5 Ethical Clothing Brands to Enhance Your Wardrobe

Green Garb for any Occasion

Collecting trash at one of United by Blue’s organized clean ups. Photo provided by United by Blue.

When we think about consumer ethics, our minds don’t normally turn to clothing. We think about reducing plasticware, consuming less red meat, or maybe purchasing an electric car or a bike. However, the production of clothing can involve unfair pay, a lot of waste, and consumption of energy. If you’re looking to add to your wardrobe, try buying your clothes from one of these brands: 

United by Blue’s Albright Rain Shell. Photo provided by United by Blue.

To Outfit Your Outdoor Adventure- United by Blue 

Based in Pennsylvania, United by Blue is more than just a sustainable clothing company. While they use the greenest materials—like recycled polyester and organic cotton—they also act as community organizers. United by Blue sells women, men, and kids’ clothing—for outdoor adventures and just lounging around—as well as accessories and camping gear.  For every garment sold, United by Blue has pledged to remove one pound of trash from natural environments. They do this by organizing waterway Clean Ups in cities around the country. Check out their website for tour dates. Put on a pair of their comfortable off-trail pants, roll up your sleeves on your flannel button-down, and get to work. 

Price Range: most items around $30-100, coats and outerwear $100-200

MATTER’s 2016 Jumpsuit. Photo provided by MATTER

2. For Classic Clothes all Year Round- MATTER

There’s a reason why MATTER’s clothing is so uniquely beautiful: the designs are based on ancient and traditional heritage patterns. Design isn’t the only thing MATTER borrows from the past. MATTER takes a “hybrid” approach to their production process. They use the work with artisans who use their traditional means of textile production, while incorporating more sustainable modern means of production in order to make the clothing economical. Additionally, MATTER does not operate on a “fast-fashion” model that produces new lines every season. They take their time to produce their clothing, in order to leave time for their meticulous production and reduce their waist. They make dresses, pants, tops, and scarfs. So, you can wear your MATTER garment any time of the year. 

Price range: Most items $50-150 

People Tree floral dress. Photo provided by People Tree

3. For a One-Stop Shop- People Tree

From dresses, to underwear, to workout clothes, UK brand People Tree has sells it all—fair trade of course. They use sustainable materials like organic cotton, natural dyes, and TENCEL™, a fibre derived from wood pulp. People tree tries their hardest to reduce waste—they even repurpose their scraps to make handmade tags for their clothing! 

Price range: $50-150

Jumpsuit from ABLE’s Spring 2019 Collection. Photo provided by ABLE.

4. From Jewels to Dresses- ABLE

ABLE makes ethical and beautiful clothing: for women, by women. You can sleep easy after wearing their beautiful jewelry, fun handbags, trendy shoes, and cute dresses, because ABLE publishes their employees’ wages. Many of their factory workers are struggling to make ends meet, so able posts their prices to encourage other companies to do the same—increasing accountability and ethical production. 

Price range: $25-$150

Outdoor Voices store in Austin, Texas. Photo provided by Outdoor Voices.

5. For Your Workouts- Outdoor Voices

In addition to using sustainable, recycled, and organic materials Outdoor Voices also makes sure to use ethical production. They make men and women’s workout attire with a mission to encourage people to get outdoors. Shop their comfortable leggings, jackets, running gear, and swimwear for your next sweat session. 

Price range: Most items $50-80 

More brands are moving towards a more sustainable and ethical mode of production—this is the trend we should be seeing more of on the runway. 

ELIANA DOFT loves to write, travel, and volunteer. She is especially excited by opportunities to combine these three passions through writing about social action travel experiences. She is an avid reader, a licensed scuba diver, and a self-proclaimed cold brew connoisseur. 

What You Need to Know About Beyond and Impossible Burgers

Why plant-based meat substitutes are good for you, and even better for the environment.

Impossible Burger. Photo Provided by Impossible Foods.

There has been a lot of buzz recently around plant-based meat substitutes—especially since Beyond Meat just went public in May at a nearly $1.5 billion dollar valuation. Two of the most popular meat substitutes on the market, Beyond Meats and Impossible Foods, have been astonishing consumers at their resemblance to actual meat. These products look and taste like the meat products they are modeled after. 

What makes them different? 

Impossible Foods’ main product is their burger. And while the Beyond Burger is probably the most well known product that Beyond Meats offers, the company also offers “ground beef,” two flavors of “sausages,” and “beef crumbles.” However, it is possible to mash or crumble the Impossible Burger to create meatballs, pizza toppings, or even tacos. 

Additionally, the products differ in their main protein ingredient. Beyond Burgers’ main protein source comes from pea protein, while Impossible Burgers get their protein from soy protein concentrate. 

The Impossible Burger looks a little more realistic than the Beyond Burger. It appears to “bleed” thanks to the Heme molecule an ingredient called soy leghemoglobin. The Heme molecule is found in every living plant and animal. Since it’s found most abundantly in animals, it’s what makes meat taste like meat. Impossible Foods use the Heme molecule in soy roots. In fact, Impossible Burgers taste so much like actual beef, that some vegetarians and vegans don’t like to eat them because it creeps them out! 

Why are they good for us? 

Meat increases risk of cancer by 16% and risk of heart disease by 21%. By eating a patty that looks and tastes like meat—without the added cholesterol—we can satisfy our cravings without having to worry about health risks.

Why are they good for the environment? 

Aside from the fact that less animals will be killed if more people switch to meat substitutes, plant-based substances are made more sustainably than meat products. 51% of greenhouse gas emissions result from raising livestock and producing meat products. 45% of global surface area is reserved for livestock systems. Imagine the greenery and nature that could be preserved with just a fraction of that space! 

So, for your next summer barbeque, try switching to a Beyond or Impossible Burger. Your guests will barely notice the difference. 

ELIANA DOFT loves to write, travel, and volunteer. She is especially excited by opportunities to combine these three passions through writing about social action travel experiences. She is an avid reader, a licensed scuba diver, and a self-proclaimed cold brew connoisseur. 

Protecting Our Oceans from Ghost Traps

At any given time, there are thought to be over 360,000 tons of loose fishing gear floating through our oceans. These disregarded pieces of debris are a danger to our aquatic ecosystems, trapping fish, turtles, birds and even whales. Kurt Lieber assembled the Ocean Defender Alliance, a group of volunteer divers cleaning California’s coasts of ghost nets and traps.

Only Local Amazonians Can Bring True Sustainable Development to Their Forest

The Brazilian government has earmarked a vast tract of Amazonian land for mining. The so-called “Renca” reserve sits in the last great wilderness area in the eastern Amazon and contains lots of unique rainforest wildlife. The controversial decision to allow mining has since been rewritten to clarify that development cannot take place on indigenous lands that lie within the “Renca”, and then put on hold by a federal judge, pending support from congress.

Protected areas such as the Renca are under threat right across the Amazon, and many have already been downsized or downgraded. Conservation is undermined by chronic underfunding of the national environmental protection agencies, the devolving of environmental enforcement to regional states that cannot cope, and by rural violence so severe that Brazil leads the world in assassinations of environmentalists.

The result of all this is an Amazon where 90% of logging is illegal and deforestation is increasing, where unprecedented wildfires burn each summer, and where large vertebrates are now going extinct for the first time since the Pleistocene.

Brazil says mining and logging will boost national economic growth. Yet people in the Amazon remain some of the poorest and most marginalised in South America, and there is little evidence this kind of development has enhanced their quality of life. For example, the municipalities of Eldorado dos Carajás, Marabá, and Paraupebas, all of which surround large mining operations, have a human development index lower than that of Libya, a country stricken by civil war. And the construction of the controversial Belo Monte dam resulted in the regional capital of Altamira attaining the highest per capita homicide rate in all of Brazil, equivalent to 25 murders a day if scaled to a city the size of London.

Why has development failed Amazonians?

First, the companies driving the change are generally big multinationals based either in and around Rio and São Paulo (1,700 miles away) or abroad. Despite some municipal taxes, only a tiny portion of the profits remain locally.

Carajás Mine, the largest iron ore mine in the world, is found within the Carajás National Forest (pictured above). T photography / Shutterstock

Development, as currently practised, also favours the wealthy over the poor. When protected areas are downgraded the chief beneficiaries are landholders who are able to log or mine their territory. Other social groups aren’t so lucky. Some are even actively attacked – either directly, as occurred in the assassination of ten landless movement squatters in a large Amazonian farm, or through legal changes, such as the downgrading of the rights of quilombolas, historical communities descended from African slaves, and indigenous peoples.

Brazil’s ongoing “car wash” corruption scandal has led to allegations of worrying links between large development projects in the Amazon, such as the Belo Monte dam, and the diversion of state funds to political parties. If the purpose of development is political gain, there can be little hope for regional citizens.

Are there alternative ways forward?

Both Amazonian people and forests would benefit if we stopped evaluating development schemes solely in terms of the profits they could generate. This sort of narrow, economic assessment cannot truly capture the value of the Amazon’s forests: how do you put a price on conserving unique species, or mitigating global climate change?

The Guianan Cock-of-the-rock (Rupicola rupicola) is one of northern Amazonia’s more spectacular inhabitants. Alexander Lees, Author provided

The forests of the Renca are some of the most dense and slow-growing in the Amazon basin. Even deforesting just 30% of the area would effectively emit more than four billion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere – equivalent to Brazil’s entire fossil fuel emissions over the past ten years. Unless climate change forms part of the decision making process in the region, Brazil will fail to meet its international commitments such as the Paris agreement.

Development must also secure constitutional rights for everyone, not just those of the elites. Brazil currently has so called “differentiated citizenship”, where in practice there is a gradation of rights among citizens, depending on their race, social class or region.

Munduruku people map out their territory along the River Tapajos in Pará state. Larissa Saud, Author provided

Local action is often the only defence against the expansion of mining or dams. Recent examples of a grassroots success include the Munduruku indigenous people, who are forcing various concessions by resisting megadams on the middle Tapajós River. Another example is the practice of “counter-mapping” among indigenous peoples which entails them mapping their own territorial boundaries to defend their land from industrial agriculture, mining, dams and logging.   These alternative approaches are the best way forward in the Renca too. Instead of opening up the area for mining multinationals, Brazil should recognise the rights of local people and empower them to lead decision-making. Brazil nut harvesting is already big in the local economy and, along with ecotourism and carbon-payments (being effectively paid to not chop down a forest), could deliver sustainable development, while leaving the minerals in the ground.

JOS BARLOW is a Professor of Conservation Science at Lancaster University.

ALEXANDER C. LEES is a lecturer in tropical ecology at Manchester Metropolitan University.

ERIKA BERENGUER is a Senior Research Associate at University of Oxford.

JAMES A. FRASER is a Lecturer in Political Ecology at Lancaster University.

JOICE FERREIRA is a researcher in Ecology at Federal University of Pará.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

Students Across Europe Protest in Hopes of a Greener Future

After years of political gridlock surrounding climate change legislation, students emerge as a force for change.

Photo of a student protester. By Josh Barwick on Unsplash.

Thousands of students across Europe left school on Friday, February 15 to protest the lack of action on climate issues in their countries. In what the New York Times called a “coordinated walk out for action on climate issues,” elementary, middle, high school, and undergraduate students came together to demand a greener future. In London, protestors held signs reading “The ocean is rising and so are we” and “Act now or swim later.”

The student-led movement for climate action that is currently taking Europe by storm began with 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. In September, Thunberg started skipping class to stage sit-ins at the Swedish parliament, demanding that her government seriously address climate change. Thunberg’s action inspired teens worldwide, some of whom created the global movement Youth Strike 4 Climate and began organizing protests and walkouts, using social media to coordinate efforts. According to the New York Times, demonstrations have been held in Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland, among others.

The New York Times writes that the new organization gained even more energy in October of 2018 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disclosed that the world has only twelve years to change its climate policy before the consequences of inaction such as food shortages, rising sea levels, floods and forest fires manifest themselves.

Thunberg remains a notable voice in the movement she inspired, and went on to speak at the global climate-change conference in Poland last December. “You say you love your children above all else — and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes,” she told politicians at the conference. “Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope. We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.”

In British schools, protesters received mixed reactions from teachers and staff. While some encouraged students, others threatened to punish them for skipping class. “My school was not supportive at the start. They said I would get detention for unauthorized absence,” Anna Taylor, the seventeen-year-old co-founder of the UK Student Climate Network told the New York Times.

Sixteen-year-old Bonnie Morely, who was attending the strike with friends from school, told the New York Times that a head teacher had taken down posters advertising the strike in her school’s common areas. “They’re treating us like we are doing something really wrong,” Morley said. “The future of our planet is looking really bleak, and all the politicians are asleep at the wheel. We have to wake them up, and I think thousands of kids on the streets will do just that.”

Like the teachers, European politicians displayed mixed reactions, with some supporting the students and others going so far as to suggest that the strikes were the product of a secret governmental organization.

According to the New York Times, a spokesperson for British Prime Minister Theresa May said that, “everybody wants young people to be engaged in the issues that affect them most so that we can build a brighter future for all of us. But it is important to emphasize that disruption increases teachers’ workloads and wastes lesson time that teachers have carefully prepared for.”

Thunberg tweeted in response: “British PM says that the children on school strike are ‘wasting lesson time.’ That may well be the case, but then again, political leaders have wasted 30 years of inaction. And that is slightly worse.”

“We don’t miss school because we’re lazy or because we don’t want to go to school,” Jakob Blasel, a high school student who assisted with the organization of an earlier protest in Berlin told the Washington Post. “We can’t go to school, because we have to strike. We have to deliver an uncomfortable message to our leaders that it can’t go on this way.”

Youth for climate is currently planning another round of protests and another global youth strike for March 15. The movement is growing and more students from nations across the world are expected to join.

---

Emma Bruce

Emma Bruce is an undergraduate student studying English and marketing at Emerson College in Boston. While not writing she explores the nearest museums, reads poetry, and takes classes at her local dance studio. She is passionate about sustainable travel and can't wait to see where life will take her. 

Ireland Becomes the First Country to Divest from Fossil Fuels

Executive Director of Trócaire calls the bill “both substantive and symbolic.”

Sunset in Skerries, Ireland. Giuseppe Milo. CC BY 2.0

Last July, Ireland moved to take public funds out of fossil fuels. While many universities, organizations, and even cities have made similar commitments, Ireland will be the first country to do so. According to the New York Times, Ireland’s action represents the most substantial advance for divestment in the world.

The bill commiting to divestment was passed with all party support by the lower house of Parliament and necessitates that money from the sovereign fund (8.9 billion euros) be taken out of fossil fuels. According to a statement, the change will be made, “as soon as practicable.” (The phrase likely refers to changes made to the bill: originally it called for divestment within five years, but was altered to give the government more flexibility.)

According to the Guardian, the bill defines a fossil fuel company as one that receives 20% or more of its income from the “exploration, extraction or refinement of fossil fuels.”

The divestment bill will move on to the Senate which has the ability to delay, but not overturn it. According to the aid of Thomas Pringle, the parliament member who introduced the bill, it has the support of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and is thus almost guaranteed to become law. Varadkar’s support is expected, as he has professed hopes that Ireland will become a “leader in climate action.”

According to Pringle himself, the “movement is highlighting the need to stop investing in the expansion of a global industry which must be brought into managed decline if catastrophic climate change is to be averted. Ireland by divesting is sending a clear message that the Irish public and the international community are ready to think and act beyond narrow short term vested interests.”

Eamonn Meehan, director of Trócaire, the environmental organization that advocated for the bill, told the New York Times that the bill, “will stop public money being invested against the public interest, and it sends a clear signal nationally and globally that action on the climate crisis needs to be accelerated urgently, starting with the phase-out of fossil fuels.”

Currently, Ireland has over 300 million euros in fossil fuel investments, according to the Guardian. The country's decision to divest is so momentous in part because of its reputation as slacker in fighting climate change. According to a survey by Climate Action Network, conducted a month before the decision, Ireland was was ranked second to last in the category of climate action, followed by Poland. The country’s decision to divest promises a greener future for Ireland.

Now, Ireland hopes that other countries will follow its lead. According to Gerry Liston of the Global Legal Action Network, and drafter of the bill, “governments will not meet their obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change if they continue to financially sustain the fossil fuel industry. Countries the world over must now urgently follow Ireland’s lead and divest from fossil fuels.”

EMMA BRUCE is an undergraduate student studying English and marketing at Emerson College in Boston. While not writing she explores the nearest museums, reads poetry, and takes classes at her local dance studio. She is passionate about sustainable travel and can't wait to see where life will take her. 

Why Companies Should Help Pay for the Biodiversity That’s Good for Their Bottom Line

In the “The Lorax,” an entrepreneur regrets wiping out all the make-believe truffala trees by chopping them down to maximize his short-term gains. As the Dr. Seuss tale ends, the Once-ler – the man responsible for this environmental tragedy – tells a young child that “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Likewise, many corporations that profit from nature’s bounty, such as Unilever, Patagonia and Interface, appear to be reaching a similar conclusion. They are realizing that it’s time for the business world to do more about conservation.

We, two economists who have extensively researched natural resources and development, are proposing a new way to solve the problem of species and ecosystem loss. Corporations that benefit from biodiversity could forge what some are calling a “new deal for nature” by paying part of the tab for biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity, the variety of all natural ecosystems and species, is being lost at an unprecedented rate. According to the recent World Wildlife Fund Living Planet Report, the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians have fallen by an average of 60 percent in just over 40 years. The scientists Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo have dubbed this decline and an impending wave of extinctions a “biological annihilation.”

We argue that many businesses are threatened by the loss of species and ecosystems, such as declining bee populations and dwindling stocks of fish, forests, wetlands and mangroves. Without an array of ecosystems and species, it’s tough for farmers to grow crops or ranchers to raise animals.

The pharmaceutical industry needs them to make and create drugs. For example, one team of U.S.-based researchers estimates that the pharmaceutical value of marine biodiversity for anti-cancer drug discovery could range from US$563 billion to as much as $5.7 trillion.

Insurance companies depend on coastal wetlands to minimize the impact of big storms. For example, an international group of researchers estimated that preserving one hectare of mangroves in the Philippinesyields more than $3,200 in flood-reduction benefits each year.

A global treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity does set worldwide conservation targets. But we believe they may not be ambitious enough. Cristiana Pașca Palmer, who serves as the UN’s biodiversity chief, is considering raising the treaty’s targets to conserve at least half of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine habitats to preserve biodiversity.

But the existing efforts to preserve biodiversity are not only inadequate. They’re underfunded.

New way to pay

Global biodiversity protection requires $100 billion annually, according to a previous study one of us conducted, yet the international community spends up to $10 billion each year on biodiversity conservation.

Much of the world’s biodiversity is in developing countries, which lack the financial wherewithal to adequately conserve it.

The Lorax could speak for the trees, but he lacked the cash to preserve them. Random House Children's Books

As we have explained with our colleague Thomas J. Dean in Science magazine, we believe that involving businesses in an international environmental agreement could help bridge a chronic funding gap.

A key part of this new deal for nature would be making the corporations that depend on the health of natural ecosystems and species help foot the bill to preserve biodiversity.

Benefiting the bottom line

Why would corporations want to get involved?

First off, it may benefit their bottom line. Big companies depend on robust natural ecosystems systems and individual species.

We calculate that the increase in revenue and profits from biodiversity conservation could generate between $25 billion and $50 billion annually to fund global conservation efforts.

The seafood industry stands to gain $53 billion annually from an increase in marine stocks. This could generate $5 billion to $10 billion each year to spend on preserving biodiversity.

The insurance industry could see an additional $52 billion from increasing the area of protected coastal wetlands with a similar investment.

Agriculture also has an incentive to protect habitats of wild pollinators, who along with managed populations enhance global crop production by an amount a global group of scientists estimates to be worth between $235 billion to $577 billion annually.

What’s more, there is growing evidence that when corporations engage in environmental stewardship, they become more attractive investmentsand their borrowing costs decline.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Edward B. Barbier, Joanne C. Burgess and Thomas J. Dean Get the data

Corporate social responsibility

There is a second reason why big companies are sometimes willing to take action and pay to conserve biodiversity: corporate social responsibility, an ethos that builds into business models a commitment to protect the environment and benefit society.

Danone is a leader in this regard. It established the first partnership agreement between a global environmental convention and a private company over 20 years ago.

Since then, the multinational corporation best known for its yogurt and bottled water has promoted and supported the sustainable use and management of wetlands.

Danone, for example, worked with local partners to replant mangroves in approximately 500 Senegalese villages. We believe this reforestation project shows that investments in nature can be sustainable and scalable business models.

Danone, which earned $3 billion in profits in 2017, has its own $80 million “Ecosystem Fund.” It’s just one of an increasing number of companies taking concrete steps toward biodiversity protection, even though they are not required by any law or national policy.

More than 21 national and regional initiatives have been established to encourage partnerships between business and biodiversity conservation. For example, 10 of the 13 biggest seafood companies that control up to 16 percent of global marine catch and 40 percent of the largest and most valuable fisheries have come together to support an ocean stewardship initiative.

Similarly, the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations, which represents the global forest products industry, now engages in sustainable forest management certification.

The total area of forests worldwide deemed to be subject to sustainable practices supplying the industry increased from 62 million hectares, 12 percent of the total global forest area, in 2000, to 310 million hectares in 2015, according to the industry group. That’s more than half of the total global forest area. The annual revenue of the world’s 100 largest global forest, paper and packaging companies is over $300 billion.

Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: World Bank Get the data

A new deal for nature

In addition to creating marine reserves, protecting forests, preserving the habitats of wild pollinators and conserving coastal wetlands, the private sector could also help finance conservation efforts in developing countries.

Based on our calculations, if the seafood sector were to set aside up to 20 percent of the increase in profits it gets from sustainably managing marine biomass stocks, it could conceivably spend up to $10 billion annually for marine biodiversity conservation.

And we estimate that by channeling up to 10 percent of the gains from sustainable forest management, the forest products industry could raise as much as $30 billion each year for investment in increasing protected forest area.

An agricultural sector contribution of around 10 percent of the benefits it derives from wild pollination services would amount to about $20 billion to $60 billion per year in additional financing for the conservation, creation and restoration of wild pollinator habitats.

All told, this business-world support could help close the $100 billion gap in global biodiversity conservation funding. This would go a long way toward slowing, and potentially reversing, biodiversity loss.

There are, of course, barriers to corporate conservation. The costs may be high. It may be hard for to businesses to assess the long-term value of biodiversity conservation benefits and integrate them into investment decisions. And it is possible that some of the corporations that take this step could be at a competitive disadvantage, especially in the short term.

But a number of companies are already showing that they believe investing in ecosystem preservation is worth it. In our view, corporate support for international biodiversity conservation is essential to prevent “biological annihilation.”

JOANNE BURGESS is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Colorado State University and EDWARD BARBIER is a Professor of Economics at Colorado State University.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

France Banned Food Waste in Supermarkets

Millions more meals can reach those who need them.

Produce at a market in Nice, France. M-Louis. CC BY-SA 2.0.

In 2016, France banned supermarkets from destroying or discarding unsold food products, requiring them to donate instead to food banks or local charities.

The law was written by Parliamentarian and former food industry minister Guillaume Garot, who believes that food waste is a national health and safety issue, akin to wearing a seatbelt. The campaign itself was the product of a grassroots movement by anti-poverty and food waste activists which eventually became a petition, lead by local councillor Arash Derambarsh.

Now that food waste has been outlawed in French supermarkets, Derambarsh has set his sights on European and ultimately global policy revisions around the issue. “Food is the basis of life, it is an elementary factor in our existence,” he told the Guardian.

While Derambarsh became a councillor to help people, he reports being called “naive and idealistic” because of the policy he hoped to implement surrounding food waste. “Perhaps it is naive to be concerned about other human beings, but I know what it is like to be hungry,” he said.

“When I was a law student living on about €400 a month after I’d paid my rent, I used to have one proper meal a day around 5pm. I’d eat pasta, or potatoes, but it’s hard to study or work if you are hungry and always thinking about where the next meal will come from.”

Now, grocery store managers in France with a 400 sq meter or larger footprint must sign contracts with local charities and food banks promising their edible expired items, or face a €3,750 ($4,500) fine per infringement.

According to Jacques Bailey, head of Banques Alimentaires, a network of french food banks, 5,000 charities rely on food banks, who in turn, receive almost half their donations from grocery stores. Under the law, these food banks are receiving larger amounts of better quality food products, enabling them to better reach the the people they serve. According to Bailey, an increase as small as 15% in donations from supermarkets will result in 10 million more meals served every year.

And yet, required donations are not the only way that France is fighting food waste. In 2014, Intermarche, one of the country’s supermarkets began selling produce that was deemed too “ugly” to sell at other markets. These “ugly” or misshapen produce are perfectly safe to eat, but have blemishes make them less marketable to consumers, resulting in their disposal before even seeing the grocery store isles. This initiative is particularly effective, as fresh fruits and vegetables are the most difficult items for charities and food banks to come by, and are necessary to a healthy diet. Intermarche’s initiative reached 13 million people after only one month of being implemented.

About a third of food produced is wasted worldwide. France has narrowed the food it wastes to 66 pounds per person every year. In comparison, Americans waste 200 billion pounds of food per year - 40% of all food produced in the country. The waste problem in America is partly due to the lack of regulation surrounding expiration dates, which are often selected at random and do not always reflect when items are safe to consume.

The rest of the world has a lot to learn from France’s policy. NPR writes that communities and governments worldwide are now reaching out to Garot, hoping for information that would help them reproduce France’s law in their own countries. Ultimately this change needs to be made, because, as Garot emphasized, supermarkets are not just businesses, they are places where humanity must be respected.

EMMA BRUCE is an undergraduate student studying English and marketing at Emerson College in Boston. While not writing she explores the nearest museums, reads poetry, and takes classes at her local dance studio. She is passionate about sustainable travel and can't wait to see where life will take her. 

How a Game Can Move People From Climate Apathy to Action

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been called a “deafening” alarm and an “ear-splitting wake-up call” about the need for sweeping climate action. But will one more scientific report move countries to dramatically cut emissions?

Evidence, so far, says no. Countless scientific studies have been published since the 1970s on the dangers of climate change, many offering similar projections. And social science research shows that showing people research doesn’t work. So, if more reports and information don’t spark action, what will?

In a recent study led by the University of Massachusetts Lowell Climate Change Initiative, we identified a promising approach: Playing a game called the World Climate Simulation, originally developed by the nonprofit organization Climate Interactive, in which participants play delegates at international climate change negotiations.

We examined how this experience affected more than 2,000 participants from nine countries, ranging from middle school students to CEOs. Across this diverse population, people who participated in World Climate deepened their understanding of climate change and became emotionally engaged in the issue. They came away believing that it was not too late for meaningful action. These emotional responses were linked to a stronger desire to learn and do more, from reducing their personal carbon footprints to taking political action.

How it works

Participants in World Climate take on the roles of delegates from different countries or regions and are charged with reaching an agreement to limit warming to no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Each delegation offers policies to manage its own greenhouse gas emissions. They also pledge either to support or request money from the Green Climate Fund, which was created to help developing countries cut their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Each group’s decisions are entered into C-ROADS, a climate policy model that has been used to support actual negotiations, immediately showing them the expected climate impacts of their choices. First round results usually fall short as participants resist making deep cuts to their own region’s emissions, demand more money from the Green Climate Fund, or assume the pledges they and others have made are enough to meet the global goal. When those pledges are not enough, the simulation shows everyone the harm that could result.

Participants then negotiate again, using C-ROADS to explore the consequences of more ambitious emission cuts. As in the real world, people learn through trial and error until they succeed. But unlike the real world, there is no cost or risk of failure.

For many players, the impact is deep and personal: “I feel like I was a part of something way bigger than myself. I am going to look for ways on campus to get involved,” one undergraduate participant said afterward.

“Since the simulation, I … have been continually thinking about the effects of our consumption and how it affects others,” a high school educator reflected.

The October 2018 IPCC report warns that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C would require ‘rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented’ cuts to carbon dioxide emissions, beginning within the next 12 years. IPCC

Play together, not just with the ‘usual suspects’

Climate change has become highly politicized in the United States, with political orientation often determining people’s views, rather than science or data. For example, conservatives who oppose international agreements or government action to address the problem often react by denying that climate change is real, or is caused primarily by human actions, or poses a grave threat to our prosperity, security and health.

Overcoming this barrier has proven to be extremely difficult, yet is essential for effective action. We were therefore quite surprised to find that World Climate is effective with Americans who are free-market proponents – a political view linked to denial of human-caused climate change. World Climate also has a bigger impact on people who were less inclined to take action or knew less about climate change before the simulation than those who were already engaged.

While most Americans say that climate change is important to them, they don’t talk about it in their daily lives. World Climate is a richly social experience that breaks down this “spiral of silence.” As participants negotiate, they talk about the issues face to face. They discover shared concerns, which creates an opportunity to move on to the important next step: Doing something about them.

Getting to scale

Mitigating the threat of climate change requires science-based, grassroots action at scale. And as the IPCC report makes clear, there’s no time to waste. However, telling people about the threat doesn’t work. They have to learn for themselves; our research shows that World Climate can help.

Everything people need to run World Climate, including the C-ROADS model, is freely available online. The program is aligned with U.S. national education standards and has also been designated as an official resource for schools in France, Germany and South Korea. It is adaptable and relevant to academic disciplines ranging from physics to ethics.

Since mid-2015 World Climate has been played by more than 46,000 people in 85 countries, including students, community groups, executives, policymakers and military leaders. More than 80 percent said it increased their motivation to combat climate change, regardless of their political orientation or prior engagement with the issue. Our research shows that World Climate acts as a climate change communication tool that enables people to learn and feel for themselves – experiences that together have the potential to motivate action informed by science.

For most of history, experience has been humans’ best teacher, enabling us to understand the world around us while stimulating emotions such as fear, anger, worry and hope that drive us to act. But waiting for experience to show how disastrous the impacts of climate change could be is not a realistic option. Just as pilots train in flight simulators so they can save passengers when real emergencies strike, people can now learn about climate change through simulated experience and become motivated to address it, instead of suffering the real-world consequences of inaction.

JULIETTE N. ROONEY-VARGA is an Associate Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Co-authors of the study described in this article included J.D. Sterman, MIT Sloan School; T. Franck, E. Johnston and A.P. Jones, Climate Interactive; E. Fracassi, Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires; F. Kapmeier, Reutlingen University; K. Rath, SageFox Consulting Group; and V. Kurker, UMass Lowell Climate Change Initiative.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

How the Dutch are Creating “Room for the River”

The 2.3 billion dollar project fighting rising sea levels in the Netherlands.

View of Rotterdam at sunset. Image credit: ZOOM.NL

One third of the Netherlands lies below sea level. Thus, the presence - and threat - of water has been a central part of Dutch culture since the first medieval farmers built dams and levees to control it. Now, a thousand years later, water technology in the Netherlands has evolved to pursue a goal that seems counterintuitive. To control water, and keep their citizens safe from it, the Dutch are in the midst of a 2.3 billion dollar project to let the water in.

The project is aptly called Room for the River—a national aim focussed on widening rivers, creating lakes, plazas, garages—all of which can function as public space but also provide somewhere for the water to go when lakes and rivers spill over. Part of the national shift in thought was due to massive amounts of flooding in the 1990s which forced many people to leave their homes. According to Harold van Waveren, a senior government advisor, the floods “were a wake-up call to give back to the rivers some of the room we had taken.”

In recent years, as cities such as New York and Miami struggle to find ways to protect their billion dollar real estate from rising sea levels, Dutch water engineering has become something of a national export —the Dutch equivalent of Swiss chocolate, or German cars.

“You can say we are marketing our expertise,” Dutch water expert Henk Ovink told the New York Times, “but thousands of people die every year because of rising water, and the world is failing collectively to deal with the crisis, losing money and lives.” He is happy to share his country’s pragmatic solution that views rising sea levels as an opportunity for environmental and social growth: a solution that features neither denial nor barrier building.

Dak Park, the largest rooftop garden in the Netherlands absorbs rain and CO2. Image Credit: dakparkrotterdam.nl

The Room for the River project is most visible in Rotterdam, the gritty city of the 70’s and 80’s that has reinvented itself as a hotbed of modern architecture, design, and business. Rotterdam is now home to innovative structures such as underground parking garages, plazas, and basketball courts that can double as retention ponds during a flood. A few miles outside the city in an area 20 feet below sea level, the project funded a new rowing course which can also hold water in emergencies. The course is part of the Eendragtspolder—an area of reclaimed rivers that doubles as a popular spot for biking, swimming, and community events. The area is also a river basin for the Rotte river and is expected to protect communities when the Rhine overflows—an anticipated 1 in 10 years event. The Eendragtspolder project represents the heart of the Room for the River project: pairing environmental reform with social reform. It’s what Mr. Molenaar, Rotterdam climate chief calls “investing in resilience.”

State of the art rowing course in the Eendragtspolder area doubles as water storage during extreme flooding. Image Credit: Willem Alexander Baan

It seems the United States, with its plans to build an colossal wall around lower Manhattan, has a lot to learn from the Dutch perspective. Unlike the Dutch water parks that serve as protection as well as social spaces, the fortress-like walls being erected along Florida’s coast and the plans for a wall around lower Manhattan will do little to protect from a storm and less for the quality of life of those surrounding it. Unlike water parks, walls separate rather than unite; in a storm they decide who is protected—who gets to live, and who doesn’t. In the best case, they only buy a city a couple of years before the sea rises higher and the barriers built become inconsequential.

“We can’t just keep building higher levees, because we will end up living behind 10-meter walls,” says Harold van Waveren, senior government advisor. “We need to give the rivers more places to flow. Protection against climate change is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain, and the chain in our case includes not just the big gates and dams at the sea but a whole philosophy of spatial planning, crisis management, children’s education, online apps and public spaces.”

EMMA BRUCE is an undergraduate student studying English and marketing at Emerson College in Boston. She has worked as a volunteer in Guatemala City and is passionate about travel and social justice. She plans to continue traveling wherever life may take her.

Meet Kelley Louise, Founder and Executive Director of Impact Travel Alliance (ITA)

Impact Travel Alliance (ITA) is an organization that seeks to raise awareness about sustainable travel. The nonprofit defines themselves as a “community of doers and dreamers united by a love of exploration and doing good.” This community has grown over the years, since its birth under the name Travel + SocialGood, to its current embodiment of 15,000 advocates and 20 chapters in cities worldwide. Together, this community that was once imprisoned into a niche is breaking into the mainstream and spreading the word that tourism can be used to make a difference. Kelley Louise, the Founder and Executive Director of ITA, recently offered CATALYST some answers to questions about the role of her team’s work in raising awareness about sustainable travel.

When did you start ITA and what inspired you to begin this movement?

I always knew that I wanted to work within the travel industry and make a positive impact but when I started I didn’t exactly know how that would take shape. When I started learning about sustainable tourism, I felt like there was this huge part of the industry that had a lot of potential. But there wasn’t really a community that I felt like I would want to be a part of within the industry. What’s cool about ITA is we are a global community of changemakers around the world and there’s strength in our numbers. That is very valuable in terms of being able to collectively work together to push the industry forward. Community has always been at the forefront of what we’re building and creating. We have global conferences. We have local chapters. We have a media network. We’ve developed those initiatives based off of the need from the industry as well as feedback from the community at the same time. It has come to life in a very organic way for that reason.

The original name of ITA was Travel + SocialGood. Is there a specific reason for this and if so, what was the intent behind it?

Yes, and we have a full blog post on this subject. However, to give a general overview: I wanted something that really reflected who we had grown to be as an organization. Again, having something that was really focused on community at the forefront. “Alliance” was something that made you feel like you are part of something bigger than yourself. The big push was having a name that felt more inclusive as well as reflective of the organization we had grown into…

For those who want to learn to travel with a more sustainable mindset but don’t fully understand the concept, how exactly do you define sustainable tourism?

To distill it into its easiest definition I would say that it is tourism that has a positive impact on the environment, the economy and the culture of the destination you are visiting. It has that triple bottom line approach to it. We [ITA] try to make it easier to understand in order to get more people excited about being involved in this movement.

The 2018 Thought Leadership Study, released by ITA as a research endeavour about the growth/need of sustainable tourism, mentions that the goal of ITA is to reach out to the “average traveler”... How inclusive is this definition of your average traveler?”  

The average traveler is your mother in law or your uncle or your brother or someone who isn’t already necessarily trying to do good. We are looking at the entire industry. I think the big push behind everything we do is to build a more impactful industry. Sustainable tourism is not a new concept. It’s been around for a long time but when you look at the average consumer base of people who are traveling, they are not traveling sustainably. Most travelers, even if they want to travel and make a positive impact do not know how. They might also not know that their travels can be sustainable. You can apply sustainable tourism to any type of travel whether that’s a cruise in the caribbean or a business trip to Chicago.

The Thought Leadership Study also says that big entities and corporations (i.e. Expedia) aren’t necessarily readily offering the opportunity to travel sustainably.. If this is so, how does an average traveler come across experiences that are “sustainable”?

The biggest thing travelers can do is to understand that sustainability is a journey. Everyone is constantly evolving and constantly doing better. Sustainability in itself  can always be improved. It comes down to a lot of little changes that make it easier over time. As an organization, we’re focused on progress over perfection. Additionally, it’s important travelers understand sustainability is a lifestyle. If you look at your own lifestyle and what you do on a day to day basis and then start making travel decisions, those sustainable habits will become second hand nature. For example, straws. It’s great that everyone is switching straws; either using an alternative or not at all.. What’s cool about this model for sustainability is that it opens the door to a wider conversation. [This transition away from straws] might make it easier to remember a reusable bag or to try to purchase something not wrapped in plastic. If you were to try to completely cut plastic out of your life, it would be very hard. It’s a lot easier to take the first step.

Another good point about making decisions when traveling abroad is in regards to how you are spending your money and what products you’re buying. If you’re buying a souvenir, think about where and how its made. Where is the money going? Is it ethically sourced? Were labour practices done well? Where are you going to sleep at night? All these little decisions should be considered through the lens of sustainability. Question: How am I having an impact on the world around me through these purchase decisions?

You mentioned that sustainability is a concept that has been around for awhile. Why is now the best time for growth and why is the marketspace ready?

There are a lot of reasons. In a way, it's almost a perfect storm of things coming together from different directions and different sides of the industry. A core part of what contributes is that consumers are seeking sustainable experiences. There is a want within the industry to create these products and platforms [with reference to statistics in the Thought Leadership Study]. There is research that backs up the fact that people want to have a positive impact on the destinations they are visiting. It’s a better experience at the end of the day; more immersive to the given destination.

There’s also a huge need. We have more and more travelers each year, creating issues like overtourism. In Barcelona, for example, people are protesting the tourists. In Thailand they shut down a beach too many tourists were visiting and destroying. Sustainable tourism offers a way to have a more innovative approach towards issues of the like. There’s a need and business case for it. Sustainable tourism is a great business decision. You can increase your profits. You can increase brand loyalty. There’s many reasons but these are the three core reasons. There’s a rise in demand. There is a need because of over tourism and there’s a business case for sustainability.

Does traveling sustainability anticipate that some destinations should be visited over another out of respect for issues like overtourism? How does this decision play into sustainable travel?

It’s all about being mindful about how you spend your money. In terms of choosing a destination, consider how you can make an impact on that community. That might mean that if they are protesting tourists in a certain city then perhaps you consider going in the off season or you consider staying outside city limits. It’s about being considerate of the locals. There is always going to be different [decisions to make] for different destinations. Doing research beforehand can be beneficial. You can also ask the locals how to be a respectful tourist. Do you stay in a homestay? In a hotel? How can you have that high positive impact on the destination you are visiting?

How can we get involved? Both with your organization and with this movement —in small and large part?

On our website, impacttravelalliance.org/get-involved, we have a list of ways to get involved. Whether you’re a business owner or a traveler, whatever side of the industry you’re on, there’s a ton of ways to get involved with our organization. There’s not a one-size fits all. In general, I would start with the little habits. They make a big impact over time. When we’re all working together towards the greater good then there’s a lot of contextual impact over time.

ELEANOR DAINKO is an undergraduate student at the University of Virginia studying Spanish and Latin American Interdisciplinary Studies. She recently finished a semester in Spain, expanding her knowledge of opportunity and culture as it exists around the world. With her passion to change the world and be a more socially conscious person, she is an aspiring entrepreneur with the hopes of attending business school over seas after college. 

Japan’s Town With No Waste

The village of Kamikatsu in Japan has taken their commitment to sustainability to a new level. While the rest of the country has a recycling rate of around 20 percent, Kamikatsu surpasses its neighbors with a staggering 80 percent. After becoming aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide associated with burning garbage, the town instated the Zero Waste Declaration with the goal of being completely waste-free by 2020.

Unraveling the Fashion Industry

The fashion industry’s unsustainable practices are increasingly under scrutiny.

A snapshot of the 26 billion pounds of textile waste (source: Planet Aid).

The environmental impact of the fashion industry has become a matter of Parliamentary concern in the United Kingdom. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee is launching an investigation into the fashion industry to assess just how unsustainable it is and how the industry might become more sustainable for the future. The inquiry reflects growing concern over the fashion industry’s fast fashion phenomenon that rapidly mass produces clothes for consumption.

Fast fashion is a recent phenomenon that is part of the evolution of the fashion industry. Traditionally clothing was a household endeavor. Changes began with advancements of the Industrial Revolution that introduced ready-made clothing, or clothes sold in a variety of sizes. Yet the changes were selective and mostly reserved for the middle-class individuals who could afford it. Changes continued to occur throughout the 20th century, but it was not till World War II that standardized clothing was widely accepted.  However, the signal for today’s fashion driven world was the 1960s: when the younger generation embraced cheaply made clothes.

Companies responded to increased demand by outsourcing labor to developing countries—much as it is done today. The low quality, high quantity mentality of today’s fashion industry can be seen as a natural development of shifts over the years to more affordable clothing. 

The drive for affordability has led to certain practices that many question for the waste
produced. Instead of the traditional two seasons—Spring/ Summer and Fall/Winter—in
which designers launched the next fashion trend, there are now about 52 micro-seasons in which new fashion is constantly being churned out. Further, popular retailers are often receiving weekly  shipments of new clothing. What this does is make the consumer feel like they are always out-of-date and compel them to keep buying clothing so they can keep up with current trends. Another factor that encourages waste is that most clothes today are made out of lower quality fabrics. Plus, retailers may even disguise such lower quality clothes with “discounts” to convey an illusion of high quality goods. These practices, focused on getting the consumer to consume, only create more waste.

Eco-fashion activist Livia Firth is known for saying in 2015 that “Disposable clothes…stay in a woman’s closet for an average of just five weeks, before being thrown out.”

Indeed, a 2016 survey concluded that the average American throws away around 82 pounds of clothing a year: 26 billion pounds of textiles. Of that 26 billion pounds, according to the nonprofit Council for Textile Recycling, only 15% is donated and 85%, or about 70 pounds per person, ends up in the landfills. This waste is a result of a cycle of “careless production and endless consumption” as stated in the 2015 True Cost documentary.

And it’s not just the landfills that are feeling fast fashion’s impact—fast fashion is criticized for its water pollution, use of toxic chemicals, and its treatment of workers. The Parliament’s inquiry into the UK fashion industry will provide a necessary glimpse into how the global fashion industry might be able to change for the better. But is also a responsibility of individuals to be conscious consumers of what they wear.

TERESA NOWALK is a student at the University of Virginia studying anthropology and history. In her free time she loves traveling, volunteering in the Charlottesville community, and listening to other people’s stories. She does not know where her studies will take her, but is certain writing will be a part of whatever the future has in store.

Sustainable Cities Need More than Parks, Cafes and a Riverwalk

There are many indexes that aim to rank how green cities are. But what does it actually mean for a city to be green or sustainable? 

We’ve written about what we call the “parks, cafes and a riverwalk” model of sustainability, which focuses on providing new green spaces, mainly for high-income people. This vision of shiny residential towers and waterfront parks has become a widely-shared conception of what green cities should look like. But it can drive up real estate prices and displace low- and middle-income residents.

As scholars who study gentrification and social justice, we prefer a model that recognizes all three aspects of sustainability: environment, economy and equity. The equity piece is often missing from development projects promoted as green or sustainable. We are interested in models of urban greening that produce real environmental improvements and also benefit long-term working-class residents in neighborhoods that are historically underserved. 

Over a decade of research in an industrial section of New York City, we have seen an alternative vision take shape. This model, which we call “just green enough,” aims to clean up the environment while also retaining and creating living-wage blue-collar jobs. By doing so, it enables residents who have endured decades of contamination to stay in place and enjoy the benefits of a greener neighborhood.

‘Parks, cafes and a riverwalk’ can lead to gentrification

Gentrification has become a catch-all term used to describe neighborhood change, and is often misunderstood as the only path to neighborhood improvement. In fact, its defining feature is displacement. Typically, people who move into these changing neighborhoods are whiter, wealthier and more educated than residents who are displaced.

A recent spate of new research has focused on the displacement effects of environmental cleanup and green space initiatives. This phenomenon has variously been called environmental, eco- or green gentrification. 

Land for new development and resources to fund extensive cleanup of toxic sites are scarce in many cities. This creates pressure to rezone industrial land for condo towers or lucrative commercial space, in exchange for developer-funded cleanup. And in neighborhoods where gentrification has already begun, a new park or farmers market can exacerbate the problemby making the area even more attractive to potential gentrifiers and pricing out long-term residents. In some cases, developers even create temporary community gardens or farmers markets or promise more green space than they eventually deliver, in order to market a neighborhood to buyers looking for green amenities.

Environmental gentrification naturalizes the disappearance of manufacturing and the working class. It makes deindustrialization seem both inevitable and desirable, often by quite literally replacing industry with more natural-looking landscapes. When these neighborhoods are finally cleaned up, after years of activism by longtime residents, those advocates often are unable to stay and enjoy the benefits of their efforts.

The River Walk in San Antonio, Texas, is a popular shopping and dining area catering to tourists

Tools for greening differently

Greening and environmental cleanup do not automatically or necessarily lead to gentrification. There are tools that can make cities both greener and more inclusive, if the political will exists.

The work of the Newtown Creek Alliance in Brooklyn and Queens provides examples. The alliance is a community-led organization working to improve environmental conditions and revitalize industry in and along Newtown Creek, which separates these two boroughs. It focuses explicitly on social justice and environmental goals, as defined by the people who have been most negatively affected by contamination in the area. 

The industrial zone surrounding Newtown Creek is a far cry from the toxic stew that The New York Times described in 1881 as “the worst smelling district in the world.” But it is also far from clean. For 220 years it has been a dumping ground for oil refineries, chemical plants, sugar refineries, fiber mills, copper smelting works, steel fabricators, tanneries, paint and varnish manufacturers, and lumber, coal and brick yards. 

In the late 1970s, an investigation found that 17 million gallons of oil had leaked under the neighborhood and into the creek from a nearby oil storage terminal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed Newtown Creek on the Superfund list of heavily polluted toxic waste sites in 2010.

The Newtown Creek Alliance and other groups are working to make sure that the Superfund cleanup and other remediation efforts are as comprehensive as possible. At the same time, they are creating new green spaces within an area zoned for manufacturing, rather than pushing to rezone it. 

As this approach shows, green cities don’t have to be postindustrial. Some 20,000 people work in the North Brooklyn industrial area that borders Newtown Creek. And a number of industrial businesses in the area have helped make environmental improvements.

Just green enough

The “just green enough” strategy uncouples environmental cleanup from high-end residential and commercial development. Our new anthology, “Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification,” provides many other examples of the need to plan for gentrification effects before displacement happens. It also describes efforts to create environmental improvements that explicitly consider equity concerns.

For example, UPROSE, Brooklyn’s oldest Latino community-based organization, is combining racial justice activism with climate resilience planning in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood. The group advocates for investment and training for existing small businesses that often are Latino-owned. Its goal is not only to expand well-paid manufacturing jobs, but to include these businesses in rethinking what a sustainable economy looks like. Rather than rezoning the waterfront for high-end commercial and residential use, UPROSE is working for an inclusive vision of the neighborhood, built on the experience and expertise of its largely working-class immigrant residents. 

This approach illustrates a broader pattern identified by Macalester College geographer Dan Trudeau in his chapter for our book. His research on residential developments throughout the United States shows that socially and environmentally just neighborhoods have to be planned as such from the beginning, including affordable housing and green amenities for all residents. Trudeau highlights the need to find “patient capital” – investment that does not expect a quick profit – and shows that local governments need to take responsibility for setting out a vision and strategy for housing equity and inclusion. 

In our view, it is time to expand the notion of what a green city looks like and who it is for. For cities to be truly sustainable, all residents should have access to affordable housing, living-wage jobs, clean air and water, and green space. Urban residents should not have to accept a false choice between contamination and environmental gentrification.

Trina Hamilton: Associate Professor of Geography, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

Winifred Curran: Associate Professor of Geography, DePaul University

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

5 Cities That Are Leaders in Sustainable Public Transportation Initiatives

The World Economic Forum released its most recent Sustainable Cities Mobility Index, which ranks some of the globe’s largest metropolises based on both the viability of transport and its relative footprint.

The Index measures factors such as connectedness via public transport, including metros and buses, as well as pedestrian accessibility, ease of use by cyclists, among others. What unites each of the five cities featured here seems to be the overall strategy of incentivizing use of public transport, while disincentivizing the tendency to commute by automobile. In this way, public transportation systems trade on efficiency: by running frequently, integrating renewable energy sources, and maximizing often-limited physical space in the crowded cities, the public transport strategies of each of the cities listed have served to reduce car emissions significantly. 

1. HONG KONG. Named number one on the sustainable mobility index, Hong Kong has constructed an impressive MTR metro system, which is responsible for 90% of residents’ daily journeys. Likewise, the cost of transport in Hong Kong has remained relatively low, permitting accessibility to all residents, further disincentivizing travel by car. In fact, due in large degree to the success of the public transportation system, less than 20% of residents of Hong Kong own a car. 

2. ZURICH. At number two on the list, Zurich has demonstrated a great deal of success minimizing transportation by car, with just 37% of the population owning a car, as well as a little over a quarter of journeys measured occurring by car. The majority of public transportation in Zurich occurs by high-speed light rail, a system widely recognized to be one of the most energy- and space-efficient modes of public transport.

3. PARIS. In 2012, Paris pledged to reduce travel emissions by 60% within the most populated areas of its city, introducing more networks of pedestrian walkways and bike paths, incentivizing the use of bicycles and electric cars through two new city rental systems, as well as altering delivery systems such that it limits the number of diesel-fueled vehicles driving through the city each day. Parisian city officials have also been working to initiate regular “car-free” days, as well as other measures that promote alternative forms of transport.

4. SEOUL. Throughout the past decade, Seoul has pioneered a significant number of innovations that promote sustainable mobility. An inefficient highway system has been repurposed to become a large public park with an extensive network of pedestrian causeways. Moreover, Seoul has employed specified bus lanes, which have increased by nearly one million the number of citizens who use the public transport system each day, as opposed to driving. The significantly greater efficiency of public transportation, as well as the ease of access afforded to pedestrian traffic has cut down greatly on the number of citizens commuting by car, one of the most inefficient and least sustainable modes of travel. 

5. PRAGUE. Prague has undertaken the “Tune Up Prague” initiative, just one of a series of sustainable transportation proposals enacted under the 2015 Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. The “tune up” has focused on increasing foot and bicycle travel through the facilitation of pedestrian pathways. The proposal has also worked to bring accessible, sustainable transportation to all, seeking to bump up the amount of wheelchair-accessible metro stations by 23%, such that 95% of the city’s metro stations are wheelchair-accessible.

In integrating energy and space-efficient public transport with initiatives that promote pedestrian and cyclist travel, the five cities listed above have developed transportation networks that are both accessible and sustainable. Incentivizing public transport increases a city’s ability to experiment with “greener” travel, while simultaneously reducing automobile emissions. The ingenuity of each of the five metropolises provides a crucial example for other major cities, working towards a more sustainable, more connected future. 

---

RELATED CONTENT

10 Ways to Travel More Sustainably
Sustainable Cities Need More than Parks, Cafes and a Riverwalk

---

Hallie Griffiths

Hallie is an undergraduate at the University of Virginia studying Foreign Affairs and Spanish. After graduation, she hopes to apply her passion for travel and social action toward a career in intelligence and policy analysis. Outside of the classroom, she can be found, quite literally, outside: backpacking, rock climbing, or skiing with her friends.

Biking through a Guatemalan Jungle Preserve

Winding through the lush rainforests below Guatemala’s Volcan de Agua is a growing mecca for mountain biking. Known as El Zur, the 2,500-acre private nature reserve was created to protect the land. Turns out, the best way to protect the land sustainably is to offer a variety of outdoor activities. Join guide José Pablo Jelkmann Mendia as he takes us through this pristine paradise on bike, replete with lush trails, suspension bridges and dreamlike waterfalls. It's truly a site to behold.

How Nairobi Can Fix Its Serious Waste Problem

Uncollected solid waste is one of Nairobi’s most visible environmental problems. Many parts of the city, especially the low and middle-income areas, don’t even have waste collection systems in place. In high income areas, private waste collection companies are booming. Residents pay handsomely without really knowing where the waste will end up.

The Nairobi county government has acknowledged that with 2,475 tons of waste being produced each day, it can’t manage. Addis Ababa Ethiopia has a similar size population but only generates 1,680 tons per day.

Nairobi’s current waste disposal system is fraught with major problems. These range from the city’s failure to prioritise solid waste management to inadequate infrastructure and the fact that multiple actors are involved whose activities aren’t controlled. There are over 150 private sector waste operators independently involved in various aspects of waste management. To top it all there’s no enforcement of laws and regulations.

Nairobi’s waste disposal problems go back a long way and there have been previous efforts to sort them out. For example in the early 1990s, private and civil society actors got involved, signing contractual arrangements with waste generators. They often did this without informing or partnering with the city authorities.

More recently other strategies were put in place, some of which left parts of the city clean. They worked for a period, but unfortunately they weren’t sustainable because no institutional changes were made.

But there’s hope on the horizon with a new Nairobi Governor – Mike Sonko Mbuvi. He should learn from the mistakes of the past and put a new regime in place that addresses the structural problems that have plagued the city. This would include an improved improved collection and transportation plan that incorporates the private sector.

Learning from the past

In 2005 John Gakuo took over the management of city affairs as the Town Clerk. During his tenure (2005-2009) he made a deliberate effort to introduce new approaches.

When he took over the city only had 13 refuse trucks. They were able to collect a paltry 20% of the waste produced by the city. To overcome this, the authorities contracted private waste collection firms to collect, transport and dispose waste at Dandora dump site which is the biggest and the only designated site. This quickly boosted the total waste collected with levels oscillating between 45%-60%.

Other changes included:

• The development of a proper waste collection and transportation schedule with market operators. This meant waste from open-air markets was brought to identified collection points on specific days.

• A weighbridge to measure amounts of waste disposed at Dandora was introduced. An important way to know disposal levels vis-a-vis collection and generation.

• Enforcement officers were deployed to prevent dumping in parts of the city that were notorious for waste accumulation.

• Over 2,000 arrests were made, making residents aware that indiscriminate dumping was illegal and punishable under the city authority laws.

All these efforts paid off – for parts of the city. For example, the heart of the city, the Central Business District, was cleaned up and waste was brought under control.

But crucial elements that would have ensured that the changes were sustainable were left out. For example, no new physical infrastructure, like the construction of waste transfer centres and proper landfills, were built, nor was new equipment bought.

After Gakuo’s regime, the next one worth a mention is Evans Kidero’s regime (2013 - 2017). It can be credited for trying to fast-track the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Master Plan which assessed the waste management problem of Nairobi and developed projects that could be implemented to ensure a sustainable system was in place.

This ensured that while the private sector needed to help with waste collection and transportation, the government was key to institutionalising waste management services.

Thirty waste collection trucks were bought and serious investment was made into heavy equipment. And in an effort to streamline waste collection a franchise system of waste collection was rolled out. This involved dividing the city into nine zones to make it easier to manage waste.

The franchise arrangement gave private operators a monopoly over both waste and fee collections, but relied heavily on the public body for enforcement of the system.

The franchising system failed due to a lack of enforcement by the city. In addition, in-fighting broke out between the private waste collection firms that had individual contracts with waste generators and the appointed contractor.

But other changes introduced during this period were more successful and had longer lasting effect. For example new laws were introduced designed to create order in the sector. These included the solid waste management act in 2015. This classified waste and also created a collection scheme based on the sub-county system. It also put penalties in place.

In addition, in 2016, 17 environment officers were appointed and posted to the sub-counties to plan and supervise waste management operations alongside other environmental issues.

These changes planted the seeds of an efficient and working waste management system. But the regime fell down when it come to enforcement. This meant that the gains that had been made were soon lost.

What needs to be done

Expectations are high for the new regime that has taken over. It should look to fast-track the following programmes:

• Implement an improved collection and transportation plan that incorporates private sector and civil society groups;

• Establish a disposal facility to reduce secondary pollution from the city’s dumps;

• Decommission the Dandora dump site;

• Implement the re-use, reduction, and recycling of waste;

• Establish intermediate treatment facilities to reduce waste and its hazards;

• Create an autonomous public corporation;

• Put in place legal and institutional reforms to create accountability;

• Implement a financial management plan, and

• Implement private sector involvement.

Nairobi can fix it’s waste disposal problems. All it needs is focused attention, good governance and the implementation of systems that ensure changes outlive just one administration.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

LEAH OYAKE-OMBIS

Part-time lecturer and Director of the Africa Livelihood Innovations for Sustainable Environment Consulting Group, University of Nairobi

MEXICO: Turning Gas Guzzlers Into Clean Cars

In Mexico City, more than 3.5 million cars navigate the streets, plazas and avenues of North America’s most populous urban area. That makes for a ton of exhaust, but luckily, there’s a solution to this environmental problem. Enter engineer/auto mechanic Alvaro de la Paz and computer scientist Hector Ruiz. Together, they’re transforming old gasoline-fueled automobiles into electric cars. Over the past decade, the pair has converted more than two dozen vehicles into zero-emissions automobiles. While that may seem like a small dent in an enormous cloud of exhaust, the pair hopes that their project will inspire younger generations to work for a brighter, cleaner future.

The Meaning of Travel: A New Guide For Millennials

In today’s highly connected and accessible world, to go anywhere is easy.
But to be a true traveler? That’s the daunting task.

Many of us have taken planes, and have gone to exotic places outside of where we grew up and live. Be it a backpacking trip to India, a short weekend holiday spent in Bali, or a work-related trip to Johannesburg, the act of going somewhere outside of our personal zone of familiarity and comfort is often seen as an opportunity offering some form of inner transformation.

Indeed, the act of exposing ourselves to the foreign and unknown can evoke a plethora of new feelings in us. Sometimes, this experience leads us to new perspective, or even new decisions about ourselves and our lives.

Don’t be mistaken though, not all journeys that we take will lead us to a new self at the end of the road.

More often than not, we return home as the same person as we were before, just with a few more stories to tell and a few more memories to reminisce about during our mundane 9-to-5 job.

So, you may ask, what differentiates a trip that leaves us unchanged, from a travel experience that can potentially transform us from the inside out? How can I make my travels mean more? How do I get more out of them?

Well, there is no one way to achieve it, that’s for sure. We are all different individuals, from different backgrounds and with our own interpretation of the world.

Having said so, we are all similar in so many ways too. A genuine smile, a simple greeting, or an act of kindness may be all it takes for two persons separated by their backgrounds and languages to relate and connect with each other.

Photo by Laura Grier

Hear someone out. Listen to their story.

To travel is not just to see and to experience, but also to listen. I think many people missed out on that, and therefore, on a great learning opportunity. To listen is to try to empathise, to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

By listening to the stories of the strangers we meet on the roads, about their lives, about their view of what’s happening in the world, about their dreams for the future, we gained not just the knowledge and viewpoint of another human being, but also learn of the value and validity of our own pre-existing views and beliefs.

“Perhaps travel cannot prevent bigotry, but by demonstrating that all peoples cry, laugh, eat, worry, and die, it can introduce the idea that if we try and understand each other, we may even become friends.”
— Maya Angelou

That’s how we gain human perspective I think — not by looking at the endless Himalayan mountain range, or the ebb and flow of the sea by the beach. You’ll never know, sometimes it’s the most unexpected persons who impart us with the most valuable lessons in life.

Photo by Prashant Ashoka

Also, tell your story.

I often hear people say that they travel to feel free again. They explained that traveling helps them escape temporarily from the realities back at home — their old problems, burdens and responsibilities.

True enough, being in a foreign land where nobody knows anything about you does have its unique liberating quality. You can be anybody, and you can be nobody. There, I think, is where you find your most authentic self, and then be it.

“… sometimes one feels freer speaking to a stranger than to people one knows. Why is that? Probably because a stranger sees us the way we are, not as he wishes to think we are.”
— Carlos Ruiz Zafón

Photo by Laura Grier

How do you start? Well, relax. Don’t overthink it. Instead, try to enjoy the process of letting go of your insecurities, your fears and inhibitions. What better ways to get things off your chest than to confide in a stranger whom you know you’ll never meet again? There! You just save yourself a costly trip to a therapist.

Jokes aside, it does take time and a few tries before you learn to open yourself up, not just to strangers, but to the world as a whole. But trust me, once you’ve reached that point, you will begin to see the world in a more fearless and unprejudiced manner.

Last but not least, leave your mark.

Make your travel different and more meaningful by contributing to the local cause. And no, I’m not talking about volunteering here. Neither am I talking about donating old clothes, books and stuff that people might not really need.

By contributing, I mean helping locals who want to help themselves. By aiding them in creating a positive outcome that is both tangible and sustainable. That’s what I think a real positive impact entails. That’s how we truly help.

Want to help build a treehouse? A project on TravelStarter is offering just that.

Some local businesses may be starting up or in the process of renovation and need some funding. One easy way to get in touch with these people — the entrepreneurs, designers or small business owners living/working in the area you’re traveling to — is through online crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, which have thousands of projects coming in from all across the globe.

To skip the hassle of searching through the tons of projects which may not be relevant to your needs, you can also try TravelStarter, a travel-specific crowdfunding platform with a growing array of travel and tourism business projects from different parts of the world.

Want to help a Croatian instructor rebuild his sailing boat and be rewarded with a sailing course? Or help a New Zealander living in the Philippines rebuild his Con-Fusion Cafe after typhoon Yolanda destroyed the restaurant? Or are you headed down to San Diego anytime soon? Help a new B&B at Pacific Beach in their funding raising efforts to refurnish the hostel. For a contribution of $80, you will be rewarded with a two-night stay, a three-hour whale watching tour and also a brewery tour!

Photo by San Diego Whales And Dolphins

With the help of platforms like TravelStarter, travelers are encouraged and enabled to engage in more locally instigated experiences.

That’s not only a good way to help somebody, it’s probably the best way to make a local friend too. Definitely an experience that’s worth more than what you fork out of your pocket.

Photo by Ivon Domingo

At the end of the day,

Or at the end of your life, you will realise that it’s not the places you have seen, the crazy adventures you have gone through, or the pictures that you have taken that matters the most.

It’s the people that you have met along the way — those whom you have helped, those whom you have loved, those whose lives you have touched — that really mean the most. They are what made you a true traveler of life.

Lastly, always remember:

“A journey is best measured in friends, rather than miles.”
— Tim Cahill

The world’s waiting for you. Now GO!

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE COFFEELICIOUS.

KEAY NIGEL

Keay Nigel is an independent writer/designer currently based in San Francisco. He has lived in the Hongkong, China, India and various parts of the United States. Travel is his passion and he's been documenting his overseas adventures through YouTube videos. Check out more of his writings here.