For our September 2010 issue, we at Foreign Policy Digest have chosen to analyze the many ways that global climate change is affecting people, nations, and the natural environment in different locations around the world. Unlike many other issues, climate change is not confined to national borders or certain groups of people, but is a shared concern for a shared planet. With this in mind, this month’s contributors have focused on topics ranging from national security, environmental degradation, financial and food insecurity, economic opportunity, and collaboration between the developed and developing world with the goal of showing both what is being done and what remains to be done in order to effectively respond to global climate change.

For our September 2010 issue, we at Foreign Policy Digest have chosen to analyze the many ways that global climate change is affecting people, nations, and the natural environment in different locations around the world. Unlike many other issues, climate change is not confined to national borders or certain groups of people, but is a shared concern for a shared planet. With this in mind, this month’s contributors have focused on topics ranging from national security, environmental degradation, financial and food insecurity, economic opportunity, and collaboration between the developed and developing world with the goal of showing both what is being done and what remains to be done in order to effectively respond to global climate change.

In our Asia Pacific section, Elizabeth Lynch, founder and editor of China Law & Policy, demonstrates that U.S. policy failures and political deadlock on climate change and green job creation have left an opening for China to step in and take the lead. By focusing on the technological and economic aspects of climate change, China is creating a record amount of green jobs and making key investments at home and around the world, further cementing its role as an economic and energy rival of the U.S.

Erika Pont, an attorney at McDermott Will & Emery, debunks the myth that a country as temperately cool and as natural resource-wealthy as Russia can be a climate change ‘winner’ in this month’s Europe/Russia section, citing the record-setting heat wave and subsequent fires that have devastated the capital Moscow and wiped out crops, killed thousands, and altered forests nationwide. The disaster is putting to the test Russia’s stature as a global energy and security behemoth and as a leading signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Darfur conflict in the Sudan is familiar to many in the international community, but the role that climate change has had in fueling and exacerbating the conflict is far less known. For our Africa section, FPD columnist John Lyman analyzes the situation in Darfur from the perspective of climate change, examining how shifting weather patterns, environmental degradation, and food scarcity that have caused one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern human history. Mr. Lyman notes that racial tension between traditionally African farmers and Arab nomads have been exacerbated by a lack of water, food and arable land, and the thus these issues in order to truly resolve the conflict once and for all.

Middle East Regional Editor Marc Sorel writes in his section this month about how the many energy and climate issues facing Yemen – diminished fresh water supplies, poor resource management, changing weather patterns, exploding population growth, and increased extremist and terrorist activity – could result in a national security crisis with the potential to destabilize the country and the entire Middle East region.

Mahanth Joishy, FPD’s South Asia Regional Editor, focuses on Bangladesh – one of the world’s most densely populated, impoverished, and geographically low-lying countries– and how the majority of its population, reliant on the agricultural industry, consistently live with their health and economic livelihoods at stake because of climate change and its effects of rising sea levels, heavy rains, and massive flooding.

Brazil – the economic, agricultural, and energy powerhouse of Latin America – is the focus of this month’s Americas section. Frequent FPD contributor Niki Shah discusses the many ways that Brazil has acted to combat global climate change head-on. From the country’s national climate change legislation to its unique ethanol fuel system to its impressive funding for research and implementation, the country is several steps ahead of many developed countries. This includes the U.S., which has yet to pass a national energy or climate change legislation and has not lived up to all its financial pledges to assist developing countries in the fight against climate change.

In addition to these featured pieces, FPD is pleased to provide our readers with an interview with Poonam Bir Kasturi, founder of the Daily Dump, an urban recycling operation started in India four years ago that has helped thousands of Indians compost their trash and cultivate fertilizer for agricultural use. This women-owned business has been so groundbreaking that it has spawned other chapters in Latin America and the U.S. The interview was conducted by South Asia Regional Editor Mahanth Joishy.

Finally, FPD Managing Editor Robert Friedman offers in his column a lively discussion of this month’s theme, highlighting the importance of a bottom-up approach to combating climate change. Mr. Friedman argues that though the perception of climate change may be a complicated issue best dealt with by scientists, academics and government, individual people represented through civil society can organize and become educated in order to make a difference and change their habits. The deadlock in the U.S. Senate over comprehensive climate change and energy reform should not detract from the many local and community activities occurring each day to make the world a cleaner, more energy-efficient place to live.

In closing, as with so many issues, much attention has been paid to two highly vocal opposing extremes in the climate change debate, while less attention is often paid to the many less visible individuals and organizations whose efforts remain largely unnoticed. We hope these articles help underscore the extent to which humans around the world are increasingly impacted by intense climate and weather abnormalities. Just as there is more than ample empirical evidence to demonstrate that human activity is contributing to climate change, so too is there evidence that humans can take specific measures to help mitigate its effects. Understanding the global and domestic ramifications of climate change will help you better know – and help - the world you live in.

 Sean Bartlett is Americas Regional Editor for Foreign Policy Digest.

China no longer needs to worry about the U.S. as a serious green technology competitor because the U.S. just left the race. After a year-long impasse, Senate majority leader Harry Reid confirmed on July 22, 2010 that the Democrats would not be able to secure enough votes to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act and, thus, would abandon any further efforts to do so.

But, in today’s globalized economy, rising powers like China are willing and readily able to capitalize on America’s missed opportunities. The climate change bill would have provided a coherent U.S. energy policy, directed investment to green technology and created much-needed American jobs. Instead, 

those investment and job opportunities will likely go to China. With China’s rapid expansion into the clean technology sector, the U.S. is being left behind and leaving many to wonder--will it ever be able to catch up?

DEVELOPMENTS

China no longer needs to worry about the U.S. as a serious green technology competitor because the U.S. just left the race. After a year-long impasse, Senate majority leader Harry Reid confirmed on July 22, 2010 that the Democrats would not be able to secure enough votes to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act and, thus, would abandon any further efforts to do so.

But, in today’s globalized economy, rising powers like China are willing and readily able to capitalize on America’s missed opportunities. The climate change bill would have provided a coherent U.S. energy policy, directed investment to green technology and created much-needed American jobs. Instead, 

those investment and job opportunities will likely go to China. With China’s rapid expansion into the clean technology sector, the U.S. is being left behind and leaving many to wonder--will it ever be able to catch up?

BACKGROUND

Although the U.S. debate on climate change dwells on the prevention of environmental damage, the Chinese government focuses on the economics of climate change, emphasizing the direct link between clean technology and China’s energy security and economic competitiveness. Former Center for American Progress senior policy analyst Julian Wong explained in a recent testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that China’s emphasis on the economic upside of clean technology has imbued its energy policy with a greater sense of urgency, allowing the country to surpass the U.S. in many renewable energy industries.

With over  It has pledged $300 billion to bring high-speed rail to many parts of the country and is exporting its expertise to Turkey, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and potentially, even California. Notoriously stingy at funding its rail system, the U.S., on the other hand, has pledged a relatively paltry $8 billion and has only one high-speed rail line. Instead of developing cleaner rail technology, the U.S. continues to develop carbon-intensive modes of transportation, investing in highways and air transit.

China has also become a global leader in the renewable energy sector. As the leading manufacturer of solar panels, China exports most of its solar panels overseas. As for wind, China installed the largest number of wind turbines in the world in 2009, expanding its wind capacity by 13 GW. By contrast, the U.S. only expanded its capacity by 10 GW in 2009. But, China’s prowess in renewables should not come as a surprise. In 2009, China invested $34.6 billion in green technology, making it the leader in renewable energy funding; the U.S. came in second, investing $18.6 billion.

Some critics argue that the Chinese government has an unfair advantage because an authoritarian system can funnel money easily to industries it wants to promote. The largest commercial banks in China are state-owned and--at the insistence of the central government--have provided ample low-interest loans to green technology companies. The U.S. market economy, on the other hand, cannot require American banks to give out favorable loans. Furthermore, China has used protectionist policies, like its “indigenous innovation” policy, to promote home-grown companies at the expense of foreign ones.

ANALYSIS

While some of these arguments are reasonable and should be addressed in trade talks with the Chinese, their importance in explaining the U.S.’ second-fiddle status is exaggerated. The criticisms serve only to obscure the real issue behind the U.S.’ downfall in the green technology sector – the lack of a coherent national energy policy. In the U.S., the climate change debate too often ignores the important role of government in promoting emerging industries within the capitalist framework and cooperating with the private sector. Silicon Valley, for example, flourished because of government support and its close ties to government, particularly the defense agencies. To attribute China’s competitive edge to its planned economy is to suggest that capitalism and free markets are what hinder the U.S. ability to be a viable competitor in the global green technology market. But, American history shows that government support bolsters innovation.

Capital will flow to where there is some level of certainty in investment. Venture capitalists are sinking their dollars into China’s green technology because the Chinese government has a crystal-clear policy, which it has backed by huge investments in renewable energy--sure signs of a government’s sincere commitment to promoting green tech. These investors are also receiving huge returns on their Chinese investments.  China’s richest person is now believed to be Wang Chuanfu, founder and chairman of BYD, a battery and electric car company in China.

Furthermore, it’s not just Chinese capital that is flowing. This September, Chinese wind turbine manufacturer Mingyang Electric will seek to raise $500 million in an initial public offering in the U.S. If the U.S. wants that capital to remain within its borders, the federal government needs to make an equally strong commitment to renewable energy. Until Congress passes some sort of legislation signaling its commitments to certain industries, capital--even U.S. capital--will continue to flow to China and green technology innovation in the U.S. will remain at a standstill.

In his testimony, Julian Wong raised the crucial point that, although the U.S. still leads China in green technology research and development (R&D), eventually, those R&D dollars will want to move to China, too. By its nature, R&D needs to be geographically close to its manufacturing base, as well as to the end users of its products. In fact, some U.S. companies--including important players like Applied Materials, DuPont, and IBM--have already begun to move their green tech R&D to China.

China has clearly surpassed the U.S. in key green technology industries and has established the economic infrastructure to lead the green technology market. Instead of trying to stay on the offensive, Congress has defensively decried China’s authoritarian government and indigenous innovation policies and aroused fear of China’s threat to American economic dominance. Aside from rhetoric, it is unclear what substantive actions Congress is taking to make the U.S. green technology sector more competitive. If the U.S. followed China’s example in passing green tech-friendly policies, it may be able to catch up. But, by ignoring that possibility and abandoning any hopes of climate change legislation, Congress has, instead, opted out of the green technology race. Unfortunately, the only losers in Congress’ ill-fated decision are the American public and the millions of Americans still out of work.

Elizabeth M. Lynch is an attorney who focuses on legal reform in China. She is also founder and editor of China Law & Policy.

 This FPD original feature article was also published on the Huffington Post website on August 31, 2010.

The U.S. government’s recent donation of $13.5 million to support the United Nations’ World Food Program operations in Yemen epitomizes U.S. and other western nations’ concerns with Yemen’s deteriorating natural resources. As its resources deteriorate, the Yemeni government is facing growing threats to its national security. The growing presence of Al-Qaeda and other extremists, the Houthi rebellion in the north of the country, and an increasingly hostile protest movement, all spurred by lack of access to basic goods, threaten to make large swaths of the country, if not the entire nation, ungovernable.

Although some of these issues are attributable to mismanagement by the Yemeni government or the government’s lack of military equipment, other factors, including climate change, play a significant role. Yemen’s rapidly diminishing water resources are one example of how climate change, exacerbated by poor resource management, is contributing to national and regional instability in Yemen and the Middle East.

The U.S. government’s recent donation of $13.5 million to support the United Nations’ World Food Program operations in Yemen epitomizes U.S. and other western nations’ concerns with Yemen’s deteriorating natural resources. As its resources deteriorate, the Yemeni government is facing growing threats to its national security. The growing presence of Al-Qaeda and other extremists, the Houthi rebellion in the north of the country, and an increasingly hostile protest movement, all spurred by lack of access to basic goods, threaten to make large swaths of the country, if not the entire nation, ungovernable.

Although some of these issues are attributable to mismanagement by the Yemeni government or the government’s lack of military equipment, other factors, including climate change, play a significant role. Yemen’s rapidly diminishing water resources are one example of how climate change, exacerbated by poor resource management, is contributing to national and regional instability in Yemen and the Middle East.

BACKGROUND

The forecasts for Yemen’s water supply are uniformly dire. Negatively affected by drought and shifting weather patterns, annual water consumption per capita, at 200 cubic meters, is 80 percent below the water poverty line of 1000 cubic meters. The country’s capital, Sana’a, whose 7% annual population growth rate is the highest of any nation’s capital in the world, is expected to run out of economically viable water supplies by 2017, the same year the World Bank predicts Yemen will cease earning income from its oil, which accounts for three-quarters of the country’s annual income. The options for replacing the city’s expired water supply are as stark as the problem – pump desalinated water from the ocean up 2,000 meters to the capital; transfer water from a nearby basin separated from Sana’a by mountains; or move the capital elsewhere.

Weather patterns often associated with the effects of climate change have accelerated Yemen’s water woes. An unusually long drought has left 19 of the country’s 21 aquifers permanently dry. The climate-based challenges Yemen faces do not end with access to freshwater. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ranked the Yemeni port city of Aden sixth among twenty-five cities vulnerable to rising sea levels. Rising sea levels can contaminate water supplies, damage infrastructure, and make portions of coastal cities uninhabitable because of regular flooding or submersion.

Aware of its environmental vulnerabilities, the Yemeni government has acted to combat climate change. During the first Earth Summit in 1992, Yemen became party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was internationally implemented in 1994. Yemen’s accession to the Kyoto Protocol was approved in September 2004. Since then, the Yemeni government has consistently supported efforts to responsibly manage Yemen’s water supply. In 2008, the government unveiled a plan to gather and harvest 70 percent of rainwater by 2012 in Sana’a. According to the plan, other parts of the country would collect 40 percent of rainwater by 2020.

Yet the Yemeni government’s initiatives have yet to bare substantive fruit. Fund-raising efforts by the international community to support Yemen’s strategy have yet to meet fundraising goals. Even money raised and dispensed has had little effect or affect on the Yemeni government’s efforts to contain the multiple violent movements throughout the country that threaten to plunge the country into chaos before its wells run dry. A collapsed Yemen would be problematic for the region, creating a sanctuary for extremist movements adjacent to the region’s leading oil producer, Saudi Arabia.

ANALYSIS

Substantive action on climate change is unlikely to occur before Yemen’s water crisis becomes significantly worse. The solution to the country’s water problems must begin with reform of water usage by its agricultural sector. This requires re-allocating water away from the thirsty plants of the qat leaf, a mild narcotic that consumes 40 percent of Yemen’s water and is chewed by approximately 70 percent of Yemeni men. Yemen’s leaders must find the rhetoric and cultivate the constituencies that will permit this culturally sensitive transition to occur with a minimum of conflict.

But the scope of Yemen’s resource and security problems are such that the Yemeni government cannot act alone to improve its stewardship of water and other climate change-affected resources. Support from the international community is essential. Yemen should work most closely with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, especially wealthy Saudi Arabia, which has a vital national interest in ensuring Yemen does not become ungovernable. Even as it addresses its short-term problems, the Yemeni government must continue to pursue long-term solutions, both on climate change through diplomatic means, and on water usage through research and development. In this way, it will ensure a sustainable solution to the problems that threaten its ability to govern.

Marc A. Sorel is Middle East Regional Editor at Foreign Policy Digest.

DEVELOPMENTS

Bangladesh has become a poster child for the unfolding tragedy of climate change. The region’s unique geography and topography leave the nation prone to severe flooding, and global warming will likely worsen this condition in the years to come. If the phenomenon is in fact man-made, Bangladesh would bear a disproportionate brunt of the problem created by rapid modernization in other parts of the world, without fully enjoying its fruits. Bangladesh has not been lifted out of its abject poverty by the industrial revolution in the West; it could in fact drown because of it in the decades to come.

By no coincidence, Bangladesh tops the Global Climate Risk Index compiled by Germanwatch every year. Buffeted by melting glaciers in the Indian Himalayas, a rising Bay of Bengal, frequent coastal storms, and a network of hundreds of rivers and their tributaries, Bangladesh is a water world unto itself. 60% of the nation’s inhabitants are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, and farmlands are particularly vulnerable to destruction by rising water and sea salt. To cope, Bangladesh’s disaster management capacity must improve dramatically.

Bangladesh has become a poster child for the unfolding tragedy of climate change. The region’s unique geography and topography leave the nation prone to severe flooding, and global warming will likely worsen this condition in the years to come. If the phenomenon is in fact man-made, Bangladesh would bear a disproportionate brunt of the problem created by rapid modernization in other parts of the world, without fully enjoying its fruits. Bangladesh has not been lifted out of its abject poverty by the industrial revolution in the West; it could in fact drown because of it in the decades to come.

By no coincidence, Bangladesh tops the Global Climate Risk Index compiled by Germanwatch every year.  Buffeted by melting glaciers in the Indian Himalayas, a rising Bay of Bengal, frequent coastal storms, and a network of hundreds of rivers and their tributaries, Bangladesh is a water world unto itself. 60% of the nation’s inhabitants are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood, and farmlands are particularly vulnerable to destruction by rising water and sea salt. To cope, Bangladesh’s disaster management capacity must improve dramatically.

BACKGROUND  

Since Bangladesh’s independence from Great Britain in 1947 and a second time from Pakistan in 1971, it has remained one of the poorest countries in the world. It is a moderate Muslim nation with a largely secular government and a tenuous agrarian economy that has made modest gains in the last decade, with GDP growth of up to 6% per year.

Bangladesh suffers from flooding every single year during the monsoons, when a third of the country goes under water. At intermittent intervals, such as in 1985, 1988, 1991, 1998, 2004, and 2007 the flooding was worse than normal as powerful cyclones danced across the landscape.

Epic floods this summer in nearby Pakistan are showing all too starkly how poor nations in South Asia suffer as victims of climate change. The picture is unpleasant: thousands dead, millions displaced from their homes, property and livelihoods completely and permanently destroyed. Inadequate disaster response from a government with limited planning and capacity has been on full display.

For a country like Bangladesh, climate change cannot be discussed in theoretical terms or as a subject to be debated. The repercussions, already felt by most citizens, are too imminent and dire to treat climate change as a future problem. Bangladeshis must proceed quickly with the sad assumptions that flooding will be more frequent, worse in impact, and impossible to prevent.

The government has acted by preparing the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) in 2008, a comprehensive technical review of the short and long term needs to cope with climate change. The six pillars of this plan are identified as human services, disaster management, infrastructure, research, mitigation, and capacity building.

A critical short-term planning area is domestic disaster management, and major natural disasters around the world have proven that this is a complicated and difficult endeavor even for rich nations. However, if tackled systematically and broken down piece by piece, better disaster management should be within reach over the next several years through focused Bangladeshi leadership and a large helping hand from the international community. Bangladesh has the advantages of knowing well the scope of risk, and a long history of experience dealing with floods in the past.

Bangladesh can also learn from the experience of other countries. Specific and achievable goals include a better system of shelters on higher grounds, better early-warning weather detection systems to plan evacuations further in advance, and the stockpiling of food, water, and medicine. A future catastrophe would require mobilization of the military, police forces, the UN, NGOs, and other government agencies to maintain control and lead search and rescue. Bangladesh should begin right now by raising the capacity of existing busses, boats, planes, and helicopters that would help in these efforts.

Levees, dams, bridges, and other infrastructure should also be inspected for the best evacuation and sheltering plans. Areas deemed most at risk by scientists should be gradually abandoned, as difficult and sad as this uprooting process will be. Thousands of personnel need to be trained, equipped, and placed on standby to help respond. Networks of volunteers to act as leaders in their communities to help get the word out and lead an orderly evacuation should also be recruited.

In the longer term, new capital infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change or investing in transforming the larger economy will also be part of the solution. Bangladesh should certainly invest in better water management, horticultural solutions, “green” technology and building practices. However these projects are unlikely to come to fruition in the short term as they will cost billions of dollars. Improved disaster management planning can help save lives immediately.

ANALYSIS

Atiq Rahman, Executive Director of Bangladesh’s Centre for Advanced Studies and Chairman of the Climate Action Network for South Asia recently said, "Bangladesh is ground zero for climate change." The rest of the world should pay close attention for several reasons.

If Bangladesh can successfully overcome the unfortunate circumstances of its geography and topography to build an effective disaster management capacity, it will serve as a model for other nations around the world struggling with climate change as well.

On another level, climate change is also a matter of international security. Pentagon and CIA planners are also eyeing the melting ice of the Himalayas for this reason as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review. If unfolding disaster cannot be managed internally by Bangladesh, the repercussions could be felt by its neighbors on both sides as refugees spill across the borders, cause regional unrest and place a strain on limited resources. Economically, countries much further away could feel the effects of a state struggling to cope with climate change. Finally, citizens of Bangladesh who feel abandoned by their government during a time of dire need will be more likely to turn toward extremism just like in Pakistan.

Bangladesh has taken the important initial steps of creating an action plan, and pouring in several hundred million dollars of funding. While these are a great start, many other international players will need to participate, from India to the European Union and United States, to the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, and the U.N. Fortunately the money can be spent right away for a good cause, and handled by a democratically elected government. Several billion dollars in aid and technical assistance would go a long way. The rest of the world owes it to Bangladesh.

Mahanth Joishy is the South Asia Regional Editor at Foreign Policy Digest. 

From historic blizzards to flooding, headlines in 2010 have been dominated by extreme weather—even environmental chaos.  One of the latest victims of Mother Nature’s wrath is Russia, which has experienced its hottest summer in 130 years.

There have been several thousand heat-related deaths in Moscow alone, where the summer’s daily temperatures have hovered around 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  Between June and July 2010, the relentless heat spawned a total of 27,724 fires, destroying approximately 2,000 homes and leaving 1,000 Russian villagers displaced.  The resulting smoky haze–coupled with Moscow’s notorious smog—enveloped the city’s 10 million residents.  By August, reports estimated that the heat wave would kill at least 15,000 and cost the Russian economy $15 billion.  

The unfolding events debunk the myth that Russia is a climate change “winner.”  The “winner” theory posits that Russia stands to gain from increased global temperatures because it could reduce heating costs, lengthen its agricultural season, and access the mineral and energy resources currently buried beneath the Arctic tundra.  A 2007 report issued by the UNDP foreshadowed the crisis, concluding that climate change would not improve conditions in Russia, but rather would exacerbate its existing environmental, economic, and social issues. 

DEVELOPMENTS

From historic blizzards to flooding, headlines in 2010 have been dominated by extreme weather—even environmental chaos.  One of the latest victims of Mother Nature’s wrath is Russia, which has experienced its hottest summer in 130 years.

There have been several thousand heat-related deaths in Moscow alone, where the su Save mmer’s daily temperatures have hovered around 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  Between June and July 2010, the relentless heat spawned a total of 27,724 fires, destroying approximately 2,000 homes and leaving 1,000 Russian villagers displaced.  The resulting smoky haze–coupled with Moscow’s notorious smog—enveloped the city’s 10 million residents.  By August, reports estimated that the heat wave would kill at least 15,000 and cost the Russian economy $15 billion.

The unfolding events debunk the myth that Russia is a climate change “winner.”  The “winner” theory posits that Russia stands to gain from increased global temperatures because it could reduce heating costs, lengthen its agricultural season, and access the mineral and energy resources currently buried beneath the Arctic tundra.  A 2007 report issued by the UNDP foreshadowed the crisis, concluding that climate change would not improve conditions in Russia, but rather would exacerbate its existing environmental, economic, and social issues.  

BACKGROUND

In June 2010, Russia was besieged by the worst heat wave in recent memory.  Although temperatures have declined somewhat, the heat-related death toll continues to rise.  The exact number of fatalities is unknown, with estimates ranging from “several thousand” to up to 15,000.  According to the Moscow health department, the city’s death rate has doubled to nearly 700 deaths per day.  Among the dead are the elderly, the infirm, and 2,000 people who drowned in Russia’s lakes and rivers while seeking refuge from the heat.

The economic effects of the environmental crisis have reverberated throughout the global economy.  When wildfires obliterated one-fifth of Russia’s wheat crop, Russia banned all wheat exports through the end of 2010.  Wheat prices soared, provoking fear that a global food crisis was imminent.

Meteorologists attribute the record-breaking heat to an anomaly in atmospheric pressure in Eastern Europe that has blocked the jet stream’s normal flow.  Experts debate whether this “blocking high” phenomenon is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions.  Global warming naysayers have been quick to point to NOAA’s conclusion that greenhouse gas fails to account for the Russian heat wave.  Other experts caution, however, that European heat waves like that experienced by Russia have at least doubled as a result of global warming.

Even if the heat isn’t caused by greenhouse gas emissions, statistics suggest that its after-effects might actually hasten global warming.  Russia’s forests, already threatened by deforestation, play a crucial role in absorbing carbon emissions.  Fires still rage decimating acres of carbon-absorbing foliage.  The smoke from Russia’s forest fires, if swept North, may accelerate the melting of Arctic polar ice caps.  Environmentalists further warn that unchecked forest fires may release radioactive particles from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.  According to Greenpeace Russia and other scientists, vegetation in Southwest Russia was heavily contaminated by nuclear fallout, and burning vegetation could release contaminants like caesium-137 and strontium-90.  While some dismiss these predictions as unnecessarily apocalyptic, they nonetheless illustrate the far reaching and diverse ramifications of warmer weather.

Head of Moscow’s meteorological center, Alexei Lyakhov, told reporters that the summer heat wave was “clearly part of a global phenomenon.”  Russian President Dmitri Medvedev acknowledged that the “anomalously hot” temperatures were “a wake up call . . . to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate.”  The admission is an apparent about-face for the President, who only last year dismissed the global warming debate as “some kind of tricky campaign made up by commercial structures to promote their business projects.”

This type of inconsistent message has been the defining characteristic of Russia’s environmental policy.  Critics have long lambasted Russia for its unwillingness to undertake more aggressive measures to combat global warming and for its seemingly schizophrenic environmental rhetoric.  Russia is the world’s third largest greenhouse gas-emitter behind the United States and China.  Deforestation compounds Russian’s CO2 emissions problem: forest fires and insects ravage millions of cubic meters of standing timber annually.  Illegal tree cutting has increased 3.6 times over the last 15 years, and even now, as pollution worsens in Moscow, its neighboring forests are being cut down to build a road between Moscow and St. Petersburg.  CO2 is only one part of the problem—methane—a gas 20 times more environmentally damaging than CO2, is leaking from the seabed in the Arctic shelf.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia has a formal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent by 2012.  Russia is poised to meet its modest Kyoto obligation and in fact, is expected to report the largest carbon emissions drop of any Kyoto signatory.  Detractors are quick to note that Russia made no affirmative efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses, and that its Kyoto successes are simply the lucky by-product of its 1991 industrial collapse.  Because it has exceeded its Kyoto targets, Russia has amassed a large surplus of carbon credits that it insists must carry over after the Protocol expires in 2010.  Environmentalists worry that Russia’s refusal to relinquish the credits will undermine any future efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more cost-effective for countries to buy credits than to cut emissions.  Russia insists, however, that reserving the credits is necessary for it to undertake crucial development projects.

In December 2009, world leaders convened at the COP15 Copenhagen Conference to discuss climate change, and to negotiate the implementation of new post-Kyoto emissions targets.  Russia signed the Copenhagen Accord, and agreed to 10-15 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels.  In June 2010, Russia upped its commitment to a 20-25 percent reduction.

In addition to its international commitments, Russia also appears poised to implement a national strategy to combat climate change.  In April 2009, Russia adopted a draft climate change doctrine—the country’s first official government statement addressing the impact of global warming on its territory.  The adoption is especially surprising considering Russia abolished its Environmental Protection Agency in 2000, and reduced its environmental protection expenditures from 0.4 percent of the federal budget in 2001 to an abysmal 0.1 percent of the federal budget in 2009.  The document appears to mark a departure from the Russian’s long-held unofficial public position that climate change is an invention of the West and may signal the end of the era of Russian “de-environmentalism.”

ANALYSIS

Regardless of whether Russia’s scorching temperatures can be attributed to global warming, the resulting death toll, economic disruption, and synergistic environmental impact highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.  The summer of 2010 must serve as a wake up call to Moscow—and to the international community—that there are no “winners” with respect to climate change.

It is not only the minds of the government that need changing.  Rather, Russia must sell the idea of environmental and energy conservation to its public, a public that is skeptical—in part because of Moscow’s earlier global warming denials and consistent de-emphasizing of environmental protection—that such efforts are necessary.  Medvedev has positioned himself well through subtle policy shifts embracing the reality of global warming, and can turn his country’s misfortune into an opportunity to play a constructive role on the world environmental stage.

Russia should seriously consider energy conservation measures.  The World Bank’s International Finance Committee issued a report concluding that Russia could save 45 percent of its energy consumption—a savings that translates to an annual $80 billion cost savings to investors and end users.  Though the Committee’s plan would require a $320 billion up front investment, the resulting cost savings would pay back the expenditure in just four years.  Russia should also announce and implement a comprehensive plan to combat deforestation and generally strengthen domestic environmental legislation and institutions.  These goals, while modest, will go a long way towards fortifying Russia’s internal environmental infrastructure and towards galvanizing lasting domestic support for pro-environment policies.

Erika N. Pont is an attorney in the Washington D.C. office of McDermott Will & Emery and an adjunct professor at The George Washington University Law School

DEVELOPMENTS

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, average global temperature increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, 90% of which occurred in the last fifty years.  The 2009 State of the Climate report released by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the first six months of 2010 have been the warmest on record, increasing the rate of glacial melt and the frequency of heat waves. The same report also points to extreme weather conditions around the world in 2009, including Brazil, where forty people were killed and 376,000 were left homeless.  Climate change, as these events suggest, is a global security issue and the solutions must transcend international and domestic politics so that livelihoods and the planet are protected.

Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change can have a significant impact on small, rural producers and agricultural production, such as heavy flooding in Brazil and elsewhere.  The Brazilian government, in turn, recently announced an investment of 200 million reais ($113 million) to mitigate the effects of climate change by promoting REDD activities (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), agricultural research, and environmental conservation. 

However, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that China, India, and Brazil, among other nations, cannot accurately measure their share of greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like Russia reported data with a significant margin of error.  These data and reporting methodologies further complicate efforts for global climate policies. 

DEVELOPMENTS

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, average global temperature increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, 90% of which occurred in the last fifty years.  The 2009 State of the Climate report released by the United States National Oceanic Atmosphere Agency (NOAA) states that the first six months of 2010 have been the warmest on record, increasing the rate of glacial melt and the frequency of heat waves. The same report also points to extreme weather conditions around the world in 2009, including Brazil, where forty people were killed and 376,000 were left homeless.  Climate change, as these events suggest, is a global security issue and the solutions must transcend international and domestic politics so that livelihoods and the planet are protected.

Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change can have a significant impact on small, rural producers and agricultural production, such as heavy flooding in Brazil and elsewhere.  The Brazilian government, in turn, recently announced an investment of 200 million reais ($113 million) to mitigate the effects of climate change by promoting REDD activities (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), agricultural research, and environmental conservation. 

However, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that China, India, and Brazil, among other nations, cannot accurately measure their share of greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like Russia reported data with a significant margin of error.  These data and reporting methodologies further complicate efforts for global climate policies.   

BACKGROUND

Brazil is an important stakeholder in global climate change talks; scientists believe the country is the fourth-largest producer of greenhouse gases.  Three-fourths of those emissions come from deforestation.  In South America, the effects of global warming can mean catastrophic losses for the 30 million people, 200 indigenous cultures, and 20 percent of the planet’s animal and plant species that reside in the Amazon rainforest. 

The 2005 drought in the Amazon proved to be an important lesson for the Brazilian government and public. The drought killed crops, caused disease and destroyed transportation routes.  Brazil has maintained that the Amazon rain forest is an internal issue which should not be internationalized. The governor of the Brazilian state Amazonas, Eduardo Braga, has compensated farmers and river dwellers who refrain from deforestation. 

Livable and usable land, even in a country the size of Brazil, is also a major issue. Brazil is the world’s biggest coffee producer and second-largest soybean grower. Unchecked climate change could heavily impact the country’s farm infrastructure, particularly its soy crop, which could lose up to 20% of cultivated land by 2020.  The country could also see a 10% reduction in arable land for coffee. And research shows that rising sea levels and hurricanes could affect 25 million people – or about one-eighth of the country’s population – living along the Brazilian coast. 

To adapt and prepare for these shifting weather patterns, scientists are planning for large-scale testing of genetically-modified soy crops.  The national climate fund will receive $113 million next year and the government could spend about $500 million annually to reduce carbon emissions.  Half of these funds would come from government’s royalties on oil production.  Funds will be used to educate farmers about rainfall and weather patterns and to gauge the ways that climate change impact the country.

At the end of the Copenhagen conference in December 2009, world leaders failed to develop and adopt legally binding greenhouse emission reduction targets.  The Brazilian government has further argued that “Northern Hemisphere industrial nations” should bear the burden of reducing greenhouse gases.  But public opinion has put pressure on Brazilian politicians which, in effect, has led the government to allocate resources to reduce deforestation and carbon emissions.

Brazil was among the fifty nations that pledged to greenhouse gas reduction targets in Copenhagen.  Shortly after the summit, President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva signed the National Climate Change Policy into law.  Under the law, thirty-two emission reducing activities – like increased hydroelectric power-generation capacity and the National Ethanol Program – are being implemented.  However, analysts note that while the new law is implemented, Brazil’s use of oil-money to finance sustainable growth is something that is to be observed closely.   

ANALYSIS

It is important to discuss and tackle climate change from a global security framework; the world continues to experience death, destruction, crop loss and forced migration related to climate change at an increasing rate. Political and economic interests become secondary when viewed through this prism. From an economic standpoint, inaction to tackle the issue could cost anywhere between 5 and 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP), while it would take only 1% of GDP to mitigate the most damaging effects. 

Building upon the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen, the Cancún talks in November should make progress on implementing the Copenhagen Accord, and commit to protecting tropical forests, the widespread development and sharing of green technologies, and curbing greenhouse gases.  Developed nations have pledged up to $30 billion in aid for developing countries to reduce droughts, floods, and heat waves. The U.S. alone has pledged $3.2 billion. However, some of the developed nation funds were committed prior to Copenhagen and have yet to be delivered. Still though, projects from “Nepal to Mali” have begun. Although Brazil was initially hesitant to embrace the challenge, it has demonstrated exceptional leadership in pursuing and implementing energy reform over the last few years.   

If the Cancún talks are to be considered a success, the U.S. must be prepared to meet the world halfway. The U.S. Senate should follow Brazil’s policy lead and demonstrate that it is a committed party to tackling climate change by passing the American Power Act, which sets reduction standards for greenhouse gas emissions, creates green energy jobs, and most importantly, reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 17% of 2005 levels by 2050.  According to Senator John Kerry, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the proposed legislation would reduce the deficit by $19 billion.  The passage of this legislation would demonstrate that the U.S. is a strong international leader committed to tackling the issue, but amid concerns of a weak economic recovery and continued job loss - all within the context of the upcoming mid-term Congressional elections - it looks like no such thing will happen in the near future.

Niki Shah is a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy Digest.

DEVELOPMENTS

Without a concerted effort by the international community to curb the harmful effects of climate change in Africa, droughts and famines will increase the likelihood of ethnic and regional conflict. As the German Advisory Council on Global Change warns,“Without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies’ adaptive capacities within the coming decades. This could result in destabilization and violence, jeopardizing national and international security to a new degree.”

The Darfur region in the Sudan starkly illustrates this point. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes that in the 1980s, crucial rains in southern Sudan became less frequent. Regional farmers became protective of what little water they had and began to fence in their properties to protect their lands from animal herds. Up until that time, regional farmers had gotten along reasonably well with Arab herdsmen, who were primarily nomadic. In 2007, the United Nations Environmental Program reported, “a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur. Exponential population growth and related environmental stress have created the conditions for conflicts to be triggered and sustained by political, tribal, or ethnic differences.” The report continues “[Darfur] can be considered a tragic example of the social breakdown that can result from ecological collapse.”  Although an underground source of freshwater the size of Lake Erie was discovered in Darfur, past efforts at water management in Sudan have been poor.

DEVELOPMENTS

Without a concerted effort by the international community to curb the harmful effects of climate change in Africa, droughts and famines will increase the likelihood of ethnic and regional conflict. As the German Advisory Council on Global Change warns,“Without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies’ adaptive capacities within the coming decades. This could result in destabilization and violence, jeopardizing national and international security to a new degree.”

The Darfur region in the Sudan starkly illustrates this point. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes that in the 1980s, crucial rains in southern Sudan became less frequent. Regional farmers became protective of what little water they had and began to fence in their properties to protect their lands from animal herds. Up until that time, regional farmers had gotten along reasonably well with Arab herdsmen, who were primarily nomadic. In 2007, the United Nations Environmental Program reported, “a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur. Exponential population growth and related environmental stress have created the conditions for conflicts to be triggered and sustained by political, tribal, or ethnic differences.” The report continues “[Darfur] can be considered a tragic example of the social breakdown that can result from ecological collapse.”  Although an underground source of freshwater the size of Lake Erie was discovered in Darfur, past efforts at water management in Sudan have been poor.

BACKGROUND

The conflict in the Darfur region centers on tensions between the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) against the Government of Sudan (GOS) military and Afro-Arab militia groups known as the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed largely hail from the Rizeigat region in Northern Sudan, while the SLM/A and JEM rebel groups are comprised of non-Arabs from the Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit ethnic groups. Despite the presence of African Union peacekeepers, the U.S. State Department estimates that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and over 2 million people are displaced, with 250,000 people taking refuge in neighboring Chad.

Since independence from Great Britain in 1956, Sudan has undergone decades of conflict. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between North and South Sudan ended a long-running civil war in 2005, and provided for two referenda. The first, scheduled for January 2011, allows for southern Sudanese to decide whether or not their oil-rich region should secede, and a second vote is scheduled for the people of Abyei to decide “whether to retain the area’s special administrative status in the north or join Southern Sudan.” If South Sudan seeks independence, it will be landlocked and will have to negotiate with Khartoum to export its oil.  International observers claimed that the recent presidential and parliamentary elections, which kept in power President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, were flawed and corrupt.

Moreover, one report endorsed by many international nongovernmental organizations illustrates that “the elections did very little to put in place a sustainable framework for a more democratic Sudan. Repressive laws remained in place, or were revised in ways that did not fully address human rights concerns, in clear contravention of the CPA and Sudan’s 2005 Interim National Constitution.”  Underlying this context are continued tensions over the country’s water supply. Agriculture accounts for 80% of livelihoods in Sudan, 40% of the country’s GDP, and 97% of total water use. Further, although Sudan “has the largest area of irrigation in all of Sub-Saharan Africa,” it is “poorly managed and maintained.”

Sudan’s estimated population is over 41 million with a 2010 population growth rate of 2.143%. By 2025, demand for water used for agricultural production will double, increasing the risk of conflict. According to a report compiled by the CNA Corporation with cooperation and input from U.S. military generals and admirals, “Access to vital resources, primarily food and water, can be an additional causative factor of conflicts, a number of which are playing out today in Africa. Probably the best known is the conflict in Darfur between herders and farmers. Long periods of drought resulted in the loss of both farmland and grazing land to the desert. The failure of their grazing lands compelled the nomads to migrate southward in search of water and herding ground, and that in turn led to conflict with the farming tribes occupying those lands. Coupled with population growth, tribal, ethnic, and religious differences, the competition for land turned violent.”

Global climate change undermines security and progress throughout the African continent. The CNA report continues, “Africa is increasingly crucial in the ongoing battle against civil strife, genocide, and terrorism. Numerous African countries and regions already suffer from varying degrees of famine and civil strife. Darfur, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Western Sahara—all have been hit hard by tensions that can be traced in part to environmental causes. Struggles that appear to be tribal, sectarian, or nationalist in nature are often triggered by reduced water supplies or reductions in agricultural productivity.”  Essentially, climate change is a threat multiplier. Non-state actors can exploit the resulting vacuums of stability. In Somalia in the 1990s, “alternating droughts and floods led to migrations of varying size and speed and prolonged the instability on which warlords capitalized.”

ANALYSIS

Any concrete steps to curb climate change will have to be undertaken by African states and the international community. While African states acknowledge problems such as poor water management and government instability, major powers in the international community must also take responsibility. Every major Western industrial polluter did not sign the Kyoto Protocols, which set binding targets on industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While international agreements like the one reached at the G-8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany in 2007 to voluntarily cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% before 2050 are laudable, these agreements cannot be enforced. Similarly, domestic actions to curb emissions in the United States have essentially stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Until a concerted effort by the international community is undertaken, instability in Africa will continue. In Sudan, despite the promised January 2011 referendum, the need for vital natural resources will very likely trump any agreements signed in that country.

John Lyman is a columnist for Foreign Policy Digest.

The Daily Dump is a growing recycling business started by Poonam Bir Kasturi in Bangalore, India in 2006. In just four years, the Daily Dump has helped enable over 4,500 customers in Bangalore to compost household waste in terra cotta pots that are sold by the Daily Dump. For most of these customers it was probably their first foray into large-scale recycling, as 25-30 kilograms of organic waste each month reduces to 3 kilograms of compost, which can then be used as fertilizer. Poonam and her staff of about 10 call this method “agri-composting” which is a specifically urban solution. The company’s focus has now expanded to include city schools as customers, adding a critical educational aspect to the business.

The Daily Dump is a unique endeavor for several reasons. The company offers a woman-owned business model for other entrepreneurs interested in improving the environment and using ethical commercial practices. In addition, the Daily Dump has helped launch other “clones” who use the same or very similar pot design and composting methods. There are no patents, no royalties, no copyrights, trademarks, or intellectual property lawsuits, and the company does not profit off of the clones. Moreover, Kasturi and her team actively assist the fast followers by sharing technical specifications and advice at no cost. At this time there are 15 clones in India, one of which was established in Bangalore itself, and others in Chile, Brazil, and Florida.

Foreign Policy Digest is pleased to have conducted an interview with Ms. Kasturi on August 3rd 2010 as a follow-up to the interview with Marco Steinberg of the Helsinki Design Lab, which completed an extensive academic study of the Daily Dump. We would like to thank PR Collaborative for facilitating this interview, excerpted below.

The Daily Dump is a growing recycling business started by Poonam Bir Kasturi in Bangalore, India in 2006. In just four years, the Daily Dump has helped enable over 4,500 customers in Bangalore to compost household waste in terra cotta pots that are sold by the Daily Dump. For most of these customers it was probably their first foray into large-scale recycling, as 25-30 kilograms of organic waste each month reduces to 3 kilograms of compost, which can then be used as fertilizer. Poonam and her staff of about 10 call this method “agri-composting” which is a specifically urban solution. The company’s focus has now expanded to include city schools as customers, adding a critical educational aspect to the business.

The Daily Dump is a unique endeavor for several reasons. The company offers a woman-owned business model for other entrepreneurs interested in improving the environment and using ethical commercial practices. In addition, the Daily Dump has helped launch other “clones” who use the same or very similar pot design and composting methods. There are no patents, no royalties, no copyrights, trademarks, or intellectual property lawsuits, and the company does not profit off of the clones. Moreover, Kasturi and her team actively assist the fast followers by sharing technical specifications and advice at no cost. At this time there are 15 clones in India, one of which was established in Bangalore itself, and others in Chile, Brazil, and Florida.

Foreign Policy Digest is pleased to have conducted an interview with Ms. Kasturi on August 3rd 2010 as a follow-up to the interview with Marco Steinberg of the Helsinki Design Lab, which completed an extensive academic study of the Daily Dump. We would like to thank PR Collaborative for facilitating this interview, excerpted below.

FPD: So where does all of the compost material end up?

Our customers can’t really sell it for too much- there’s no money to be made. They either use it in their own garden or give it to their friend who has a garden. In four and a half years we’ve only had one person who sold it back- we have a guaranteed buy back policy. It’s actually good for soil quality, and the yield goes up.

FPD: Where would it all go otherwise?

In India there’s this anti-waste sentiment, and it’s a completely national problem. Gardeners will only work with dry leaves. Other household waste is considered “danghi” or dirty, to be thrown in the streets or in the backyards, for someone else to take care of it. Most of the people coming to desk jobs don’t give a damn! They say “I’m too busy- I don’t have a garden,” or “I don’t have a maid.” At the end of the day we have to persistently be on the ground, a persistent presence. I’m not even going to look for an impact for 15 years. We want to make sure composting doesn’t go wrong. We’re building a foundation.

FPD: Looks like impact already to me. What do you charge for the pot and training?

From the beginning till now we’ve gone from 300 rupees to 820 rupees. There is a perceived value that we’ve built in, and we’ve pushed the value up using a combination of building awareness, a good customer support system, making sure that you try and deliver solutions while also saying a lot about taking ownership of the problem of garbage. Democracy is not just about casting a vote. It’s also about understanding your job as an agent of change. Indians have not traditionally taken an interest in the larger community.

FPD: What have government agencies in India made of your efforts? Have you tried to contract with government?

I’ve taken the route of saying, “I’ll be subversive at best.” I need to create something that is so simple and unintimidating and so completely straight that we won’t face resistance. The minute you say it’s not intimidating, and everyone is invited into the party, you create a different space for a conversation to happen.

The government of India has launched the school sanitation initiative. The government has a huge function in waste management, and our product was featured through a third party. However there is a lot of red tape. I don’t have the patience to sit outside a government office every day.

Sustainability to me means that people can manage their own products and services, and build up a sustainable local economy in that way. But Bangalore has 8,000,000 people- 4,500 is barely a start.

FPD: Why have you chosen to remain a small company instead of hiring more people and expanding the reach of your ideas?

When you’re very lean you can think through things well. I’m happy with the small group that I have and have less interest in rapid growth. I’m more interested in doing this right than coming into the office and managing other staff all day. I don’t want to spend my day doing that, would you?

FPD: I understand exactly what you mean. How did you decide to focus on a composting business amongst all of the opportunities that you could have pursued?

I found that the most obvious issue was defining the mindset of how people consume. I found that composting was the most “not-used” door. Waste is not considered sexy enough in India for most. I studied how to become a “one-stop shop” for a specific aspect of waste management, by watching people’s behavior. I believe you only have one life to live, and here was my chance to do something.

FPD: Many of your customers are composting for the first time. How do you explain to people who have never composted before about the benefits?

We go to demonstrations, make films, we go and talk to a lot of people, show them what they can do. We’re going to schools, and creating awareness there. They tell their friends. We don’t have a marketing budget- word of mouth is the only way that we hope that it will grow. We don’t want to flood the market and have people say it doesn’t work.

We have a 15% dropout rate; they say it doesn’t work and drop out, and we try to give them a free dropout service. We also don’t encourage someone to gift someone a compost bin who doesn’t want it.

FPD: That’s great- you don’t sell for the sake of selling. Please explain your decision to allow other companies to use your business model without charging a royalty or franchise fee?

Most of the clones found out about our process from the web, and we haven’t even met them. As I said before, I’m not interested in expansion. I also don’t want to answer to anybody- I found it completely ineffective. A bigger company would have managers and investors involved in everything. I’m happy that others use the model- it helps create the change I want.

FPD: Do you plan to bring your business into new areas of waste management or other fields?

I’m hoping to expand to create what I call the “harmless home” regarding chemicals and other areas in the home. There are millions of dollars being spent in chemistry labs already. And some of it takes place on the other end of the spectrum, especially in India. Sometimes organic is not easy to use in raw form because of the unpleasant smells and textures. For example, the Method brand of products did a lot of work to get to this point – the right colors, fragrances, textures. We need to find some in-between ground like that with the household.

We are also working with the informal recycling sector – bottles, plastics, etc. Individuals, wholesalers, and recycling plants are smaller than what you think of in the United States. We are trying to understand that process to tie in with that industry before the bigger players come in. The government has to learn that the single point interaction really doesn’t help. You need different people who can pick up different waste.

FPD: There is a lot of talk these days of green companies. It seems like yours is both green and socially responsible.

The basic premise of understanding “green” or why you need to be green- there is a lot of “green-washing” that goes on.

FPD: Like it’s an overused catch phrase?

Exactly. Saying in India that this or that is “green”- I don’t understand that. I think we need to think about the “whole”- that being green isn’t enough. The point is to get a whole story. To be honest I’m not even sure how to explain this concept of whole. I think Method is an example of it.

You’re a person, you have one life, you’ll find something that you’re interested in, you’ll create a magic around it. It’s better that way. There’s enough evidence in human experience of this.

We are five women at Daily Dump, all of the others were customers of mine. We are all very different, but we have good fun. There is a lot of talk about e-waste and metals, etc. but the smaller- scale, such as plastic and composting, are required or it (waste management) will get out of control as a problem.

I want to get on with it. Each of us can do something.

FPD: Thanks for your time today, this was a very interesting interview. I would love to see your work next time I’m in India.

You’re most welcome to visit, I’d be happy to show you what we do here.

Mahanth Joishy is South Asia Editor for Foreign Policy Digest.

These words were spoken by William Ruckelshaus, who served as the first head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Although climate change had just begun to creep into the public consciousness in the late 1980s when Ruckelshaus made these remarks, his comments reveal an important truth which presciently resonates in today’s global warming debate: governments can lead the country towards a more sustainable interaction between people and their environment but civil society is essential in realizing this profound change.

 “This [sustainability] consciousness will not be attained simply because the arguments for change are good or because the alternatives are unpleasant…The central lesson of realistic policy-making is that most individuals and organizations change when it is in their interest to change, either because they derive some benefit from changing or because they incur sanctions when they do not…”

These words were spoken by William Ruckelshaus, who served as the first head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Although climate change had just begun to creep into the public consciousness in the late 1980s when Ruckelshaus made these remarks, his comments reveal an important truth which presciently resonates in today’s global warming debate: governments can lead the country towards a more sustainable interaction between people and their environment but civil society is essential in realizing this profound change.

Ordinary civic engagement or “citizen activism” is frequently lost in the sheer largeness of the atmospherics at play in the climate change dialogue. Preventing global warming is most often perceived as the province of the state and the bulk of the environmental movement’s advocacy efforts seem to focus on developing international consensus on goals for carbon emission reduction on the one hand, and enacting some form of “cap and trade” legislation at the federal level which sets emission limits nationwide on the other hand.

But both of these efforts to date have largely been failures. In the international arena, the much-heralded U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen resulted in an impressive list of attendees – 192 countries and 115 world leaders – but a disappointing outcome: the agreed-upon accord fell short of the binding treaty sought by many nations, set an insufficient goal of limiting global warming by keeping temperature rises to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and left each nation to set its own targets for 2020.

The outlook for cap and trade legislation in Congress is even more dismal. Although the House of Representatives passed a bill in June 2009, the Senate declined last month to even take the issue up for debate. And prospects for passage will dim even further if Republicans pick up seats in November as is widely anticipated. Indicative of the dreary mood afflicting advocates, Bill McKibben, author and co-founder of the climate-focused group 350.org, recently told the Washington Post, “Our side did absolutely everything you’re supposed to do . . . but got nowhere”

But it is exactly because of the size and scope of these failures that important progress is being obscured that brings hope to many citizens, household by household, neighborhood by neighborhood, and community by community. All across the nation, the ingenuity of entrepreneurs, private industry, and non –profit organizations – at times in partnership with state and local governments – is creating a groundswell of support for programs that empower individuals to take control of their energy usage and make responsible, personal decisions about everything from using Energy Star appliances, to installing efficient shower heads, to switching to renewable power generation.

The fundamental premise of these programs that seek to empower “citizen activism” is to engage the community directly in order to lower individuals’ carbon footprints. Companies such as Earth Aid are at the forefront of the movement to mobilize energy conservation at the grass-roots. The animating principle behind the appeal of Earth Aid is simple: bring transparency to the home energy usage sphere by facilitating greater access to information; and create vehicles where ordinary citizens can realize personal savings and measure their success over time.

So how exactly does this work? Although programs differ across the country, the basic idea is that you should not have to spend money to buy energy efficiency. The vast majority of utilities you receive at home have some form of online access or online bill payment. To help you manage your energy usage, groups like Earth Aid will link all of your accounts in one online platform – similar to the way you might view your checking and savings accounts and credit card statements all in one banking portal – and enable you to more effectively monitor your personal energy consumption.

It gets better. The site has social-networking functionality. Americans can compare their home energy usage, for example, to the average energy usage of participating neighbors in the zip code in which they live. Nothing enlivens the spirit like a little healthy competition and, as William Ruckelshaus reminds us, most individuals change when they derive some personal benefit from changing. Earth Aid provides tips rated on several factors such as "green benefit" and cost regarding how you can save on energy usage at home and makes available information about rebates and utility incentives in your area that actually pay you to help the environment. The rewards are both climate-friendly, economically-enticing, and gastronomically-appealing – you literally can get free cupcakes for saving money on energy usage.

We live in an information rich society. These programs excel by aggregating disparate utility data and creating access and transparency for an energy sector which as been too confusing and too opaque for many Americans for far too long. Because barriers to citizen empowerment are being torn down, a conservation ethic which has been bubbling just below the surface in this country is starting to see the light of day.

Indeed, studies have shown that the notion of personal conservation activism is not abstract; Americans are just waiting to be mobilized. A Yale University Study indicated that 75 percent of Americans recognize that our own behavior can help reduce global warming, and 81 percent believe it is our responsibility to do something about it. The ethos of person empowerment is taking hold. Earth Aid reports that it has signed up thousands of households, from every state in the country.

And state and local government are also getting in on the action and helping their citizens be more energy efficient. David Gershon, founder and CEO of the Empowerment Institute, shows how over 300 communities in 36 states have built a bottom-up movement. Gershon cites the example of Davis, California: the city organized 100 households to participate in Low Carbon Diet EcoTeams. Participation included the city council and staff; University of California, Davis, administrators, faculty, staff, and students; and local businesses, among others. Results were received from 65 percent of the households who reported reducing their carbon footprint an average of 5,516 pounds.

David Burd, Earth Aid’s Vice President of Business Development notes that: “there is a lot that individuals can do today to promote energy efficiency, this platform is a way that any citizen or state or community can act now. We enable people to take ownership of their energy usage.”

With all of the set-backs in climate change policy at the national level, it is easy to miss the great progress that is being made in states, localities, neighborhoods and homes. Importantly, however, as these low-carbon communities are aggregated and citizen activists are continually empowered on the grass-roots level, the path towards a greener U.S. national economy begins to take shape.

Robert A. Friedman is Managing Editor of Foriegn Policy Digest

Foreign Policy Digest recently sat down with Marco Steinberg, Director of Strategic Design at the Helsinki Design Lab. During our June 15 phone interview, Mr. Steinberg helped explain how strategic design is shaping how our governments deliver services in a leaner, more efficient way.

FPD: Tell us a little bit about your own professional history. How did you become interested in strategic design?

I was teaching architecture at Harvard, and I realized I was much more interested in affecting the decision-making of things, how design could inform decision-making. I began to work on a project on stroke, in which we worked closely with the stakeholders, the medical industry, about the tools they are using to treat strokes, and how to improve their approach. Because these people, the people, the doctors, the technicians – these are the people that know and understand these tools the best, and know what needs to be improved, but don’t have the time or the capacity to make a systemic change. We brought together these people, talked to them about issues and approaches, and thought about how to design something with a better value. And what I learned from this, too, was that – while someplace like Harvard, which considers itself to do this – disciplines do not know how to communicate with each other and work together in an applicable way. After that, someone from the Lab reached out to me.

FPD: Can you explain to us what strategic design is? I’m coming to this with a very stereotypical view of what architecture and urban planning and design in general entails. And then you’re using these professions towards a very different end.

Strategic design takes the very specific skills that designers have – how they examine challenges, their training to visualize implementations – and applies it to the decision-making process. Governments and large organizations face huge systemic challenges, and strategic design allows us to re-think how we address these in a fuller way. We need better tools to address problems like education, sustainability, and healthcare. Design allows us to think about these problems holistically. And it allows us to do it in a leaner, more efficient way and for better value. It has to be cross-disciplinary, and this has been the biggest challenge for the Lab, so much so that we actually have had to have in-house education, to teach our people how to think together across disciplines.

FPD: Talk to me about the Lab.

The Helsinki Design Lab is a part of Sitra, which is the Finnish Innovation Fund. Our duties are actually specified under Finnish legislation, and we have to report to Parliament with our findings. And so while we stress issues that are global in nature, they also have to be specific things that affect Finland. Right now, for instance, we’re looking at aging, education, and healthcare, three very big service-delivery challenges for Finland in the future. We get USD $1 billion, which allows us to really take on long-projects with higher associated risks, a luxury that the government, for instance, can’t take on.

The Lab is based on three pillars. Firstly, we operate the Lab, where we have experts come from all over and meet in Finland for a week, and we take them all over to really become totally immersed in the issue. Again, it really matters that Finland is so small. And they come and they meet and talk with government officials, technicians, Finnish people, and then they all get back together and make a sort of road map of actionable opportunities that might address these challenges. So, for instance, in our aging studio, we had economists, we had a psychologist –

FPD: A psychologist?

Yes, a psychologist, to help us better understand the effects of death, because Finland is aging and this is going to be something many more people are dealing with.

FPD: Again, it’s fascinating to me, because I think ‘design,’ I think Frank Lloyd Wright, I think urban planning, I think fashion. And here you have a psychologist.

It’s about thinking holistically. So we have the studios. The second pillar is that we run a website, which helps us in two ways. First of all, we can spotlight other grassroots organizations that are applying strategic design in exciting and innovative ways to address their own challenges. And secondly, we can use these case studies to see where they achieved and where there was mission failures, and then apply in our own case studies. Lastly, we have an event in September, where government can meet design, because government are our stakeholders, they are the owners of these large challenges. And they can see what solutions we are offering.

FPD: I was really interested in the case studies, it was just fascinating to see how design was solving endemic systemic issues that the government just wasn’t solving itself. Like trash collection in Bangalore.

We have two very interesting case studies, we have the trash collection in Bangalore, which was great, because she found this problem, this bottleneck with trash collection, and studied it very deeply and from all angles. We really want our case studies to show that these people have gone into the field and studied the realities of the field – that they didn’t just come up with a solution in the abstract. And so she went and she studied the anthropology of the area and found something that would the people themselves to participate in trash collection, make it viable for them and profitable. So she had to find a solution that was culturally, technologically, and economically applicable. And then there is the case study in Chile, where designers worked with the local government to address social housing issues. Because they identified that an endemic problem of social housing is that it does not appreciate, and so these people remain in the same socioeconomic strata. So they built social housing that actually builds wealth. All of our case studies – it is very important that they are not only coming up with solutions, but that they are implementing them.

FPD: I find it interesting that you’ve mentioned this, and I want to return to it. Why Finland?

We are a small, homogenous country, we don’t have that many people…we are small enough where we can de-risk issues. It used to be that the bigger you were, the more powerful economically you were, like the U.S. America is too big and too heterogeneous to do this. It used to be that the bigger you were, the more value proposition you offered. Now, you can be too big. We are changing the value proposition that a country offers, that you can be smaller and more competitive because of it.

FPD: Thank you so much, Mr. Steinberg, for making time to speak to us with such an innovative and exciting movement.

Thank you, it was my pleasure.