News from the Eastern front

I’ve just had a terrific Saturday, testing on a real class some of the contents in Eco-nomics (a sustainability education program I’ve designed over the summer).

Needless to say, there was lots of stuff that just didn’t go as planned. Surprinsingly, not even the ready-made materials I had taken proved class-proof. Quite to the contrary. But the experience has been unforgetable, and there are a few points I have identified. I’ll mention them here, just in case someone is interested or in a position to design such material.

1. Time – it’s always different when you actually start the lesson; whatever you plan on paper, a precautionary 30% needs to be added if you have a passion for the subject (less if it’s not your main topic, you’ll not rant as much ); of course, always have a few topics up your sleeve, in case the process works much faster than you expected

2. Team-work – team activities ending up in individuals answering your questions can be an issue if you’re targeting teenagers; first of all, noise is likely to erupt if you’re not particularly good at controlling them; second, it takes a lot of time; third, if the topic is not ‘hot’ enough, it can be boring; an option would be to have the kids work on something touchable, on an interactive or at least artistic presentation – even one that they can leave behind, like a coulurful flipchart. If they’re interested, you’ll get them talking about the subject even after the lesson it’s finnished.

3. Simulations are a bitch! – the only advice I can give for these is test them to pieces; the greatest problem is getting participants to understand what they’re supposed to do and, even if it is a tested simulation, you may have issues with it if you don’t know it. Of course, anything that can create confusion MUST be simplified … unless that’s the purpose behind it of course.

Well, all these comments are pretty general, but if it is stuff you haven’t done yet, I hope they help. In any case, desinging a learning process is a very very challenging task – but a fascinating one as well. I highly recommend it, as you will learn a lot about yourself and do take someone with more experience in teaching/training, because you’ll get a lot more out of it.

Have fun!

Vote on water

The Economist has fascinating recurring debates and the latest one is really really interesting: should water be priced according to its real market value to give people a sense of what it means to ‘produce’ clean water and discourage waste?

Very controversial subject, I agree. There’s a log of reasons why we shouldn’t do it – from the ethical to economcal ones -, but we cannot deny the fact that current practice has encouraged tremendous amount of squandering.

My opinion is that, while the proposition has merit in respect with domestic owners, the crux of the problem are industrial polluters, since they can circumvent it simply by using and abusing water from natural sources, without paying the necessary green premium.

I cannot agree with pricing water for a simple reason. It is the essence of life, the one resource that we need above all – bar oxygen. I’m not saying this as an ethical thing, but as a real issue. Give ownership and exploitation rights to corporate conglomerates, put a price on it, and the painful gap in clean water access will deepen even further. Corporations are, no matter how ‘charitable’ the people leading them, sociopathic constructs (not my contention, I’ve seen research about this and promise I’ll post a link soon) and those not having the money will not have the access. That’s how it works – period.

Anyways, that’s my opinion. You should state yours and the Economist gives you a grand way to do it and learn more about the issue, since they have expert comments on it too.

www.ted.com

Re-discovered one of the best websites out there. It’s called TED.com and the idea is as simple as it is brilliat: a collection of brilliant speeches from brilliant people.

Of course, you can find speeches on environmental topics too. Here‘s one to start you up .

Choices: of climate change and chocolate

Iceland has a big environmental problem: lots of cheap, clean energy.

It’s probably a paradox to say that, but apparently it’s an issue for policy-makers faced with people protesting against one of the country’s most important industries. Aluminium smelting plays a big part in the Icelandic economy, surprisingly since they have no bauxite. However, smelting is a very energy-hungry process, and Iceland, with its geothermal and hidro- power plants, seems to be an industrial heaven – even if that means shipping the ore from the extraction location.

Now, here’s the “beauty” of the dilemma. Environmentalists in Iceland are against using their country’s “pure” sources of energy for the process, but then again, ship it to China, and the next soda can you drink will have a good few kilos of coal on its guilty conscience – and you won’t even bother, because hey, what are externalities for if not to provide us with that precious comfort called blissful ignorance?

That’s the sort of environmental problem that I both love and hate, because there seems to be no way out of it. Aluminium consumption won’t drop very soon, at least not without help, so what’s the option? Use clean, cheap energy to encourage continued glutonous consumption of aluminium, while wrecking the beautiful Icelandic scenery? Or save what’s untainted and let those furnances keep on spewing smoke?

None of the scenarios are very likable, are they?

The way I see it, we should be thinking differently and the first thing that pops into my mind is the Cradle to Cradle philosophy. Aluminium is probably the best material to make us consider this question since it is probably the material most worth recycling – way cheaper than smelting it. So, why not think of new ways to design an aluminium product so that it almost recycles itself?

Chocolate wrapping for instance. I must say I had to look up why chocolate is wrapped in aluminium foil so much, but apparently it’s not just a marketing gimmick (uh, look, shiny!) – there are a few solid reasons for that. But it is such a waste – ever seen anyone recycle chocolate wrapping? Nope.

However … if it would be as easy as dropping it into the mailbox? Imagine all chocolate wrapping like a pre-stamped postcard, chuck into the mailbox and the postman knows he must put all chocolate wrapping in a separate bag, which goes to recycling.

What about cans? What if instead of reading some stupid code on the bottom of the can you register for the Win-A-Car-Competition by turning in 10 beer cans at a recycling center? What about doing the same with PET bottles? Wouldn’t that be a good CSR project, oh, you mighty polluting corporations?

…

Some of this stuff doesn’t entirely makes sense, I know. The part about chocolate wrapping is delirious – not because it is the postman who should collect, but because people won’t throw it where they should in the right place. Not everywhere at least, and this is where we get to the really sensitive point.

You see, sustainability is not about government – local or from far, far away – telling you what to do with your garbage or coming to your home to shut your TV when you’re not watching it. Sustainability is about giving a damn. It’s about educating your children and, most of all, educating yourself.

If you’re poor, you have the right to know and it may well be in your interest to know. I strongly believe that people who have the strength to preserve a clean environment in spite of it all have the strength to bail their community out of the sinkhole.

If you’re rich, you have the right to remain silent. There’s no excuse for not knowing, and no excuse for not acting accordingly.

So … how sustainable is your lifestyle? It’s a question we should be asking ourselves continously – in terms of health, relationships, financial matters and, of course, environment.

They’re all linked, you see …

Environmental education

If you’re ever in need of some educational materials for primary school to highschool that can involve children in interesting activities about sustainability, visit Facing the Future.

I ran into their website while doing research for Eco-nomics, a sustainability education program I have been developing at work this summer. They have complete curricula for sale, with aids and all, and also free lessons to download and easily implement. Very interesting stuff, I’m thinking about giving it a try myself sometime.

Deep Economy

I just rememberd a book I read a couple of months ago and definitely thought I should mention it. It’s Bill McKibben‘s Deep Economy and it’s a very interesting read.

Basically, the book is a fast-paced manifesto taking a look at the shape and size of  present-day economics – especially the American model. While it’s no scientifically conducted reasearch, I think it’s really elegant in connecting the dots bewteen people’s values and perception of wealth or happiness and the way these have become reflected and, most of all, shaped by patterns of production and consumption.

Give it a read and give it a thought, it’s both enjoyable and thought provoking.

Fishy questions

Hi!

I’ve read a very interesting article on the Economist about applying tradeable permits as a solution to the old tragedy of the commons problem in commercial fisheries across the word. You can find it here and the information is available on many other news websites. Good to have different perspectives.

The article argues, based on the conclusions of a trio of scientists, that permits may just be the solution for many fisheries, although they are very much unused at the moment (out of about 11,000 fisheris only 121 use them). Here’s where you can find more about the scientists themselves, just in case you want background information or connected articles: Cristopher Costello; John Lynham; Steven Gaines.

Of course, the system is not bulletproof – by far – and the most important obstacles to implenting it successfully seem to be fishery diversity (in terms of catch variety and unequal distribution of the catch), as well as people: first of all, assuaging their fears or convicing them there’s long-term profit in it, provided they care about long term profit, and second, the politics and bureaucracy of implementing and policing the systems. Most of the articles have a few words on these challenges, but as far as I’ve seen, the one on BBC gives my favorite account of the issues.

I’ve always been skeptical about market-based, market-driven environmental instruments, but for “race to the bottom” situations, this seems an interesting alternative by providing people with solid incentives to stop exhausting resources – something that overall quotas have failed to do so far. One thing that pops into my mind right now is that communities would definitely gain out of longer, less intense fishing seasons: people get a more stable source of income and even if salaries are lower than the one-shot premiums of intense seasons, they amount to more per annum; safety is increased and less people die or disappear on the sea, which contributes to healthy, better provided families; and an increased interest in providing stewardship for the seas can be a good starting point for people to realize that they can improve their community in other ways too, through collective behaviour.

Do give the article a read, it’s really interesting, and let me know what you think.