"Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection"

Forty years after King's death, the ability of America to both mythologise the man and marginalise his meaning is all too cruelly apparent. His symbolic likeness is effortlessly incorporated into America's self-image as the land of relentless progress. Meanwhile, his legacy of struggling against poverty and imperialism is undermined with every passing day. Had he lived he would most certainly have been loathed. In order for America to love him, he first had to die.

Excellent article by one of my favourite journalists, Gary Younge. Read more here.

Message in a bottle

A study by the European Pesticides Action Network (PAN) reveals that wines on sale in the EU may contain residues of up to 10 different pesticides potentially harmful to human health. But manufacturers argue that the quantities are so tiny that drinking wine poses no health risk.

"Grapes are among the most contaminated food products on sale in the EU and receive a higher dose of synthetic pesticides than almost any other crop," argues the environmental NGO in a report analysing pesticide residues in wine, published on Wednesday (26 March).

The study covered 40 bottles of wine - 34 conventional and six organic ones - purchased inside the EU. According to the results, the 34 bottles of conventional wine together contained 148 pesticide residues. All 34 bottles contained from one to ten pesticides, bringing the average per bottle to more than four. Of the six bottles of organic wine tested, one sample contained a low concentration of a possibly carcinogenic pesticide.

According to PAN Europe, the "contamination of wines is a direct result of over-reliance on pesticides in grape production". The group argues that the presence of pesticides in European wines is a "growing problem" as grape farmers abandon traditional pest control methods to adopt more hazardous synthetic pesticides. According to Elliot Cannell of PAN Europe, this trend has a direct impact on the quality of wines produced in Europe as pesticides used to grow food crops "can and do end up in food products".

Responding to the report, the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), which represents pesticide manufacturers, highlighted that all the residues found were authorised for use in the EU. In addition, ECPA underlined that the levels of residue were found "in such minute quantities" that they "are not even remotely close to [reaching] any level of concern". ECPA compared the proportion to the part per billion level or the equivalent of "one drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool". The association also deplored that the PAN report did not test other elements such as copper or sulphur, which are both used in organic vinificulture.

"Drinking wine poses no health risk for European consumers with respect to pesticide residues [...] Both the use of pesticides and monitoring of residues are very carefully controlled by independent scientists. Maximum residue levels are set well below levels that could cause a risk to humans, to build in a substantial safety margin," said ECPA Director General Friedhelm Schmider.

In 2006, the European Commission proposed tightening the existing pesticide usage and authorisation rules in Europe as public concerns over the health and environmental impact of the so-called plant protection products continue to grow. So far, the Commission has rejected demands by Parliament to extend an existing list of substances banned from use in the production of pesticides. The EU 27's agriculture ministers are set to debate the matter in April and are expected to reach a political agreement by 19 May 2008.

Taken from Euractive.com, 27 March 2008

Miss Mischief

"If the majority of people were right, we'd be living in paradise. But we are not living in paradise, we are living in hell. What does it mean? That means the majority of people are wrong. So I never believed what people told me."

Interesting interview in the Guardian today with Marjane Satrapi, author of the eye-opening comics Persepolis. Read it here.

Happy Easter!

Europe: the free continent?

On 29 February I posted a few words on Marie-Monique Robin's attack on Monsanto. Her excellent documentary Le Monde Selon Monsanto (trailer in French and English) was screened on the Franco-German TV channel ARTE and was followed by a debate in which a certain Christian Vélot took part. Vélot teaches molecular genetics at the University of Paris Sud and leads a research team at the University's Orsay Insitute of Genetics and Microbiology. In the past four years he held several public conferences in which he fiercely criticised the use of GMOs for purposes not directly linked to laboratory research, highlighting the risks and dangers involved in releasing GMOs into the environment and using them in the food industry.

These are the views he bravely and intelligently defended during the TV debate. But scientific independence has a price and in Velot's case it turned out to be a high one. A few days after the TV show he received a letter informing him that the the Institut d'Orsay would no longer require his lab's services once the current term ended in 2010. Christian Vélot's name can now be added to the long list of scientists who were harassed, threatened and ultimately fired for being honest with the public on the GMO issue. You can read the full story (in French) here. And in comics form here.

Europe, the free continent? Europe the GMO-free continent? Yeah, right.

A petition (in French) in support of Christian Vélot and his lab can be signed here.

The "horizon-scanning" report

(...) According to 35 environmental scientists, drawn from the government as well as colleges and charities, a host of new threats and opportunities for UK biodiversity is gathering pace as technologies develop, social habits alter and the possibility of large-scale responses to phenomena like climate change grows.

The scientists have drawn up a list of 25 factors, including the rising demand for food and biofuels, thought to be having an immediate effect. These, say the scientists, are already putting worse pressure on the habitats of birds and mammals. Others factors, such as sea-level rise, extra fire risk and extreme weather events, are looming with climate change.

But many more challenges, identified in the "horizon-scanning" report, come from what now appears science fiction. Environmental manipulation could be a quick-fix way to mitigate climate change, scientists say. Putting trillions of lenses in orbit to deflect the sun's energy, building giant mirrors in space, fertilising oceans with iron filings and laying reflective covers on deserts, have all been suggested, says the paper in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology. (...)

"A series of fungal pathogens have devastated north American forests. One has recently appeared in the UK and could have similar impacts on native woodlands," says the paper. "New pathogens [affecting] people and livestock are likely to become established in the UK in future as climate change allows them to survive. But this could increase the use of insecticides. If, for instance, malaria established itself in Britain because of climate change, widespread drainage of wetlands and ponds could be recommended."

Other human factors are also acknowledged. Were bird flu or rabies to get established in British wildlife, the authors say, public attitudes to biodiversity might alter profoundly.

"This could lead to reduced political and financial support for conservation, and higher rates of killing wildlife." Equally, while the internet informs, there is a danger that sedentary lives will erode engagement with nature and care for the environment. "Young people spend about half the time outdoors compared to 20 years ago. This leads to a fall in knowledge of biodiversity."

Key issues

· Politics: policies may be unable to keep pace with the environmental changes of the future

· Extreme weather: local wildlife extinctions are likely

· More food demand: habitat loss and intensification of farming

· New genetically modified pathogens: likely reduction of critical species

· Sea level rise: some new habitats, but great damage from salt

· River flow: climate change will greatly alter river ecology

· More biofuels: possibly more pesticides, loss of habitat

· Increased fire risk: some new habitats, but big potential impact

· Invasions: alien species can move in from abroad

· Nanotechnologies: can help with pollution cleanup but could be toxic

· Artificial lifeforms and bio-robots: possibly invasive

· Renewable energy: new safe havens, but also damage possible

· Internet: no substitute for people experiencing nature for themselves

Source: The Guardian, 20 March 2008

The frontline cartoonist

Palestine by Joe Sacco. A most powerful read. Impressive artwork. A genre of its own: comics journalism.

In late 1991 and early 1992, Joe Sacco spent two months with Palestinians in Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories , travelling and taking notes. His graphic novel Palestine combines the techniques of eyewitness reportage with the medium of comic-book storytelling to explore the brutality and absurdity of war. And hey, incidentally, Joe Sacco is Maltese!

As I delved deeper into Joe Sacco's opus, Primo Levi's words kept flashing through my mind: "Tutti scoprono più o meno presto nella loro vita, che la felicità perfetta non è realizzabile, ma pochi si soffermano invece sulla considerazione opposta: che tale è anche una infelicità perfetta. I momenti che si oppongono alla realizzazione di entrambi i due stati-limite sono della stessa natura: conseguono dalla nostra condizione umana, che è nemica di ogni infinito. Vi si oppone la nostra sempre insufficiente conoscenza del futuro; e questo si chiama in un caso, speranza, e nell'altro, incertezza del domani. Vi si oppone la sicurezza della morte che impone un limite a ogni gioia, ma anche a ogni dolore. Vi si oppongono le inevitabili cure materiali, che, come inquinano ogni felicità duratura, così distolgono assiduamente la nostra attenzione dalla sventura che ci sovrasta, e ne rendono frammentaria, e perciò sostenibile, la consapevolezza."

Sorry, translating is what I do from 8 till 5 every day, so all quotations on this blog stay in the original version, heh. The point I guess is: history keeps repeating itself, human beings keep doing unto others what others did unto them. Is it realistic to believe this can ever stop? Perhaps it is not, but that is what hope is all about I suppose ...

Make tea not war!

World Against War demonstrations worldwide 15-22 March 2008! Check out when the demonstration is taking place in your hometown or nearby and voice your concern about the endless wars plaguing our planet.

S H A M E

Cato Salsa Experience: So The Circus Is Back In Town

That summarises pretty well what I feel in the wake of last weekend's elections in Malta. Shame on you, my fellow citizens, for not having had the courage to vote for the change (or at least the hope thereof) a green MP would have embodied. Shame on you for voting for the status quo out of sheer partisan mass hysteria, pledging your allegiance to a party that has been in power for 20 years with hardly any consideration for the issues that should constitute any government's priorities: public health, the environment, education ... Vox populi vox dei. No worries, you will get a lot of what you voted for: a couple of brand new ecological disasters (e.g. the golf courses), a greater divide between the upper class that can afford to send its English-speaking kids to private institutions and the rest of the population that will have to make do with derelict public schools, an anti-abortion clause in the constitution, more birds falling out of the sky in the spring, possibly even privatised public healthcare! Isn't that lovely?! You will also get a lot of what you did not consciously vote for but should have expected: more corruption, more planning authority blunders, more pollution ... All I can say is that I am glad I will only witness the mess from afar. Good luck to you all, my fellow citizens. You will need it.

"E c'erano i ricordi. Dentro il sogno del presente sognava ora il passato. Vedeva Malta sul taglio dell'orizzonte marino, nella dorata nebbia del ricordo. Ed ecco che gli balzava nell'occhio come nel fuoco di un cannocchiale ... i campanili aguzzi come minareti, le basse case bianche, le altane ... Solo le cose della fantasia sono belle, ed è fantasia anche il ricordo ... Malta non è che una terra povera e amara, la gente barbara come quando vi approdò San Paolo ... Solo che, nel mare, consente alla fantasia di affacciarsi alla favola del mondo ... "
- Leonardo Sciascia, Il Consiglio d'Egitto.

The (International) Noise Conspiracy: Smash It Up

Interesting street artist. Manufacturing quality dissent since 1989.

Hope or the truth about doom-mongering

Every now and again, the NGO I do voluntary work for, gets invited by a school to give a short presentation on the importance of protecting the environment. A few days ago it was my turn and B.'s. The class was a difficult one, with an attention span of not more than a few seconds. However, the presentation went relatively smoothly and the 15-year-olds we'd just addressed did engage in a debate on certain topics. On the whole B. and I agreed that we did enjoy the event and that most of the students had probably had a good time too. There was a point, however, when we felt a little lost for words. That was when a slim girl with mousey hair stood up and said - My father says you're a bunch of doom-mongers. I am not sure she knew why she'd said that or why her father believed that. We managed a smile and explained what we had already said before - that changing our ways was not that difficult and that everyone could do his bit, without going through any kind of guilt complex and certainly without living in misery, anxiety or fear.

Interestingly, the day after this incident I was having a beer with an acquaintance who steered the subject of our conversation to my environmental activities. In between odd I-feel-I- should-tell-yout-this-for-your-own-sake smiles, she told me that devoting such a fair share of my limited free time to the environment was very nice, but why didn't I try channelling my energy towards more useful causes? I inquired what those causes would be. She said - well, helping people not just, you know, animals and flowers and stuff. I could not help but wonder how such views had made it into the 21st century.

I mentioned these two incidents over coffee with a University student specializing in climatology. He did not flinch. Believe it or not, there are still loads of people who believe thousands of high-level scientists got it wrong or were bribed into drafting the IPCC reports. And there's an even larger number of people who don't know these reports have been written let alone what they contain. He said the IPCC had contacted the authors of the Great Global Warming Swindle, for instance, the TV series which caused quite a stir when it was screened by the BBC, asking them to demonstrate their theories in more scientific, methodological terms. They had declined the invitation. The fact of the matter, he explained, is that of course there is still a degree of scientific uncertainty regarding the role of aerosols or the exact impact of albedo for instance, but the scientific community is unanimous about the unequivocal (this being the term used in the latest IPCC report) warming of the earth's surface and its cause - human activity. He added that it was pretty normal that people in different parts of the world and with varying degrees of scientific knowledge still shunned the verdict implicit in such a statement. It's scary, that's all.

Of course it is in the people's right to doubt, question and criticise. The question is why not believe the conclusions of thousands of experts? If you won't believe them, then whom are you going to believe? The Essos, the Totals, the Monsantos, the Arevas, the Bushes and the Rajoys? Is it just because it's scary? Or is it out of sheer indifference? Is it possible that the human being has evolved into a species that does not give a hoot in hell about its own survival?

Even setting the climate issue aside for a second, how come so many people in 2008 still fail to understand or acknowledge the importance of sound environmental practices? Let us imagine for one second that we are all being duped by this global scientific and political conspiracy and that in reality we are not cooking the climate. Well, there still are other extremely important environmental issues that need to be addressed urgently. Deforestation, desertification, the loss of biodiversity and the extinction of species, air, sea and river pollution, soil erosion, the dangers of using nuclear energy and storing its waste, the impacts of GMOs, dioxins and toxic chemicals and so much more.

Guardian environment editor John Vidal described 2006 as the year the world woke up, environmentally speaking - the year governments and citizens at large took stock of the problem and its potential consequences. Indeed, one can argue that up to a certain extent there is more debate, the media have taken a liking to the subject and politicians of all hues and inclinations pander to sensationalism and public fears. You can stick eco- or bio- to any given word and it will make it more politically correct, prettier, more acceptable. There is more information, although one could argue that the information provided is still too often confused, warped, manipulated or simply sterilized.

Apart from the ecologists and the hardcore skepticals, we are left with a developed world (what an ugly expression!) in which people seem to be suffering from mass confusion. There are those who live in fear of an imminent The day after scenario (scientific gibberish), others who, having shortly succumbed to the Al Gore trance, decided to do their bit for the environment and separate their waste (but please don't come asking for more). There are the indifferent and the defeated, those who whinge in their armchairs and those who nurse their guilt in organic restaurants. There are those who dismiss anything related to the topic with a brisk wave of the hand and a jovial Oh we're all gonna die anyway so might as well enjoy life while we're at it.

I certainly do not wish to sound condescending, but if it is true that the citizens of this world are more aware, then when, if ever, can we realistically expect a change in behaviour, in mentality, in consumption patterns? If the global conscience has really been stirred, then why do so many people still frown upon green NGOs? And most importantly - and here I get to my point (sorry for the rambling, the weather's crap again!) - why do people still talk about doom-mongering?

Well, to the father of the little girl with the mousey hair and to the beer-guzzling, complacent acquaintance, this is what I should have said. Taking action to preserve the environment is no longer, and indeed has never been, about hugging trees and saving Willy. It is not only and exclusively about protecting cuddly animals and pretty flowers (although nobody denies the importance of protecting biodiversity, of course). It even goes beyond preserving the ice shelves and keeping forests alive. Protecting the environment is about life itself - your life. If you don't buy the 2 to 6 degree temperature rise and its effects, if you don't really care about life on earth in a few hundred years' time or if you believe technology will come to our rescue once we've burnt all our fossil fuels and depleted our dirty uranium stocks, well, then consider what pollution and collective ignorance and laissez-faire are doing to your own health right now. Consider the social impact natural disasters are already having. Even without thinking about the water nomads in Africa or the tsunami victims in Asia, spare a thought for the cancer patients in the hospital around the corner. It's not much fun, eh. Granted. But it's real.

Indeed, this is probably the missing link, the scary story the media won't write about, the issue political parties do not bring up, the silent truth people don't even think of when they cast their votes, the blind spot in the EU's priorities. Public health. The impact of the PCBs in our rivers, the GMOs in our plates, the fine particles in our air, in our lungs ... the list is long, the cycle infinite.

We can blame our governments for not taking the appropriate measures to protect our health and our planet. But aren't we also indirectly to blame for that? Why do we keep voting for parties with no environmental programmes, why do we re-elect governments with disastrous environmental records? Can we really say Nobody told me when the IPCC reports are so easily accessible on the Internet and despite the fact that NGO activists have been ringing the alarm bell for over 30 years? In the end, it all boils down to education, doesn't it? Information, statistics, data. You cannot decide whether you believe climate change is a reality or a conspiracy unless you read, learn, ask. It takes time, but the price of indifference has become too high. Information is the best immunization against indifference. Know your facts. Change your ways. Allow yourself to believe in a cleaner, healthier future for all.

Enviornmental awareness-raising is not doom-mongering. It is the incarnation of hope.