DP3: Apple’s Corporate Social Responsability?

Corporate Social Responsibility as I mentioned in the two last blogs should be a business strategy that has to be implemented in all the different departments of a company. Using the example of Ben&Jerry’s I tried to show how a business could be profitable and enjoy a great CSR in a sustainable way. It is obvious that not all the companies are like that one. We are tired to hear scandals and disasters directly related with big companies. Companies that could enjoy a good image and reputation for their CSR actions however, is it the real truth? In class for example we have seen in development perspectives the examples of British Petroleoum and Shell, even in the class of Environmental Liabalities and Lobbies we have seen three flagrants cases such as the Minamata, Love Canal and the Bhopal one. These are just a few examples of an strategy business without CSR implemented in all the issues of the company. I can say without any doubt that the CSR could have been the solution in order to this disasters and scandals had never taken place.

After searching scandals of CSR related to big companies I found a case wich I think that is an interesting one for a lot of people of the master and the school. I am writing this blog from one of the products of the company that I am going to mention. I am sure that most of you have heard about the latest scandals related with Apple. Lets go a little bit deeper.

In Shenzen (China) worked in 2010 according to Forbes 420.000 people. All of them worked to the same company Foxconn which is a huge industrial group that assemble all kind of electronic products for brands such as Nokia, HP, Dell and Apple. If it was not for this new we would probably never heard the name of Foxconn however in the year 2010 there were workers in Shenzhen that committed suicide under the liability of this company. All of them between the ages of 18-24. Apple is one the companies that has more presence in this city, in fact two of their principle plants of production are located there. The reason of these ten suicides in five months were totally different between the Foxconn president and the workers. The labour unions complained about the number of hours that they work, forced to accept overtime to subsist (16 hours), military supply chain behavior, getting only one day off a week, living twelve people in a company room and earning not more than 100 euros per month.

On the other hand the Foxconn president Terry Gou replied saying that the suicide rate was even lower than the chinese average. Obviously the partners of Foxconn asked Gou to an explanation of this new that could affect to the profitability and image of their companies. Foxconn’s solution was to increase a little bit the salary, reforce the security, give help lines and psychology support. Foxconn asked or forced workers to sign pledges where the workers denied the suicide in order to absolve Foxconn of any liability. Is this what Apple want to the factories of the products? It is true that Aplle have done audits in terms of trying to control the factories where they products are done, even admitting that were child labour force in three of their facilities and in more of 60 of that facilities working hours were excessive more than half the days. My question is if a company with the mentality of Apple cannot control at all their suppliers what should be happening with the rest of multinationals?

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

Getting information about Apple and its CSR I found that the not controlling of the labor force on its supply chain is not the only fault that this company have. The first of September of 2011 Apple was accused in a report by five NGO’s about fail to properly dispose of hazardous waste provoked by 27 of its suspected suppliers (Apple normally does not disclose the name of its suppliers). An Apple spokesman Steve Dowling states “Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply chain” I could not say that he is right but the willing is not always the practice. He added “We require that our supplier provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made.” Unless they are trying to solve the problem. Apple in one the its last reports acknowledged that 137 workers in Suzhou another chinese region had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the signature glass screens of the iPhone in 2009.

Admitting its mistakes is from my point of view the first step however I would like to make you think about it. Do you really think that this is the proper way to act for a company which is an example of innovation? I know that for a big multinational like Apple should be really difficult to control all its supply chain, but if you cannot control it at all the answer is very simple for me, do not keep on growing! I will introduce the references along this week to give all of you more information about the topic.

 

Comments Off on DP3: Apple’s Corporate Social Responsability? / 10 Jan 2012 por Antonio Calixto Moreno Zarco
IMSD /

12 smart grid startups to watch in 2012

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/12-smart-grid-startups-to-watch-in-2012/

Comments Off on 12 smart grid startups to watch in 2012 / 09 Jan 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
Uncategorized /

DP blog #6: Group Work on Education

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

Abstract: I always promised my professor to continue with my thesis of educating for a democratic society and oddly enough my group is focusing on Save the Children and Education. Martha Nussabaum and Amy Gutmann highlight the need for education and the crisis that is arising in education. This blog was developed through my research for my group in regards to education and the need for aid to provide an education that installs a moral and civic foundation.

Democratic Education to Ensure a Future Democratic State

The golden rule: do onto others as they shall do onto you. This moral foundation promotes humanitarian equality. It bolsters the idea that we are all connected and all working towards a common well-being. My personal education has always integrated the learning of academics as well as encompassed morality and civics. It is these principles that stand as the goals for a democratic education. Noah Webster asserts “Education in a great measure, forms the moral characters of men [and women], and morals are the basis of government,”(Webster,64). Individuals should learn to develop autonomous reasoning and critical thinking on the principles of equality of rights and privileges, the importance of knowledge, and the nature of authority that will lead individuals to lead a life that serves the greater good of society. Development and Progress to me means the ability to move forward as well as be willing to go backwards so you can eventually take two steps forward. I believe like food, water and shelter, education should be provided for all. “Education is not just for citizenship. It prepares people for employment, and, importantly, for meaningful lives,”( Nussbaum, 9). The concept of education to me in grade school was always about achieving life goals, life goals that would ensure economic comfort. I never considered the importance of a democratic education until I was exposed to past and current education philosophies in education. I was not aware of the grave discrepancies between education systems until grad school, here at EOI. Development and perspective class has taught me that aid programs and non profits usually put Band-Aids on broken bones. Development and aid needs to work towards long-term solutions and the foundation is education. It is my conclusion that education will give people the skills to move forward in their life this is illustrated by the known saying: give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats for life.

Nussbaum points out that the old education system of facts needs to be expanded. “A healthy democratic society needs independent minded and creative individuals.” To ensure the bounty of democratic nation, educators should cultivate and encourage independent, democratic thought processes within students. Within the safety of a classroom, educators may provide an informative foundation for democracy. When students come to understand their rights and the moral principles set forth by our fore fathers or religious dogma, it will ensure loyalty to our future democratic state. Democratic citizens are those who are able to govern their own lives and share in the governing of their larger society. In order to fully educate a student to be autonomous and committed to the larger society educators must cultivate an understanding and commitment to the morality and civics that stand as the foundation for our democracy.

Gutmann asserts in her introduction to Democratic Education that, “Democratic education supplies the foundations upon which a democratic society can secure the civil and political freedoms of its adults citizens without placing their welfare or its very survival at risk,” (289) Gutmann should be applauded in her critical analysis of what it means to be educated for democracy and why it is necessary to do so. Gutmann continues to illustrate how various social realms and the discord among educational policy makers and critics causes the demise of a democratic education. Furthermore, the lack of education impedes “development.” Gutmann is concerned with the failure in our educational policies in America and in the world and seeks to bring greater awareness and understanding to how very important it is to educate our youth for democracy.

Gutmann’s thesis is that education is the foundation for democracy. It is necessary to educate our youth for a democracy to ensure a future democratic state. Gutmann proposes to answer “Why rely on a theory to decide exercise authority over education? Second; Why a democratic theory? Finally: Why focus on education?”(3). The author’s purpose is to assert a common definition for what it means to be educated for a democracy. She intends to unite controversial educational theory under the common goal of educating for a democracy for the good of the society. Gutmann successfully presents varying theories and assertions on the purposes of education and whose responsibility it is to educate our youth. Gutmann’s tone and commitment to a democratic society is inspiring. Gutmann asserts that “Democratic education is best viewed as a shared trust, of parents, citizens, teachers, and public officials, the precise terms of which are to be democratically decided within the bounds of the principles of nondiscrimination and nonrepression,” (288) However, due to discrimination and repression and unequal educational opportunities, the entire network of education must be reevaluated. There needs to be more responsibility put into the hands of the educators. A universal notion of education needs to be accepted and applied without hesitation. Nussabaum throughout Not for Profit, catalogues the various ways in which to educate yet insist as Gutmann does that moral education is essential and complementary to traditional facts. Educators that unite under the principle of democracy will advocate for civics and moral in addition to the required academia. Educators must formulate and articulate a clear conception of what it means to have a democratic education. Of course it is important to read and write but differences in cultures requires different education approaches but critical reasoning is needed across the board. With a unified perception and understanding and a commitment to the goals of a democratic education, policy makers may work towards the betterment of our current state. Gutmann gives to much weight to the individual; I am not advocating for removing free choice but stating that a stronger unified educational policy that puts more responsibility in the hands of the authorities then the individual could better serve our society. This should be a globalized concept and approached globally.

Gutmann insist that there must stand a more unified conception and understanding of our educational purposes. Gutmann contributes substantially to education by clearing defining that, “The primary aim of a democratic theory of education…considers ways of resolving those problems that are compatible with a commitment to democratic values,” (11). However, as our world continues to ignore core problems in the dynamics of educational policies this will continue to degrade in morality and civics and ultimately cause the disablement of democracy in nations. Gutmann cites in the introduction of her book Democratic Education, the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The National Commission asserts that education “goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce..(to include) the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our society,” (4). By providing a democratic education for our children it will ensure the future of a democratic state. Children must understand their rights and the principles of their country. Students should be educated for the greater good so they will ensure loyalty and commitment to the political processes of democracy.

Gutmann believes education and morality are one in the same. “Education,” in a great measure, forms the moral character of citizens, and moral character along with laws and institutions form the basis of democratic government,”(49). Amy Gutmann continues to assert the notion that children are to come to reason under strict disciple. “The earliest education of children is not and cannot be precept or reasoning; it must be by discipline and example,”(50). However, I would assert that children must be given a chance to make the mistake between right and wrong. Amy Gutmann states that “..children will eventually need the capacity for rational deliberation to make hard choices in situations where habits and authorities do not supply clear or consistent guidance,” (51). I think that children from an early age are capable of understanding the good and the bad, if the child is given an adequate foundation for morality and civics, then children will decipher between right and wrong almost immediately. Gutmann puts too much responsibility on the family in her assertion as to how one is to be morally educated. I would question the guidance and moral of parents today and argue that other social institutions have more influence over children then their parents. As the family dynamic is being broken down around the world, it is an ideal to believe that, “As children move outside their original families, their character and their skills are shaped by the example of those whom they love and respect and by the rules and regulating associations to which they belong,” (50), it is an ideal because not everyone is raised in a loving and committed network. In my own country, I do not believe that children are uniformly across America are granted the same moral and civic support from their parents; in fact I fear the exact opposite. The current institution of family in America does not represent what it once was; the diminishing traditional nuclear family is leaving our youth without a proper moral and civic instruction. Gutmann is more accurate to state that “Children must learn not just to behave in accordance with authority if they are to live up to the democratic ideal of sharing political sovereignty as citizens,”(51). A stronger educational institution unoccupied by parental discretion will lead to a more enlightened individual.

Nussbaum’s view about the fundamental importance of the humanities, and worry about its neglect and erosion in contemporary society, I too fear the control of the liberal-left elite education committed to a particular ideological agenda that must be reworked and understand a new global paradigm for a greater democratic community. Democracy as a political ideal, which Guttmann defines as “ a society whose adult members are, and continue to be, equipped by their education and authorized by political structures to share in the ruling,” (Gutmann xi). To ensure the bounty of democratic nation, educators should cultivate and encourage independent, democratic thought processes within students. Within the safety of a classroom, educators may provide an informative foundation for democracy. Educators have the ability to excite children to learn. Learning should not end when children leave the door, the school should entice a thirst for learning in students and encourage students to seek out knowledge. Student’s who seek out the unknown must be equipped with a democratic notion so that they may learn how to navigate their interest and desires. When students come to understand their rights set forth by our fore fathers, it will ensure loyalty to our future democratic state. It is important to realize that educating for democracy directly entails educating moral and civics. I reject Gutmann’s assertion that “Moral education in a democracy is best viewed as a shared trust of the family and the polity, mutually beneficial to everyone who appreciates the values of both family life and democratic citizenship.” (54) I do not believe that for an individual has to come from a strong supportive family in order to be morally conscious. Again, Gutmann places to much value on family and not enough on the betterment of “schools that help develop the cooperative moral sentiments-empathy, trust, benevolence, and fairness-contribute a great deal to democratic education,”(61) I here support Nussabaum assertion for the need for humanities and non profits in education and education for a democratic society. Moral Character developed through reason and habit may be fostered in the educational setting that will enable children to grow into adults that recognize injustice and seek out the good life for all. I think the best way in order to teach a moral education is to lead by example and not coercion, by doing so you allow the “..good of children [to] include not just freedom of choice but also identification with and participation in the good of their family and the politics of their society,” (43). Nussabaum proposes the idea that you are as strong as the weakest link so therefore education needs to be equally provided for all. I find Gutmann more agreeable when she bolsters morality of association instead of morality of authority. I believe children that learn to change their actions and habits out of their recognition of the good and the concern for fairness is longer lasting then installing morality simply out of coercion. Good habits and principles are more easily applicable to children rather then adults, however you must allow children to exercise their natural rights and their freedom of choice so that may independently commit themselves to the good through trial and error. In no way do I believe a child’s natural rights be limited or repressed in order to achieve a democratic education.

The question of how to distribute primary education causes the greatest controversy. This is where Nussbaum points out the failure of nations to provide a global education and the need for humanities in education. Gutmann presents three common theories as to how to distribute primary education maximization, equalization and meritocracy. Maximazation asserts to distribute education to maximize students life chances. “Maximization supports the fundamental liberal values of free choice and neutrality among different ways of life, and distributes the chance to benefit from these values as equally as possible among all citizens, “(236). Equalization asserts to use resources to bring the least advantaged child on par with the most advantaged child. This is the most humanitarian philosophy. Meritocracy is the philosophy that suggest distributing resources based on the child’s demonstrated natural ability. All three philosophies carry their credibility along with their faults. No one solution would satisfy all. I do believe equalization to be the best ideal however, the way our country funds education needs to be completed overhauled so that all students are provided with the necessary education to enable them to obtain whatever concept of the good life they seek. This is where the western traditional education fails and a new globalized paradigm is needed.

Gutmann finds faults in all three philosophies. She states that maximization forces a “moral ransom,” (133), citizens are forced to forgo other public entities in order to maximize education. Public parks, museums and other social goods offer a great deal for the students and public alike. Citizens should not be deprived of these public facilities that contribute to the good life. Meritocracy seems to be the most fallible of all three philosophies. Meritocracy is supported by the notion to distribute “educational resources, they argue, would give educationally gifted children what they deserve and also give society what it needs; a greater human capital to increase social productivity,” (154). Meritocracy, I would argue will only deepen the trench between the elite and the poor. Furthermore, Meritocracy seems to support capitalism and work for the production of wealth. The aims of education should go beyond the aims of providing economic opportunities for students and should create citizens that are more morally and civic driven. This will drive the concept of sustainable development. We need to educate for the future without compromising our future generations. Meritocracy promotes indirectly individuality that has no concern for the other. Meritocracy does claim that it will better the society by educating student that have demonstrated the most natural ability and willingness to learn, yet it does not assert the responsibility of the individual to the whole society. In America, one of the wealthiest of nations, yet as I pointed out in my previous blogs the wealth is controlled by a small percentage, in recent protest on Wallstreet we say the top 1%. Meritocracy will only narrow these statistics further. Education should not aim for the production of wealth, our country should be striving for the betterment of the whole society. As I have concluded before wealth in relation to GDP fails to account for the environment and sustainability. Meritocracy provides an answer to the individual with the assumption that the individual will turn around and benefit the whole. Meritocracy creates too much competition and turns away from the ideals of a democratic education.

Equalization is an ideal that will not be socially sufficient according to Gutmann. Gutmann asks the question, in a tone of doubt, “Must we then create an educational system that eliminates all differences among children’s educational attainment?” I believe this answer to be yes, educational opportunities and resources should be equally distributed. Equalization, “requires the state to supplement and or redistribute tax revenues so that poor districts receive as many dollars per child as do rich districts for the same tax effort (measured by the rate at which districts are willing to tax their property)”(140). Educational resources in America should not be based on property taxes, which inevitably creates inequalities in education. The current educational system of America is driving the gap between the wealthy and the poor further and further apart. The education deviations between zip code to zip code, “can be eliminated only by eradicating the different intellectual, cultural, and emotional dispositions and attachments of children,” (133). The educational foundations of America are in no way equal. Our education is highly undemocratic, as it does not provide for all. Furthermore the rest of the world is even worse off, in developing countries the political power is concerned with making a mark on the map as oppose to really building their country up.

Maximizing resources for educational equality will only better serve for the betterment of other social goods. “Given how much federal, state, and local governments now spend on defense, criminal justice, social security, and other welfare goods, it is implausible to claim that if we provide an adequate education for every child, we would have no resources to spend on improving education above the threshold,” (138) If we are to provide a better democratic education to all then we wouldn’t have to spend as much money on other social programs that result from citizen’s inadequate education. However, as Nussabuam points out non profits are needed to meet the gap in funds for education programs. If children are educated to be financially literate, then the poor will not have to remain in their invisible dismal caste system. Educating all children equally will provide children to move freely up the social latter. The most successful tool for navigating oneself in political processes is with a strong democratic education. In my country it is absolutely wrong that the federal government’s collected resource from our federal taxes only contributes 8% of their means to education. It makes education a local responsibility and education is not something that should be negotiated from school district to school district. America should provide and equal education to all its children. Congress continues to spend their resources without the consent of the public. The government currently spends 31% of it’s collected revenue on current military operations, not to mention 21% spent on past military excursions. Yet, 90% of America disagrees with America’s involvement in the War that seems to be ongoing despite declaration from Obama that it is over. Democracy in this country is crippling and the only way to ensure its survival is to completely overhaul the education system.

Democratic ideal is fading in our country. America must embrace a democratic education. A society that is deprived of a democratic education has a weak civic and political execution. “Democracy thus depends on a democratic education for its full moral strength,”(289). The authority of parents and free choice in the educational institutions are limiting its improvement. The federal government needs to take much more responsibility for providing a democratic education equally to all. Gutmann’s critical analysis of what it means to be educated for democracy, forces the reader to understand the importance of a democratic education and how America’s educational funding is deeply rooted inequalities, suppression and discrimination. This discrimination is seen all over the world and wears different mask from country to country. Gutmann should be commended for it’s offering of a wide variety of critics and critical analyzing the positive and negative attributes of varying philosophies. Gutmann eloquently portrays the necessity for a democratic education to ensure the reproduction (not replication) of our future democratic society. 
 
Nussabaum states “As we tell stories about the lives of others, we learn how to imagine what another creature might feel in response to various events. At the same time, we identify with the other creature and learn something about ourselves.” 
 
 We need education for development we cannot move forward and create a sustainable world without providing education. The key and foundation for education should be a moral education that will create democratic moral citizens.

Work Cited
Gutmann, Amy. “Democracy and Democratic Education.” Philosophy of Education.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. 159-166.
Gutmann, Amy. “Interpreting Equal Educational Oppurtunity.” Philosophy of Education.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. 236-243.
Gutmann, Amy. Democratic Education. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1987. 3-288.
Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2010. Print.

Comments Off on DP blog #6: Group Work on Education / 09 Jan 2012 por Lauren Musiello
IMSD /

Energy Efficiency in Brazil

Even though there were related programs running in Brazil before it, the national energy efficiency has become much more important in the recent years. At the beginning of the last decade, the country suffered with several electrical blackouts and with a electricity shortage that undermined the economic growth.

Since then, the government adopted a law to impose consumption limits to electrical devices and reinforced the existing PROCEL (National Program for the Energy Saving). Considering that energy efficiency refers to the maximum conversion of primary energy into electricity or performance, I could mention also many other programs created to promote alternative and more efficient sources of energy.

But if I have to highlight one well succeeded program implemented in Brazil, I would mention the Labeling Program, implemented under the context of the PROCEL. According to this program, which is voluntary at the beginning, the manufacturers rate their electrical devices according to a consumption scale of efficiency. After the maturation of the segment, it becomes compulsory. Examples of products already labeled: lamps, freezers, TVs, electrical taps, showers, air conditioning devices, among others. On the right we can find an example of a label used in Brazilian fridges.

The importance of this program and the thing that differentiates it from some others is the participation of the customers. In most countries in the world, the prevailing market economy has given much power to the companies, that sometimes has the power to decide whether they want or not to implement projects that benefits the environment or national issues such as the energy supply security. But once the customers are involved and have the power to compare and decide what product they want to buy, companies are forced to improve their methods and invest more money on research and development of new technologies.

 

Comments Off on Energy Efficiency in Brazil / 08 Jan 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
IMSD /

DP: Utilities & Self-Sufficiency

In this blog I will aim to expose evidence that there is sufficient technology available for households and small communities to be able to produce their utilities and public services. I will be focusing primarily on services such as electric generation, fuel for cooking/heating, water supply, and waste water treatment.

In terms of electricity generation we have two main technologies which are the most relevant for household electric production eolic and photovoltaic. Eolics are based on using the power of the wind to rotate a turbine and generate electricity. It is important to say that eolic has the disadvantage that depends on wind speeds which are not always constant and there for not making it a100% reliable energy source. On the other hand we have photovoltaic which generates electricity by capturing the suns radiation and transforming it into direct current. This technology is great because in most parts of the world we have a reasonable amount of sunlight per day. Both of them are renewable and use unlimited power sources but have a major flaw as most of readers familiar with renewable know they are not able to store electricity. This can be solved with the installation of batteries (golf car batteries/marine batteries are great options) the amount and capacity of this batteries depend in the previewed electrical consumption of the household. In households which have a greater electrical consumption and electric appliances a Power Operating Module can be installed to better administer electric consumption. The best scenario for self sufficiency in electricity is to use both technologies this way you guarantee a more stable electrical output. I’d like to add that this technology is not so far fetch for poor countries as some skeptics might think, there is a story about a boy in Malawi who built a wind mill from scratch to produce electricity for his family.

The boy who harnessed the wind TEDX:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QkNxt7MpWM&feature=related

 

For heating there are technologies now available to maintain comfortable temperatures with minimal or no energetic usage. Most of these technologies are based on knowledge of heat transmissions, flows and interaction with building materials applied to design and architecture. One example of this is Michael Reynolds´ earthship biotecture he managed to solve heating problems by using car tires for the walls (used car tires packed with dirt are good insulators and have a big thermal mass) this and adequately placing the house facing the sun with glass panels on its front (glass panels allow lighting and heat to enter the house) leads to thermal gain throughout the day. The heat entering the house is stored in the tire walls and released throughout the night maintaining a stable temperature the whole day (excess heat is released through vents in the roof). In places with even colder conditions the back of the house is a contention wall and the house is partially embedded on the earth. The advantage of this is that earth’s soil maintains a fairly constant temperature due to the same principle than the tires it absorbs heat throughout the day and releases it during night helping even further in keeping heat inside. Another example of this type of approaches in a more urban context are the high-end BedZED buildings this are buildings which combine several methods such as super insulated walls (made out mineral wool), high thermal mass walls, airtight construction, passive heat recovery ventilation (a wind cowl system that makes the necessary air changes without electricity or excessive heat loss), special windows, biomass heaters, and in some cases the usage ground source heat pumps (geothermal energy on the earth’s surface is harvested and transferred into the building for heating).

Earthship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTqSpx0Vgv4

 

Another technology related to heating and fuel production which I find particularly fascinating is biodigestors. Biodigestors are a perfect example of what Schumacher would call an intermediate technology (small scale, labor intensive, energy efficient and environmentally friendly). This technology basically consists on a hole on the ground covered up with plastic the input is mainly livestock excrement and organic waste, this waste is fermented by anaerobic bacteria as a result of this process we get two by products organic fertilizers with high nutritional value for plants and biogas that can be used for heating and cooking. It’s important to mention that during this process harmful bacterium and parasites in fecal matter are killed this way they don’t make their way to crops and eventually to humans. Another aspect worth mentioning is the low cost for example a small scale biodigestor in Costa Rica would cost around $150 this means it’s actually pretty feasible for low income regions (rural areas/¨developing¨ countries).

EARTH University Biodigester: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMR4KnGktds

 

The final technologies I will be exploring are water harvesting and waste water treatment. Water harvesting from precipitation is nothing new in fact is one the oldest technologies used by human kind and there are many methods to do it depending on the region, the annual precipitation, and the seasons. It fundamentally consists of capturing water during the rainy season from rooftops and driving it into a cistern where it is stored to be used during the dry season. This water might not be apt for human consumption but this can be easily solved my boiling water or using UV light which kills most pathogens in water. It is important that during the design face it is clearly calculated the amount of water consumption of the household or community in order to make a cistern with the appropriate dimensions and be able to withstand the dry season without water shortages. Generally water harvesting methods are advisable for regions with an annual precipitation greater the 200mm. This can be stretched a bit by being more efficient in our water usage. Earthship biotecture addresses this problem in a very clever way by reusing the same water up to four times in different processes. Water harvested first is used for drinking, washing, and taking a shower (grey waters) this water then is collected again on a ¨botanical cell¨ (a garden is irrigated with this water) there water is naturally purified by plants, rocks, soil and sand and collected once again. The water collected then is used to flush the toilets of the household these black waters are then driven into a septic tank where is treated (there are a wide varitety of methods), when the septic tank over flows this waters which are already treated goes to a second botanical cell outside here is used as irrigation and fertilizer. These types of systems have been proven to be efficient in arid regions such as Taos New Mexico.

 

Finally I’d like to say that I have only researched a small amount of methods in which we can be self sufficient. I am sure all around the world we can find more and more examples of how people came up with simple ways to provide themselves with basic services through observation and understanding of natures processes and then applying them on their favor to satisfy their needs. I strongly believe that we can achieve a good and comfortable standard of living with this type of technologies. It is important to notice that through the implementation of this type of measures we are making a drastic change on the impact ones live has on earth. With the electric generation technologies exposed we are eliminating the need for coal/gas burning power plants and all the negative impacts that derive from this such as pollution. With water harvesting we are putting a stop on the drainage of aquifers preventing drought and not alternating waters natural cycle. Waste water treatment on sight prevents contamination of rivers that occur on many ¨developing countries¨. We can achieve many services by substituting them with the environmental services nature has to offer at a low cost and for free. Gaining our back our independence from utility companies which constantly increase prices affecting the ones that are the most in need.

 

References:

http://www.chromasomatic.com/blog/?p=738

http://earthship.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting

http://www.zedfactory.com/

PS. Sorry there is no pictures Im having some technical problems Ill try to include them later.

Comments Off on DP: Utilities & Self-Sufficiency / 08 Jan 2012 por Javier Solano Palacios
IMSD /

Energy Planing: Energy efficiency in Venezuela

Venezuela’s energetic strategy for lowering consumption is a recent topic. However, lowering the demand of electricity has been addressed by two fundamental national plans: Lightbulbs substitution, and state sanctions to consumers who don’t reduce their consumption. Fuel consumption hasn’t been a priority to the country on the other hand.

The lightbulb substitution started in the year 2009. The target was to change fifty two million lighbulbs. The measure was estimated to reduce the electricity consumption in 20%. Same light for the people, less MW demand, efficiency in this sense emerged as a national priority if looked through this measure. The actual impact of the measure is hard to find exactly, even though, a quick glimpse over Caracas’s slums- enormous surrounding areas were most of the people live- proves that the plan has been executed with success.

A year later (2010), even if efforts were being made through lightbulbs, an energy crisis occurred: River levels dropped dramatically due to a very hard dry season. Taking into account that more than 70% of the electricity comes from hydroelectric sources, it’s visible that the situation needed measures. The actual government reacted by sanctioning those who wouldn’t reduce their consumption in more than 10%, reason why everyone started to be proactive in executing measures for energy saving. Also planned suspensions of the electric service were made throughout the territory for months. Efficiency started to get into the mindset of Venezuelans when it came to energy, droved by fear to government sanctions, it wasn’t a matter of society’s environmentally friendly beliefs.

It’s important to point out that some power plants were forcedly stopped because they lacked of adequate maintenance, so inefficiencies from the State, which totally runs the electric system, have to be taken in account when we look at this particular energy crisis. The installed capacity in Venezuela is over 23.000 MW, and the consumption reaches around 10.000 MW, if better care would be taken over the power plants, energy crises wouldn’t be as present as they are now inside our energy risks.

However, no policies have been taken to reduce the fuel consumption, in fact, is totally the opposite. Gasoline prices in Venezuela are the cheapest in the world because of government permanent subsidies throughout history (4 US cents/ liter nowadays).

In synthesis, recent efforts have been made to reduce electric consumption. The principal driver of these are crises due to lack of adequate maintenance. If we take into account the installed capacity and the consumption, there should be enough capacity to address emergencies. I would add that Venezuela’s society also needs to change its consumption patterns, ecological and sustainable conscience campaigns would be pertinent in this sense, fear to government shouldn’t be the excuse for proactive behavior over energy saving and efficiency.

Sources:

ML (2010). Avanza el cambio de bombillos. Diario El Universal.Recovered 08/01/2012. Available at: http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/01/25/eco_art_avanza-el-cambio-de_1736682.shtml

Telesur (2010). Gobierno venezolano presentó un nuevo plan de ahorro energético para la capital. Telesur. Recovered the 08/01/2012. Available at: http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/65049/gobierno-venezolano-presento-nuevo-plan-de-ahorro-energetico-para-la-capital/

Natalie García (2009). Ocho unidades de la represa del Guri se encuentran paralizadas. Noticias 24 via Diario El Correo del Caroní. Recovered the 08/01/2012. Available at:  http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/127299/ocho-unidades-de-la-represa-del-guri-se-encuentran-paralizadas/

Humberto Márquez (no date). El precio de la gasolina más barata del mundo. IPS Noticias. Recovered the 08/01/2012. Available at: http://ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=90896 (I suggest reading, very ilustrative)

Comments Off on Energy Planing: Energy efficiency in Venezuela / 08 Jan 2012 por Rodrigo Capriles Mazzei
IMSD /

DP: 4. Relationship between religion and environmental conservation

The latest blogs have analyzed the relationship between religion and different basic pillars of development, such as, income, life expectancy and education (in the Human Development Index) and gender equality. In this blog, another basic pillar will be analyzed; the environment. Luis Gonzalez (2007) shows that effectively religion’s influences on social activities and thus on the environment. So, a question arises; which is the real influence? Are humans beings an equal part of a larger organism?

The first reference to this question was given by Lynn White (1967). He proposed an answer to this question in his paper entitled, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”.  In his article, he said that the world’s attitudes towards nature involved the concept of a world created solely for the benefit of man: “God planned all [of creation] explicitly for man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes. As Ray (2002) states; man is a rebel who has set himself at the center of the universe.

Also, nowadays religion seems to have lost the relationship between humans and the environment. However, that assertion is incorrect for several reasons;

• religions have anthropogenic visions, it is also true that a large part of them in their holy books make references to the environment protection and its creatures.
• Furthermore, it is not correct to declare that in all religions human beings are considered the core of the world (antropogenic vision). In older religious traditions, humans were seen as part of nature, rather than the ruler of nature.
• Finally, in animistic religions, there was believed to be a spirit in every tree, mountain or spring, and all of them had to be respected.

Figure 1. Different religions and environment

Source: Cris (2011)

Once it has been established that there are different religions that placed humans in different positions relating to the environment, it is interesting to analyze the evolution of religion and the environment in the Western world for example. In the West, as religion has had less influence, environmental problems have worsened. I am not saying it is only for this reason but maybe it has actively influenced. Carlos Parda (2008) clearly describes my point;

• The change of the worship of God to the worship of the Reason had to do with the emergence of the industrial revolution and the emergence of trends such as capitalism, communism, mercantilism, the development of technological power which has not been subject moral issues, and other factors that have been developed with the massive devastation of nature.

Figure 2. Religion and environment protection

Source: Jom Jacobs (2011)

Unfortunately, modern society is more materialist and consumerist that often do not value what the earth or the sun can offer. We are able to generate large amounts of waste without thinking which will be the consequence in nature. We spend liters of water knowing that water is a scarce commodity. We emit tons of CO2 and other pollutants forgetting about the consequence on our planet. I ask myself if perhaps the shift from a culture less “spiritual and ethical” to a more technological anthropogenic” more selfish, has had a great influence on the impact that we have on our planet.

Finally, having analyzed which is the trend of religions on where to place human beings  with respect to the planet and with respect to the consumerism of modern society, I believe it is important to make a final thought. From my point of view, we cannot ignore that many religions keep many ethical and moral factors, including the environmental protection in some cases, which are perfectly applicables in the current world. In fact, they are absolutely necessary. However, it is also true that perhaps the ethics and morality can be got from other sources than religion. Nevertheless in many cases, sadly, part of the population requires a higher being that will raise awareness of the needs of our planet. I believe that religion are having, and will have, an important role in protecting the environment and our future generations.

 

References:

Carlos Parda (2008). Retrieved: 2/01/2012 from: http://carlosdeprada.wordpress.com/cultura-de-la-naturaleza/naturaleza-y-fe/religiones-y-ecologia-conama/

Cris (2011) Retrieved: 3/01/2012 from: http://en.paperblog.com/mesopotamian-religion-prelude-to-axial-age-60739/

Jom Jacobs (2011) Retrieved: 3/01/2012 from: http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/religions-to-worship-ecologically-3787/

Luis G.,  (2007). Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Cátedra BP. Religiones y Medio ambiente.

Lynn White, Jr., (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. Science 155 pp1203-1207.

Ray (2002) Retrieved: 2/01/2012 from: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ecology.html

Religionandenvironment, (2011), Retrieved: 2/01/2012 from: http://daphne.palomar.edu/calenvironment/religion.htm

Comments Off on DP: 4. Relationship between religion and environmental conservation / 08 Jan 2012 por Carlos Cerdan Infantes
IMSD /

DP 4: Instead of aid and trade, now PARTNERSHIP toward development?

As we discussed in class, partnership is not an almighty solution, it should be considered just a tool in the toolbox  towards sustainable development. It can be a very promising tool to build a project though, if all the necessary cautions have been done from the participating partners. As Caplan says, „Partnerships need not be sustainable; it is the activities or projects that organisations undertake together in partnership that hopefully will be.”(1).

I would like to illustrate a partnership building upon an example (of personal relevance) with real partners, although no partnership yet built in real life, but this might also serve as an incentive.

First and most important consideration is to go into a partnership only if you can not achieve your goal alone. Otherwise, it can be a more negative than positive experience, as it is not easy and uncomplicated to work in a partnership. In preparatory stage, one should take this into consideration when selecting partners. In my example, a local NGO in Guatemala, which serves as a community education center would like to briden its services to health trainings and health services, as the need arose from part of the community (since the waiting time and conditions in public hospitals are fatal). Since it is not an expert but very interested in that area, it would like to go into a partnership to achieve this goal: running a free health center in its poor neighbourhood. This includes service providing, capacity building and changing behaviour (if beneficiaries experienced that following istructions they and their families would live healthier life, they would change i.e. not giving the kids coffee and sweets, washing hands, not drinking dirty water) objectives. The NGO thinks about the following partners according to its own limitations in some areas:
-donor,
-hospital (public or private) providing skills,
-community,
-local equipment producer/provider,
-another NGO or business providing free medicine upon prescription,
-municipality or local authority for health issues and
-an external broker (mediator).

These would mean a multi-sectoral (public-private-civil) partnership. Since some chemistry has to be found between the parties involved, if it is possible and there are more than one options to choose from to work with, then this should be considered to achieve quicker, better results and a bigger impact.

Once the partners are chosen, it has to be made sure that each of them has the same understanding of the project. It is advisable to set a written agreement between the partners, as the partnership might be voluntary (to take part in) but one has the obligation to achieve the common goal. In the agreement it can be involved the allocation of tasks and resources. One can use the concept of Core Complementary Competencies, which means that each partner should do what is its core business, core operation, what they do best to complement each other’s competencies.(1) This might lead to a competition, if some partners want to do the same activity but double efforts have to be avoided. In this initiation part, the just established partnership of our local NGO agreed on who does what and who brings what to the partnership, as following:

-our NGO manages the project and the money of the donor, provides the location (needs to extend current building), gives volunteers, arranges administrative tasks to implement and run the health center and accomodates the meetings for the partners. Using its knowledge of and long-time experience with the local community/ beneficiaries and local authorities, it will maintain the relationship to internal and external parties

-the donor (an international public sector agency, currently also working with the NGO in other area) will provide the funding for buying and maintaining the necessary equipment and the salary of an expert (doctor or nurse)

-the public or private hospital offers professionals on hourly basis (health center only opens for some hours every second day), and personal for giving health related trainings to the community

-the community provides workers to build the center and maintain it clean, and spreads the information about it via word of mouth

-the local (=Guatemalan, as not sure that available in the same town) equipment producer/provider produces upon demand and maintains the equipment (from the simplest medical instruments to moderate equipments)

-another local NGO or local business providing free medicine upon prescription. This might be via the CSR activity of an interested company, but it should be avoided to advertise unhealthy or unethical business (as unfortunately many times the case is in Central America i.e. Coca Cola paints schools and leaves  its ad on the school wall)

-the municipality or local authority for health issues provides the permission and monitors operation

-an external broker (mediator) integrates and motivates the partners, resolutes conflicts, leads the process in decision making. This role is more important in the development phase of a partnership, when the partners might lose their enthusiasm and can only see the hard work. The partners decide on an external individual assuring neutrality and external view of the work.

The partners have to have the same project goal, but not necessarily the same interest or drivers, so the outcomes for each party can differentiate.  We have to accept self-interest (i.e. image improving of the private company, CV polishing of the professional staff, less problems for the municipality etc.) until it does not hurt any other interest. Once the project is implemented and the goal achieved (measured on the tangible output: health center functions and trainings are provided), the partnerships usually ends. Although ideally would be to have the partners until the long-term outcomes of the project (i.e.less sick people in the neighbourhood, children come to learn in the education center healthy and motivated, diseases can be prevented) can be monitored, because of donor’s pressure usually the focus is on tangible deliverables. In our example, even if no partnership anymore, the NGO can monitor the outcome easily, because of its other activity, the education center, it stays in the location and can contact the community. As an exit strategy it is suggested to value and capture knowledge gained in the partnership and celebrate achievements. As I know Guatemalans, the last one will not be a problem .

References:
(1)Ken Caplan (2003): The Purist’s Partnership: Debunking the Terminology of Partnerships

Ros Tennyson (2003): The Partnering toolbook http://thepartneringinitiative.org/docs/tpi/pt/PartneringToolbookEng.pdf

EQUAL Guide for Development Partnerships (2005), European Comission

Comments Off on DP 4: Instead of aid and trade, now PARTNERSHIP toward development? / 08 Jan 2012 por Ildiko Heim
IMSD /

DP 3 | Determining happiness factors not so easy after all

To recap what i have explained about Easterlin Paradox previously, we concluded that comparing happiness accross the world is possible and meaningful when questioning about three key factors contributing one´s happiness level: material level, family circumstances and health. We achieved this stage in Easterlin´s effort to prove that in international comparisons, the average reported level of happiness is not related to national income per person. Easterlin´s premises are:

1)    Within a society, rich people tend to be much happier than poor people.

2)    But, rich societies tend not to be happier than poor societies (or not that much).

3)    As countries get richer, they do not get happier.

Once it is accepted that comparing the abovementioned happiness factors across countries is possible, Easterlin´s paper starts discussing the relation between the three circumstances (material living level, family and health) and happiness.

The data shown has been mostly results of survey data that show how life events affect well-being, as people progress through the adult life cycle, from phases like early adulthood through middle age to their retirement.

After reading some studies, I found out that (generally speaking) paralel to these happiness factors,  individual´s overall happiness depends 50% on genetics set point, 40% on intentional activities (full under one´s control) and 10% on external circumstances (out of our power).

When talking about happiness surveys it is important to know that after decades of research, happiness is mostly under the individual´s control and what has been revealed as well is that when we are referring to happiness researches we are meaning a 10% of impact in happiness coming from external factors such as family circumstances, material level and health. This small impact of external circumstances is due to “hedonic adaptation”, which basically means that when our circumstances change, for good or bad, we quickly adjust to the new life circumstances. This means that any increase in happiness level coming from outside is temporary, as well as it happens with unhappiness when bad things occur.

So from my point of view when Easterlin is talking indifferently about the concept of “happiness” and “life satisfaction” he is moving away from the approach to happiness measures. Easterlin´s three factors (out of the individual´s control) are referred more to life satisfaction than to happiness. As this last one, as we have seen, is basically subjective and inherited from out parents.

It is understandable that Easterlin bases his discussion on common factors answered by contrasting countries in intensive surveys, to take these ones as guidestones for his research and to prove that comparing happiness among counties is possible. But this is due to the factor that interviewees are not aware of those “psychologic factors” which contribute to their own happiness. So we are finally talking about comparing life satisfaction which is definitely not the same as comparing hapiness states.

I am not moving from Easterlin´s position which casts aspersions on traditional economic theories to measure development, but I am meaning that the term Happiness Economics, from where GNH (Gross National Happiness) comes from, are far from what the concept of “Happiness” means for psychology.

Moving back to Easterlin´s theory, once it is accepted that comparing “life satisfaction”  factors across countries is possible, the author starts discussing the relation between the three circumstances (material living level, family and health) and happiness. The data shown has been mostly results of survey data that show how life events affect well-being as people progress through the adult life cycle, from phases like early adulthood through middle age to their retirement.

One if his criticisms to conventional happiness researches is that most of the general studies on subjective well-being are based on a point-of-time instead of the life cycle of individuals. Even those studies which try to follow particular individuals over time, the period tracked is normally one or two years.

I totally agree with the fact that a complete life course is key to take into account in life satisfaction level surveys as  each stage in life means different circumstances which affects to happiness as we have explained, temporarily.

The findings he obtained by making relations between the three factors and happiness are referred to money, marriage and health. Some if his conclusions were:

About happiness and health, the results show that adaptation to disability occurs and thus possible return to individual happiness setpoint. However, data and information gathered do suggest that even when this adaptation occurs, there is on average a lasting negative effect on the happiness level of the serious disabled ones.

Referred to happiness and marriage (as family circumstance), the author believes that adaptation with regard to marital status is less than complete, and that the formation of unions (marriage) has a lasting positive effect on happiness, while dissolution (widowhood, divorce) has a permanently negative effect. Once again what he means is not that adaptation does not occur after unions or separations, but the adaptation which occurs is not 100 percent.

When talking about happiness and money (material standard), interestingly the point-of-time results confirm the economic theory assumption that more money makes you happier, while Easterlin´s life cycle survey results contradicts it. As we move through the life cycle, we increasingly compare ourselves with those surrounding us, with whom we come in closest contact and those contacts which are generally of similar income.

To conclude Easterlin´s paper, over the life cycle, family and health circumstances  typically have long lasting effects on happiness, however having more money doesn´t.

At this point, one we have deepen on this relations, we can believe that the above circumstances studied by Easterlin are not only external circumstances (10% of our happiness), but also can mean intentional activities (40%).

So now it can be discussed how intentional activities can be fulfilled in certain countries better than in others. For example depending on a society´s believes or culture the formation of unions such as marriage can be regarded in different ways (as gender dependance or greater life satisfaction). In addition depending on how much a society or culture strives for material level its individuals will find equilibrium or the opposite (i.e. for Buddhism the desire for material goods is root of suffering).Finally coming back to Buddhism, this suggests spiritual guidance to ensure long-lasting health and overcome illness.

For your interest here I add Easterlin´s Economics of Happiness approach.

 

 

 

17 comentarios / 07 Jan 2012 por Tatiana Casquero Rodriguez
Uncategorized /

DP #4: Food Waste in gastronomy industry – solutions part 1.

Talking to our friend Google about food waste solutions through out the whole morning I got frustrated. Information about how to reduce food waste was really scarce. The main solutions encountered by me were about what to do with food waste in order not to throw it into a landfill. There are many individuals that are devoting their energy towards making a change. Those are good initiatives that our planet needs and that help the environment. However, doesn’t it create a new market for technologic companies (the solutions were mainly high-tech composting machines)? Doesn’t it ignore the fact that food waste exists in such great numbers? Isn’t it actually not caring about our environment and only making “a nice face to a bad game”? In this entry I will cover some general issues concerning the solutions I will propose later. I will also speak about the role of governments and what they can do.

First I wanted to present two problems that are strongly influencing the growth in food waste, which are not necessarily directly related to the gastronomy industry. One of them is the corporation interference into the whole food production process. I suppose that most people reading this blog already know what am I talking about, but I just wanted to point out an important issue for my topic. What is actually happing is that some farmers are spending money on pesticides and other chemicals to feed their animals or crops. Those chemicals are not a life matter for those organisms and it is only a way to increase profits. Meanwhile there are millions, if not billions people and animals starving, who at the sight of landfills full of food waste would probably get a heart attack.

 

The second problem is somehow a consequence of the first one. Countries of the so-called “first world” are producing too much food (because of the chemicals that helps the growing process) plus are also importing food from abroad. Even though by wanting to protect their agriculture, subsidies are being given to the farmers. It means that poorer countries are not able to export their food and most of the food produced in the “first world” is too expensive for them, so they cannot import.

By the end of the day “rich” people are throwing food away, because they have nothing to do with it and their stomachs are satisfied. Think how many times have you done it yourself. But do you care? If subsidies would be taken away it would regulate the market so “the first world” would not generate so much food waste. It would be possible to feed a lot more people following a certain logistic process and decrease hunger problems. The question is if rich countries are able to let go? If yes, how much or how many they can let go?

 

Now I would like to move on towards gastronomy industry. As I said before, first I will speak about government’s role in this topic and what they can do. I mentioned in my previous post about the existence of a certain Good Samaritan Act. It is a very good law. However, governments should put much more weight into such kind of initiatives. The politicians should know that it is an important issue for the country and its society and should make sure that all target recipients will know about the act. It can be done by targeting informative campaigns on restaurant owners or by engaging more NGO’s to create a general awareness in that sector. Governments can also try to develop some other laws. For instance there could be a decrease on taxes for those restaurants and establishments that produce less food waste. This is always a well working incentive for business sector, because it reacts directly on profits. There are also negative measures that can be undertaken. If restaurants do not donate food, they can get a fine. So actually food donation (for restaurants waste donation) will be obligatory. That could create a whole new system of food distribution for those who need it.

In my next entry that will appear in few days I will continue developing solutions with an more detailed approach towards gastronomy industry. I will try to explain a donate food distribution system. I will also tell you, what do I think is the most important thing to reduce food waste. Those who were following my blog from the beginning may already know what is my belief in that topic. Those who didn’t can wait a couple of days for my next entry.

 

Comments Off on DP #4: Food Waste in gastronomy industry – solutions part 1. / 06 Jan 2012 por Piotr Adam Lubiewa-Wielezynski
IMSD /