Brighter Green http://www.brightergreen.org/ Brighter Green en-us Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:38:02 -0500 Copyright 2006 brightergreen.org Brighter Green http://www.brightergreen.org/images/minicon.gif http://www.brightergreen.org/ 16 16 <![CDATA[ Biogas: The Future for China’s Livestock Production? ]]>

Biogas plant at a large-scale chicken production facility in China connected to the national grid

I

Unlike the highly industrialized U.S. livestock sector, which consists mainly of a small number of large-scale farms, the livestock sector in China is still fairly fragmented, taking mainly three forms. The first is small-scale, household backyard production, which has been the tradition here for thousands of years. Each household raises several head of pigs and some poultry. The second is specialized household and commercial production—whether one specialized farmer or several households keeping hundreds of pigs in one production district. The third is large-scale intensive and standardized production. Large-scale usually means having more than 500 pigs or over 5,000 chickens in one farm.

Although household backyard production still makes up most of the livestock sector, specialized and large-scale production is quickly taking over. In China, large-scale production is favored, and is linked to standardization because it’s considered easier—when compared with scattered household backyard production—to control inputs and outputs, enforce environmental regulations, and control disease outbreaks. This kind of production is not equivalent to the U.S. large-scale, factory-style farming, since the U.S. model of large capital investment and intensive use of land make it impractical for the Chinese.

“The technology is ready. Pollution from the livestock sector can be managed if the government wants to,” says Dr. Tian Weiming from China Agricultural University. By technology, he's referring to a biogas digester. Unlike the typical U.S. way of treating animal waste by discharging it into lagoons and spraying it on fields, China has developed its own way to promote what it calls the “circular economy”—by using biogas.

A biogas digester works by converting animal waste through bacterial decomposition into organic fertilizer (the liquid form of the end product) and gas, under either an aerobic or anaerobic environment. The digester has immediate benefits: organic fertilizer can be used instead of chemicals for farms; and the gas can be used for cooking, heating, electricity generation, or fuel for vehicles. As Cai Changda, president of Hangzhou Energy & Environmental Engineering Co. Ltd. (HEEE), the most experienced and advanced biogas tech company, has said, “The biogas digester is environmentally friendly in two ways. On the one hand, it deals with animal waste; on the other, it’s a great source of clean and renewable energy.”

II

China began applying biogas technology in the late 1920s. Biogas facilities were widely and rapidly applied during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but the speed compromised quality, proper regulation, and sound management practices, and the number of biogas digesters that worked was small compared to the number installed. During the late 1970s and 1980s, the Chinese government invested more in R&D for biogas technology and exchanged knowledge with other countries.

By the end of 1997, it’s estimated that 6.38 million household biogas plants and over 600 biogas digesters existed in medium and large-scale farms. Between 2003 and 2009, the government invested 19 billion yuan (approximately $US2.78 billion) in building biogas facilities, so that by the end of 2008 there were 30.5 million household biogas tanks and 2,700 biogas digesters in medium- and large-scale farms.

The government is continuing to increase investment in the technology, shifting the focus from household to medium- and large-scale farms. The Mid- and Long-term Development Plan for Renewable Energy (PDF, in Chinese) has set a goal of having 40 million household biogas plants and 4,700 biogas digesters in medium- and large-scale farms.

Household biogas plants are used only for cooking and heating; medium-scale farms generate electricity, too, but mainly for use in the facility itself. However, three large-scale farms with their biogas facilities are now connected to the national grid.

In spite of the growth of biogas facilities, the proportion of households and farms using biogas digesters remains still low, which may be one important cause for agricultural pollution in China. According to a China Daily report that cites Zhang Qingfeng, a leading water resources management expert at Asian Development Bank, “about 35 million of the 140 million rural households were using biogas digesters by the end of 2008 . . . less than 1% of the 4.2 million large-scale farms for pigs, cattle, and chicken use biogas digesters to dispose livestock waste.” The main barrier is cost.

The government is now paying household farmers about half the cost for installing a biogas digester, though the policy in different provinces can vary. Even so, each household still needs to pay several hundreds or even thousands of yuan compared to simply discharging waste into waterways for free (though some local governments levy strict fines for doing this). Furthermore, although using biogas for cooking and heating may save households some living expenses, using it requires knowledge, additional costs for maintenance, and the application or sale of manure. Some small-scale farms may not produce enough animal waste to produce biogas, and even if they do, maintenance costs and manure may remain an issue. Several households sharing one biogas facility may also cause logistical troubles.

The government is subsidizing medium- and large-scale farms more fully, although the investment remains still too high for an owner worried about turning a profit. One pig farm I visited with around 7,000 pigs in stock and an annual output of 20,000 had a biogas facility that cost 2 million yuan (approx. $US290,000). The farm was a local “circular economy” demonstration site and was getting a lot of government support. However, the farmer had still needed to pay slightly less than half the cost of the facility.

A further issue concerns environmental regulations, such as the installation of biogas facilities, which are always more difficult to enforce on existing farms than new ones. Indeed, some existing farms may avoid the need to invest if they have a good relationship with the local government. For bigger farms, economies of scale may make it more appealing to have the facility and connect it to the grid; however, managing it properly is likely to be challenging, and a government subsidy will most likely still be necessary.

From what I see , I’m quite confident that China will be able to deal with waste from the livestock sector. That said, it requires effective regulation, technical support, and cooperation across different sectors. ]]> Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:16:31 EST (Stella Zhou) <![CDATA[ Challenges Facing Brazil's Amazon and Cerrado ]]> Multimedia Analysis: Globalization of Factory Farming documents the spread of western methods of intensive animal agriculture, as well as the social, environmental and animal welfare consequences.

This six minute video highlights the effects of large-scale cultivation of soybeans for farmed animal feed and cattle and other livestock production on some of Latin America's most important biomes.

]]> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:00:00 EST (Jesse Carollo) <![CDATA[ The Complexities of Livestock in Ethiopia ]]> Multimedia Analysis: Globalization of Factory Farming documents the spread of western methods of intensive animal agriculture, as well as the social, environmental and animal welfare consequences.

This short video focuses on Ethiopia, and that country's multi-faceted and challenging relationship with livestock in the context of food security, climate change, development deficits, and ecological stress.

]]> Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:13:54 EST (Jesse Carollo) <![CDATA[ China's "Garbage Pig" Problem ]]>

Pigs at a local dump feed off of waste

In China’s poorer provinces, "garbage pigs" can be seen roaming through dump sites, feeding on leftovers from households and restaurants. This practice has existed in certain parts of China for over 20 years now, usually stemming from small households that are most vulnerable to rises in feed prices.

In 2006, China passed the Animal Husbandry Law of the PRC that prohibits the use of swill and dump waste as animal feed, arising mainly out of public health concerns. Swill and dump waste are typically loaded with health-threatening microorganisms and other pollutants, that can cause serious diseases in pigs, resulting in pandemics. When humans consume this pork, (which they do often, as "garbage pigs" are prone to grow more fat, catering to local tastes) they can also fall ill.

Though the 2006 law was by and large a response to the media exposures of the country’s "garbage pig" phenomenon, the passing of the law failed to bring about an end to this practice. For China’s small farmers, "garbage pigs" are essential to their livelihoods. While the price of normal feed has been increasing, farmers can raise "garbage pigs" at essentially no additional cost. Small farmers are therefore protected from pork price fluctuations.

An industrial "garbage pig" chain has emerged, from garbage collection to slaughter. Formal slaughterhouses usually require certificates to prove vehicle disinfection, inspection and quarantine, as well as ear tagging. Theoretically, "garbage pigs" can obtain neither inspection nor quarantine certification. However, with middlemen paying the slaughterhouses an additional 20 yuan (approx. USD 2.93) per pig, "garbage pigs" have made there way into the formal slaughterhouse system. "You just pay more money. It’s very easy to get stamp(ed)," said one pig farmer.

This issue illustrates the lack of reinforcement associated with the animal husbandry law as well as the shortcomings of government regulation. Fragmented regulation makes it easier for different agencies to shirk their responsibilities. The local environmental protection, hygiene, and animal quarantine departments are responsible respectively for waste management, food safety during distribution, and animal quarantine. No single agency is responsible for coordinating all the departments. Plus "garbage pigs," usually exist on such a large scale and involve hundreds of households in one area, overwhelming the often understaffed food safety and environmental authorities.

To end this practice also means addressing the concerns of small households, which is simply too difficult job for local governments. Just as a "garbage pig" farmer said in the news: "The government did issue a ban (on such practices) but it won’t work. To tell you the truth, these "garbage pigs" are more precious than our own lives. If they (the government) stop us, we’ll fight (with) our lives!"

Photo courtesy of daynews.com ]]> Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:13:52 EST (Stella Zhou) <![CDATA[ Water for All? ]]>

A sign outside the World People's Conference on Climate Change

Behind closed doors, world leaders are currently debating a draft resolution that recognizes the right to water and sanitation as a basic universal right. For the two billion people living in water-stressed regions, and the three billion with no running water within a kilometer of their homes, access to clean water seems an obvious component of the rights to an adequate standard of living, which the United Nations does recognize. However, the resolution, put forward by Bolivia, has irked heads of a number of wealthy countries around the world, including the US, UK, Australia, and perhaps most notably, water-rich Canada.

It comes as little surprise that Bolivia is the driving force behind this critical issue. Cochabamba, a Bolivian city to the southwest of La Paz, was the center of a water war ten years ago, as farmers, factory workers, and cocoa growers descended on the Andean city to protest the privatization of Cochamaba's water system. The multinational corporation Bechtel, had won the rights to Cochabamba's water in 1999, after the World Bank and then President Hugo Banzer placed Cochabamba's public water system on the market. Less than a year after this deal was brokered, Bechtel increased the cost of Cochabamban water by as much as 60 percent, pricing out a majority of the city's population. Three months of protest later, the people of Cochabamba emerged as victors, having pushed Bechtel out of their city and regaining control over their municipal water system.

Water remains a top priority for Cochabambans today—and all other communities dependent on glacier meltwater for that matter—as glaciers retreat and the effects of climate change are increasingly felt. The push to recognize water as a fundamental human right was a central issue in the Cochabamban-hosted World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held last April. The final agreement's text "demand(ed) recognition of the right of all peoples, living beings, and Mother Earth to have access to water."

As Bolivian President Evo Morales tries to make good on his country's climate change agreement, expect continued resistance from wealthy nations, as they move to protect their rights to commodify natural resources. The Bolivian-led resolution should reach the UN General Assembly President by the end of July, and will likely remain a hot topic in the build up to the Cancun Climate Change Conference this November.

Photo courtesy of Kris Krug ]]> Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:48:25 EST (Justine Simon) <![CDATA[ Rhino Redress? ]]>
Rhino

Not still standing

After the good news from South Africa's hosting of the World Cup (unless, of course, your favorite team lost early and badly), comes the opposite. The last female rhino in Kruger National Park has been killed by poachers. Rhino poaching is on the rise. The animals' horns, sawn off, with the rest of the body left, are sold on the black market primarily to Asia. "Last year, 129 rhinos were killed for their horns in South Africa," Kruger's chief ranger said. "This year, we have already had 136 deaths." Many poachers operate like syndicates now. They have high-tech equipment, manpower, money, and global networks. South Africa is committed to protecting its rhinos, but rangers are often out-flanked. This particular rhino's calf was with her. The baby has been moved to a sanctuary. Two other orphaned rhinos are there already.

Photo courtesy of Arno & Louise ]]> Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:39:38 EST mia@brightergreen.org (Mia MacDonald) <![CDATA[ UN Climate Change Negotiations: Current Realities and the Way Forward ]]>

The UN hosted the panel at which the talks took place.

I was recently able to attend an event related to climate change that was held at the Temporary North Lawn Building of the UN. The event was moderated by Shetal Shah of Nord-Sud XXI, and the panel consisted of the Ambassador of Bolivia to the United Nations, Pablo Solon, as well as co-director of the International Action Center and author, Sara Flounders.

The panel was held in a moderately sized conference room filled, pretty much, to capacity. Not knowing exactly what was going to be talked about, I was pleasantly surprised to find that attendees were provided with a copy of a table comparing the People’s Agreement with the Copenhagen Accord, which was to be one of the focal points of the discussion.

One of the key differences highlighted by the table included the People’s Agreement’s ambitious plan to limit global temperature increase to 1 degree Celsius, compared to the Copenhagen Accord’s 2 degrees Celsius. Even more interesting, perhaps, and one of the primary focuses of the panel, were the differences in funding. According to the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, while the Copenhagen Accord currently asks only .005% of developed nations’ GDPs between 2010 and 2012 (a figure that could rise to .05% by 2020), the People’s Agreement would be looking more in the range of 6%. The difference in the two figures is, quite obviously, phenomenal. If anything is to be done about climate change, it will require a very solid investment on the part of developed countries, and the Agreement reflects this where the Accord might fall short.

Solon placed emphasis on the Copenhagen Accord being one of reciprocity, while the People’s Agreement is one that focuses on the historical nature of emissions. Though the emissions of developing countries are rapidly rising, Solon and the People’s Agreement ask us to reflect on the nature of emissions in the past as a way of planning for the future. The developing nations of the world’s emissions are rising, but the developed nations’ emissions have been high for a great deal of time already. Rather than just dwelling on this, however, it is crucial that we look at now as an opportunity to direct funds towards helping nations avoid the mistakes and pitfalls associated with being so reliant on non-renewable energy and unsustainable practices.

Photo courtesy of Ashitakka ]]> Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:08:20 EST (Jesse Carollo) <![CDATA[ Rooftop Gardens in Hangzhou, China ]]>

A harvest of towel gourds and hot peppers

"We can eat these towel gourds from the garden tonight," says my dad, holding the vegetables in his hand. Three years ago, he frowned at my shift to a vegetarian diet and labeled me as 'primitive'. But now, rooftop vegetable gardens like his are becoming increasingly popular in his city Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province in the southeast of China near the coast. From his rooftop you can see twenty or so similar gardens dotted throughout his residential neighborhood.

My dad started his rooftop garden two years ago. He got two crates from a nearby fruit store; soil from the agricultural university nearby; and seeds (he originally just planted hot peppers and towel gourds) from a nearby market. According to my dad, the cost is almost zero: "I only had to buy the seeds once, and I’ll be able to save the seeds from this year’s crop. What I contribute most is labor." He collects rainwater also on the rooftop to water the plants. If it hasn’t rained in a while, he’ll water from the taps instead. "I don’t use chemicals or fertilizers at all," he tells me, collecting instead the leftovers of soymilk (which we make at home from soybeans for breakfast), watermelon peels, bean peels, and pigeon waste from our neighbor, to use as fertilizer.

Today, he grows hot peppers, towel gourds, tomatoes, bottle gourds, scallions, green Chinese cabbage, and eggplants. Almost 20 percent of the vegetables we eat come from the garden, and our garden supplies all the scallions, peppers, cabbage, and gourds that we consume. "If I had a larger space, I would be able to grow all of our veggies," says my dad, smiling. He dreams of having a piece of land after he retires.

The rooftop garden has become one of his greatest sources of joy and pride, and has also inspired him to change his diet. When I turned vegetarian, I tried to persuade him to eat less meat out of health, food safety, and environmental concerns. He wouldn’t listen at the time and stuck to his meat-centered diet. "After I started growing the vegetables myself, I began to love them—they look fresher and taste better than those available in the market," he tells me adding—"And, I’m able to oversee their growth. Everything is visible. I know where I get the seeds, the soil, the fertilizers, water. It’s 100% safe."

Photo courtesy of Stella Zhou ]]> Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:11:27 EST (Stella Zhou) <![CDATA[ The Gulf Coast Oil Spill: Two Months Later ]]>

Over 700 birds have been found oiled but alive; fewer than 100 have been successfully cleaned and released.

Yesterday was the two-month anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On April 20th, an explosion on a BP-operated oil drilling rig 40-miles off the Gulf Coast left 11 workers dead and an unknown quantity of crude oil gushing into surrounding waters. In the last few weeks, estimates of the severity of the spill have continued to rise: Initially, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that there were approximately 5,000 barrels of oil gushing from the underwater well each day; now the estimate is 40,000 to 60,000 barrels per day. After several unsuccessful attempts to staunch the flow of oil, BP installed a new containment device on June 3rd that is collecting approximately 15,000 barrels per day; a second device was installed on June 16th. (Unfortunately, some reports show that this tactic may have actually increased the quantity of oil gushing from the underwater well.)

It's difficult to measure the spill in terms of numbers when they seem to be changing almost daily. However, I made a few calculations based on recent figures:

(Assuming a daily flow of 50,000 barrels, which is 10,000 below the highest estimate)

From April 20 to June 2nd, before the containment cap:
43 days * 50,000 barrels = 2,150,000 barrels

From June 3rd to 21st, assuming that the cap collects 15,000 barrels per day:
18 days * 35,000 barrels = 630,000 barrels

That's a total of 2,780,000 barrels, or 116,760,000 gallons.

Assuming a price of $77 per barrel, $214,060,000 worth of crude oil has spilled into the Gulf so far. BP reports that they have already spent $2 billion dollars trying to repair the damages, including $105 million that has been paid out to 32,000 claimants, which is not included in the $20 billion escrow fund set up last week to compensate victims of the spill. Almost three million barrels of crude oil have spilled into the Gulf, but the value of this oil is nothing compared to the costs of cleaning up this disaster.

And what about the costs that are much harder--if not impossible--to measure? A new website is reporting the consolidated counts of wildlife deaths since the spill began. As of June 20th, the number stands at 934 dead birds, 380 dead turtles, and 46 dead mammals. However, the true numbers are probably much higher, since animals that die in deep water are unlikely to be found and recorded. On June 15th, an NOAA ship found a 25-foot juvenile sperm whale corpse floating about 77 miles from the origin of the spill, which may be the "largest victim yet". Will BP be setting aside a separate escrow fund to compensate the pelicans, dolphins, sea turtles, and fish who have lost their habitats and found their fur, feathers, and scales covered in a thick coat of black oil? Somehow I doubt it. The New Yorker cover from June 7th depicts a panel of oil-covered animals holding court in front of suited executives; a seabird crosses his arms across his feathered breast and a dolphin scowls through the brown splatter covering her beak, while a balding white man raises his right hand. I don't need to hear the animals speak; I think I know what they would say.

This isn't the only striking imagery that has emerged from the oil spill, especially in reaction to the government's response and BP CEO Tony Hayward's questionable dedication to the cleanup efforts. The Huffington Post published a memorable collection of Anti-BP art, which includes photoshopped images of Spongebob Squarepants, Aquaman, and the Little Mermaid covered in oil. These graphics make it blatantly clear that we blame BP for this disaster--and so we should, especially as more evidence of dubious practices within the company and aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig emerge. However, we must also blame ourselves. We, the American people, have resisted a reduction of our dependence on oil; we still cling to our enormous SUVs and over-sized homes. We are angry now, but are we angry enough to make long-term changes in our own lives?

In Nigeria, people are shocked by the anger and media attention that has been directed to the Gulf Coast oil spill. For the last fifty years, crude oil has been spilling into the Niger Delta, as much as the Exxon Valdez spilled in total, every year. The Niger Delta, which supplies 40% of the crude oil imported by the United States, was once a lush tropical land; now it has become the oil pollution capital of the world. Writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people of Nigeria, says, "If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention. This kind of spill happens all the time in the Delta...When I see the efforts being made in the US I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards." If anything good is to come of the tragedy in the Gulf Coast, perhaps it will be an enhanced global awareness of the impacts of the oil industry around the world. This disaster may put a face on the great hardships caused by our relentless extraction of petroleum from the earth, whether the face belongs to an unemployed fisherman in Louisiana, a farmer in Nigeria, or a Loggerhead sea turtle. Whoever it belongs to, it is a face covered in thick, black oil.

This Saturday, a national anti-offshore drilling campaign called Hands Across the Sand will be hosting demonstrations around the country, including a rally at Coney Island Beach. Meet near the NY Aquarium at 11am; at noon, join hands on the beach to say NO to offshore drilling, and YES to clean energy policies. For more information, please see the event's Facebook page.

Photo courtesy of the International Bird Rescue Research Center ]]> Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:26:02 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ Who Will Protect China's Small Farmers? ]]>

The majority of China's pigs are still raised by small-scale farmers.

China’s hog production practices have shifted greatly over time as the country has transitioned into a market economy. “It was really easy to get a loan in the 1980s,” recalls Mr. Liu, owner of Fu Hang farm, a medium-sized pig farm located in the Northeast part of Zhejiang Province. “I signed a contract with food companies which not only promised to purchase my pigs but also subsidize their feed.”

In 1988, the Chinese government launched the Vegetable Basket Project in an effort to ensure the supply of non-staple foods such as vegetables, dairy, pork and poultry products. “At that time, there was a very small number of pig farmers,” explains Mr. Liu, adding “when government officials had a meeting with us in the 80s, they encouraged us to raise pigs and provide food for the huge population. But now,” he continues, “if we have a meeting, we’re told not to do this or that, to get our animals vaccinated or get fined! They don’t want us to raise pigs any more—it’s not worth it. It’s very land and water intensive and the government has to worry about the environment too. In Hong Kong, the government gives you money if you quit. If you add up all the costs, it’s a lot cheaper to import meat.”

True. China, traditionally self-sufficient in meat production, has become increasingly reliant on imports to meet domestic demand. According to statistics from China’s Ministry of Agriculture, the country imported 447,000 tons of meat products in 2007—a nearly 88 percent increase from the previous year’s levels. Meat imports have been rising steadily at an annual rate of just over 21 percent, and in 2007 and 2008, meat imports surpassed exports for the first time in China’s history. The country’s pork trade has been picking up since 2000, with pork imports, peaking in 2003, resuming growth in 2006 after two years of declined sales. It’s predicted that China will grow into a major pork importer in the near future as urban centers expand and domestic demand grows.

“There’s no safety net for us. The government simply does not care—I’m all on my own,” laments Mr. Liu, watching his pigs being trucked out of his farm. And yet, Mr. Liu is certainly not the most vulnerable. China is implementing drastic changes in its agricultural practices as it moves towards large-scale intensive operations. At present, small-scale household backyard production still dominates China’s hog production. The overwhelming majority of hog farms have fewer than 6 pigs, with such farms producing over half of the country’s pork. Despite this trend, specialized hog farms such as Mr. Liu’s, as well as large-scale hog production enterprises, are becoming increasingly common in the country, pushing small-scale farmers out of the market.

While farmers like Mr. Liu are left to battle the economy and government, corporations, both domestic and transnational, are reshaping China’s hog industry—mirroring the government’s evolution from extensive to intensive economic policies. China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation (COFCO), China's largest food processor, manufacturer, and trader, has been drastically restructuring itself to secure its leadership in both the Chinese and global food market. It aims at building a vertically integrated food supply chain—and making it big.

In late 2009, COFCO acquired Maverick Co. Ltd., a joint venture between US-based Smithfield Foods and Belgium's Artal Group, for 194 million yuan ($23.37 million). The ambitious acquisition showed COFCO's determination to emulate western-style intensive production systems, valued for cutting back on production costs. In the meantime, COFCO devoted billions of RMB into building large-scale hog production demonstration sites all over China, with annual throughput of one to three million pigs.

COFCO's ambition is met with competition from abroad. Since China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the Chinese government has increasingly freed trade in agricultural products and lessened restrictions on foreign investment, which has infiltrated the entire pork supply chain from feed to slaughter, processing, distribution, and trade. Foreign investment is especially concentrated in the upstream of the supply chain—production and slaughter—where the livestock production system can be modified the most. It’s estimated that foreign investment accounts for over half the hog industry’s capital.

“We face the greatest risks and make the least (profit),” Mr. Liu says, as trucks carrying well over a hundred pigs leave his farm. As China embraces intensive agriculture, who will protect the country’s small farmers? And how will China’s government tackle the broad social, economic, cultural, and environmental consequences of prioritizing cheap production at the expense of all else?

Photo courtesy of Stella Zhou ]]> Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:00:32 EST (Stella Zhou) <![CDATA[ Raising China's PIgs ]]>

Pigs at Mr. Liu's farm

“You stand to lose if you’re in the business,” says Mr. Liu, owner of Fu Hang farm, a medium-sized pig farm located in the Northeast part of Zhejiang Province.

The farm has twenty sheds with a total of 158 rooms, each of which holds eight to nine pigs, making a total of around 1,300 pigs. “It used to be common practice to discharge waste into waterways. But now, nobody dares to do so! The local environmental protection authorities are fairly strict. You will get huge fines!” says Mr Liu, throwing his hands in the air. Instead of disposing of the waste, the family collects the pig manure to use as fertilizer on the fields, and the urine for biogas to cook.

Mr. Liu, who started with two sheds two decades ago, managed to keep and expand his business despite drastic changes in the industry and Chinese economy. “I love pigs. Raising pig is my family tradition,” Mr Liu replies with a smile, when asked his motives for maintaining his business in these tough economic times.

In 2007, the government initiated a policy of subsidizing 100 yuan (approximately $14.6) per sow in an effort to boost supply and drive down the price of pork. The policy attracted a great number of farmers into the business. “I made a great fortune in 2007. But now…” Mr. Liu shakes his head, “there’s too much competition. When it’s really bad, I lose on average 100 yuan per sow.” Besides the intense competition, decreasing demand in the local markets and rampant disease also contribute to these losses.

According to the China National Bureau of Statistics, pork consumption, both in urban and rural areas, has been on the rise since the 1980s, reaching its peak in 2005 and hovering around that point ever since. The gap between urban and rural consumption is narrowing which, by official interpretation, means plenty of room for growth in rural consumption. The proportion of pork in overall meat consumption, however, is decreasing due to the development of poultry-based fast food industries, among other factors. Nevertheless, pork consumption is predicted to pick up because of its low price and traditional role as the most popular meat in China.

While pork was 28 yuan (approximately $4) per kilogram in 2008, current prices hover around 20 yuan (approximately $3) per kilogram. However, Mr. Liu does not believe that the price reflects the real cost of safe and good-quality pork. “Foot and mouth disease, which we call No.5 disease in China, is a big problem that has not been taken seriously by the government. The government speaks high-sounding words, but the Japanese government killed and buried sick pigs. In China, they (pigs with diseases) all end up in the market. If the Chinese government was to take these diseases seriously,” Mr Liu pronounced, “the price of pork would add up to around 40 yuan ($5.86) per kilogram.”

Photo courtesy of Stella Zhou ]]> Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:21:22 EST (Stella Zhou) <![CDATA[ Bhopal: An Ongoing Tragedy ]]>

A Bhopal rally in 2002

This week, India's Supreme Court convicted eight former executives of Union Carbide India Limited--a subsidiary of the American company Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemical Company--of negligence in the Bhopal gas leak, which exposed at least 500,000 Indians to 40 tons of toxic methyl isocyanate gas. The leak, which is considered "the world's worst industrial disaster" killed at least 3,000 people instantly and thousands more after being exposed to contaminated air and water; government agencies estimate a total death toll of 15,000 lives. The eight executives (one of whom passed away before the conviction) were sentenced to two years in prison and fined Rs. 100,000 (about $2,100). What is perhaps even more shocking than these seemingly lenient convictions is the timeframe--the court's decision arrives more than a quarter century after the Bhopal gas leak, which occurred in December 1984.

Today, over 400 tons of hazardous waste remain buried at the site of the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, which is now owned by the Indian government. A large slum now borders the 11-acre site; the informal housing settlement grew rapidly after the disaster, drawing poor people seeking cheap land, unaware of the long-term impacts of the gas leak. In an open pit near the factory's wall, where workers once dumped toxic sludge, children now swim in the "pond" on hot days. During the monsoon season, rising water levels cause the pit to overflow into the neighboring slum's streets and alleyways.

Although the government still denies the lasting impacts of the Bhopal disaster, activists paint an ugly picture of thirty-year-old women going through menopause, babies born with cleft lips and twisted limbs, and children with damaged brains, who are unable to speak or walk properly. In 1989, the Union Carbide company was able to reach an out-of-court settlement, avoiding legal ramifications by paying $470 million to victims (each of whom received about $550). Now, the Indian Parliament is considering the 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, which would cap the maximum reparations for a nuclear accident at Rs. 500 crore (about $107 million). If such a bill passes, who will remember the victims of Bhopal and the innumerable social and ecological damages caused by the gas leak? This bill--like the United States' Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which places a $75 million cap on oil spill reparations--protects corporate interests, rather than safeguarding the people and the environment from immense tragedies like the Bhopal gas leak.

Photo courtesy of Ascanio Vitale ]]> Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:30:55 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ Don't feed the zoo animals (And please don't eat them either) ]]>

Would you eat kangaroo tail for lunch?

At the Beijing zoo, you can admire the plumage of brazen peacocks, watch hippos play in the water, and observe scaly crocodiles basking in the sun. Then, when you get hungry, you can dine at the zoo's restaurant and eat the same species that you paid to come see! The Bin Feng Tang restaurant's menu includes exotic dishes such as shark fin soup, kangaroo tail, hippopotamus toes, and--for the boldest customers--deer penis. Ge Rui, of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, says, "One of the zoo's missions is to foster love of animals and a desire to protect them. But by selling the meat of caged beasts, this zoo stimulates consumption and increases pressure on animals in the wild. It is socially irresponsible." However, the zoo argues that the meat served in the restaurant comes from exotic animal farms and that its purchase and sale is perfectly legal. Legal or not, how can this zoo ignore the fact that this practice is promoting a distinction between the animals in the cages and the animals that end up on patrons' plates?

Unfortunately, the Beijing zoo isn't the only place where exotic animals are treated as commercial property and profit generators, without regard for the health of the animals themselves or the preservation of their species. Last month, Zimbabwean wildlife authorities sold two 18-month-old baby elephants to North Korea for $10,000 each, despite North Korea's questionable history of animal rights. In Iraq, an exotic animal market in Baghdad sells lion cubs, monkeys, porcupines, owls, bears, crocodiles, and pelicans--among other species--to anyone who has enough money to buy them. Local families use the market as a zoo; even if they cannot afford a lion cub (about $6,000), they can watch the animals from their cages or take home a more reasonably priced 'pet', like a rabbit or duck ($8). The Iraqi government does not regulate the wildlife trade and many of the animals sold at the market are imported illegally. Without animal rights legislation and enforcement in countries such as Iraq, North Korea, and China, it's unlikely that the highly profitable trade of these exotic species will end. And--with hippo meat on the menu at zoos and lions for sale as pets at the market--it's unlikely that the public's perception of animals as food or property will change.

Photo courtesy of Tim Williams ]]> Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:15:57 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ China's Pork Explosion ]]> Multimedia Analysis: Globalization of Factory Farming documents the spread of Western methods of intensive animal agriculture, as well as the social, environmental and animal welfare consequences of these actions.

This video sheds light upon the nation's livestock boom, as well as some of the reactions it has provoked.

]]> Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:53:56 EST (Jesse Carollo) <![CDATA[ An Uncertain Future ]]>

Goats, kept for cashmere, now outnumber sheep on Mongolia's steppes

Eight million animals, mostly goats, have died in recent months in Mongolia, as a particularly frigid winter followed last summer's severe drought. This natural disaster, referred to as a zud, has devastated Mongolia's pastoralist population, whose numbers total 800,000—nearly a third of the population.

The combination of a changing climate—increasingly colder winters and drier summers, with the persistent expansion of goat herds, has left Mongolia's environment degraded, and its herders defeated. The growing global demand for cashmere has spurred on Mongolia's steady acquisition of goats, who nibble on roots and destroy ground cover with their sharp hooves, hastening the soil erosion that is already a problem on the dry and windy terrain.

This scenario is repeated in pastoralist communities around the globe, as population pressures, changing weather patterns, and environmental strains are forcing herders out of their traditional livelihoods. In Kenya, increasingly frequent and severe droughts are wreaking havoc on the Maasai community, who rely on livestock as a source of income and nutrition. As in Mongolia, where some 20,000 herders are expected to flow into Ulan Bator in search of work, Maasai are leaving their traditional lands for larger towns, where lack of skills often prevent them from joining the workforce. According to an Oxfam field report, ex-pastoralists living on food aid and begging characterize Kenya's Turkana district in the Rift Valley.

As aid organizations and foreign donors work to re-establish Mongolia's herds, the immediate focus is on averting hunger rather than establishing the basis for alternative livelihoods. With the UNDP planning programs to diversify Mongolia's livestock industry with value-added projects like wool processing and dairying, and USAID organizing loans for restocking, few seem to be asking whether pastoralism is still viable, and if it can be sustainable, and how.

Photo courtesy of Michael Chu ]]> Thu, 27 May 2010 11:42:23 EST (Justine Simon) <![CDATA[ Bullfighting: It's Bull Alright ]]>

The cape is always red, but bulls are actually colorblind.

The days of gladiator battles and public guillotine executions are in the past, but many cultures still hang on to bloody traditions, such as bullfighting. This ‘sport’ is still practiced in Spain, Portugal, France, and several Latin American countries, although its origins may be traced to Rome. During a bullfight, a trained matador (or torero) wearing an elaborate, brightly colored costume maneuvers around the bull waving a red cape, in an attempt to subdue the animal. The objective of the bullfight is to kill the bull, generally with a sword thrust. However, bullfighting is also extremely dangerous for the matador. Last month, Spain’s most famous bullfighter, Jose Tomas, was gored in the upper thigh during a match; the bull’s horn penetrated 6 inches into his leg, through his femoral artery, and he required eight liters of blood transfusions (even though the human body contains only five liters). He survived the attack, but it could have gone either way. Now, I wonder what happened to that bull?

Right now, there is an ongoing battle to keep the tradition of bullfighting alive in Catalonia, a region of Spain. A petition to ban bullfighting was signed by 180,000 citizens and submitted to the Catalan parliament, but the Socialist party is fighting to keep this custom alive with a proposal for ‘kinder’ bullfighting, which includes limits on the length of time a dying bull is allowed to suffer, called “sweetened death". Without getting too inflamed, I will only say that this is outrageous. David Perez, a deputy of the Socialist party told the press, “The idea is for the bullfight to involve as little suffering as possible." In a sport based on violence, murder, and blood, how can this be realistic? Nothing about this sport fosters the reduction of suffering. And who is qualified to decide just how much suffering is too much? Too bad we can’t ask the bulls.

I respect and admire the various customs and traditions that cultures around the world have practiced for hundred of years and are still practicing today. But as human society evolves, these traditions must also evolve. And sometimes, they must end. We don’t watch criminals get decapitated or hanged in the town square anymore, so why should we watch a human slaughter a bull—or watch a bull slaughter a human? This is animal cruelty, plain and simple. Turning it into a public spectacle is an endorsement of violence and—in my opinion—murder. In Bolivia, I met an indigenous Alaskan who told me that she enjoys polar bear meat, although she doesn’t get to eat it as often as when she was a child. I’m sure my jaw dropped. There are some customs that just have to be reexamined because our society has changed and our planet has changed; we need to look to the future, not to the past. My hope is that this future will be one where we can escape our anthropocentric mindsets, where human beings are not the only species that has rights.

Photo courtesy of Michel Osmont ]]> Fri, 21 May 2010 19:49:07 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ Cargill in Tune with Nature? ]]>

Greenwashed furniture foam

There's a curious ad in last month's Atlantic magazine. Courtesy of Cargill, the ad shows a sofa modeled after a field of soy, headlined with "This Sofa Design Coordinates with Everything.  Even Nature."  The caption underneath boasts of a new type of foam made from BiOH polyols, derived from soy, that "replace a portion of the petroleum-based ingredients for flexible foams."

If you travel to Brazil's Cerrado, the savannah grassland that borders the Amazon, and the site of more than half of Brazil's soy crop, 'nature' may likely be the last word that comes to mind.  Planted by Cargill and other large agribusinesses for animal feed, and now furniture foam, Brazilian soy is the poster child of habitat destruction and monoculture.  As much as 48 percent of the Cerrado has been cleared and replaced with row upon perfect row, for as far as the eye can see, of little green soy leaves punctuated by plastic yellow Round-up ready signs.

Considered a less glamorous cause than its neighbor the Amazon, the destruction of the Cerrado has occurred largely outside of the public's focus.  An interesting oversight, as the Cerrado is at least as biodiverse as the Amazon, is disappearing at twice the rate of the Amazon, and the global warming potential of the carbon dioxide emissions stemming from its destruction may even be greater than those coming from the Amazon. If the destruction of the Cerrado continues at the present rate, it is expected to disappear completely by 2050.  While Cargill boasts that its BiOH polyol production in Brazil does not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon, it mentions nothing of how its activities affect the Cerrado. Thanks for the innovative thinking Cargill, but this is not what nature intended. ]]> Thu, 13 May 2010 09:17:17 EST (Justine Simon) <![CDATA[ Climate Change: Public Health and Human Survival ]]>

A common sight around the world: a dried up river bed in Cochabamba, Bolivia

Based on what I've read and what I've heard from participants who attended COP-15 in Copenhagen last December, the World People's Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights held last week in Cochabamba, Bolivia had a completely new tone and a very different guest list. In fact, there was no guest list in Cochabama.

Everyone could attend and there were no locked doors. Rather than limit the most critical discussions to political leaders from the western world, 'real' people gathered at the People's Conference: Indigenous farmers and villagers, local activists, educators, bloggers, etc. Some people arrived in Bolivia already possessing extensive knowledge about climate change and experience in the green movement; others got there knowing almost nothing, but they brought dozens of questions about what exactly climate change is and who it is affecting.

I know that not everyone there considered themselves environmentalists, but I'm fairly certain that most would categorize themselves as social activists. Global civil society came to Cochabamba: We spoke; we listened; we argued; we wrote; we shared our experiences with the world. Now, Cochabamba has returned to normalcy and conference participants have returned to their homes and their work. What I need to know is how can we make sure that the discussions and debates that happened at the People's Conference are still happening around the world everyday, in offices, living rooms, and public forums?

Bolivia's conference has been called the "Woodstock" of climate conferences. If this is true, then people should be talking about it for years to come. It's hard to compare this event to a massive concert that occurred in the 60s, long before I was born, but there were certainly some conference attendees who wouldn't have looked out of place at Woodstock in 1969: Lots of woven sandals, long hair, and loose-fitting pants. But this wasn't a convention of hippies. Rather, it was a forum that included everyone. There were state officials present, from countries around the world, but there were also high school students from Cochabamba and European backpackers who've been roaming South America for months.

We all gathered for four days to discuss and debate the issues surrounding climate change; now we have the People's Declaration on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. The document includes an outline of ten rights of the Madre Tierra, what one might call a Bill of Rights for the planet. They are as follows:

* The right to live and to exist;
* The right to be respected;
* The right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue it’s vital cycles and processes free of human alteration;
* The right to maintain their identity and integrity as differentiated beings, self-regulated and interrelated;
* The right to water as the source of life;
* The right to clean air;
* The right to comprehensive health;
* The right to be free of contamination and pollution, free of toxic and radioactive waste;
* The right to be free of alterations or modifications of it’s genetic structure in a manner that threatens it’s integrity or vital and healthy functioning;
* The right to prompt and full restoration for violations to the rights acknowledged in this Declaration caused by human activities.

However, these are just words that will mean nothing unless we change the underlying mechanisms in society that support systems of unlimited growth, unrestricted resource extraction, and endless consumption. We must examine capitalism in terms of human rights--if people are allowed to take, take, take, we cannot ignore the people they are taking from! Climate change isn't coming from the Indigenous people of Bolivia; it's coming from the United States, China, and Europe. However, the people of Bolivia are already feeling the burn (or the melt), as are millions of poor people around the world who depend on the land for their daily survival. This is why it will be difficult to maintain the dialogue built in Bolivia now that the conference has ended. How many conference attendees will return home and forget their experiences and what they learned in Bolivia? Not many. But what about the people who didn't attend the conference? They will forget-- so we have to remind them. The New York delegation has already started planning meetings to discuss what we can do in the next few months leading up to Cancun; how can we avoid another Copenhagen disaster? We will take our People's Declaration to COP-16 in Mexico, but how do we know we won't face locked doors?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think our best chance is to raise as much awareness about this event as possible and let everyone know that climate change is happening in the United States, even if we may not be able to see it yet. This is a global problem and it's not just about polar bears and fish. It's about public health and human survival.

Photo courtesy of Whitney Hoot ]]> Thu, 06 May 2010 10:47:29 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ As Oil Spills Deep Below the Sea, It's Time for Some Deep Changes ]]>

Oil hits the marshy coastline of South Pass, Louisiana

I left Bolivia a week ago today, but I'm finding that hard to believe. It feels like I was there yesterday! In a way, it seems like I'm still there. While this is hard to explain, I think my experience in Bolivia was more based on feeling, on emotion and shared passion, than on actual physical space. Even though I arrived at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth as a supporter of climate change mitigation and an avid environmentalist, open to any and all experiences, I was completely unprepared for the fervor and enthusiasm I encountered.

Now, for the first time, I truly feel like a part of the climate movement. I feel that I saw the movement growing, twisting, and transforming at the climate conference; I've never experienced this before, this union with 20,000 others who share my feelings about climate change and the Madre Tierra, or Mother Earth.

The final conference declaration (now available online in English ) begins: "Today, our Mother Earth is wounded and the future of humanity is in danger." As 5,000 barrels of oil gush into the precious wetland ecosystems of the Mississippi Delta each day, this could not be more apparent.

The declaration asks us to challenge the paradigms set by capitalism and question the benefits of economic growth: growth at the expense of what? The fish in the sea, the water we drink, the land we live on? The future of our species, of every species on the planet? I grapple with capitalism and consumerism; I'm tired of being targeted by advertising and an endless stream of marketing campaigns. I don't need any more shoes or handbags or scarves or appliances or interior decor! At the same time, I'm very susceptible; sure, I don't need any more shoes, but that doesn't mean I won't end up buying them. The declaration states, very plainly, that capitalism turns human beings into consumers and the planet's resources into commodities. Now, one's value is determined by what one owns, rather than what one does.

I'm sure that this criticism of capitalism is one of the main reasons why the conference received so little coverage in Western mainstream media, especially in the United States. Not only are the environmentalists asking you to believe that climate change exists, now they're asking you to do something about it! According to the People's Declaration, humanity has reached a fork in the proverbial road; we have two choices: "To continue on the path of capitalism, depredation, and death, or to choose the path of harmony with nature and respect for life." Does the latter path mean socialism? I'm not sure. Conference attendees were very comfortable when discussing socialism; there was no shyness about asserting the need to overthrow the prevailing economic system. Somehow I doubt this was a major topic of conversation in Copenhagen. I also doubt that the United States is going to abandon capitalism anytime soon. However, I do know that we can't keep using economic solutions (excuses, really) as a substitute for making changes in our highly consumptive lifestyles. This is not about buying carbon offsets. This is about reducing our intake in the first place, ending our dependence on oil, and building a new sustainable system that will protect the Madre Tierra.

Photo courtesy of the U.S Coast Guard ]]> Tue, 04 May 2010 17:20:56 EST hoot@brightergreen.org (Whitney Hoot) <![CDATA[ Building the Foundations of International Indigenous Environmental Law ]]>

The salty marshes of Isle de Jean Charles

The Ninth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues wrapped up today, after two weeks of diplomatic negotiations and side-events on contemporary indigenous issues—specifically dealing with how development policies can work within the frameworks of indigenous culture and identity. I attended a workshop on Climate Change and International Indigenous Environmental Law, led by Lori Johnston of the South East Indigenous Peoples Center.

The South East Indigenous Peoples Center is leading the charge in documenting legal cases involving Indigenous communities and environmental damage. They hope to build an online repository for such lawsuits, thereby building the body of International Indigenous Environmental Law and giving Indigenous communities the tools to defend their legal rights. They are also looking to create a global map that pinpoints environmental destruction on Indigenous Peoples lands, documenting the events through photography and writing.

Throughout the workshop, as members from a handful of Indigenous communities spoke about how environmental degradation and climate change were affecting their land and lives, the connection between the climate, environment, and human rights was underscored time and again. Chief Randy Verdun from the coastal Bayou Lafourche Band of the Biloxi spoke of how offshore drilling companies built access canals on his tribe's land, the dredging of which lets in salt water and destroys the coastal marsh vegetation, resulting in severe soil erosion, loss of wetlands, and encroaching waters. With the increasing severity and frequency of hurricanes in the region, members of his band who still live on the ancestral land of Isle de Jean Charles (only 25 families remain), have decided to relocate inland to higher ground. This decision will make the Bayou Lafourche the first climate change migrants in the United States, outside of Alaska.

In recent years, Indigenous Peoples have made their voices increasingly heard in the realm of environmental justice. Environmental protection was a central part of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Indigenous thinking played an important part in Ecuador's 2008 decision to grant nature equal rights in its constitution. The fact that this year's Permanent Forum coincided with Bolivia's World People's Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights, was not lost on anybody in the room, and the need for Indigenous Peoples to work from within Western legal and political systems, as well as to develop their own grassroots solidarity movements, was agreed upon by all.

Photo courtesy of New Orleans Lady ]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:30:04 EST (Justine Simon)