Conflict · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with conflict

Branson Pledges $3 Billion To Fight Global Warming

British billionaire Richard Branson pledged approximately $3 billion dollars today toward developing renewable energy sources in an effort to combat global warming. The funds are to come from all of the profits from Branson’s hugely successful Virgin airline and train companies. The NY Times reported that Branson was inspired by Al Gore, who visited Branson in the past few months to remind him that “with great power comes great responsibility,” as Branson paraphrased to news reporters today.

The Times noted that according to some in scientific research, the pledge is the largest individual commitment of money given to fight climate change. This announcement came on day two of the Clinton Global Initiative, a three-day philanthropic event focusing on poverty, reconciling religious conflicts, and climate change, among other world concerns. Former President Bill Clinton is hosting the event in Manhattan.

business, climate change, community, conflict, Energy, farm, Global Warming, Manhattan, News, NYTimes, poverty

Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism

1 Comment

by Katie Kish · 09/03/06

When I was in grade 12 I wrote a paper that I thought was fantastic. I hate that I can say I still have it – and got to read over it again today, it’s pretty horrible. Actually, for it being the first a) philosophy paper and b) environmental paper I ever wrote, it didn’t turn out THAT horrific, just by my standards now, it was pretty bad. I ended up getting an A on it, but I see now that my teacher was being generous. He must have really liked me.

The only reason I bring it up is because the paper was combining two very different subjects that can either have really great outcomes, or really disasterous ones. I’m talking about ecology and philosophy and for this particular post I’ll be looking at two especially horrible outcomes of these two subjects merging. The first being deep ecology and the second being ecofeminism.

I’ll start with deep ecology. In my naïve year of being a very hardcore and new environmentalist who actually cried at the thought of a tree being cut down, I could probably be pinned as a deep ecologist. However, now I see the stupidity in this, and how deep ecology is really… almost like the cult of environmentalism. Deep ecology speaks to take the boundaries down between humans and nature making everything whole.

Basically there are two core values that guide the deep ecology praxis. The first is self-realization. The environmentally conscious person in this case extends their self to include the environment and the world as a whole. It’s basically releasing ones self from a narrow, individual view to a larger view as ones self as the environment. Once a person has placed their own self to include the environment, the purpose is that it is then harder to destroy, take advantage of, or reduce the productivity of the environment.

community, conflict, epa, ethical, Feminism, paper, Plants, reduce, religion, skin, style, Tea, trees, women

Excuse Me, There’s Blood on Your Diamond

21 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 07/06/06

“I don’t understand about diamonds, and why men buy them. What’s so impressive about a diamonds except the mining?”

—Fiona Apple

Many of the prisoner-laborers who work Sierra Leone’s open-pit mines end up in shallow graves, executed for suspected theft, for lack of production, or simply for sport. (© Jean-Claude Coutausse/ CONTACT Press Images)

A few years ago, I asked for jewelry for Christmas; I wanted my boyfriend to give me something that I could wear and be reminded of him. When he gave me a pretty sapphire and diamond necklace, I tried not to be horribly disappointed. After I explained why I wasn’t into the gift, he gallantly returned the expensive necklace and exchanged it for a gorgeous green amber amulet for half the price. Amber I can love: Composed from the preserved living blood of a tree, it often contains pockets of ancient air, or even an unlucky insect, and catches the light in ways that a diamond never could.

Maybe its because I studied Geology in college that I see diamonds differently than most women. To me they are just cold carbon chains, unique from common coal and graphite only in the way the atoms line up. Diamonds have a crystalline lattice structure as opposed to coal’s earthy conglomerate one.

But I’ve determined that its neither geology nor taste that is the real reason that I don’t want a diamond ring (or teardrop earrings, or a honking diamond necklace when I strike it rich) one day. It’s the fact that the majority of diamonds are made from the backbreaking labor of the African people who mine them (who make about $30 a week officially, but usually make half that) and the Indian people who cut and polish them (the average price to cut a stone is about .25) Diamonds are also used to fund wars: Rebel leaders in Sierra Leone have used diamonds to pay for weapons that have thus far killed 75,000 and left 12 million homeless. Since Americans buy 65% of the world’s diamonds, you can bet our lust for the gems has financed murders.

Most poor countries have few laws to protect the environment and even less to enforce them. Diamond mining opens gaping holes in the Earth and pollutes the water as topsoil and mine ‘tailings’ (toxic chemicals) wash into surrounding waterways. I’ve seen this first-hand in the US, where there are regulations, and lets just say ‘destroyed landscape’ pretty much sums it up.

On top of all of this, diamonds are a racket. It costs less than $10.00 to dig a .8 carat diamond out of the ground, polish it, and ship it to the US, where it will be sold for $1000 or more. Diamonds are only valuable because companies set artificial price controls. Diamond marketers spend billions yearly on advertising to convince us that diamonds mean love, power and exclusivity, when really they are plentiful and cheap.

From Wikipedia:

The production and distribution of diamonds is largely consolidated in the hands of a few key players, and concentrated in traditional diamond trading centers (the most important being Antwerp). The De Beers company holds a clearly dominant position in the industry, and has done so since soon after its founding in 1888. De Beers owns or controls a significant portion of the world’s rough diamond production facilities (mines) and distribution channels for gem-quality diamonds. The company and its subsidiaries own mines that produce some 40 percent of annual world diamond production. At one time it was thought over 80 percent of the world’s rough diamonds passed through the Diamond Trading Company (DTC, a subsidiary of De Beers) in London, but presently the figure is estimated at less than 50 percent. De Beers used its monopoly position to establish strict price controls, and market diamonds directly to consumers in world markets.

You can read more about Amenesty International’s experience with diamond mines here. And don’t let me get into gold mining…(that will have to be a future post).

If you or your loved one insists on a diamond, there are thousands of vintage stones out there; you can use one to create a new ring or necklace, or enjoy a more old-fashioned style. There are also many great sustainable jewelry companies out there, and there IS the option of ‘conflict-free’ diamonds from Canada, but for me, the environmental consequences of any kind of mining are too extreme to justify it, even if the miners are paid a fair wage.

Africa, cape, car, carbon, Christmas, coal, conflict, Fashion, Home, India, Jewelry, labor, London, oil, produce, Shopping, spa, sport, style, sustainable, Tea, trike, vintage, water, women

Getting Catty

No Comments

by Starre Vartan · 06/15/06

There’s an exhaustive review of the Catwalk on the Wild Side event over at Treehugger. Unfortunately we were not able to cover this party/ecofashion show, so we will have to rely on their take on it. But suffice to say, it wasn’t all greenlovin’ at this eco-fashion extravanganza which was, apparently, underwhelming.

Though eco-fashion was one of the stated goals of Saturday’s event, too many objectives weighed the evening down and made it aesthetically and tonally conflicted.

Ouch!! Two commenters backed up the report, so methinks there is some validity to it. The organization behind the event seems to have some admirable goals, and it was part of the UN World Environment Day celebrations so….better luck next year?.

conflict, ecofashion, Fashion, fashion show, party, treehugger