on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and why I think that it is important that they are the MDGs revised and reworked to ensure that they are appropriate to the current environmental, societal and sustainability context.
To summarize the MDG post; we have the MDGs and have been working towards them for a while; however there doesn’t seem to be much progress in terms of sustainable development.
(Please have a read of my post on the MDGs for more of my thoughts…. if you haven’t already or you need a bit of a refresher!)

So I was very happy to find the interactive MyWorld site! Some information on the MyWorld survey is as follows;
•MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens.
•The site aims to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.
•Through creative online and offline methods, MY World asks individuals which six of sixteen possible issues they think would make the most difference to their lives.
•The sixteen issues have been built up from the priorities expressed by poor people in existing research and polling exercises and they cover the existing Millennium Development Goals, plus issues of sustainability, security, governance and transparency.

I like the fact that the UN and its partners are through the site trying to “capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.”

That said, whether the people’s voices and concerns are effectively considered in the reworking of the MDG’s is another story all together. However, I do think it is important that when given such opportunities we take up the opportunity, and voice our thoughts. So, if you are keen to play a role in your own future I suggest that you pop around to the site and rank your six priority issues! (Taking the survey would also increase your ecocred! Something I know you all would love to do…. !)

I ranked my priority issues and found the process rather frustrating, I wanted to tick all the boxes, so after much debate and discussion with myself I chose the following six:
•Affordable and nutritious food
•Freedom from discrimination and persecution
•Better job opportunities
•Protecting forests, rivers and oceans
•Equality between men and women
•Access to clean water and sanitation

I would love to see what your priority issues are so if you do take the survey and still have some energy left afterwards please drop by and let me know!

To read my previous post on the MDGs and why they need a rethink click here!

The United Nations wants to hear from you. I have just told them my priorities for creating a better world. Join me and vote here!

A Bottled Water Resolution for a More Sustainable 2013!

Image

Many of us are lucky enough to live in an area where the municipal water is safe and potable. Despite this many people living in such areas prefer to consume bottled water. Maybe they think it’s a sign of wealth, or its healthier or its cooler. In reality bottled water is really just unsustainable and not necessarily healthy, and definitely not “cool”.

The town of Concord in the USA, has started the year with the promulgation of a law, making single-serving bottles of water illegal. The law aims to discourage the use of bottled water and encourage the use of tap water and help in combating the worldwide problem of plastic pollution. Ten ecocred points to the town of Concord!

I thought this was a great way for the town start 2013 as the law is significant in more ways than one, as its impacts go beyond the reduction of plastic pollution. The bottled water industry, like most things in life, has impacts that we often don’t see and therefore do not consider. The consumption of bottled water is also associated with carbon emissions, inequitable water use, and inefficient energy use, commoditization of nature and a natural process, inequity and a lack of sustainability. Thus the impact of bottled water goes further than discarded plastic bottles often seen littering roadsides, rural areas, rivers and beaches.

Image

The bottled water industry may be seen as an indicator of a larger unsustainable consumption pattern or problem that many people are not fully aware of. I could go on and on about why bottled water is so very very bad and you would probably get very tired and bored while I list all the reasons. So I thought it easier for all concerned if I provide a little information on the key reasons that I believe bottled water consumption is unsustainable. I am not going into the issues in detail, but you can always find more detailed information on the topic as there are tons of articles etc out there. In addition I will also leave some links behind that you could follow should you be keen.  

The key reasons for dropping your bottled water habit are;

  • Toxicity and health: Most plastic water bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that is associated with ill health and toxicity. In addition plastic bottles are known to leach harmful chemicals into water that could have health impacts.  

The World Health Organization states that chemical contaminants, such as lead, arsenic and benzene, may be present in bottled water.

(nowastewednesdays.com 2011)

  • Quality: Municipal water is regularly tested and the quality is regulated, not all bottled water suppliers and processing plants are regulated and tested.

“in the industrial world bottled water is often no healthier than tap water, it can cost up to 10,000 times more.” (www.treehuger.com,2006)

  • Energy use: the bottled water industry is energy intensive and has a large carbon footprint. Energy is used to transport water to the bottling plant and to transport bottles from the bottling plant to consumers. This results in unnecessary energy use and carbon emissions.

municipal water requires only a little energy to pump the water through pipes to our homes”

  • Oil use: many billions of barrels of oil are used to manufacture plastic bottles. This may be seen as unnecessary use of oil. Oil mining, processing and combustion are associated with environmental degradation; reduction of oil use would benefit us all. One way of reducing your oil use would be to stop the unnecessary consumption of bottled water. 
  • Equity and Commoditization of water: Bottled water companies are using water, a natural resource, as a private commodity. In order to secure profits such companies are trying to and have often succeeded in securing access to water resources such as aquifers and wetlands. In the long term this could have dire consequences for food security, environmental health and the economy, as many people may not be able to afford water due to rising water costs, profits and the commodification of water.   

“Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.”

http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/5-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water

  • Pollution and waste: a great deal of the plastic used for water bottles does not get recycled and ends up in landfills or littering out urban and natural environments. The management and landfill of waste especially plastic is costly and this cost could be avoided by not consuming bottled water. A lot of the plastic bottles that don’t get landfilled and or recycled end up in nature where they cause litter and harm to nature and natural processes.  

Image

So if you want to start of 2013 with a quick, easy to keep and sustainable resolution all you have to do is quit you bottled water habit! This would simply entail:

  • Always asking or non-bottled water, unless you are in an area where there is no safe potable water.
  • Carrying your own water bottle (not plastic) with you and fill up at water fountains, taps etc.
  • Choosing non-bottled water whenever you have to option to do so. E.g. if you are at a meeting or conference or workshop and bottled water is provided ask for non-bottled water.
  • Asking for tap water when dining out and the waiter suggests bottled water for the table.

The multiplier effect of reducing your bottled water consumption also will include the following “good and green’ actions;

  • Reducing your carbon footprint
  • Reducing the amount of plastic waste that has to be landfilled or becomes litter landfilled
  • Ensures that access to water remains a basic right for all, not just for those that can afford it.
  • Support your municipality
  • Prevents the privatization of water
  • Prevents the unsustainable use of aquifers and water resources.
  • Prevents unnecessary energy use.
  • Prevents environmental degradation.
  • Saves you money.

 

 

References and more information:

http://news.iafrica.com/quirky/834862.html

http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/5-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water

http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/cac/water/bottled_water/bottled_water.pdf

http://nowastewednesdays.com/2011/03/09/bottled-water-a-bigger-enemy-that-you-think/

http://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/purchasing_guides/bottled_water_university_edition/social_environ/

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/bottled-water-what-a-waste.html

http://www.responsiblepurchasing.org/purchasing_guides/bottled_water_university_edition/social_environ/

Is Credit Risk Affected By Environmental Degradation ?

Most people in the natural resource and environment or sustainable development sectors are aware of the linkages between environmental degradation, the unsustainable use of natural resources and economic costs.

However, it has been quite difficult to highlight the impact of the above on the costs of funding as well as the availability of credit. An exacerbating factor is the difficulty often encountered in ensuring that environmental risks are effectively considered in development and credit assessments.  Most businesses, banks and DFIs are beginning to pay more attention to environmental and sustainability issues. However, this often takes the form of mere lip service, green washing, or a basic compliance approach. In many cases the integration or mainstreaming of sustainability issues are left to the marketing department, and regarded as an add on or fringe department.

The impact of this has been a dilution of what was meant to be the mainstreaming of environment and sustainability considerations into business and the economy. This has also resulted in external risks to the financial and economic system being underestimated. One such risk is environment related credit risk, which has the potential to negatively impact multiple financial markets and have potentially significant economic and social impacts.

Some of the potential impacts and risks have been identified in the UNEP FI report titled; A New Angle on Sovereign Credit Risk. While focused on sovereign credit risk, the report raises issues that are not necessarily new or restricted to the sovereign credit risk sector. This is due to the fact that the findings of the report are based on bio-capacity and ecological footprint concepts that highlight some of the key development and economic related risks and issues.

Interesting points raised in the report are:

  • Natural resources, both renewable, such as biological resources (food and fiber), as well as nonrenewable resources (fossil fuels, ores and minerals) are critical to each nation’s economy.
  • To date, risks stemming from renewable resources in particular are not well-considered in sovereign credit risk assessments.
  • Traditional sovereign credit risk analysis appears to inadequately reflect pressures from increasing global natural resource scarcity, environmental degradation and vulnerability to climate change impacts
  • This report addresses how and why natural resource and environmental risks are becoming financially material for sovereign credit risk, not just in the medium term, but even in the short run.
  • A 10 per cent variation in commodity prices 0.2 and 0.5 per cent of a nation’s GDP. Given the recent fluctuations in commodity prices investors should take note of these issues in the short-term (0 – 5 years).
  • A 10 per cent reduction in the productive capacity of renewable, biological resources, and assuming that consumption levels remain the same, could lead to a reduction in trade balance equivalent to between 1 and over 4 per cent of a nation’s GDP. Given the growing body of scientific evidence on ecosystem degradation and climate change impacts, governments, bondholders and credit rating agencies should take note of these issues in the short to medium term.

Despite the implementation of sustainability reporting and compliance measures within organizations and the banking sector issues such as sovereign and credit risk seem to have been sidelined, diluted and or overlooked. The report is a great place to start the discussion on effective and integrated environmental risk assessment  and will hopefully encourage the type of planning and assessments measures at all levels and in all sectors which do in fact ensure sustainable development.

 Click here to read the report!

Seafood: Fraud, Mis-labeling and Laundering.

Do you know what seafood you are eating?
http://www.ecowatch.org

Many of us eat seafood, because we like the taste, for religious or cultural reasons, and or for health related reasons; high in omega fatty acids, healthier than red meat etc. I particularly enjoy good seafood paella, a platter of sashimi or a plate of fish and chips. However, in order to ensure that the seafood that I eat is sustainable and healthy, I always try to ensure that the fish I eat is local and caught or farmed in a sustainable and ethical manner. In this way I also try to minimize the chance that the fish I eat is not full of pollutants and heavy metals.

I am often “that” person who while at a meal or while out shopping quizzes the wait staff or manager about the origin of the fish on offer. Sometimes the discussion is informative and helpful but very often I get blank looks and end up having to explain the importance of eating local, ethical and sustainable, to someone who is generally looking at me like I am a crazy person and thinking to themselves that I should just “get on with it and make a decision!”

Fortunately, in the last few years the various stakeholders within the biodiversity and seafood sector have tried to educate the public about sustainable seafood consumption and how to choose seafood that is healthy without becoming a contributor to fishery collapse and loss of biodiversity.

These education measures have taken the form of outreach programs, licensing and quota systems, DNA testing, cell phone apps, pocket guides, websites aimed at preventing  the consumption of seafood that is unsafe for consumption or the consumption of species that are  on their way to becoming extinct or endangered. This has made my dining and seafood shopping experience a bit easier and calmer.

However, I recently came across an article that mentioned seafood fraud and seafood laundering, that sent me into a bit of a panic. I had never actually though of seafood fraud and seafood laundering ever having anything to do with each other let alone having anything to do with me.

“Regardless of the reason, seafood fraud is illegal and can have serious consequences for fish, fishermen, fishmongers, and fish-eaters.” (www.fishwatch.gov).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/oshadavidson/2011/05/26/dna-tests-show-fraud-in-seafood-labeling-is-widespread/

Popular fish and their frauds (from “Bait and Switch,” Oceana). Correct answers are : 1. Fish on the left is Nile perch. 2. Right is mako shark. 3. Right is rockfish. 4. Left is farmed Atlantic salmon.

Seafood laundering occurs when seafood and seafood products are laundered through a third-party to avoid duties and licenses and increase catches and profits. Such laundered seafood enters the market illegally and results in mislabeled seafood, seafood fraud, and ecosystem collapse and resource depletion. Seafood fraud also occurs when farmed, important or endangered seafood is labeled as sustainably sourced and or wild seafood. Seafood fraud can happen at each step of the supply chain – the restaurant, the distributor, or the processing and packaging phase. Seafood fraud occurs “for a variety of reasons, from simple misunderstandings or lack of information to blatantly deceiving consumers in order to increase profits, or even worse, laundering illegally harvested seafood (http://oceana.org).

Seafood fraud not only causes the collapse of fisheries which would in turn affect our dietary choices and make dining out or grocery shopping  that much more stressful, but, seafood fraud also has significant impacts such as;

  • Impacts on natural systems: The loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services due to the fact that consumers may be misled about the nature and status of fish stocks and the condition of the marine environment due to mis-labeling, which maintains the appearance of a steady supply of popular fish species despite severe overfishing. This result in the general public is being unaware that the species that they are consuming is being rapidly depleted or threatened.

The oceans provide food, medicine, energy and serve as a recreational resource, but they are not as once commonly believed, an inexhaustible resource. (http://oceana.org)

  • Undermining of conservation efforts as a result of mis-labeling. Mis-labeling of seafood makes it difficult for consumers to make eco-friendly choices despite the will to do so.
  • Negative health impacts: Consumers may end up consuming seafood that contains high levels of contaminants and toxins such as mercury. This could be hazardous to the health and wellbeing of women trying to conceive, pregnant woman, nursing mothers and young children.
  • Negative impacts the livelihoods of communities that depend on the seafood harvesting and processing industry.
  • The creation of a market for illegal fishing by making it easy to launder illegally      caught seafood products through legitimate markets. This results in the      undermining of conservation efforts to prevent overfishing and accidental      capture of at-risk species and hurts honest fishermen. (www.oceana.org)

Despite the fact that you may be trying to consume only sustainably caught and healthy seafood (two points for trying) that is not full of toxins and or about to go extinct there is quite a high possibility that you have consumed illegal and fraudulent seafood.

I thought I would be able to provide a tip on how to ensure that your seafood is legal, non-toxic and sustainable. However, I find myself stumped …..  Clearly, the seafood labeling and conservation initiatives are not fool-proof. I guess once again the message is the same; don’t blindly accept the packaging, advertising, greenwash and the hype and try to ensure that your individual consumption of seafood is in fact what it is labeled as being.

References and additional reading for the super keen;

Fishwatch

Seafood advice

Complete List of Seafood Eco-Ratings

State of World Fisheries

Fishwatch facts

Oceana

Fur, Fashion and Ecocred

www.cbc.ca

A significant increase in fur use within the fashion industry over the last two or so years indicates a departure from the anti-fur and animal rights sentiment and campaigns that characterized much of the green and ethical consumption discussions between the 60’s and 90s. I find this quite interesting given the increasing attention of the world on sustainability and green issues that has been brought about by a greater awareness of environmental degradation, equity, resource scarcity and climate change.

Fur use has a long history spanning from ancient use of fur to current fur use. A (very) brief history would be something like;

  • Necessity where our ancestors killed an animal for necessity i.e. for sustenance (meat) and used the rest of the animal in a sustainable manner such as using the inedible parts of the animal for clothing, tools etc
  • Status symbol: the association of fur and royalty (specifically ermine, mink)
  • This in turn resulted in fur being farmed (1800’s) and becoming a costly luxury item.
  • The development of cheaper options such as dyed and fake fur
  • Anti-fur campaignscommencing in -+ 1960’s (onwards), that resulted in reduced fur use. e.g.
    • PETA was established in 1976 and Lynx in 1980
    • Naomi Campbell and other super models in PETA campaigns
    • Lynx “it takes up 40 dumb animals to make this and only one to wear it” campaign

Fur sales have seen an increase of approximately 70% between 2000- 2010, and fur seems to be de riguer in most winter fashion collections and those in the fashion forward and trend setting scene. In many of instances the fur used is real and not fake, and there seems to be a growing acceptance of fur as a sustainable and natural choice. Considering the speed at which trends spread, especially in the fashion industry, this trend does not bode very well if you happen to be a creature with a beautiful and silky pelt.

In light of the above, given rise in sustainability, environment, green wash,ethical consumption and the fact that fur is a natural “resource” that is being positioned as a benign natural product by the fur industry, I thought it wise to look into the ecocred of fur. Is fur sustainable,green, ethical, equitable and good for us?

These are the issues that I think one should consider;

  • History shows that the fur trade has negative impacts on biodiversity and has resulted in species decline and biodiversity loss. As we know we need to maintain our biodiversity to ensure the provision of ecological services etc
  • Fur and leather are natural, recyclable and reusable.
  • The impact of fur farming includes pollution, waste, habitat loss, loss of biodiversity unethical treatment of animals and is hardly sustainable and or ethical, just like large-scale cattle or sheep farming.

“Compared with textiles, farmed fur has a higher impact on 17 of the 18 environmental themes, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions. In many cases fur scores markedly worse than textiles, with impacts a factor 2 to 28 higher, even when lower-bound values are taken for various links in the production chain. The exception is water depletion: on this impact cotton scores highest.” (Bijleveld et al, 2011)

  • According to the International Fur Trade Federation (IfTF) “Both scientists and governments agree that after more than 100 generations, farmed fur animals are effectively domesticated. In a statement to the Dutch Government in 1999, the Danish Justice Ministry noted that “The farmed mink’s temperament, for instance, has changed from being a nervous, agitated animal fleeing to its nesting cage upon approach of human beings, to now often reacting curious and examining.” Not really sure I like where this train of thought is going…!?
  • A lot of us eat meat, (though hopefully you try to eat free range, local and organic etc to try to reduce the ecological footprint of your meat consumption and be more sustainable), so technically you are involved with the killing of animals as well as habitat loss and loss of biodiversity already. Does this make wearing fur more acceptable, sustainable or ethical?

“ The climate change impact of 1 kg of mink fur is five times higher than that of wool which was the highest-scoring textile” in a study on the textile industry and climate change impacts. (Bijleveld et al, 2011)

  • Even if you are vegetarian or vegan you are to some degree involved in habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, killing of living things etc unless you are able to grow your own food and verify that there has been no negative ethical or environmental impact arising from your source of food.
  • International Fur Trade Federation (IfTF) also states that “the majority of wild species used by the fur trade are not taken specifically for their fur, but as part of wildlife management programmes. These are necessary for the maintenance of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, population and disease control and the protection of public lands and private property. The international fur trade does not handle any endangered species and to this end supports the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
  • There is also a great deal of evidence of inhumane treatment of animals as part of the fur manufacturing process.

I haven’t covered all the impacts or aspects of fur and I could go on and on and on about the ethics and environmental impacts, some positive, most negative.

My aim is to highlight the fact that it is up to each of us to ensure that we recognize the real impacts of our fashion choices. Personally it’s about necessity, demand and not falling for the green wash that fur is green and sustainable within our current context.

I would rather not add to the demand for something that is not a necessity and also has a significant environmental impact, despite the fact that I love fashion and would love to wear something awesome, soft, warm and beautiful. If I have to keep warm I would prefer to do so with something that has the lowest impact and not something that adds unnecessarily to environmental degradation even if it’s is the height of fashion. If you have to up/ recycle an old, over 20 or 30 years) fur item but don’t add to the needless demand for fur.

Reference and additional readings for the super keen:

History of Fur: http://www.furgifts.com/?p=90

http://www.historytoday.com/carol-dyhouse/skin-deep-fall-fur

IfTF: The Socio-Economic Impact of International Fur Farming www.iftf.com

Marijn Bijleveld, Marisa Korteland, Maartje Sevenster The environmental impact of mink fur production. Delft, CE Delft, January 2011

http://www.oikeuttaelaimille.net/materiaali/esitteet/information%20about%20fur%20farming.pdf

World Bank, Development Delusion and Other Interesting Articles

Just read a great and informative article about the World Bank entitled “The World Banks Development Delusion”. The article briefly explores the history of the Bank and argues the need for change in the funding approach used by the World Bank, in its attempts to facilitate development and reduce poverty. The article made the following interesting points:

  • History shows that most of the countries that have come under the sway of the World Bank – and its sister institution, the IMF – have experienced declining development outcomes over the past 30 years or so.
  • Developing countries need much more control over decisions that affect them. Power in the World Bank is presently apportioned according to members’ shares, just like in a corporation. Major decisions require 85% of the vote, and the United States, which holds about 16% of the shares (and controls the presidency), wields de facto veto power. The same is true of the IMF. Developing countries together hold less than 50% of the vote, which is shocking given that the institution supposedly exists to promote their welfare. • Development aid should be delinked from corporate bonds. This would take Wall Street’s interests out of the equation, eliminate the pressure to siphon wealth from debtors, and allow the bank to evaluate its performance on the basis of poverty reduction outcomes instead of loan volume, as is the current practice. (http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/jasonhickel/2012/09/28/the-world-bank-and-the-development-delusion/)

The article also reminded me about the poem The Development Set. Yes, I know I always mention this but it’s only because it’s so true and I have yet to see any real evidence of development finance institutions trying to steer away from being tarred by the same brush that tarred “The Development Set”.

Should you wish to find out more on unsustainable aid, read the article on the World Bank and its development delusions and or read the poem The Development Set, check out the links below:

The need for Sustainable Aid

Aid, Development and the Development Set

The World Banks Development Delusion

Infrastructure Development and Funding