“We feared the mountain would give birth to a mouse…” said Daniel Richard, president of the World Wildlife Fund France, referring to the skepticism that green groups had for the recent multilateral environmental negotiations in France, the Grenelle talks. There was much concern that President Nicolas Sarkozy’s “environmental New Deal” would turn out to be much ado about nothing.

Read the rest of this entry »

The stage was set with a single podium, and beside it were two flags. The first flag was colored red white and blue, no stars and stripes, but three bands of red white and blue. The second flag was blue, and in its center was a circle of yellow stars. The keynote speaker stepped up to the mike. He was there to present a revolution. "A revolution in our way of thinking and in our decision making methods," he said, "a revolution in our behavior, in our politics, and in our goals." A green revolution.

The stage was in the presidential palace in the heart of Paris. The speaker was the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. And he couldn’t have chosen more illustrious guests for the occasion: José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize and, the winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Mr Al Gore himself. After Sarkozy outlined the results of four months of negotiations on the environment, Al Gore spoke. "I want to offer my congratulations to the French people. This is the beginning of an historic process," he said. "We need a ‘Grenelle mondial,’ a Worldwide Grenelle."

In May 1968, a time of great social upheaval in France, members of opposing camps met to discuss possible solutions to the crisis. Government representatives, employers and union leaders gathered to negotiate on labor terms and conditions. The agreements signed at the outcome were later called the "Grenelle accords" after the place where the meeting was held, in the Ministry of Labor building on Grenelle street in Paris. Sarkozy launched the environmental Grenelle last Spring, using the name of the labor agreements to emphasize the multilateral democratic nature of the process.

The Grenelle, or "environmental New Deal" as it has also been called, was organized in three phases. During the first phase, six heterogeneous working groups drafted plans of action to tackle major environmental issues, including climate change and energy needs, the loss of biodiversity, and unsustainable modes of production and consumption. During the second phase the general public was invited to join in by commenting on the groups’ reports either on an Internet forum hosted by the official site, or by attending regional meetings. I wrote about the Grenelle here on Green Options, once at the beginning of the process, and a second time at the opening of the public debate.

The phase of public debate came to an end on October 14, and last week at the presidential palace Sarkozy presented the synthesis of four months of talks. But what were the results of these "unprecedented negotiations?" There were irreconcilable differences on a number of issues, but happily, agreements were reached on others. About a dozen measures will be voted on by the French parliament in early 2008. It seems as though the greatest strides were made in two areas, transportation and building. These two areas are, needless to say, chief contributors to air pollution and climate change.

For example, Sarkozy announced that the construction of new highways in France will be slowed considerably, almost ceasing altogether, while in contrast the railway network will be expanded considerably. 2000 kilometers, or around 1250 miles, of tracks will be laid, benefiting both passenger and cargo trains, and thereby eliminating around 2 million trucks from French highways by 2020.

By 2012 all new constructions in France will conform to norms of "low consumption," and by 2020 all new buildings will be net producers of energy. Regarding household electrical equipment such as televisions, stereos and kitchen appliances, as soon as alternatives are made available, the old generation inefficient models will be banned. A deadline is already set for 2010 when incandescent light bulbs and single-paned windows will be prohibited.

Sarkozy also promised that the State will lead the way by greening public buildings and government transports. So, for example, starting in 2008, all public buildings will have to increase their energy efficiency by 20%, and by 2009 all vehicles used by the state will run on cleaner energy. Those two measures may not sound very impressive, but when placed in context, they take on greater significance. Indeed, mocked by the French themselves and scorned abroad, the French administration is infamous for its unwieldy size and relentless inefficiency. But, given such dimensions, just think of what a positive impact those otherwise modest goals for energy efficiency and clean vehicles will have by reducing CO2 emissions and air pollution. Why at this rate, Paris will be on its way to becoming the cleanest capital city in the world!

Certain issues discussed during the Grenelle talks were inevitably highly controversial and often the cause of tension between the various delegates. In my next post, I’ll be taking a look at some of those hot topics. So tune in to Green Options again early next week for Part 2 on the Sarko Eco-Show.

Official Grenelle Website

President Nicolas Sarkozy

Le Monde

Chocolate, chocolate, chocolate. The word is music to my ears, while the thing itself – when it is a bittersweet pearl of cocoa, or a spicy hazelnut praline, or again the warm melting heart of a rich gateau – why, no words can describe it! No wonder the famed Azetec Emperor Montezuma drank 50 cups of chocolate a day. No wonder the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus chose the name "Theobroma cacao" or "food of the god" for the glorious tree whose fruit is used to produce nature’s number one aphrodisiac.

It would appear that I am not alone in my passion for the heavenly food. Hundreds of people attended the Chocolate Show here in Paris this weekend. They went to watch the experts prepare chocolate delicacies, to hear lectures on the latest in chocolate-making machinery, or to see the latest chocolate-inspired fashion. But most of all they went to sample an astounding variety of the fine food. Although they did not steal the show, organic and Fair Trade chocolate featured prominently throughout the weekend.

I spoke to Emilie Guerin, a member of Ethiquable, a French Fair Trade company that has a partnership with a cooperative of cocoa producers in the Dominican Republic. Ethiquable, a combination of the words "éthique" and "équitable," French for ethical and fair, was founded in 2003. "Four years ago we started with 8 products," Emilie said. "Now we have 120." They began with coffee and now work with a range of products from orange juice to rice, and, of course, chocolate. But their goals remain the same from one foodstuff to the next: Ethiquable is dedicated to ensuring Fair Trade with farmers in the developing world and respect for the environment.

Emilie explained how the Fair Trade labeling process works. "In conjunction with the FairTtrade Labeling Organization (FLO), Max Havelaar evaluates the costs of production for a given foodstuff," in this case cocoa beans, "and the cost of living for the producers." A minimum price for the beans is determined based on that evaluation. "We as an importer must respect that price at the very least," Emilie said, "but we are free to propose a higher price to the producer if we want." What is more, the minimum price does not vary with the often highly volatile market prices, and so Ethiquable guarantees fair and steady revenues to producers in exchange for their produce.

This system of Fair Trade functions thanks to the reduction of intermediaries and margins. "The price that we offer to the consumer is the same and sometimes less than that of other brands," Emilie said, "because we as importers have smaller margins, and in addition we limit the number of intermediaries." Whenever possible, the full production and packaging processes are completed within the country of origin. Ethiquable transports the finished product to France where it is directly distributed to supermarkets and shops throughout the country.

At Ethiquable, Fair Trade goes hand-in-hand with a deep respect for the environment. For example, in the Dominican Republic they work "with families that have maintained a strong tradition of agriculture, families that cultivate small plots of land." Indeed the cocoa from the cooperative is in the process of being certified as 100% organic. "We are not interested in an industrial model that is impersonal and ultimately unsustainable," said Emilie. "Ours is based on human contact and care for the environment."

With some 30 partnerships in 21 countries, Ethiquable is growing quickly. May they continue to expand, leading the way with other fairtrade groups, to a humane and sustainable system of world trade and consumption.

The Chocolate Show

Ethiquable

Heave ho and the horn blows. It’s departure time for another container ship. Port of embarkation: Savannah, Georgia. Destination: Adana, Turkey. About 25 of the containers on this ship are filled with Georgian cotton. Despite the enduring cotton crisis in America, half a million tons of the fiber pass through the port of Savannah each year, representing some 500 million dollars in exports that are shipped to countries around the world, including China, Pakistan and Turkey.

Adana is the nation’s fourth largest city and the centre for the Turkish cotton and textile industries. In this case the American cotton is sent to a factory where it is spun and used to make towels. Great attention is paid to ensure high quality, oh-so-soft and fluffy towels to attract the Turkish shopper… or rather, the American shopper. The towels are packaged and sent to the United States on another container ship. This is crazy!

There are of course the energy and CO2 emissions involved in this to and from tango across the ocean. But even if we put aside such issues in the name of international trade, it cannot be denied that the system is absurd, especially given the fact that Turkey is one of the top ten cotton producers in the world.

The story of the roving Georgian cotton was recently told on national French television, forming one chapter in the larger chronicle of one container ship’s circumnavigation of the globe. It reminded me of another story, that of the traveling tomatoes told in We Feed the World (2005), a film by Austrian director Erwin Wagenhofer. Spanish tomatoes, ripened under the warm southern sun, have long supplied northern European markets. I was an occasional consumer, preferring the Spanish variety to the other widely available option, the tasteless variety grown in rainy Holland. Note: I was, for as it turns out, those tomatoes are not at all sun-ripened.

As shown in Wagenhofer’s film, in southern Spain tomatoes and other vegetables are grown in greenhouses, greenhouses as far as the eye can see and beyond. And not a tree to be found. They are grown using an artificial (read inefficient), irrigation system manned by workers from North and West Africa. The men work long hours and live in makeshift shacks in between the greenhouses. A large percentage of the produce from southern Spain is transported by truck to northern Europe, and a certain percentage is sent to different countries in Africa. Even with the higher production costs in Europe plus the transportation costs, the Spanish tomatoes are sold in Africa at cheaper prices than locally grown tomatoes. Absurd.

Why such absurdities in world trade? Much of the answer lies in subsidies. The devastating effects of first-world subsidized agriculture on markets in the developing world are well known. Subsidized produce is artificially competitive, encourages an increase in production and pushes international market prices down. Local farmers in developing countries cannot compete, and are forced out of business and into poverty. Yet the developed world continues to subsidize its agriculture. Disagreements over reducing subsidies in general and export subsidies in particular, have threatened to jeopardize several rounds of international trade talks over the past years. Both the European Union and the United States remain reluctant to renounce their protectionist measures.

Of course not all subsidies should be abolished. As said a few months ago during a discussion here on Green Options about the US Farm Bill, subsidies should not be paid to the barons of unfair unsustainable trade, the mega agribusinesses, but should fund local organic outfits, thereby encouraging the shift to green sustainable agriculture.

We Feed the World

World Trade Organization

Oxfam on Cotton Subsidies

UN Food and Agriculture Organization

The first phase in the French government’s environmental "New Deal" is complete. Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology and sustainable development, hosted a conference in Paris last Thursday to present the results of that initial phase and to launch the second phase. In his press release, Borloo employed rousing terms to describe a momentous turning point in French society.

After a time of inquiry, now is the time for action, and France will be present at the forefront of the fight for human rights in the 21st century. The environmental new deal is an unprecedented democratic process. The role of the State is essentially to facilitate collective action. Its mission is to foster synergy between common and sometimes competing causes. After several weeks of debate one thing is clear: dialogue works and solutions exist.

Stirring indeed. But what makes this program so exceptional? The multilateral nature of the first phase, and the democratic or collective nature of the second, according to Borloo, adding that France can lead the way for the rest of the world by fashioning a sustainable society. "As both producers and consumers we will be subject to major changes, but those changes represent an opportunity for our economy, our health and our children." Sustainable living and economic growth are not incompatible. "By protecting the environment we prepare our companies for the economic competition of the future, we improve our quality of life, and we prevent illnesses caused by pollution."

More grand statements. There is a sense of deja vu. And I cannot help but ask, as I have been asking repeatedly over the last few weeks, is there any substance behind the hype?

Within a week of taking office last Spring, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a meeting on sustainable development and the environment. The gathering marked the beginning of the larger program that constitutes the "New Deal." In the first phase of the program, members from different sectors of society were assembled in six working groups that convened over the summer, with each group focusing on a different environmental issue. Representatives of NGOs, companies, unions, local councils and government bodies joined scientists and other specialized experts to confer on the status quo and to draft a plan of action.

The novelty lies in the diversity of the participants. Individuals and interest groups who are normally at loggerheads with one another were brought to the same negotiating table. Each delegate was equal in status with the next, and could contribute fully to the proceedings.

For example, working group number one was focused on climate change and energy needs. Jean Jouzel and Nicholas Stern were co-presidents of the group. Jouzel is an eminent French geochemist and climatologist who has carried out extensive research on climate change in Antarctica and Greenland; Stern is a prominent British economist and author of the renowned "Stern Review," a report which presents the impact of climate change on the global economy.

The NGO camp for group one consisted of delegates from international alliances such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as well as envoys from national environmental groups. The employee camp was composed of representatives from different labor unions, including engineers, railway workers, technicians, and white-collar workers. The employer camp was comprised of leaders from various business associations, both general confederations and industry-specific alliances such as the Union of Chemical Manufacturers, and the Federation of Road Transportation. Finally, the state camp consisted of directors of government bodies such as the National Forestry Office and the Energy and Environment Agency.

It is hardly surprising that the government website features interviews with delegates who are by and large satisfied with the process and the outcome of the working groups. They admit that the challenges were great, the stakes were high, and there was a considerable time constraint, but they also refer to lively debate, a genuine exchange, progress and consensus. Delegates’ observations and remarks featured on an NGO website are much more subdued.

Bernard Cressens, program director at WWF France, participated in the workshops devoted to the subject of greening French agriculture. No one boycotted the meeting, Cressens says. A coalition of NGOs was even able to distribute a list of suggestions for use during one of the sessions. But as soon as the group began to focus on the details of a particular matter, someone, often a representative from the French Ministry of Agriculture, always raised an objection. "So — reduce the use of pesticides, yes that’s a good idea but it’s impossible; increase the percentage of organic farming in France, yes but is there the market for it; defend domestic biodiversity yes, well maybe, but…"

Olivier Louchard, a member of Climate Action Network, attended several workshops dedicated to questions of transportation and methods of reducing CO2 emissions. While he feels that the discussions were "relatively constructive," and some promising proposals were made, he was troubled by the time constraints, calling them "completely unrealistic." "It’s not possible to establish a national climate plan in only two months and certainly not one that can be implemented by the current government over the next five years." So Louchard wonders whether the government might not have its own plan of action, one that will be followed irrespective of what emerges from the working groups and the public debate.

Last week each working group drew up a report, outlining the conclusions of their discussions and providing suggestions for immediate, mid-term and long-term actions. The reports were presented at the conference on Thursday, and the second phase of the "new deal" was launched: the public debate. Anyone can participate in the debate, either by attending one of the regional meetings scheduled across the country from October 5 to 19, or by visiting the government website set up specifically for the occasion. The website is hosting a forum where the French people can leave comments on any of the reports, which are available in full and condensed versions. They can also take the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with one another.

Borloo concluded the conference by saying it has not yet been proven that another type of economic growth is possible. "But if all parts of society work together, if each day every one of us makes the right choices, if at every moment and in every aspect of our lives we vote for sustainable alternatives, then it is my conviction," he said, "that it is possible." Thus France can provide a model both in Europe and around the world, of a healthy growing and sustainable economy.

Yes, sounds great. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, or at least not regarding the general idea of the whole thing. The very fact that the working groups convened, engaged in dialogue and presented their reports, is an accomplishment in itself. The forum for public debate represents a unique opportunity for French citizens to participate and thereby hopefully become more engaged in the transformation toward sustainable living.

But, Borloo and company have cried green, twice in one month. There was the promise of the first eco-friendly Rugby World Cup. Then there was the promise of the ultra-cool green techno parade. In both cases, the government ministry and the organizing committees vowed to take actions that were entirely within the realm of the possible. So, if a promise to install proper recycling facilities at a sports stadium or along the route of a music parade cannot be kept, how can the pledge to revolutionize an entire society be taken seriously?

Image source: UMBC edu

Environmental "New Deal" French Government Website

Alliance for the Planet

From Budapest to Beijing, and from Bangkok to Buenos Aires, city dwellers across the globe hoped to enjoy an entire day without of the habitual pollution and hassle of automobile traffic.

Towns and cities signed up to participate in the annual car-free day held last Saturday. Since 2000 the World Carfree Network, an international association dedicated to advancing alternatives to automobile dependence, has called for the celebration of cities and public life "free from the noise, the stress and the pollution of cars," on the same day each year, September 22. The association urged individuals and local organizers to make this year’s celebration more than a one-day affair.

Let World Carfree Day be a showcase for just how our cities might look like, feel like, and sound like without cars…365 days a year. As the climate heats up, World Carfree Day is the perfect time to take the heat off the planet, and put it on city planners and politicians to give priority to cycling, walking and public transport, instead of to the automobile.

The car-free day coincided, as it does every year, with European Mobility Week. Events were organized in over 1000 cities and towns in Europe, and culminated in the car-free day on Saturday. The week is sponsored by the European Commission in partnership with three European-wide organizations that work on urban environmental issues: Eurocities, Energie-Cités and Climate Alliance. Local authorities, leisure clubs, community groups and other spontaneous gatherings of determined individuals, coordinate an array of activities to promote sustainable means of transport.

Each year there is an overarching theme for Mobility Week. "Streets for People" was the theme for this the sixth edition of the week, calling for "local authorities to reallocate some road space to non-motorized traffic," and drawing attention to the pressing need to improve air quality on the local level. Many cities closed their main streets to automobile traffic, arranged mass bicycle outings and held street parties. Some town authorities took the opportunity to showcase permanent measures taken in recent years to increase the road space dedicated to sustainable mobility.

Reports on Mobility Week and World Carfree Day are still coming out.

One dispatch already released came from China. Officials had announced that Beijing would hold its first car-free day last Saturday. James Reynolds, reporting from Beijing on Saturday for the BBC, said, "the ruling communist party has encouraged people to leave their cars at home to improve the air for next year’s Olympic Games, but no one has taken any notice." The main thoroughfares of the Chinese capital looked, by and large, the way they do on normal car days, Reynolds said. Private cars were blocked from using some back streets but apparently, "nobody uses them much anyway… People here are not willing to give up their cars in exchange for better air." Overall, Reynolds concluded, "no car day appears to have had absolutely no impact whatsoever."

Image: World Carfree Network

BBC Beijing No Car Day

European Mobility Week

Eurocities

Energie Cités

Climate Alliance

Green events are in, but are they for real? Whether it is a music festival or a sports championship, a biennial fashion show or an annual athletics meet, cultural and sporting events are increasingly being promoted as environmentally friendly. Given their size, many of these events inevitably generate inordinate amounts of greenhouse gases and unthinkable volumes of waste. So any plan to curb the harmful effects is a welcome initiative. But are the promises to protect the environment fulfilled? Are the words followed by actions? Or has the green cause been commandeered as an effective commercial gimmick? Has "help save the planet" become merely a trendy marketing slogan?

Here in France a number of recent events have been placed under a green banner. The 2007 Rugby World Cup, still in progress, and the 2007 Techno Parade, held in Paris on Saturday, were advertised as the first ecological events of their kind in the world. In each case the organizers vowed to take concrete actions to reduce the impact of the given event on the environment. The French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, headed by the Minister Jean Louis Borloo, is a chief sponsor and co-organizer, and therefore features prominently in the publicity campaigns for these happenings. There is, however, a growing discrepancy between the organizers’ words and their actions, a seemingly cavernous rift between declaration and implementation.

Technopol, the organizing committee of the Paris Techno Parade, appears to be more consistent. Last year’s parade was dedicated to the fight against hunger. With a deft publicity campaign, the organizers were able to raise awareness about the cause and collect funds for NGOs engaged in the battle to reduce hunger around the world. This year, the parade was pitched as "a celebration of the planet." Technopol announced their commitment to protect the environment and, addressing all clubbers and techno lovers, stated that the success of the event "also depends on you and your cooperation." They put together a guide for the eco-conscious partygoer.

The leaflet entitled "The Clubber’s Guide to Eco-Cool" provides 10 steps the clubber can take to "help save our planet." They are not revolutionary steps, but they are feasible and they are geared toward the clubber. So for example, the first step concerns hygiene: "if you want to smell good out there on the dance floor, before going out take a shower and not a bath. You’ll save water, and time. And don’t forget to turn the tap off while you’re brushing your teeth." To demonstrate the value of these acts the leaflet includes figures: 30 to 80 liters of water consumed during a five-minute shower versus 150 to 200 liters for a full bath. Another step touches on fashion: "did you know that fair-trade organic fashion is hip/trendy? Clothes and accessories made with organic cotton and bamboo are now the staple of every self-respecting clubber’s wardrobe." A third step encourages the clubber who wants to be at the vanguard of cool to consider recycling the old cell phone when purchasing the latest model.

The ten suggested gestures cover the partygoer’s entire night out, from water and energy saving tips before leaving home, advice about how to keep emissions at a minimum when traveling to and from the club, through ideas about reducing waste at the club, to the breakfast of local seasonal fruit back at home in the morning.

After carefully following the instructions in the guide, the eco-cool clubber and green techno lover may legitimately ask what the organizers of the parade have done to fulfill their eco-mission. What about the event itself?

Technopol lists the five actions that were planned to make this years Techno Parade greener than last year’s: the purchase of emission offsets, coordination with a major French NGO, production of environmentally-friendly pamphlets, a reduction in sound pollution and sustainable waste management. In collaboration with a carbon offset company called "Action Carbone," Technopol calculated the CO2 emissions generated by both the parade and the normal running of the organization. To offset those emissions the sum of 1000 euros will be donated to a biogas project in India.

There is no reason to doubt that actions will follow close upon the organizers’ words. Nor is there any cause to believe that the parade program and leaflet were printed on anything other than recycled paper using chemical-free inks. Then again, it is difficult for us – the eco-cool clubber, the environmental onlooker and the green techno lover – to know for sure. On the other hand, we were able to check out the sound control and waste management vaunted by Technopol.

When the first float in the parade rolled slowly by, the techno beat seemed to be at a reasonable eco-friendly volume. But then, the sound blasting from the third and fourth trucks pounded the air, battering the thoracic cages and engulfing the gentle heartbeats of we who were standing at a considerable distance from the floats. If that was the reduced volume, what was the regular volume? Enough to shake the foundations of those noble Parisian abodes and to inflict lasting damage on our eco-sensitive eardrums.

As for the waste management, we could see that the organizers had good intentions. They meant well. There were several recycling stations, placed strategically along the parade route. At each station, a brigade of volunteers dressed in bright yellow T-shirts was present to direct us to the proper bin, depending on the type of waste we were carrying. The system appeared to be so carefully planned. It was bound to be a success.

Unfortunately, there were a few unanticipated glitches that undermined the whole endeavor. One recycling station was at the foot of a monument to the French Republic. A contingent of friendly riot police stood guard to prevent any wayward eco-cool clubber, environmental onlooker or green techno-lover from climbing up onto the monument. Fair enough. The only problem was that the policemen stood in front of the recycling bins. Volunteers were supposed to collect our waste and place the various items into the appropriate containers, separating glass, paper, plastic and food. Somehow it was difficult to attract their attention, and as a result waste ended up everywhere but the recycling bins.

The recycling station in Bastille circle, which was both the starting and finishing point of the parade, was directly accessible. We were able to inspect the bins. Empty. There were enough volunteers milling around. A few of them said things were looking much tidier than last year. Indeed a quick stroll down the first leg of the parade route an hour after the procession had moved through, was enough to confirm that the Parisian sanitation engineers had done an excellent job in cleaning up clean. But what was the final destination of those tons of garbage? Not the recycling plant.

Overall, without being too harsh, we decided that the organizers did not fulfill their promises to reduce sound pollution and manage the waste produced by the parade. Not all was lost however, for the publicity campaign must have raised some awareness about what each of us can do to help save our planet. Let’s hope. The danger is that we, the clubbers, onlookers and techno lovers, or for that matter the rugby fans, rock n roll aficionados and fashion buffs, have faith in event organizers and in the Ministry of Ecology, and that we do not recognize the publicity stunts for what they are: all hype and very little action.

Paris Techno Parade

A wind of change is blowing through the world of rugby. A green wind.

The 2007 Rugby World Cup, the 3rd largest sports event in the world with an estimated 2.5 million spectators from around the world, is being held in France from September 7 to October 20. The organizers, including a special rugby committee, a government agency and the French Rugby Federation, have vowed to make the event tangibly eco-friendly, and number of the players on the French team have given their names to the cause.

The French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development issued a detailed press release at the end of August, outlining the three major axes of the Rugby World Cup environmental program: emissions calculations, concrete actions, and a publicity campaign. After calculating the impact that the six weeks of matches and festivities will have on the environment, including 570,000 tons of CO2 emissions, the government agency identified three spheres of action: public transport, renewable energies and waste management. Those actions, and other environmental issues, feature in the plan to raise awareness among the publics involved in the World Cup ― fans, employees, volunteers and television spectators ― with ecologically-oriented posters, leaflets and commercials.

The potential was great. The expectations were high. "This is it," I thought: the green movement is finally emerging from those polluted backwaters and, blown by the green wind, it is at long last moving into the mainstream. Even though I was not the proud holder of a ticket, I wanted to enjoy the atmosphere of fair play and bonhomie that characterizes rugby, witness the incredible growth of green, and relish the feeling of being one of the crowd, no more the eccentric tree-hugging freak of yore. What follows is an account of my experience last Friday at the "Stade de France," the Stadium of France, during the few hours preceding the opening ceremony and first match of the tournament, which pitted the French against the Argentineans.

The first sphere of action in the environmental program consists of the promotion and facilitation of public transport to and from the stadiums, and between the ten World Cup venues scattered across the country. The mythical Stade de France is located in the working-class suburb of Saint Denis, just a few miles north of the French capital. I took the D-line train from the centre of Paris out to Saint Denis without any trouble at all. It must be said, however, that my rapid journey cannot be attributed to the efficiency of the World Cup program since the D-line is part of the normal metropolitan subway and train system. No doubt the action in this sphere is going full guns, full eco-guns that is, at the other nine stadiums.

At the D-line station in Saint Denis, I joined the crowds for the 10 to 15 minute walk over to the Stade de France. Along the way, street vendors were selling flags, T-shirts and hats emblazoned with the French colors. One or two even dared to tout Argentinean merchandise. Others were selling hot dogs and drinks. I could not help but notice the trashcans along the way. They were already overflowing, glass plastic and paper all mixed together. Not to worry, I told myself, this sidewalk is not officially part of the stadium and therefore cannot possibly fall under the jurisdiction of the eco-friendly Rugby World Cup.

We continued on and down through a passage under the highway. Walking up the ramp on the other side, I tried to ignore more plastic cups strewn about. Then, there it was: the soaring stadium with a seating capacity of 80,000 that has hosted concerts by legends such as U2 and the Rolling Stones. The atmosphere was charged with a good-natured energy. Fans from across the globe were united by a common love of the game. Immediate bonds were being formed over sizeable jugs of beer.

A great green tent, with green flags flying, beckoned. Deep dark pine green. That must be the hub for the environmental publicity campaign, I thought. What a momentous occasion! The victory of the green revolution was upon us. The tears welled up in my eyes and a lump rose in my throat… but wait. What were those happy rugby revelers holding? Plastic cups. And what did those letters on the green tent spell? H-e-i-n-e-k-e-n. The great green tent, with green flags flying, beckoned. Deep dark bottle green.

Well, they weren’t biodegradable but at least those plastic goblets would be recycled, I consoled myself as I recalled that waste management is the third sphere of eco-action at the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I looked around for the closest recycling bin. There weren’t any close at hand, so I strolled round to the south side of the stadium. I strode to the north, then over to the east, and back to the west. I marched right around the colossal thing. Not a recycling bin in sight. All the green action must be inside the stadium, I concluded. But wasn’t that where all the rugby action was taking place? Besides, food and drink are forbidden inside the stadium, so all of the waste action was happening outside and none of it was being recycled.

What a disappointment. I was about to head back to Paris when I remembered that final axis of the environmental program, the publicity campaign. At the very least those jolly fans would be conscious of the contributions they can make to help save our planet, those small gestures in everyday life. That is, if they were not performing those green deeds already. Indeed, according to the press release those who had ordered their tickets by mail also received a leaflet containing practical information and a "clear message" about cooperating to achieve an eco-friendly World Cup with a "limited impact climate change."

I asked a few chaps from Paris if they had seen the message. They didn’t know what in the world I was talking about. When I mentioned the environmental program, one guy wondered if I was referring to the giant screens that are supposed to relay the games live for those who cannot afford to buy tickets.

Sharon and Paul were more willing to chat. They have come all the way from Tasmania, and will be attending 14 games. When I marveled at the distance they had traveled, Paul said, "Yeah, we walked. It took us three years." They bought their tickets eighteen months ago. "We bought tickets for Paris and tickets for Nantes," Sharon said. "We’re going to all the games in those two venues." When asked what came with the tickets, Sharon said "There was like a poster with maps of all the stadiums and lots of information about the center of the union, and things like that." There was one other thing. "When we bought the tickets, we had to sponsor a local rugby team somewhere in France," the couple said. Anything else, anything about the environment? Nope.

As I said goodbye to Paul and Sharon and wished them a happy World Cup, it became clear that the wind of change was nothing more than a lot of hot air, and that’s the last thing we need more of.

It was time to go home. Perhaps I would watch the weather lady on national French television. According to the press release, she will be "coaching" 10 million television spectators on the eco-friendly behavior they should adopt during the World Cup, "and after!" Then again, maybe I wouldn’t.

The green revolution lives! Long live the green revolution!

Image Source: blogrugby2007

French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development

Currently over 250 million people experience the direct consequences of desertification. Many of them are the world’s most destitute and vulnerable citizens.

2000 participants are expected in Madrid for the eighth international conference of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which runs from September 3 - 14. Ecologists, representatives from 800 NGOs, and envoys from the 191 countries that ratified the Convention will meet to report on recent developments in the battle against one of the most critical environmental problems of our day.

The UNCCD defines "desertification" as the "degradation of land in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors including climatic variations and human activities." In other words, the term does not refer to the expansion of existing deserts, but to the reduction or loss of productivity of previously fertile lands. The topsoil on those lands gradually loses its nutrients and the crop yield diminishes, sometimes to the point of being completely barren and unproductive. Deforestation, overgrazing, overcultivation and faulty irrigation are some of the major causes of land degradation, while growing populations put further pressure on land and water resources.

The consequences of desertification are devastating and far-reaching. The drop in biological productivity leads to a decline in economic productivity, forcing farmers, and often entire communities, into poverty and compelling many to migrate. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), land degradation causes "an estimated loss of $42 billion a year in agricultural production." It is believed that almost one-third of "the world’s cropland has been abandoned over the past 40 years because erosion has made it unproductive." Eroded lands become more susceptible to flooding which can in turn affect water quality, while during periods of drought people suffer from health problems caused by wind-blown dust.

For several decades the United Nations has been battling to reverse what is one of gravest environmental problems of our day. Starting in the mid-1970s, there were a number of international efforts, but by the early 1990s, various studies showed that, apart from a few localised improvements, overall land degradation had increased. There was a call for a change in tactics. The Convention to Combat Desertification was one of three major conventions elaborated during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It is designed to promote action through locally-run National Action Programmes (NAP) funded by local, national and international organisations. The UNCCD website provides a summary of this new approach:

"Drawing on past lessons, the Convention states that these programmes must adopt a democratic, bottom-up approach. They should emphasize popular participation and the creation of an ‘enabling environment’ designed to enable local people to reverse land degradation through self-help. Of course, governments remain responsible for creating this enabling environment. They must make politically sensitive changes, such as decentralizing authority, improving land tenure and systems, and empowering women, farmers and pastoralists."

Although it is easier to prevent desertification than to reverse it, the UNCCD encourages members to develop offensive stategems as well as defensive manoeuvres. The programmes implemented under the aegis of the Convention include reforestation projects, managed grazing methods, sustainable farming techniques, such as crop rotation, and efficient irrigation schemes. And the fight goes on.

UNCCD

Also at GO:

Solar Ovens Provide Alternative to Cooking with Wood in Rural China

This Desert Flower: Israel’s Negev Desert

Several hundred volunteers recently posed naked on a glacier in Switzerland, to raise awareness about climate change. New York artist Spencer Tunick, who has staged photo shoots of nude gatherings in cities around the world, teamed up with the environmental activist group Greenpeace to immortalize a "living sculpture" of the six hundred people atop the retreating Aletsch glacier.

The Great Aletsch is the largest and longest glacier in Europe, and forms part of a region in southwestern Switzerland that was named a United Nations Natural World Heritage Site in 2001. The site, which was enlarged this year, is situated in the Bernese Alps and consists of mountainous terrains that harbor a variety of ecosystems and a precious diversity of plant and animal species. The area as a whole, and the Aletsch Glacier in particular, is highly threatened by climate change.

According to Pro Natura, the conservation non-profit organization that runs the Aletsch Ecological Center, since the last ice age some 11,000 years ago, the glacier has been slowly retreating. But, there have also been times when it advanced. For example, in 1860 the glacier was 1.8 miles longer than it is now and about 650 feet higher. Today, due to the clearly visible effects of climate change, the Aletsch glacier is retreating at an alarming rate, losing 50 meters or around 165 feet a year. At that rate, not only the Aletsch but also most of the world’s glaciers are predicted to disappear by 2080.

By photographing the large assembly of naked people on the Alestch, Tunick said he aimed to draw a link between the human body and the glacier, and to highlight the vulnerability of both in the face of climate change. Members of Greenpeace organized the event: they recruited the six hundred participants as volunteers through their website, negotiated with local authorities, and managed the logistics of the photo shoot. The volunteers came mainly from across Switzerland, but some traveled from neighboring countries to take part in the mass installation art.

Vincent Donzé, a journalist for the Swiss newspaper Le Matin, described his experience as a volunteer. Tunick and his team of six assistants, the organizers from Greenpeace and the six hundred volunteers hiked up for several hours to reach the Aletsch. At an altitude of around 7545 feet, the volunteers stripped and, at Tunick’s command, took up different poses: standing by the edge of the glacier, standing spread out across the ice, or lying down and huddled together. They made use of slippers and pillows provided by Greenpeace to guard against the cold as they walked or lay on the glacier, and the air temperature hovered at around 10° Celsius or 50° Fahrenheit.

Another journalist for Le Matin reported that Greenpeace paid Tunick more than 20,000 Swiss francs, about $16,600, a sum that covers fees for the artist and his six assistants, and buys half of the rights for the photographs, which will be used for a Greenpeace publicity campaign in the near future. The artist will also sell his pictures to art dealers for thousands or possibly tens of thousands of dollars.

Reflecting on the costs of mounting such an eco-artistic project - the time, effort and money involved - raises the question: how effective was it? You might argue that the aim of raising awareness about climate change was reached, because the story of the six hundred naked people on a melting glacier made international news, featuring, for example, on the BBC and in major American and European newspapers. Or you might wonder what percentage of those who saw or read reports on the event had previously been unaware of climate change.

In other words, what kinds of response did the reports and the accompanying media photos incite? One reader, Jean-Pierre, wrote to a Swiss newspaper asking whether the impact of the project was significant enough to justify the energy consumed and the emissions produced, before, during and after the photo shoot. He doubted that Tunick and the volunteers had paused to consider the energy and the CO2 expended in the process.

These arguments and others lead us to ponder the more general issue of the role art plays in the green movement. I believe art can play a powerful role in furthering awareness and encouraging action on the various environmental challenges we are faced with. The story of 600 naked people on a Swiss glacier has caused a stir in the media, and it doesn’t end there. The resulting nude photos will drive the Greenpeace publicity campaign, and will be featured in galleries and museums, thereby reaching a wide audience.

We need not seek to quantify the contribution of a particular work of art, for we would be missing the point entirely. Eco-art and art for the environment should be vigorously but judiciously promoted. So, while we cultivate the development of green art, we must also be wary of vacuous gimmicks and inane publicity stunts that masquerade as creativity with conscience.

Image source: 24 Heures

Greenpeace

BBC

Le Matin