Athgo : Blog

The Future of Environmentalism

Thursday, October 30, 2008

by Hoi Kei Phoebe Chan

Ever since I started volunteering for an environmental group, I pondered on a question: is the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) #7 on environmental sustainability achievable by 2015 or even in the long run? I am certain that environmental activists will declare that it is feasible as long as there is enough awareness and pressure from the public while governments and businesses put their hearts into the cause. However, with the current state of affairs, I remain pessimistic since there are many roadblocks before achieving MDG #7.

Here we are in 2008, seven years before UN’s deadline of 2015. The notions of Global Warming, emission trading between countries and environmental problems are prominent in the media reports. Although technology has advanced at a rapid pace, the environment cannot cope with the increased demands of resources and garbage produced from both developing countries and industrialized countries. It is true that recycling programs and environmental laws are in place in many jurisdictions to protect the environment. But, there are simply too many loopholes in the policies, allowing industries to take advantage of them where applicable.

When different governmental parties pledge to tackle environmental problems in their election campaigns, they either meet strong opposition from the environmentalists or the industries. Activists want to see changes in the greening and protection of the environment while business groups want to protect their interests and their competitiveness. There seems to be no compromise as voters are caught between two stools. Nevertheless, environmentalists can raise awareness which will affect consumers’ choices in governmental policy and businesses’ behavior. Therefore, the future of environmentalism seems to lean towards individual citizens’ actions.

In conclusion, MDG #7 will never be achieved on time for 2015 unless the citizens and governments of the world come together to stop environmental degredation. Yet, it will take a lot of effort from all the citizens to reduce their consumptions while motivating the businesses and governments in changing their policies. Hopefully, things will change with time allowing sustainable development and giving a chance to future generations.

Posted By H. K. Phoebe Chan At 3:02 AM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)

Bolivia's Salvador? Using History to Negotiate

Saturday, September 20, 2008

        Evidence that history repeats itself could not be stronger than the current Latin American crisis threatening Bolivia, a crisis that exists because of differing interests to control its resources. The Eastern provinces, containing a majority of the country’s natural gas, have declared autonomy under President Morales’ socialist-leaning administration that wishes to distribute this wealth across the country. These provinces have attempted to oust the president from office via popular support. However, a recent recall vote requested by the opposition shows that 67% of voters in Bolivia favor Evo Morales and his policies. The opposition has been left with one choice, a common one in Latin America—a mix of violence and politics.

Bolivia and Chile

        Evo Morales and Bolivia’s similarities to President Salvador Allende and Chile in 1973 are uncanny. Both presidents were democratically elected socialists who proposed a less violent road to socialism and to work with the concept of labor rights to progress their leftist policies. They have increased nationalization of industries, redistributed wealth and land, and spent money on numerous federal sponsored programs in their respective countries. The most challenging similarity is that they have both experienced dissidence from the right. This dissidence has been strongly political. Many people of the right fear that Morales has plans to change Bolivia into Cuba, just as conservatives did under Salvador Allende. The policies of Morales and Allende, as well as nationalization and agrarian reform have been a catalyst to creating fascist-leaning opposition that has promoted chaos, blockaded roads and attempted to force pressure from the executive power. In the case of Bolivia, the dissidence is greatened by the high concentration of natural resources in the Eastern province and the extraordinarily high amount of racism towards indigenous people, who make a majority of the country, but have had relatively minute amount of power.
        The difference now between Allende and Morales is that we do not know what will happen in Bolivia. In the case of Chile, after three years of President Allende in 1973, a coup led by Augusto Pinochet resulted in authoritarian rule and the destruction of human rights, political organizations and representative democracy for seventeen years. Afterwards Chile underwent a depression, poverty and unemployment rates increased, while at the same time Chile’s free trade agreement created an economic boom.

Evo’s Turn

        Just as Allende in 1973, this is Evo Morales’ third year in office. This past week, fascist-leaning militant groups demonstrated their philosophy of the right, wielding molatov cocktails and weapons to create a sense of urgency and fear. On Youtube, one can find postings of intentional beatings of indigenous people just for being indigenous. Furthermore, in El Pando, Radio Erbol reported a massacre of thirty indigenous people on September 11, the 35th anniversary of the Pinochet coup. The racism, which had always existed, became more prolific.

Bolivia and the International Community

        With such a crisis the international community will get involved. Bolivia has already sent the U.S. ambassador home, Hugo Chavez has threatened to invade Bolivia if there is a coup, and an opposition leader has appealed for the United Nations to step in and control the violence initiated by the Morales government, and, ironically, protect democracy.
        If the United Nations is to get involved, it should ask strongly what democracy is, who makes up the population of Bolivia, who is initiating the violence, and who is more likely to progress the Millennium Goals. The United Nations should stop fascist-leaning groups, not President Morales. It should protect the democracy that more respects human rights over certain loud and dissident politicians who have egged on street beatings, and particularly those leaders who have previously supported totalitarian rule. It should protect the democracy that has for the past three years promoted the eradication of poverty more so than its more corrupted predecessors. It should protect the administration that has argued for universal education, not the one that excludes the education of the impoverished and indigenous. If foreign nations believe the revelation of Bolivia’s “faux democracy” that the opposition claims, they will be placing their faith in the same people who brought Pinochet upon Chile, people who will create a new Bolivian identity, a new racism, or perhaps justify torture, killings and void human rights.
        At the same time, it must be noted that the participation of foreign countries may be better suited, as well, as an impartial moderator to prevent civil war, and not solely a biased organization promoting the Millennium Goals that could be perceived as imperialistic. Too much hard-lined negotiations could detrimental to the country.
        Hopefully Bolivia will solve its problems internally with more diplomacy and peace than Chile. Since I began writing this, opposition leaders and Morales met, and Morales proposed to add the issue of autonomy in a new constitution he is proposing. However, whether or not the partisanship that currently exists can end so suddenly depends upon the negotiation of leaders, who since the massacre have taken more diplomatic routes, but also in the extremist populations of both right and left. One possibility is a peace agreement from above and dissidence from below, or vice versa. All of this becomes tragically ironic in a nation whose capital city is named after the Lady of Peace, La Paz.

Posted By Peter Edmondson At 7:05 AM • Comments (2) Trackbacks (40)

UN

Thursday, August 14, 2008

By Darel Tai Engen

“The UN is irrelevant.” “America should get out of the UN!” “Why can’t the UN stop any wars?” “The UN is a tool of world domination!” How many times have we heard statements such as these about the UN in recent years? Despite its critics, though, the UN must be an essential part of any solutions for the world’s ills. At the same time, however, we cannot just leave the world’s fate to the UN as if it were some deus ex machina descended from the heavens to save us from ourselves. We are the UN, and we must all take an active role in working together to achieve our common goals. For its part, ATHGO seeks to bring together, educate, and inspire young people so that they are prepared to undertake fulfilling and rewarding careers that put their unique talents, perspectives, and skills into the service of the common good.

It’s true that some of the most vocal criticisms of the UN come from lunatics who equate the UN with space aliens who have nothing better to do than to probe the orifices of their helpless human subjects—these folks can be easily dismissed. But when the government of the US, the most powerful nation on earth, makes it a policy to disparage the UN publicly and, worse still, fails to provide its promised share of the funds necessary for the UN to operate effectively, then something is terribly wrong. We all know that the UN is far from perfect, but as Shashi Tharoor, former Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information at the UN, once said at an Athgo Forum, “it’s all we’ve got.” That holds true to a great extent: what other entity besides the UN has the principles, the scope, and the potential resources to initiate the Millennium Development Goals? We need to spread the word about what the UN does (in addition to peacekeeping!), foster an appreciation of its good works, and see to it that it gets funded fully.

But we must also remember that the UN is not some isolated entity that operates on its own in a vacuum. The UN is all the governments, NGOs, and individuals of the world who work together for the common good. Thus, we must understand that it isn’t quite enough to publicize the UN’s activities or even to make sure that our governments provide it with adequate funds. We need to undertake our own initiatives, get involved in government, work with NGOs, even start our own businesses in order to further the goals of the UN, particularly its MDGs, which address the most pressing needs of the world today. The paths and the shapes such initiatives may take are manifold, but here at Athgo we believe that fostering social entrepreneurship among the youth of the world will prove to be the most effective means of realizing the change for the better that we all seek for the world.

That the future of the world rests with today’s youth is no secret. Nor would anyone doubt the energy and enthusiasm of young people for action right now. Yet, when considering the problems of the world and their possible solutions, the influential, the powerful, the movers and shakers of today rarely consider the voices of young people, either overlooking, ignoring, or even silencing them completely. Perhaps they think that young people are not yet smart enough or experienced enough or wise enough to make contributions now. At Athgo, we disagree. At our Forums we have seen young people work together to create policy proposals and business models that offer innovative, realistic, and effective solutions to the problems that face the world today. Hence, we believe that the contributions of young people must be fostered and seriously considered as an integral part of any strategies for world good.

The concept of social entrepreneurship is the notion that one may help one’s community while helping oneself. Many a great deed has been done through pure, selfless altruism, but, alas, altruism alone can do only so much. It is not enough, apparently, to make energy companies or even average citizens suddenly stop contributing to resource depletion, pollution, and global warming. Fortunately, however, self-interest may be tapped to provide an incentive for socially-conscious, civic-minded behavior. A good example of this is the “cap and trade” approach for reducing carbon emissions by major corporate polluters. Such an approach provides an economic incentive for limiting emissions so that while individual entities may profit, society as a whole benefits as well. Similarly, individuals, particularly young people who have not yet become set in old, once-accepted ways that are now clearly socially unconscionable, may be introduced to the economic opportunities that exist in the “green” market and the newfound demand for environmentally-friendly knowledge, products, and technologies. Young people could pursue careers in business, politics, law, and science, just to name a few, with a mind to environmental sustainability. For example, one may establish a business that produces clothing made from environmentally-friendly materials (as Athgo guest speaker Marci Zaroff, founder of the Under the Canopy clothing line, has done), or one may become a political consultant on environmental issues. In such ways as these, one can make a living by contributing to the common good. Imagine the satisfaction of such a life: profiting as an individual by benefiting one’s fellow human being. If that is not enough of an incentive for making the world a better place, then I don’t know what is.

If the world is to become a better place, we all must do our part. From the individual initiatives of private citizens to the programs of NGOs like Athgo to the UN itself, we all have a role to play, together and unified for a common cause: our one, unique, irreplaceable, global community.

Posted By Blog Admin At 5:45 PM • Comments (3) Trackbacks (83)

Duplicating the US Model of Philanthropy in Developing Countries: the Challenge of Corruption and Lack of Accountability

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

By Marlene M. Houngbedji

Uber-philanthropist Bill Gates was recently featured in the August 11, 2008 issue of Time Magazine. The article, crafted in Gates’ trademark simplistic but forthright style, and entitled “Making Capitalism more Creative”, is de facto a manifesto for social entrepreneurs with a bit of knowledge of US philanthropy. As economic uncertainty looms in many households, making those of us who once believed in the infallibility of capitalism wonder, Gates insists on the necessity of using it to improve the lives of the poor. The only entities fit to administer such relief, he adds, are non-profit groups who “have become irreplaceable” in helping those who cannot help themselves.

Creative Capitalism and Philanthropy

I have come to understand the limits of the American Dream; it is the least nine years of trying to make it as a humanitarian in the United States can teach you. What I have also come to terms with is that no matter how disillusioned one can be, one cannot deny how elaborate and efficient the US system of corporate philanthropy is. Within the last five years alone, the number of charities registered with the IRS has risen to over a million, with every aspect of every day life transformed into or having the potential to become a cause that may or may not move many. Organizations like the Better Business Bureau and Charity Navigator have become trusted sources for charities rating, with donors using their reports to determine where their hard-earned dollars should end. Giving to non-profit groups tallied up to over $200 billion from individuals, $23 billion from bequests (portion of an individual’s will left to an organization) and over $15 billion from corporations[1] in 2006. Non-profit consultancy is now a full-fledge, booming business: investment, event planning, fundraising and non-profit management firms aggressively seek the business of not-for-profit organizations, the assets of which sometimes reach the $200 billion cap. Foundations fully embrace the practice of investing in the stock market to increase their assets, which is a relatively new concept.

The system of “give-to-receive-tax-break-benefits” that has encouraged major donors and large corporations to generously support non-profit groups fuels thousands of programs and humanitarian initiatives that would otherwise be defunct for lack of government funding. The legal mechanism in place makes the option of making major gifts attractive to even the greediest corporations. Coupled with a structure of accountability that involves laws and regulations implemented by government agencies, the system makes it virtually impossible to misappropriate the funds raised.

As Bill Gates, points out, this is “creative capitalism at work” but could this model work in countries with struggling economies?

A Matter of Accountability and Trust

As a young social entrepreneur with a desire to focus on Africa, it has come to my attention that some charities in the United States receive more from corporations and get more in investment returns than the entire GDP of my country of origin, Benin ($12.1 billion for 2007[2]). The fact begs a question: would it be possible to create an organization on the US model even in a stable developing country? Would funds raised from outside sources be protected by a local system of accountability similar to the one ruling spending policies in the United States? In a continent plagued by a culture of corruption that is endemic and woven into the fabric of the social, economic and political structures of most countries, the answer is likely to be no. As much as I would like it to be a resounding yes. The lack of local body of non-profit laws in most developing countries in turn leads to a lack of funds tracking system and many American-based foundations that have sent significant amount of money abroad do not know how their money is spent and how to punish misappropriation.

Trust in African-ran charities in the United States and abroad is flimsy at best due to several financial scandals of years past. It forces many organizations to register as non-profits in the United States to not only receive gifts they wouldn’t get elsewhere, but to also maintain the trust of stake holders weary to know their money is used properly and effectively.

The US model of philanthropy cannot be duplicated in failed free-market economies. The trick is to create enough trust in donors, individuals and corporations alike, to prompt them to invest in countries they are most likely never to visit.

That is the topic of a whole new article.

[1] From: Giving USA Foundation, Chronicles of Philanthropy, June 26, 2008

[2] From: www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbenin

Posted By Marlene Houngbedji At 5:00 PM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (28)

Framing the Issue

Monday, August 11, 2008

The prospect of offshore oil drilling has been discussed with much ballyhoo over the past month in the United States. The republican congress and a few democrats looking to capitalize on the public outrage of high gas prices have managed to stage an exaggerated fuss in order to get the attention of mainstream media. The likes of Newt Gingrich, President Bush, and others have used their bully pulpits to push this agenda on behalf of big oil. As expected, the media took the bait. Offshore drilling flooded the airwaves and the World Wide Web.

Pundits and commentators from news channels across the land were touting the latest polls that showed the majority of Americans now favor opening up restricted land to the oil companies. The usual news outlets like CNN, CBS, NBC, and FOX unanimously conferred that indeed an ostensible public consensus on drilling existed. They quoted polling results from the likes of Rasmussen, reporting 67% support for offshore drilling, CNN/Opinion Research Corp finding 69% support, an ABC News/Stanford University poll reporting 63%, and the list goes on and on. What the media failed to report was that some of the very polls they quoted also found that other approaches to the energy crisis were even more favorable in the public's eye. In fact, the ABC News/Standford University poll found that 78% of Americans favor making "fuel efficiency standards for cars stricter." This was the story that mainstream media should have been talking about, not this drilling nonsense.

The bump in offshore drilling support reflected the public’s concerns and frustrations with our energy situation, and not necessarily a smart means to ameliorate them. When the polling actually provided attractive alternatives like raising the CAFE standards, offshore drilling seemed less appealing. Raising the fuel economy standards on cars would do more to reduce midterm gas prices, increase oil independence, fight climate change and air pollution than any attempt to put more land in the hands of oil companies. As David Moore points out, many false conclusions about polls can be formed when you do not take into consideration how the issues are framed. He also states that many of the public opinion polls quoted did not make mention of the environmental trade-offs or reveal it likely would takes 5-7 years to start producing oil.

These are all reasons why the media frenzy behind lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling is unfounded. If we cannot count on a truthful national discussion about our energy challenges how can we expect to make wise decisions? Is this not the role of the media, to be a critical third party to powerful interests? The media's superficial and myopic coverage of America's energy issues is doing us all a grave disservice.

~ Mark E. Casias

Posted By Mark Casias At 4:33 PM • Comments (1) Trackbacks (65)