Malaysia airlines accidents

A flying airplane is something that has always puzzled and amazed me since I was a child. I remember staring them in the skies and asking myself how on earth something so huge and heavy was capable to fly. Since then, I look at it with profound admiration and devote my sincere respect for aviation engineering.

In my opinion, airplanes are some of the few things that best represent connectivity, cutting edge technology and evolution. Thus, as stressful as airports can be, as uncomfortable as a long flight can be, I’ve always faced them as a symbol of new discoveries, connection, a borderless world, unforgivable vacations… hence: happiness.

Needless to say that when I hear about airplane crashes, it devastates me in ways words can’t explain. Mostly, of course, due to the commotion of losing so many lives at once, but also because it represents a flaw of what I consider an impeccable advanced and sophisticated engineering system.

The recent tragedies of the Malaysian airlines have been resonating non-stop in my mind. Both cases are tremendously worrisome: one for still being a complete conundrum and the other for being the direct result of mankind’s stupidity. Shooting down an aircraft passenger (even if mistook by a military one) is so repulsive that causes the deepest dismay even in insensitive hearts. Not checking what type of plane was crossing the air space before activating a missile makes it intentional. Seeing the greatest symbol of a world without borders being shot down due to primitive borders conflict does really consternate me.

I wonder if we humans have learned anything from history. Sometimes I doubt it because I keep seeing us repeating the same mistakes again and again. And considering the amount of information we have on hands nowadays, as well as the stage of human development we should have reached on the year 2014of the 21^st century, attitudes like this are too pre-historical to be accepted (to say the least).

Acknowledging the human being ignorance that still reigns, I express my sincere condolences and sentiments to the families and friends who lost their loved ones.

May these souls rest in peace.

Food

It is expected that by the time we reach the year 2050, the world population will increase about 35% based on current numbers. The huge concern when it comes to food supply is that to feed a population of 9 billion people, crop production will need to double. One of the main reasons for that is associated to the economic prosperity the developing world has been experiencing, which led them to eat more, especially more meat. According to the National Geographic magazine, the increase in the per capita daily protein demand will be revolving 15.3% in the developed countries, while in the emerging ones it is supposed to be around 103.6%.

Agriculture poses several challenges to the environment: it is among the greatest greenhouse gases emitters (due to the release of methane gas by cattle and forest clearing to grow crops/livestock, to name a few reasons); it is – by far – the industry that requires more water supply to operate; it is associated to the acceleration of biodiversity loss; and the constant use of fertilizers and pesticides may cause irreparable damages to nearby groundwater, rivers and community.

The pressuring demand for meat will require not only more livestock availability (including more land for it), but also an increase in crops (mostly corn and soybeans) to feed the cattle, pigs and chickens the planet will be requiring. Here lies one of the main reasons why we will need to double the amount of crop by 2050. This also fuels another debate about organic versus conventional agriculture. The former argues that small (organic) farmers are capable to increase yields in ways that would help meet the world demand, while the latter advocates that only modern agriculture techniques such as mechanization, irrigation, chemicals and improved genetics will be the answer to fill the demand blanks.

I don’t intend to point fingers to the right or wrong here. My intention is to raise the awareness for the fact that achieving sustainable agriculture may become increasingly harder and also to ask my fellows a few important questions: do we really need that much food (especially meat) on our plates everyday? Do we need food portions as big as the ones offered by restaurants nowadays? Should the increase in income lead people to eat more or eat better? Does better mean more? I personally think it is absurd that an increase in 35% of population will require 100% more food. Another absurd is to accept the huge food portions we are getting lately as a normal thing. I would go for a campaign of charging me half the price for a half the size meal.

Let’s think about that for a while and try not to be part of those who will demand 100% more food. Maybe by doing so, in 2050 we will prove wrong the statistics we foresee now.

Source: National Geographic Magazine, May edition 2014.

Historical Personality - Socrates

Socrates

Only a few personalities in history enchant me as much as Socrates. He had some of the character traits I value the most: lightness of soul, bravery, simplicity, humility and the assumption that “all I know is I know nothing”.

Philosophical writings report that Socrates, since very little, tirelessly dedicated himself to what he considered his mission: to dialog with people. But they were dialogues in which he asked more about things he heard than provided elucidation. The rationale behind it was that the questions would lead the interlocutor to analyze their own convictions. By doing so, he put into question several alleged “talents” and unfounded sapience reputations. For those who accepted to submit themselves to the socratic dialogues, acknowledging their own ignorance regarding something could mean a “conscience renaissance”.

Once, after a prolonged conversation with a local personality, who considered himself a wisdom model, Socrates told him that he (the interlocutor) presumed to be wise, but he was not. Socrates then became hated by most of those present in the occasion. His conclusion about that is the following: “I am wiser than this man; it is highly probable that none of us knows anything, but he supposes to know something and he does not; while I, if I don’t know, I don’t suppose to know either. It seems, then, that I am a little bit wiser than him for not assuming to know what I don’t know”.
 
Accused for not accepting the State’s gods, for introducing new ones and for subverting the young, Socrates is judged and convicted. He never denied his words and attitudes in order to change the opinion of the tribunal. On the opposite, he proclaimed to those who were suppose to judge him: “I have no occupation, other than trying to persuade you all, old and young, to focus less on your bodies and goods and more on the perfection of your souls. Also, in telling you that virtue does not come from wealth or from what you consider useful, either in the public or the private life. If, by doing so, I am subverting the young, there is not much I can do; but if someone states that I say otherwise, they’re lying”.

Socrates refused to make any kind of concession, even to pay the fine for his freedom, because that would be endorsing the guilt that was denied by his own consciousness. About the death penalty Socrates said: “If death is the extinction of all sorts of feelings and if it resembles one of those sleep mode where we see nothing, not even while dreaming, then dying is a wonderful gain (…) On the other hand, if death is like a passage from here to somewhere else and if it is true, as some advocate, that it is there where the dead get together, can we, dear judges, imagine anything better?”

When he declined the support of his friends to escape the prison, he said: “The only thing that matter is to live honestly and without committing injustices, not even in retaliation for a perpetrated injustice”. 

When the jailer brought him the hemlock (a highly poisonous plant), he took it in a single swig, telling your friends afterwards: “Everything must end with words of good augury. Remain, then, serene and strong”

*Born in Athens in 470 (or 469) B.C. and died in 399 B.C.
Source: The Thinkers Collection – Nova Cultural (Socrates)

Clean Energy - Coal

The recent tragedy in a coal mine in Turkey, causing the death of more than 300 workers, put – one more time – the problems associated with the mining activity under the spotlight.

Large scale energy generation will always be inevitably linked to social and environmental impacts. Even the so-called “cleaner” power production, like the hydropower, takes its toll over adjacent communities and the overall ecosystem. A few alternatives of energy generation, like coal, are so detrimental that it deserves our deepest concern and consternation. The problem, however, is that the current insatiable appetite for energy doesn’t leave much room for improvement.

Among all the fossil fuels, coal is – by far – the dirtiest and – by all means – the cheapest. The planet burns eight billion tons of this resource a year and 40 percent of the world’s electricity comes from it.

Coal is responsible for 39 to 44 percent of the global CO₂ emissions (in 2012, the world emitted 34.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels). The most worrisome information, though, is that the world coal consumption keeps stubbornly moving up, mostly in emerging industrialized countries, such as India and China. China alone increased its consumption from 1.5 billion tons in 2000 to 3.8 billion tons in 2011.

Coal business causes enormous negative externalities, but no one pays the monetary price for that: neither consumers, nor emitters. The intangible price, however, is borne by the planet as a whole. Thousands of people die a year in coal mines and various more perish due to polluted air. Only in China, it is reported that the filthy air is linked to 1.2 million deaths a year.

Mitigation alternatives, such as carbon capture and storage (literally injecting it underground under conditions that deter leaks), can be such a complex and costly process that no one expects it to be mandatory unless it becomes financially viable.

Another serious issue is that work conditions on any regular underground mine are extremely unsound and insalubrious per se. To make things worse, there are several mines around the world that are not even regulated by local governments, subjecting workers to all sorts of irregularities, including child labor, which causes profound distress if we consider that work in such mines may diminish one’s life expectancy. The ordinary work ambience in the underground is confined, arduous, highly flammable and after a few years of exposure, workers are commonly affected by a disease called pneumoconiosis, which derives from the inhalation of poisonous gases and dust, that can be lethal.

Knowledge, technology and resources that could help making the power generation business cleaner and safer abound. The only thing missing seems to be good will to make them financially viable. Considering that the consequences of persisting on the bad practices are global, it seems reasonable to address the problem in a collective/global standpoint. The planet and their people ask for help.

Sources:

- National Geographic Magazine, April 2014

- A Segurança em Minas de Carvão Agindo na Prevenção da Pneumoconiose – Região Carbonífera de Santa Catarina http://www.bib.unesc.net/biblioteca/sumario/000028/000028C9.pdf

Toiletries and Cosmetics - Controversial Ingredients

History has proven us how the adoption of hygienic measures with personal care and asepsis are vital for the human life maintenance. Along time, R&D institutions fostered a sophistication of the toiletries and enabled the creation of cosmetics. For women, in particular, the variety of such products in the shelves has a mesmerizing effect. There is nothing wrong about the desire of being cleaner and beautiful, but it is important to have in mind that the load of ingredients brought by these products can (or cannot) be harmful healthwise.

The presence of these items in the formulation is fundamental to assure product stability, efficacy, preservation, fungicide/bactericide action, among other attributes of the final product as we know it. However, many are considered controversial because the magnitude of their aggregate exposure can (or cannot) cause health problems. It is important to highlight that an ingredient is considered controversial when the scientific community can’t reach a consensus regarding its negative effects. Some experts assure it is 100% safe, while others condemn it and associate it with unfavorable outcomes. Hence the controversy. Some raw-materials are also considered polemic given their critical sourcing chain, since the extraction can (or cannot) be directly associated to environmental impacts (ecosystem contamination, deforestation, biodiversity damage, etc) as well as social ones (mostly related to child labor, slave-like labor and conflict zones linkage).

Some of the ingredients considered controversial nowadays (among many others) are: triclosan, paraben, phthalate, toluene, benzene, bisphenol, formaldehyde, phenoxiethanol, aluminum, mercury, lead, nanoparticles, camphor, GMO, palm oil, mica, and the list goes on. Some of the associated problems are (very important to recall the controversy aspect): endocrine, hormone, neurological, sexual and reproductive disruptions; birth defects; cancers; allergies; dermatitis; bioaccumulation (environment) among others.

There are market regulations that control the dosage of these products within acceptable levels, but one of the main arguments among scientists who advocate the negative consequences is that the aggregate exposure is harmful. What does it mean? It means that these components are present in almost every product we consume in a daily basis, such as toothpastes, deodorants, shampoos, moisturizing, perfumes, cosmetics in general, make-ups, plastic objects, cleaning products, textiles, furniture, kitchen utensils, dye, paints, foods, etc. Therefore the aggregate exposure.

A special warn must be given to women, because a greater percentage of some of these ingredients is in personal care and cosmetics products. A research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that women presented levels significantly higher of chemicals in their organism than men submitted to the same investigation.

It is known that running away from such components seems impossible. Some companies are already taking the lead when it comes to eliminating some of them from products’ formulation. The problem is that some substitutes are not necessarily better taking into consideration their value-chain and they can even happen to be another controversial item. To be considered a substitute, it is mandatory to fulfill the technical features previously mentioned.

No despair needed, because there is not much one can do from a consumer’s point of view. Hopefully, engaged regulatory organs along with countless researchers are working in our favor around the world. Let us wait for good news, responsible business and safe products.

Sources:

My own professional experience

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/center-for-excellence-in-environmental-health-tracking/Second_Report.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/danger-drugstore-womens-cosmetics

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/triclosan/en/l-2/2-uses-cosmetics-disinfectant.htm

Striking Statistics

Sometimes, statistics numbers shock me so utterly that I ask myself how they can even be possible. These ones I collected from the book An Introduction to Sustainable Development (Peter P. Rogers, Kazi F. Jalal and John A. Boyd) are – perhaps – the most scaring ones I have ever read in my entire life. When I take into consideration that those data are from 2006 and that the current reality could be much worse, I could not help but feeling profound dismay.

When I've read it for the first time, I realized that fixing the world extreme poverty problems – although complex – is a feasible task if important actors such as Governments, Private Companies, NGOs, International Organizations and Civil Societies channeled efforts as well as funds towards basic human needs.

            Here the numbers are and they go without further comments, because they clearly speak for themselves. I would just recommend you post them on an easy access wall so you can check them out every chance you have (preferably everyday).

I quote "Facts about poverty and global priorities spending*:

·      Today across the world 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar/day; 3 billion (half the world population) live on less than two dollars/day; 1.3 billion people have no access to clean water; 2 billion have no access to electricity; and 3 billion have no access to sanitation.

·      Also today consider the following as global priorities in spending:

Items of Expenditure	Annual Spending US$ billion
Cosmetics in the US	8
Perfumes in Europe and the US	12
Ice cream in Europe	12
Pet foods in Europe and the US	17
Business entertainment in Japan	35
Cigarettes in Europe	50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe	105
Narcotic drugs in the world	400
Military spending, global	780

·      And yet some of the basic needs of poor humanity, the cost of which are as follows:

	Annual Estimate Cost in US$ billion
Basic education for all	6
Water and sanitation for all	9
Basic health and nutrition for everyone	13
Reproductive health for all women in the world	12

Sources: Anup Shah (2006)"

* From the book An Introduction to Sustainable Development. Authors: Peter P Rogers, Kazi F Jalal & John A Boyd, 2008.

Best

Gildete Lima

(The myth of) Sustainability

During my master program I took as many courses related to sustainability as possible, either because this was one of the main focuses of my concentration or because it is a topic that really interests me. In one of these courses, which I picked with great enthusiasm, I heard from my professor in the very first day of class that sustainable development is a myth. That statement caused me a strong discomfort, especially because that was a course related to sustainability and it was like taking the shine away from the theme. So at the end of the class I told him that I signed up for that course because I wanted to believe sustainable development was possible and I set up a time to visit him at his office hours so we could better discuss the topic.

Later on, during my visit to his office, we had a wonderful conversation where he explained me his motives for saying that. He argued that mankind uses too much resources and that real sustainability (the way it is supposed to be) cannot be achieved if we keep acting and behaving the way we do. I understood his point of view and that triggered me a different way of seeing things, though I still want to believe it is a possible road.

Sustainability is a trendy word that everyone is talking about and they all seem to know what it really means. Some people and companies believe that because they separate their trash (paper, glass, organic and so on) they are contributing significantly to the sustainable development. Others believe that by switching their light bulbs for more efficient ones, they are doing their part. It is absolutely true that these steps contribute to the cause, but they are far from enough.

An important ingredient in sustainable development, in addition to a responsible way of producing things, is a sustainable and responsible way of consuming them.

Let’s see things this way: millions of people around the world dream about the day in which they will be able to buy a SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle), a heavy, big car that requires much more natural resources to be produced and significantly more fuel to operate. The majority of people never takes these characteristics into consideration in their buying process and if they do is certainly by the fact that they are worried about the increase of their monthly gas budget and rarely for a sustainable consumption standpoint. In many cases it is just a single person or a two-people family who buys these automobiles. They buy them mostly for status fulfillment and not because they have a huge family that requires a big car to move it around.

Electronics: wonderful gears that everyone “needs”. It doesn’t matter how smart the one you already have is and how long ago you bought it, you will always “need” the latest version. It is all about creating necessities that we actually don’t need. Scandals of bad business practices revolving giant companies in this sector is always on the news, but no one seems to care about it when they decide to buy new products from them. They are companies that should be ashamed of the type of bad business they are doing, but unfortunately consumers “indirectly” support it by retro feeding this vicious cycle. How many people think about the amount of natural resources is comprised in the production of a computer, a cell phone or a tablet, just to name a few? How many people think about the way those resources are extracted from the soil and how dangerous and unsafe it can be to mining workers to deal with it every single day, especially if their employers do not practice responsible business as well? How many people think about abusing business practices and unfair labor conditions behind all the wonderful hi-tech gadgets they feel tempted to buy? How many people think about the amount of natural resources and human capital energy involved in the production of the gears they had and are now discarding (with no worries about their future destiny) just to get the “newest version” to fulfill their greedy consumption behavior? How can the planet sustain this type of consumption?

Jewelry/fashion: how many people think about where that sparkling, beautiful diamond rock comes from and whether people were killed back in their home countries to make that beautiful rock available to their rings, before deciding to buy (another) one? How many coats, purses and shoes a person can handle into their closets and how many of them wonder how were those outfits produced? Recently, some worldwide famous stores in the fashion world were accused of utilizing slavery workforce in emerging countries. However, none of their consumers seemed to be affected by it and continued marching to the same stores to buy stuff they think they need as if nothing were happening on the “backstage”.

How many people are capable of thinking about how much fossil fuel are burned and how much water are utilized in a daily basis in order to produce the food they have in their tables? Can they even think these natural resources are used in great abundance just to make their food available? How many people understand where the energy that powers their life comes from? Are their countries a self-sufficient energy producer or heavily over reliant on the resource import? How much sufficient or how much dependent? What are the implications of that for their own comfort and security? How many people understand that every single thing they eat, wear, drink and use requires a large amount of natural resources to be produced and that they are dangerously scarce?

Sustainable development is way beyond just a fancy trend or beautiful rhetoric. It HAS to be an important value that everyone must carry inside themselves. Now I clearly understand my professor’s perspective. He is right when he says that, with the mentality mankind has been acting, sustainable development is reduced to a myth. Collective actions are extremely necessary in achieving sustainability, but – most importantly – individual actions are the pathway to get there since the latter feeds the former. Innovation and technology are also crucial components, but without a sustainable / responsible consumption mindset, they are just a fancy tool in the attempts of optimizing the (already) abusive use of scarce resources. As a final remark, I would like to state something for those who believe that “green” initiatives are the “silver bullet” to all the problems related to sustainability. I am afraid I have to remind them that not all “green” and renewable initiatives are necessarily sustainable, but this can be a topic for another discussion.

Best

Gildete Lima