Obesity - Is it such a necessity?
Obesity is a very common problem in developed countries around the world today. In several cultures, obesity was once commonly associated with physical attractiveness, strength and fertility. It was often regarded as a sign of wealth and power in certain traditions. However, today obesity takes on a very different stand. Obesity is no longer considered as a form of physical attractiveness and wealth in developed nations Instead, it is widely regarded as unattractive and linked to negative stereotypes such as laziness. Obese children, teenagers and adults face a heavy social stigma. Obese children are often descriminated and obesity might result in slower career advancement. In the following paragraphs, I will address the relationship between obesity and globalisation, the impact of such globalisation as well as my reflections.
References:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1046/Weighty_problem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity
http://www.thesahara.net/starving.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation
http://www.health-news.org/images/full_size/us-lawyers-have-little-stomach-for-obesity-cases.jpg
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20061102-0641-health-obesity.html
Introduction to Obesity
Weighty problem
Gaetan Lafortune, OECD Health Policy Unit
Published: September 2003
Obesity is a growing problem in OECD countries, OECD Health Data 2003 shows. Its prevalence varies from country to country, from a low of 3% of the population in Korea and Japan in 2001, to a high of 31% in the United States in 1999.
The US estimate is based on actual health examinations, while data from most other countries are from self-reporting health surveys. Comparable data from health interview surveys show a lower US figure, though still at 22% in 1999. Similarly, for Australia, the obesity rate based on health examinations conducted in 1999 was 21%, but 18% based on self-reported survey data in 2001.
Still, the outcomes point to a pressing problem. In Australia, obesity has more than doubled and in the United Kingdom the rate has tripled over the last 20 years, based consistently on health examination measures in the two countries. More than 20% of the adult population in Australia and the United Kingdom are now defined as obese, the same rate as in the United States ten years ago. By contrast, the obesity rates in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, as well as France, Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland remain in the 10% area, according to self-reported data, though obesity rates in these countries have begun to rise.
Obesity is a known risk factor for several disorders, such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems (asthma) and musculoskeletal diseases (arthritis). It has several causes, too, including excessive calorie consumption, lack of physical activity, genetic predisposition and disorders of the endocrine system of glands that produces the hormones necessary for normal bodily functions, like metabolism and growth.
Culture and environment also influence obesity, like dietary customs or the working environment. A recent study by Lawrence Frank, associate professor of urban planning at the University of British Columbia, even suggests urban sprawl as being a possible factor, as in the suburbs, people tend to drive more and walk less.
The economic and non-economic consequences of obesity are vast. In the United States, a recent study by Roland Sturm looked at the consequences of obesity on medical problems such as diabetes and asthma and related costs, and compared them with other risk factors, like smoking and alcohol consumption (see references). The study found that obesity has the same association with chronic health conditions as does 20 years of ageing, greatly exceeding the association of smoking or excessive drinking for those conditions studied.
It was estimated that obesity is associated with an even higher average health cost increase per year than costs related to smoking. So much so, in fact, that in the US a group of large employers, headed by Ford Motor, Honeywell, General Mills and PepsiCo, announced a campaign this June to encourage overweight workers to slim down as a way to improve both their personal health and the corporate bottom line. Dr Vince Kerr, director of health care management at Ford, says weight-related costs are adding US$12 billion per year to costs of employers across the United States.
One worrying feature for places like Australia and the UK, where obesity has risen since 1980, is that there is a time lag between the onset of obesity and related disorders, suggesting that health problems (and costs) are being stored for the future.
Diet changes and physical exercise can help tackle obesity, although this is easier said than done, particularly as behavioural and environmental barriers are at play. Apart from promoting a healthy lifestyle, preventing obesity in childhood is perhaps a more effective approach in the long term. Effective family-based and school-based programmes can help. So might the law, with several legal battles now being waged against manufacturers and distributors of foods that are accused of contributing to obesity. Other food companies are taking initiatives themselves, with food giant Kraft announcing at the start of July its plan to cut fat and sugar content in its foods.
__________________________________________
How is Obesity Related to Globalisation?
Globalisation is the unitary process inclusive of many sub-processes (such as enhanced economic interdependence, increased cultural influence, rapid advances of information technology, and novel governance and geopolitical challenges) that are increasingly binding people and the biosphere more tightly into one global system. Globalisation and obesity are closely related as globalisation results in obesity of many and yet it is obesity which promotes further globalisation.
Firstly, globalisation leads to the emergence of worldwide food production markets and a wider access to a range of foods for consumers. To be more specific, technological globalisation has made it possible for the spreading of technology to various developed nations around the world. This technology has led to technological advancements in the food industry, making the mass production of highly processed convenience foods possible. Also, cultural globalisation has been a catalyst for the growing of the fast food industry. Cultural globalisation involves the desire of people to consume and enjoy foreign products, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". As the idea of fast food outlets reach people in various nations, their desire to consume and enjoy foreign products results in increased patronization of these outlets, thus accelerating the growth of the fast food industry.
On the other hand, obesity leads to further globalisation. As more and more people become obese, they spend more money to improve their body image, leading to the thriving of slimming agencies. Moreover, there is increased imports of slimming products from various nations due to a higher demand. This results in a boost in the beauty industry in developed nations. Therefore, there is acceleration of economic globalisation due to the increase in trade between nations. The number of slimming agencies in Singapore has increased by 40% from 1985 - 2005. Therefore we can see that the general public is becoming more and more dependent on these slimming technologies. Thus globalisation and obesity are interrelated.
What is its Impact?
For a larger image, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png
While one side of the world is worrying about obesity problems, the other side of the world is worrying about hunger. Although the impact on globalisation in nations is very huge, it does not reach every end of Earth. It only impacts heavily on developed nations. On the other hand, third world nations are facing food insecurity.
Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (that is, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies).
This boy is suffering from hunger, yet he is also suffering from the indignity of being covered in flies.
While American kids are undergoing weight control, children are dying of starvation in feeding centers in Niger, where 3.6 million people face severe food shortages. Food insecurity there is caused by poverty, population, piorities and politics. The underprivilleged are always hungry. Population growth is very high (around 20%), thus resulting in the shortage of food to feed the entire population. The rich often get their foodstuff first. Moreover, political forces influence the availability of food as food is often used as 'money' to pay off debts to first world countries. Thus we can see that globalisation does not necessarily affect every single corner of the world.
Globalisation brings us a lot of benefits, but have we stopped to think if poor nations receive the same benefits as the first world countries? The answer is no. Globalisation brings about increased economic interdependence, cultural influence, rapid advances in IT, and novel governance and geopolitical challenges that are increasingly binding people into one global system. However, this does not seem like the case for third world countries. Globalisation does not really have any effect on them, be it political, economic, cultural, technological and environmental. Therefore I think that to reduce food insecurity, first world countries have to first help third world countries by lending loans to them, so that they can produce more food. With a stronger workforce, these countries will then have the capability to participate in world trade. Third world countries can later return these loans to first world countries through yearly instalments. With the participation of third world countries in world trade, each nation is bound to benefit. In this way, globalisation will then have a fairer impact on countries. There will no longer be extremes in food security problems.
Yours,
The Environmental & Health Expert
serene!
The Day After Tomorrow - Where Will You Be?
Globalisation - how are the different aspects at work? This post will be examining how cultural and environmental globalisation has worked together to impact upon the world through various forms of media. It will be illustrating the close relationship between environmental and cultural globalisation through an example, which is the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The Day After Tomorrow is a science-fiction movie made in 2004 which shows catastrophic consequences of global warming and boasts high-end special effects. It is a very good example to show how environmental issues can be packaged into forms of media to be broadcasted around the world, raising awareness, and at the same time, provide global entertainment.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808417410/details
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/blockbuster/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_3_47/ai_n13664920
"What if we are on the brink of a new Ice Age? This is the question that haunts climatologist Jack Hall. Hall’s research indicates that global warming could trigger an abrupt and catastrophic shift in the planet’s climate. While Jack warns the White House of the impending climate shift, his 17 year-old son Sam finds himself trapped in New York City where he and some friends have been competing in a high school academic competition. He must now cope with the severe flooding and plummeting temperatures in Manhattan. Having taken refuge inside the Manhattan Public Library, Sam manages to reach his father by phone. Jack only has time for one warning: stay inside at all costs. As full-scale, massive evacuations to the south begin, Jack heads north to New York City to save Sam. But not even Jack is prepared for what is about to happen--to him, to his son, and to his planet. "
Generally, this is a short description of "The Day After Tomorrow" by Yahoo Movie News. The movie places emphasis on several issues: refusal of USA to sign the Kyoto Protocol, effects of climate change, urging of the public to save the environment. This movie is a 'product' of cultural and environmental globalisation working hand in hand to raise awareness in the midst of global entertainment. Crucial environmental issues were embedded in the movie, before it was packaged and sold to the world cinema. "The Day After Tomorrow" serves a very useful tool in climate change communication via the media on the general public. Worldwide, "The Day After Tomorrow" received very popular response and is the 38th most grossing film of all time, with a revenue of US$542,771,772.
In my opinion, several aspects of globalisation are at work in the course of the production of this movie. Before, during and after the showing period of this movie, we can constantly see a merging of technological, cultural and environmental globalisation.
- Technological globalisation is the increase in information flows between geographically remote locations. It is said to bring about the 'shrinking' of the world and increased telecommunication without the need for transportation.
- Cultural globalisation is growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture".
- Environmental globalisation is the examination of global environmental challenges that can only be solved through international cooperation, such as climate change, pollution, as well as the spread and development of diseases and medicine.
Cultural globalisation takes place as there is the rise of a global culture. Entertainment made by a nation is not only enjoyed in the nation, but also around the world. Cultural globalisation leads to cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". "The Day After Tomorrow" received popular response around the world and is the 38th most grossing film of all time, with a revenue of US$542,771,772. Therefore this shows that there is a desire for people to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas.
Environmental globalisation is expressed in the movie as the movie examines the seriousness of climate change and its consequences. The movie highlights the seriousness of climate change which is a form of environmental globalisation. For example, there was a scene where Jack Hall, the protagonist was giving a presentation to a conference on "global warming" in New Delhi, India. Jack told the story of the 1,300 year long Younger Dryas cold climate period of the ninth millennium BC in the Northern Hemisphere to a skeptical audience, including the Vice President of the United States, who dismissed the possibility of such an event recurring. This scene was intentively placed in the movie to direct criticism at politicians concerning the Kyoto Protocol and climate change. Climate change is a form of environmental globalisation as it is a major environmental challenge which can only be solved through international cooperation. Therefore there are actually traces of environmental globalisation at work, even in movies. Therefore from the example of "The Day After Tomorrow", we can see that movies can be used to carry messages about environmental globalisation, in this case, specifically climate change.
My Reflections
"The Day After Tomorrow" is, in my opinion, a very meaningful movie. This is because the movie is designed in such a way that it provides global entertainment and sparks public concern about the environment at the same time. People from various nations around the world can view this US production and at the same time, witness for themselves consequences of climate change. This might actually trigger their concern for the environment and inspire them to play a part to save the Earth.
The movie attacks powerfully on the refusal of several world leaders to sign the Kyoto Protocol and expresses the consequences of climate change in a very aggressive way. Throughout the movie, there is a subplot involving the refusal of the Vice President of the United States to accept the threat of global warming despite increasingly extreme weather conditions occurring around the world. He insists that preventive measures will instead do too much damage to the economy. Is a similar situation not happening in our world today? Has US President Mr George W. Bush agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol? Has he not proclaimed that signing the Kyoto Protocol would mean the loss of millions of jobs Has he not complained about how it will affect the US economy? Has the White House not doubted the existence in global warming? The answers to these questions are clear. The US is not keen to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, although the movie is believed to be an inaccurate description of climate change, scientists have also highlight that climatic temperatures are indeed changing. The changing temperatures of the climate will not do us good. 2007 is said to be the hottest year in recorded history. A warmer climate will encourage the thriving of microorganisms which might be lead to the rise of new diseases. Moreover, I believe that although the film is said to be inaccurate, it has brought up the idea that if we do not do something now, it might be too late for us to save the environment. In the film, Dennis Quaid, the protagonist scientist of the movie, warns the US Vice President that "if we don't act now it will be too late." However, the US Vice President has not heeded his advice and soon later Manhattan It has shown moviegoers that some politicians might have underestimated the power of Nature to bring about climatic changes. Again, this draws attention to Canada and the US, which have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore I find that the film is worth watching due to the meaning underlying the film.
Also, I've read on the Net that a survey was conducted to find out why people chose to watch this movie. 37% of the respondents mentioned that they watched this movie as they wish to witness for themselves the effects of climate change, which might possibly happening to us in a century. I find this study interesting as it shows that there are people concerned about the state of the environment, yet it also shows that there are not that many Earthlings aware of the state of the environment.
Therefore in conclusion, I would like to say that I really like this movie, as it is indeed one of its kind. There are few movies of its kind in modern age, which carry messages of saving the environment. Thus it has provided me with new insight as to how movies can convey important messages, such as criticism against certain world leaders and the importance of conserving the environment. Also, it has allowed me to understand how different 'forces' of globalisation can work together. So, if you have the time, go catch that movie. You will be able to gain valuable insight.
Yours,
The Environmental & Health Expert
serene!
Earth Day - Speaking For The Trees
Hello! This is the Environmental & Health Expert's 3rd post, entitled "Earth Day - Speaking for the trees". Recently I went on Channelnewsasia.com and happened to stumble upon this quick poll on "Earth Day". Surprisingly, although Earth Day is observed worldwide in 175 countries annually to highlight current environmental issues, more than half the people who took the poll do not know about Earth Day and its significnace. Therefore this post will be serving as a guide to Earth Day: how it is related to globalisation, its impact on the global community and my thoughts on Earth Day.
Materials: Web Poll on Earth Day, Images of Earth Day Flag and on How Earth Day is Celebrated
Sources:
http://www.aas.com.sg/features/archive/f05022.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_day
http://www.earthday.net/climatechange.aspx
http://www.more4kids.info/392/earth-day-and-your-kids/
http://info.channelnewsasia.com/cgi-bin/poll/cnapoll1to1.cgi?group=cna_poll&pollchoice=View
What is Earth Day?
Earth Day, which falls on 22 April, is observed worldwide to highlight current environmental issues. It is aimed to raise public concern and awareness about the state of the environment, serving as a global day of observance of environmental problems. Earth Day was first held on 22 April 1970 as a response to widespread environmental degradation. The paragraph below shows how Earth Day came into implementation and the reasons behind its formation.
According to Santa Barbara, California Community Environmental Council:
"The story goes that Earth Day was conceived by Senator Gaylord Nelson after a trip he took to Santa Barbara right after that horrific oil spill off our coast in 1969. He was so outraged by what he saw that he went back to Washington and passed a bill designating April 22 as a national day to celebrate the earth."
The very first Earth Day in 1970 was aimed at demostrating strong political support for environmental agenda and received popular response in the United States. Thousands of colleges and universities, as well as numerous primary and secondary schools, and committees in the nation were involved. In fact, 20 million people participated in the Earth Day celebrations in 1970. Due to the overwhelming response received, Earth Day was considered a success and led people to ponder over the state of the environment and what they can do to improve it. As a result, many important laws were passed by the Congress after the 1970 Earth Day, including the Clean Air Act, laws to protect drinking water, wild lands and the ocean. Also, it also lead to the formation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Earth Day flag
Credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_day#Earth_Day_1970
A flag was also created for Earth Day to represent its importance and significance, since flags are used symbolically as concrete representations for abstractions. In this case, the flag is designed with a picture of the Earth in the middle to show that the flag represents Earth Day. Also, the Earth is placed in the centre of the flag to show that Earth is the centre of attention. The Earth also symbolises the united efforts of the world to bring the state of the environment to a better level.
How is It Related To Globalisation?
Earth Day is closely related to globalisation as it is an occasion where the global community attempts to make a joint effort in saving the environment and making the world a better and sustainable home for everyone. Globalisation is the increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, technological, cultural, political, and ecological aspects. The ecological aspect examines global environmental challenges that can only be solved through international cooperation, such as climate change, pollution, as well as the spread and development of diseases and medicine. Today, one of the major and most critical environmental challenges the world faces is climate change. In my first post, I mentioned that climate change is a global environmental challenge that requires global attention and all nations to overcome together. Earth Day is one example of how various nations around the world make a joint effort in saving the environment. Earth Day was first started in America in 1970 with only 20 million participants. Later, the success of Earth Day in America triggered off people's concerns about the environment, thus leading to the spreading of this global culture and ideology - Earth Day. Today, Earth Day is celebrated in 175 countries around the world with half a billion people involved in it. We can see a certain form of cultural homogenization where a global culture is being cultivated. Therefore Earth Day is closely related to the cultural and environmental aspects of globalisation.
What is Its Impact?
As mentioned earlier in this post, Earth Day is celebrated in 175 countries around the world today with half a billion participants in total. It is coordinated by the Earth Day Network which is a non governmental organisation aimed at changing the human behaviour and provoking policy change. Indeed, Earth Day places a huge impact in various nations today as they come up with different methods to celebrate this day and at the same time, save the environment.
Activities Conducted Around the World on Earth Day:
- Singapore - Earth Day is renamed Car Free Day and the public is encouraged to refrain from driving on that day and use public transport or cycle.
- Washington State, USA - The Car Free Olympia Challenge takes place and directors from all state agencies and government officials are challenged to be car free that day.
- Manila, The Phillippines - A 50 km bike tour of seven cities around Metro Manila is organised by The Firefly Brigade. This is to encourage the use of environmentally friendly transport.
- Amman, Jordan - Al-Urdon Street which connects East Amman and North Amman is closed for youth to join its Mayor in flying balloons and kites carrying messages against air-pollution.
Artwork by Students from City College, San Diego in celebration of Earth Day 2007
Credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Earth_Day_2007_at_City_College_San_Diego.JPG
Earth Day is celebrated in schools today so as to educate students in respecting the Earth at a young age. Students learn to understand the importance of Earth Day as they will be the caretakers of this planet in the future. On Earth Day, students are engaged in meaningful activities which are aimed at allowing students to understand the significance of Earth Day. For example, in the picture above, we can see posters regarding the amount of destruction we are doing to Earth in various aspects. These posters are done by students from City College, San Diego in celebration of Earth Day 2007. Through these activities, students learn about the importance of energy conservation, recycling, respecting nature, saving water and reducing pollution. Working individuals also make it a point to reduce use of electricity or other natural resources on that day, by car pooling, conserving water and electricity as well as recycle their shopping bags.
Thus we can see that everyone can play a part in ensuring that our future generations have a sustainable environment to live in. By doing our part and at the same time, educating them about the importance of saving the environment, we have achieved two of our objectives at the same time. We will be able to save the little resources we are left with and save Mother Earth. Lets do our part as Earthlings: change the human behaviour and provoke policy change!
My Reflections
Credits: http://info.channelnewsasia.com/cgi-bin/poll/cnapoll1to1.cgi?group=cna_poll&pollchoice=View
Take a look the poll results above. The question is "Earth Day was observed worldwide to highlight current environmental issues... how does it influence your green conscience?" 56% of the poll takers mentioned that "it made no impact, as I wasn't even aware of Earth Day", 23% mentioned that "I've decided to change one or more habits, to help the environment" and 21% chose the option "It made me think but I'm not sure if I will make a definite change".
After looking at the poll results, it is upsetting to know that while the global community is trying its best to reduce pollution and combat climate change, most Singaporeans are still consuming large amounts of electricity and creating pollution. It is mentioned earlier that Singapore celebrated Earth Day, ironically 56% of Singaporeans are unaware of such a day. Does this not show the ineffectiveness of the Car Free Day? Moreover, Singapore is famous for its keenness in participating in global campaigns and agreements in combating climate change and reducing pollution. Yet, 78% of Singaporeans are inactive in environmentally friendly practices. With only 1 out of 4 people supporting such campaigns, the success rate of these campaigns are very low. In fact, the amount of environmental damage done by these 3 people will most likely outweigh the help that 1 person is willing to save the environment. Eventually efforts in saving the environment and extending the sustainability of the planet will be futile. So why try when we know fully well that not much results will be yielded from it? If we continue to create damage to the environment at this rate, why make it a point to sign the Kyoto Protocol and why implement the 3 'R's (Reuse, Reduce and Recycle) when we know fully well that these practices are unlikely to gain the support of the people?
In my opinion, if we are really sincere in extending the sustainability of this planet, more has to be done to save the environment. I believe that first, we need to raise public awareness on the consequences of our actions if we fail to save the environment. Propaganda through the various forms of media has to be used so that the public will see the importance of saving the environment. Second, more environmentally friendly practices can be implemented once the general support is gained. In this way the general public can be more involved in saving the environment. Third, such campaigns should only be carried out on a regular basis to gain the support of the people. By organising such campaigns every now and then, we will be exerting pressure on the public. This pressure will eventually force the public to overturn these environmentally campaigns. The initial goal is to save the environment, and thus we need to make sure our actions are aimed at saving the environment, not pressuring the people.
With these 3 points in mind, I'm sure that future environmental practices will be a better success than before. As such, I hope that those post has served as an effective guide to Earth Day and how it is related to globalisation. Till next time then, bye!
Yours,
the Environmental and Health Expert
serene!
Puff it or Snuff it!
Hi, this is the second post entitled "Puff it or Snuff it!" This post will be highlighting the haze problems caused by Indonesia and its effects on neighbouring nations, as well as the Earth. The objective of this post is to explain that if Indonesian farmers continue to "puff it", we might eventally "snuff it" due to all these environmental and health problems. In this post, I will be covering what "Slash and Burn" is, how it is related to globalisation, its impact on the global/regional community and my reflections on this issue.
Materials Used: Article named "Indonesia smoke blankets region"
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/5415944.stm
_____________________________________________
Indonesia smoke blankets region
Taken from BBC, dated 7 October 2006
Large parts of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have been hit by smog from illegal bush fires burning on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo.
Visibility in parts of Borneo was reduced to 50m while Singapore recorded its worst pollution levels since 1997.
Flights were cancelled, cars put their headlights on in the middle of the day, and Singapore warned citizens against taking exercise outdoors.
Indonesians use the fires for land clearance despite a government ban.
Hundreds of fires
Visibility was down to 50m in Central Kalimantan, on Indonesia's part of Borneo island.
Environmental agencies reported from 500 to 2,000 fires burning in the flammable peat soils of the region.
"The worst situation is in Central Kalimantan now. Most areas in the province contain peat," Malaysian forest fire chief Purwasto told Reuters news agency.
"We cannot estimate the extent of the fires now."
Singapore's environment agency recorded a pollution index level of 128 early on Saturday and said satellite data showed 506 fires burning on Sumatra island.
The pollution index is the highest level seen in Singapore since smog covered the region in 1997, causing billions of dollars in damage and lost tourist revenue.
The index had been at 80 on Friday. Any level above 100 is considered harmful.
Plantations blamed
Indonesia has outlawed using fire for land clearance but the laws are widely flouted in remote areas of the country, and the government seems helpless to control the situation, says the BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jakarta.
Pungent smoke from the fires is an annual problem across south-east Asia during the dry season.
Farmers have traditionally used brush fires in agriculture, but environmentalists claim the problem has become more serious in recent years due to timber and oil palm companies clearing land for plantations.
"The fires are seasonal and very predictable, but the government never implements effective measures to prevent and manage them," Nordin, a spokesman for Indonesian environmental group Save Our Borneo, told AFP news agency.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/5415944.stm
Published: 2006/10/07 13:45:42 GMT
© BBC MMVII
________________________________________________________
What is Slash and Burn? How is it related to globalisation?
Slash and burn refers to the cutting and burning of forests or woodlands to create fields for agriculture or pasture for livestock, or for a variety of other purposes. In shifting cultivation, slash and burn is the simplest method to clear land after the harvest of crops. By burning the leftover parts of crops (eg. roots), slash and burn has provided a simple and easy way of obtaining natural nutrients for the next round of crops being grown. The practice of slash and burn has ensured farmers a cheap and convenient way of obtaining natural nutrients for their crops without having to purchase expensive chemical fertilisers. Therefore slash and burn is popularly carried out in rural areas.
Globalisation is the development of technologies and the shrinking of the world, ecological interdependence, cultural homogenization, crumbling of national boundaries and the development of world markets, economical interdependence and dominance. In this post, we shall examine how globalisation leads to ecological interdependence and the crumbling of national boundaries, as illustrated by the example of slash and burn. Globalisation results in ecological interdependence as no country is cut off from the rest of the world. All countries are engaged in global relations in one way or another, be it economical, political, social, cultural, or environmental. Globalisation leads to the crumbling of national boundaries, which also meant that globalisation leads to ecological interdependence. The crumbling of national boundaries can be seen in how environmental and health hazards travel across borders, thus having far reaching effects on more than one nation, but the entire regional/global community.
Slash and burn, despite ensuring a cheap and convenient way of obtaining natural nutrients, aften results in environmental hazards such as haze when the fire gets out of control. The article above highlights how slash and burn leads to haze and as a result, health problems. Consequences of slash and burn are also especially highlighted. The regional community is affected when monsoon winds carry the haze to neighbouring nations. Thus we can see an example of globalisation - crumbling of national boundaries. The state has lost much of its ability to control the movement of haze across borders. When the state alone is unable to curb the problem, regional organisations have to interfere to bring the problem under control. With globalisation, ecological interdependence is common and the sovereignty of nations is challenged. We can see this in the example of the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution is an environmental agreement signed in 2002 between ASEAN nations to bring haze pollution under control in Southeast Asia. This shows how ASEAN has to interfere in order to solve the haze problem. An agreement was passed so as to bring the haze situation under control and prevent similar events from occurring in the future.
What are its impacts on the global/ regional community?
Indonesia is an agrarian society with about 80% of the 200 million people population living in rural areas. Majority of this 80% of the population practises farming as a way of survival. Since subsistence farming is the easiest and best method to sustain huge families, it is often practised in rural areas, with shifting cultivation being one of the more popular farming methods. As mentioned in the previous section, slash and burn ensures farmers a cheap and convenient way of obtaining natural nutrients for their crops without having to purchase expensive chemical fertilisers. Therefore it is widely practised in Indonesia. During harvest seasons, after farmers harvest their crops, they set fire to their piece of land to burn the unwanted parts of the crops away. In the meanwhile, they will begin to farm on another piece of land. However, though they only intend to burn a small piece of land, the fire eventually gets out of control and burn up a much larger area. Even if each farmer only burns a small piece of land, with such a huge population a huge area of land would have been destroyed. However, as the fire gets out of control, the area of land being burnt is hard to imagine!
Slash and burn has resulted in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, thus polluting the environment. This activity not only depletes the number of oxygen providers, but also reduce amount of carbon dioxide being removed by trees. As plantations are cleared, average daily temperatures increase immensely, thus triggering off El Nino. Global warming is increasingly accelerated too. Is it not an irony that while the global community is trying to curb greenhouse gas emissions, one part of the Earth is effortlessly increasing its greenhouse gas emissions?
Moreover, slash and burn has resulted in haze, which leads to health and environmental problems not only within Indonesia, but also among regional countries. Visibility is greatly reduced to a few hundred metres away in neighbouring countries, which leads to an increase in road accidents. Inevitably there will also be an increase in the number of asthma cases, or other health problems like eye irritation and cough.
More importantly, there will be an immense dip in the tourism industry in the region as there will be much fewer people willing to come to Southeast Asia to tour. Many flights will be cancelled due to the haze. As the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) continues to rise, Singaporeans will reduce their outdoor activities. As noted in the article, during the 2006 Southeast Asian haze, billions of dollars were lost. Therefore we can imagine the damage done to our economy due to the haze.
Also political relationships were strained as leaders from Singapore and Malaysia criticised the inability of the Indonesian national government in stopping the fires. Indonesia suffers the criticism of the regional and global community for being the cause of the haze. Moreover, in 2006, the Indonesian government announced that it is unable to stop the bush fires. As a result, Indonesia suffers from more humiliation as its government is increasingly being labelled "incompetent".
Finally, I would like to also make a point that it is mentioned in the article that the government never implements effective measures to curb the situation. In 2006, Indonesia officially announced itself unable to stop the fires and suggested a regional fund being set up to help it handle future similar situations. The fires were so intense that the Indonesian government claimed itself unable to help. Instead, neighbouring countries like Singapore and Malaysia have to send aids over. Thus we can see that just an environmental hazard actually have the power to render a government incapable.
As such, we can see the immense impact of the haze not only on Indonesia, but also neighbouring countries. The nations suffer from the drastic consequences of the haze, be it economic, political, social and environmental. None of the nations stand to gain. Therefore more has to be done to ensure the ceasing of similar events in the future.
Reflections
Being an Environmental & Health Expert, I would like to express my utmost disappointment how the Indonesian government handles such situations. For example in 2006, the Indonesian government mentioned about it being unable to control the haze situation and suggested the setting up of a regional fund to help bring similar situations in the future under control. I believe that the Indonesian government should not have given up or mentioned in public about being unable to control the haze situations. This will only lower the self-esteem of the people and cause them to be demoralised. The role of a state government is to serve as the executive function of the state and lead the nation to peace and prosperity. Instead of guiding citizens to national prosperity and peace, the Indonesian government gave up when it faced difficult situations. Is this what a government supposed to do? No, I do not think so. Maybe what the Indonesian government could have done is to gather the strength of the people in fighting the bush fires. With a large manpower, the fire would have been put out in a much shorter time.
I have no intention of criticizing any party responsible for the haze situation. However, I feel that perhaps preventing such fires from occurring would be a better choice. Farmers living in rural areas do not have a clear idea of the consequences of their actions. What they are interested in and wish to do is to feed their families. Therefore they need to understand that what they do are not beneficial. Thus I believe public education can be implemented to help raise awareness about the disadvantages of slash and burn. Incentives and rewards should also work hand in hand with public education to better facilitate its efficiency. Farmers might stubbornly refuse to stop clearing land by fire unless they stand to gain from it. Therefore the implementation of incentives and rewards should also be implemented together with public education. This will thus encourage them to switch from slash and burn to a more expensive yet environmentally friendly way of clearing land. Also, the price of chemical fertilisers and machinery can be lowered so that poorer farmers can afford it. Then, more farmers will be able to afford chemical fertilisers and machinery. As a result, they will not require natural nutrients or clearance of land via slash and burn. All these actions can help reduce the occurrence of slash and burn fires.
Finally, I hope that I have provided a clearer view of what slash and burn is, and how it is related to globalisation. Also, I hope that I have addressed the impact of slash and burn on the global and regional community, as well as my reflections on this issue. I'll end off with a quote by Henry Ford II. "No society of nations, no people within a nation, no family can benefit through mutual aid unless good will exceeds ill will; unless the spirit of cooperation surpasses antagonism; unless we all see and act as though the other man's welfare determines our own welfare." Thank you.
Yours,
The Environmental and Health Expert
serene!
The Kyoto Protocol - Just A Prophecy?
The Environmental & Health Expert names this post "The Kyoto Protocol - Just A Prophecy?". Is the Kyoto Protocol just an unrealistic prediction? Is it merely a feeble dream which countries share? Or a weak goal they aspire to achieve? I will be examining what the Kyoto Protocol is and how it is related to globalisation. Also, I will be talking about my opinions on the the impact it results in the world as well as its future outcome.
Materials Used: A Series of Graphs Which Will Be Analyzed
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol
*Note: Post is 100% original!
________
What is the Kyoto Protocol? How is it related to Globalisation?
Globalisation is the increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, technological, cultural, political, and ecological aspects. The ecological aspect examines global environmental challenges that can only be solved through international cooperation, such as climate change, pollution, as well as the spread and development of diseases and medicine. Out of the many global environmental challenges, one especially requires urgent attention of the international community as it threatens the survival of the Earth - climate change. Climate change is the change in the Earth's global climate over time. This change is influenced by both natural and human factors. However, since the Industrial Revolution, human factors have been contributing more and more to climate change. Their increasing emissions of greenhouse gases have risen to become the main 'ingredient' of climate change. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol is implemented to help improve the state of the Earth. The global community needs to cooperate in order to bring climate change under control.
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. Currently, it is the only global action plan to curb carbon emissions and expires in 2012. It is rejected by the world's biggest polluter, the United States, and does not bind developing nations such as China and India. Below are some graphs which show the annual carbon emissions in each region, global trends in greenhouse gas emissions and lastly the carbon variations in time.
What do the graphs show about the impact of the Kyoto Protocol in various nations?
Graph 1
Thus we can actually see that the Kyoto Protocol does not have far reaching effects on every nation in the world. In fact, there are countries who disregard the Kyoto Protocol. The biggest contributor to global climate change, the US, did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. Also, Australia did not sign in. Canada signed the protocol but failed to follow it. Thus we can see that the Kyoto Protocol does not apply to these countries - there is little impact. The Kyoto Protocol also does not have much impact in developing nations such as China and India. This is because they are still developing and need not abide by it.
Graph 2
This table shows the global trends in greenhouse emissions in 2003. Note that this is after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the first small graph, the carbon dioxide levels is increasing steadily. There is no drop in the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. One reason for this is that the biggest contributer of carbon dioxide (through industrial activities) USA, has not ratified the protocol. It is still emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. China, the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, is currently not required to abide by the protocol - China is still contributing largely to global warming. Moreover, the world population is increasing rapidly. The consumption of carbon dioxide in many areas is increasing, thus the overall levels continue to rise rapidly. Also, the levels of nitrous oxide is increasing. Nitrous oxide mainly comes from farming activities or cows. Since the world population is expanding at a fast rate, more food is needed to feed the population. Therefore this leads to more nitrous oxide being emitted. However, take a look at the graphs of methane, CFC-12 and CFC-11. CFC-12 is increasing less rapidly after the 1990s. In fact, it is almost at a constant rate. The trend of CFC-11 and methane actually dropped too.
In this graph, we can see that all the nations in the world have taken into two sides. The first group are countries which the Kyoto Protocol has far reaching impact on, and the other which the Kyoto Protocol has not much impact on. The Kyoto Protocol applies to countries which have signed the Protocol, yet developing nations need not abide by it. What does this show? This shows that although majority of nations have signed the Kyoto Protocol, not all of them need to abide by it. The Kyoto Protocol has far reaching impact on developed nations who have signed the Kyoto Protocol in particular. Third world nations need not have any obligations to abide by the protocol but they can participate. In the first graph, I have already explained how the Kyoto Protocol does not have much impact on certain nations. Now, countries which have to abide by the Kyoto Protocol have decreased further.
Graph 3
Finally this is the last graph of the three. it is different because it shows the cause of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, unlike the previous two which talks about the result of the implementation.
The graph shows the carbon dioxide concentration and its variations over time. The time range is from 0- 400,000 years ago. Notice that there is an almost periodic trend in the carbon dioxide concentration before the Industrial Revolution. There seems to be a pattern in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We can see a trend in the carbon emissions until the Industrial Revolution began. Since the Industrial Revolution began, there is an increase in the number of industrial activities and all these activities emit carbon dioxide. The Industrial Revolution caused a drastic increase in the carbon dioxide emitted, even till today. The continual increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to global warming in near future and the wiping out of mankind. Therefore the Kyoto Protocol is implemented to delay this from happening.
The Kyoto Protocol is meant to exert pressure and have heavy impact on nations to reduce greenhouse has emissions as under the obligations. Each nation has its own resposibility to fufill the Protocol. For example, between 2008-2012, developed nations need to reduce their greenhosue gas emissions by 5% below their 1990 levels. European Union member states need to reduce by 15%. However, currently the reduction ranges from 8% for EU to 10% increase for Iceland. Therefore we can again, see that although the Kyoto Protocol is implemented to place impact on countries so that they will try to reach the reduction level, in reality few countries manage to fufill their obligations.
Further Reflections
In conclusion, I believe that the Kyoto Protocol is a good global action plan to curb carbon emissions although it has received much criticism. Since the main factor of global warming is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should tackle the situation by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol aims to save the Earth and the wiping out of mankind by delaying global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, by ratifying this protocol countries reduce their greenhouse emissions, thus doing their part for a cleaner and greener Earth. Although the amount of greenhouse emitted is still increasing, it is increasing at a slower rate. Moreover, there have been successes in the reduction of greenhouse emissions. The United Kingdom and Sweden have succeeded in reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted. Therefore this show that the Kyoto Protocol is not mere wishful thinking. It is a fair protocol which work by the concept of "a common but differentiated resposibility". Different nations help save the Earth according to their abilities. Since developed nations contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions, they have to reduce their emissions by a larger percentage under the protocol. Developing nations have only been contributing relatively low levels of emissions. China and India are currently exempted from the requirements of the protocol as they are still developing.
USA has chosen not to ratify the protocol as the protocol is said to be doing too much damage to the US economy. Bush even described the protocol as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket". Later, the White House even questioned the science behind global warming and that millions of jobs will be lost if USA joins in the pact. USA refuses to ratify the protocol ifor fear that China and India can then easily catch up with its economy. However, I do not think that these are valid reasons to not ratify the protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is meant to help signatory nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it is not aimed to delay economic progress. the US believes that millions of jobs will be lost due to the plunging of the US economy by signing the pact. A study in Nature discovered that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs." So why does USA accuse the protocol to be costly?ALso, majority of the greenhouse gas emissions come from developed countries and greenhouse gas emissions are still relatively low in developing countries. Its only right that developed countries reduce their emissions by a larger percentage. This can set a good example for developing nations to follow when they become developed. Also, i would like to clarify that the science behind global warming is certified to be true. We have seen the effects of global warming: ice caps melting, more often occurrence of natural disasters (such as hurricanes in 2005), increase world temperatures etc. How can all these be false? Are these arguments by the US merely excuses for its rejection of the Protocol?
Given the reasons above, I really hope that USA would ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This is because when the current treaty expires in 2012 and USA has not ratified it, many other nations would follow suit and by then, all the previous efforts to save the environment would be futile.
Yours,
The Environmental & Health Expert
♥ SERENE.