#is simply unsustainable for the environment and unsafe for humans

[colloquiam]

 Food Insecurity and Sustainable Food

Most Americans don’t think about where their food comes from. We’ve all heard rumors about factory farms, monoculture, and the possibility of our food having a negative impact on the environment. Furthermore, very few people talk about food deserts and how people with lower socio-economic status have less access to healthy foods. What we don’t talk about is how the modern system for food cultivation is unsustainable. People must understand the impact of sustainability and food insecurity if we are ever to resolve these issues. 

The industrialization of agriculture has allowed billions to eat. According to an article by the Harvard School of Public Health, it isn’t enough. 3 billion people across the Earth are malnourished. What’s worse, the modern system of agriculture aggravates the problem of food insecurity across the world. 60% of the world’s fishing population are overfished, 40% of the world’s land is used for agriculture and agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s fresh water use.  At this rate, future generations will not enjoy the privilege of regular meals. 

The problems associated with food insecurity are numerous. Yes, it is unpleasant to spend the night on an empty stomach. However, the long-term effects are what can truly damage society at large. Carine Deeds of the American Youth Policy Forum illustrates how this issue impacts children’s psychology. Without food children take longer to develop, they do worse in school, and have more problems with their mental health.  These problems are exacerbated in food deserts. In class, my group discussed how in the poorer areas of town, it is harder to find good healthy food. Having spent 6-months living near MLK, I distinctly remember how easy it was to buy McDonalds and how difficult it was to buy groceries. 

Experts have come up with solutions for both food security and unsustainability. According to Fiona Harvey of the Guardian, the solution could be as simple as changing our food habits. Livestock accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cows also require large plots of land to graze and therefore contribute to soil erosion. If a significant amount of people can make the switch to a plant-based diet, that would solve these problems. There is also the possibility of making our food systems more efficient. Tara Garnett highlights the possibility of government and food industry actors maximizing the efficiency of the resources we already have. This involves improving the quality of fertilizers, decreasing the emissions made by livestock by improving the food supply, increased refrigeration could be a solution to the unsustainability of our modern agricultural system. Personally, I don’t think we can solve this issue by simply decreasing demand or increasing supply. A problem as paradoxical as feeding the world in a way that does not destroy it for future generations requires a revolutionary idea that is not present in today’s world. 

On a local level, people are already taking action to bring life to food deserts. As Devita Davidson makes clear in her TedTalk, Detroiters have created urban gardens to allow locals to have access to local foods. Detroit has miles of empty city blocks. So entrepreneurs took the initiative and built farms in these areas.  In neighborhoods many would have felt unsafe in previous years are now home to farmer’s markets featuring urban art. These businesses attract customers from out of the area and employ a number of people. This solution is similar to Ron FInley’s “Gardening is Gangsta” initiative in Compton. There is a heavy contrast between the macroeconomic ways to solve unsustainability and food insecurity and the macroeconomic ways. Yes, we can look at infrastructure and improvements in technology to resolve these issues on a large scale, but the small things help as well. Human beings are extremely resourceful, these issues can be resolved if a few creative individuals can take the initiative to build a better present and future for themselves.

In conclusion, addressing the disconnection between people and their food sources, along with food insecurity and unsustainability, requires urgent action. By changing our food habits, improving efficiency, and supporting local initiatives like urban gardens, we can build a better future for all.

[tendercoretroglodyke]

I hope you all know that, while the covid-19 pandemic is of course a public health issue, it is absolutely an environmental issue as well. this pandemic was a direct result of the too-close interactions humans have had with wildlife. increasingly overlapping habitats, illegal wildlife trade, bushmeat trading and consumption, all cause us to get uncomfortably close to zoonotic diseases that are often far more deadly in humans than in the animals we got them from. illegal wet markets (those that sell wild animals) must be closed down and we need to change attitudes to discourage use of wild animals in traditional medicine or in black market exotic pet trading. if nothing changes (and you know it won't), our next pandemic will be soon and it will be from animals we are entirely too close to, and it could be far more deadly

[samwisethewitch]

Keeping Consumerism out of Your Craft

Consumerism is a set of socioeconomic conditions and attitudes that encourage the continual acquisitions of goods and services. There is no “enough” in a consumerist society — members of the society are constantly pushed to buy new things, pay for new services, and keep up with the latest trends.

There are a few reasons consumerism is bad news. For one thing, it’s terrible for the environment — consumerist cultures usually have linear economies, where resources are extracted, consumed, then discarded, with no effort to replenish them. This is highly unsustainable, because at some point those limited resources are going to run out. Consumerism also has a human cost, as it often leads to the use of sweatshops, which violate basic labor laws. In many sweatshops, workers are not paid a livable wage, children are employed as workers, and working conditions are unsafe. Companies in countries like the United States get around labor laws by outsourcing labor to other (poorer) places. Consumerism also contributes to classism, as the acquisition of expensive items is often treated as a status symbol.

Consumerism is present in nearly every aspect of Western culture, and this includes spirituality and witchcraft. There are multiple “Beginner Witch Kits” for sale from Amazon and other online retailers which include candles, crystals, and incense — which is great, as long as that’s all stuff you’ll actually use in your practice. (I mean, do you really need twelve different varieties of incense?) Witchy authors and bloggers often treat magic like a matching game, where every problem requires a very specific herb or crystal. YouTube is full of “witch hauls,” videos solely dedicated to showing off new purchases. All of this contributes to a commercialized witchy aesthetic, which can only be achieved by buying the tools of the trade.

I get it. Shopping is fun, especially when you’re still learning about magic and magical items. It’s exciting to search for the perfect crystal or incense blend, especially if you have a local metaphysical store where you can shop in person. But owning the right stuff doesn’t make you a witch. All you need to practice magic is your will — everything else is optional.

I’m not saying every witch should be a hardcore minimalist, or that you can never buy new things. What I am saying is that all of us, witches or not, need to be more mindful of how we spend our money and the impact of our purchases on the world around us.

How to Avoid Consumerism

If you’re considering buying something, ask yourself if you’ll really get use out of it. For example, I don’t use a lot of tools in my practice because I prefer to work with my hands, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to buy an expensive wand or ritual knife. Don’t feel like you have to buy something just because another witch uses it — if you don’t think you’ll use it, don’t buy it.

Don’t buy multiples of the same tool. Instead of buying multiple different colored altar cloths for different times of year, buy one white altar cloth you can use year-round. Instead of buying multiple tarot decks, find one or two you really enjoy working with. You get the idea. (Obviously, there will be some items you need more than one of, like spell candles. This rule applies more to tools that can be reused.)

Replace things as they run out instead of buying them before you need them. Buying things in bulk can lead to unnecessary waste and drawers full of unused magical supplies. Buy things you know you’ll really use, and only buy one or two at a time. Use up the items you have before you buy more.

Invest in items that have multiple uses. For example, most kitchen spices can also be used in spells — search your spice cabinet before ordering special ingredients online. There are some items that have multiple magical uses, like rosemary and salt. Buy a couple of these multitaskers instead of a large collection of herbs with very specific uses.

Use the “two week” rule. This is something I do to keep myself from making impulse purchases. If I think I want to buy something online, I wait two weeks before I order it. If I still want it after two weeks, I take that as a sign that I’ll actually get some use from it.

Go “shopping” in your backyard. Familiarize yourself with the plants, animals, and minerals that are native to your area and go foraging for spell supplies instead of buying them. Items you can probably find near your home that could be used in ritual include leaves and flowers, pine cones, seed pods, tree branches, rocks, and naturally shed feathers. Just make sure you never harvest enough of a plant to hurt it, and make sure you properly disinfect any animal products you pick up.

If you can, make it yourself. Not only does making your own magic items save money, it also creates a much stronger personal link between you and that item. You can grow your own magical herbs in a garden or in indoor pots. Many common magical tools, like brooms and wands, are easy to make at home with some basic craft skills. Making your own items also means you can customize them, tailoring them to your own craft.

If you can’t make it yourself, but it used. There are some items you can’t reasonably make yourself, like incense burners, cauldrons, and books on the craft. But you can find most of these items used, either in thrift stores or online on websites like Ebay and Depop. Buying used almost always ends up being cheaper than buying new, and because you’re buying items already in circulation you aren’t contributing to a linear economy. Thrifting is also a great way to find unique items that won’t be like what anyone else has on their altar.

If you can’t find it used, support a small business. Sometimes, you can’t make what you need or find it in a thrift store. In that case, buying from a small business is preferable to buying from a big retailer like Amazon. When you support a small business, you’re supporting an individual rather than contributing to some CEO’s massive yearly bonus. A lot of small business owners make their items themselves, which avoids sweatshop labor. Pretty much everything I buy new for my craft comes from Etsy sellers — there are a LOT of witches on Etsy, so with a little digging you can easily find exactly what you’re looking for!

Don’t buy crystals. I know, I know. Thanks to social media, large crystal collections have become synonymous with witchcraft. But the crystal trade is highly unethical, with unsustainable mining techniques, dangerous working conditions, and child labor. Because of a lack of regulations, it’s virtually impossible to find crystals that are truly ethically sourced. Most sellers don’t know where their crystals come from and can’t guarantee that no workers were harmed in their extraction. No stone is worth the health and safety of other human beings, no matter how pretty.

Avoiding consumerism in your witchcraft means being less reliant on tools and set dressing. This will allow you to rely on your own energy and will, which will lead to a deeper and more meaningful spiritual practice.

Resources:

Revolutionary Witchcraft by Sarah Lyons

Simply Living Well by Julia Watkins

“11 Facts About Sweatshops” on dosomething.org

“Child labour in the fashion supply chain” from The Guardian

“Bangladesh factory collapse toll passes 1,000” from BBC News

“Are crystals the new blood diamonds?” from The Guardian

“Dark crystals: the brutal reality behind a booming wellness craze” from The Guardian

[tiffanywu85]

Capitalism, The Climate, and Politics

Can capitalism and the climate coexist? In what ways does capitalism conflict with climate and much needed political action? How can we politically mobolize citizens? How does the case study of Bernie Sander’s political campaign teach us about how to mobolize large groups of people without funding from big corporations? How do political contributions from big corporations comflict with politiacal agenda? These are many urging questions about how we can bring governmental change and what type of change is necessary. Today, we discuss the conflicting issues of capitalism and environmentalism. We also discuss how to moboiize large groups of people comparable to campaigns with big money.

Capitalism

Capitalism is the elephant in the room when it comes to the climate. Individuals are not able to produce the environmental degradations that we currently see. We have to observe the root of capitalism and what capitalism really is. Capitalism is the economic and political system that is dominant in predominantly Western countries. Uncoincidentally, most of the richest countries in the world function under capitalism. The piece, What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism, written by Fred Magdoff describes capitalism plain and simple: “No-growth capitalism is an oxymoron” (7). Capitalism is about growth and constant growth. The driving force of capitalism is to accumulate weath through mostly any means necessary. Capitalism essentially recognizes that there are no limits to the expansions possible economically. This is the principal reason why conglomerates seek to invest in cheap labor abroad and in places that are still economically developing. The fashion industry is a great example of the exploitation of child labor to reduce costs. According to UNICEF, more than 170 million children, predominately from India and Bangledesh, engage in forms of child labor. Many of these children work in unsafe conditions and are severly underpaid to sastisfy the fashion demands in the United States and Europe (Moulds). 

Picture 1 shows Mustakin, 10 years old, working in Bangladesh for one dollars per day (Casey).

Capitalism’s infinite demand for growth is contant met with the reality of the failing environment and the reality that there are only limited natural resources available on the planet. Although many natural resources and ecosystems are potentially renewable, they cannot be renewed on human timescales. We will be long gone before coal, copper, phosphorus, oil, and more replenish. One constant idea that is enigmatic to me is that “[b]usiness owners and managers generally consider the short terms in their operations…and act in ways that are largely oblivious  of the natural limits to their activities…” (Magdoff, 10). Magdoff mentions that they function this way because of unpredictable business conditions and other unpredictable factors. This becomes conflicting to me because while I understand the importance of money and that losing jobs can affect many people, I still do not find that as an excuse to recklessly destroy the environment. 

There are also many that say that there is political progress in environmental policies. They could refer to the demand for renewable energy that is increasing exponentially. However, the problem is never truly solved. “‘Solutions…allow the current system of production and distribution to proceed unabated, are not real solutions. In fact, such ‘solutions’ will make things worse because they give the false impression that the problems are on their way to become overcome when the reality is quite different.” (Klein, 6) They give the impression that capitalism can co-exist with having sustainable relations with the environment when it is simply untrue. 

The question then logically becomes, then what can we do? Do we have to pick one or the other in front of capitalism and a thriving environment? The capitalist system is unsustainable in much of the food, clothing, production, industrial, and other systems that we currently follow. “The struggle is ultimately against the system of capital” (Magdoff, 19). We protest and oppose how capital is run and used in the country. We need to encourage political and economic systems that have a sustainable realtionship with the earth. I find these interesting because Madgoff suggests that eventually, these movements and initiatives will become powerful enough to start a revolution ofour society. I wonder if by the time we get to that time in future, we will be long past the golden period we currently have. Without a doubt, a mentality and conscious effort to protest capital is extremely vital in reshaping our relationship with earth. However, we need to do more than to wait for people to jump on board with the idea. 

Bernie Sanders and the Potential of his Pioneering Campaign 

Bernie Sander and his political campaign for the 2016 presidential election of the United States defeated the odds of the party’s opposition and the lack of big corporations’ money to moboilze huge amounts of money and funds. Examining his political run can also provide insight on how to run effective movements and protests through citizens. Traditional candidates rely on paid staff, big money, and controlled operations to campaign for office. “The Sanders campaign was a gigantic live experience. What tha experiment revealed- too late to swing the outcome- was that volunteers can fill almost all positions traditionally reserved for staff” (Monbiot, 4). Exactly, unpaid volunteers were able to replace paid staff which saved the Sander campaign from money that could be used elsewhere. Sander took advantage of the fact that voters are more mobilized when in conversation with real people, especially enthusiastic ones. Automated messages, direct mail, and other mobilization tactics are not as effective because the personal conversation aspect of it encouraged voters to cast a ballot. In addition, it was found that unpaid volunteers were more enthusiastic about the campaign because they volunteered the time and the enthuastic translate to voters they talk to. “When people get together to make calls, the campaign discovered, they work harder, enjoy it more, and have more effective conversations with potential voters than if they work alone: the power of connection seems to operate at every level” (Monbiot, 5). 

The strategies that Sanders pioneered is a great starting point for voicing dissent for the lack of aggressive environmental agendas of the government. For one, Monbiot suggests that the first point of contact to express discontent is public demonstrations. “A good demonstration should meet two definitions of the word: it should be a demonstration against the forces we oppose, and a demonstration of the better further we envisage” (Monbiot, 7). I think Manbiot makes a good point about identifying the forces that we are against: us vs them. While protesting in general to save the environment is a good message, we should have something that is achievable and able to take us to the next tangible step. This also makes me pessistimistic and doubtful of the capability to alter the economic system that has long existed. However, the extremely successful run of Sanders’s political campaign can bring us a gleam of hope that collective actions can bring change. 

Discussion Questions: What do you think is required to bring a change in our economic system as drastic as changing capitalism? Do you agree that we can use Bernie Sanders’s political campaign to pioneer an environmental one?

Word Count: 1180

References:

Moulds, Josephine. “Child labour in the fashion supply chain: Where, why and what can be done.” https://labs.theguardian.com/unicef-child-labour/.

Klein, Naomi. “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” The Nation, 9 Nov. 2011, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/capitalism-vs-climate/.

Magdoff, Fred, and John Bellamy Foster. “What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know about Capitalism.” Monthly Review, 1 Mar. 2010, https://monthlyreview.org/2010/03/01/what-every-environmentalist-needs-to-know-about-capitalism/.

Monbiot, George. “9 Making It Happen.” Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis, Verso, London, 2018.

Image:

Casey, Bob. “Why we must tackle the scourge of child labour.” Financial Times, 14 July 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/9b0cc658-48e0-49c2-a651-f3e13a4e184d. Accessed 2 May 2022.

[allyklapak]

We are drowning in threats to our water supply

Water is a fundamental necessity for sustaining life. Fortunately, it seems the world, comprised primarily of water, should be able to easily accommodate human demand for this resource utilized abundantly each day. The accessibility in well developed nations have conditioned the public to take water for granted. However, it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this resource is in immediate danger of failing to support the practices humans so desperately and unwittingly rely on it for. The reality that only a small percent of water on earth is readily usable is important for more people to understand. The lack of awareness plays a key role in accepting unsustainable practices that contribute to large water waste and contributes to dangerous contamination. Pollution and inefficient practice pose large risks to the dwindling supply stored within the water tables below the surface and it is important to assess the part we play in order to pave the way for the change that must be done.

Freshwater is renewable to an extent. It exists in water tables and aquifers within the zone of saturation beneath the Earth’s surface as well as in basins and lakes above ground. [1] The hydrologic cycle replenishes the freshwater supply but is a time-consuming process that can be compromised by natural and ultimately human interference. [1] Our part in warming the atmosphere has accelerated evaporation and our excessive depletion of these water tables had increased the rate of water loss to a point where the natural processes of replenishment cannot successfully compensate. [1] Freshwater scarcity stress indicates how a place’s supply of water compares to the demand. [1] As our unsustainable practices grow, this stress increases and is exacerbated by population growth and increasing water footprints of major nations, primarily in India, the Unites States, and China. [1] The text reflects this as it states, “Because of population growth, rising rates of water use per person, longer dry periods in some areas, and unnecessary water waste, we are likely to be withdrawing 90% of the world’s reliable freshwater runoff by 2025.” [1] Developed nations overuse water because we have honed production systems that require immense amounts of water and have governments that invest in maximized profits over sustainability and efficiency. [1] The agriculture industry is one of the largest culprits of water misuse as cultivating such yields of crop use significant amounts of water which often ends up wasted. [1] The United States in particular wastes significant supplies of water on “cooling electrical plants, irrigation, public water supplies, industry, and livestock.” [1] The discrepancy in water usage between developed nations and less developed nations underscores how the habitants and corporations of the former take advantage of the resources at their disposal in a selfish and irresponsible nature. When it is harder to attain, water is used more sparingly. It is pertinent that the public understand the urgency of this issue. Utilizing freshwater has the potential to be sustainable but if we do not adjust the rates at which we empty our sources, a crisis for water will arise and prove to be catastrophic for the world as a whole.

An increased scarcity of usable freshwater would result in significant, economic, national and global security, public health, and environmental issues. [1] Economically, the inequality of water usage “contributes to limits on food production, rising food prices, and widening gaps between the rich and the poor in some areas.” [1] Additionally, the decrease in accessible water would in turn force countries to adopt more costly methods of pumping remote stores or adopting strategies to purify presently unusable water. The damage to infrastructure cause by sinkholes or land subsidence subsequent to over pumping would be expensive to repair or safeguard against. [1] Lack of water necessary to sustain production practices in manufacturing and agriculture could bestow great economic burden and harsh blow to the market. [1] These resulting land collapses pose additional threat to human life. A global shortage would prompt unrest domestically and internationally as groups would fight for this essential resource. [1] Exploiting the water tables lead to geological instability, but harming surface sources of freshwater would destroy important ecosystems and decrease biodiversity. [1] I believe this issue stems from the inequity of resource distribution and lack of accountability nations take for caring for these resources. Our overuse of water further underscores the socioeconomic disparity around the world as millions cannot access something that we grossly overuse every day. Each person should reassess how they use water in their daily life in order to find places where improvement can be made. The ramifications of such negligence would directly impact every aspect of human life.

In order to fix this issue, there must be a balance of practices that will solve the issue while also not doing harm somewhere else. One possible course of action would be tapping into deep aquifers. However, this solution is somewhat problematic due to the unknown geological consequences of pumping this water which studies have suggested may already be contaminated. [1] Dams are another proposed solution that have come with their own adverse effects in hand with the benefits. While this infrastructure designed to control floods can generate clean electricity and has increased the reliable available runoff, they have also disrupted communities and ecosystems. [1] According to the WWF, “about 1 out of 5 of the world’s freshwater fish and plant species are either extinct or endangered, primarily because dams and water withdrawals have sharply decreased certain river flows.” [1] Desalination has also been proposed to make use of the idle contaminated or salt water we have access to. [1] The resulting issues includes being expensive, utilizing adverse chemicals, and creating waste that couldn’t be disposed of without threatening to pollute freshwater stores. [1] Finally, water transfers are often used in places like California, but this system often results in loss of water, and increased pollution. [1] More sustainable solutions rely on promoting more efficient practices. For example, “making irrigation 10% more efficient would provide all the water necessary for domestic and industrial use in southern California.” [1] This data back my conviction that solving this issue depends more on preventing the problem than finding solutions for the problem. By adopting more conscientious practices and decreasing the global water footprint, these potentially detrimental solutions can be avoided. There are so many ways that individuals can contribute to a lessened water footprint. Simply taking shorter showers, fixing leaks in homes, thrifting rather than supporting the textile industry, and advocating against fracking and inefficient agriculture can make a significant change.

Water pollution is the other significant threat to our water supply. Pollutants can enter water sources at a single point, point source, or broadly, nonpoint source. [2] This pollution primarily originates from agricultural practices through pesticides and pollution. Waste throw into water cannot be easily broken down whether it is biodegradable or not and regardless requires oxygen and hence depletes oxygen levels that are necessary for certain organisms. [2] Solid waste in water releases chemicals rendering the water dangerous for human consumption. [2] This can create a public health crisis for those that depend on these resources. [2] Less developed countries with poor sewage system must cope with sewage waste contamination which partly contributes to why millions of people get sick from tainted water. [2] In this case, legislative regulation is particularly necessary to ensure the quality of water being consumed by citizens is safe. [2] Legislation is also crucial in preventing municipal waste from contaminating water as this is often something beyond the control of an average person. Water is a driving force of life. In the United States, citizens are ensured the right to life and having access to clean water is essential in providing that right. Perhaps there must be a limit to how much water each person gets or it should cost a due amount to o gain any excess, but nonetheless it is the role of the government to protect its people for harmful pollutants and unsafe conditions.

Word Count: 1312

Discussion Question: Does the current pandemic pose any threats to the cleanliness of our water supply?

Miller Jr, G. Tyler. Living in the environment: an introduction to environmental science. No. Ed. 19. Cengage Learning, 2017. Chapter 13.

Miller, Chapter 2.

[titoslondon-blog]

New Post has been published on Titos London

#Blog New Post has been published on http://www.titoslondon.co.uk/what-has-and-hasnt-changed-5-years-since-the-rana-plaza-disaster/

What has—and hasn’t—changed, 5 years since the Rana Plaza disaster

The 24th April 2013 started like any other day. I buzzed around the house getting ready to head into Eco-Age’s London headquarters, when I made out the word ‘Dhaka’ in a radio news report in the background. Anybody who has campaigned for a cleaner, safer fashion industry is alert to hearing the Bangladesh capital—the country is one of the world’s largest exporters of fast fashion, second only to China.

Details were still patchy—a building had collapsed, over 150 people were believed to be dead. Although Rana Plaza was reported as a multi-use complex, when I phoned my friend and fellow campaigner, British journalist Lucy Siegle, we instinctively knew it was a fashion factory. Workers interviewed from banks and shops said they noticed a crack in the building the day before and their companies sent them home. But one group was forced back into the building to continue working—the garment workers.

As the true horror emerged, our worst fears were realised. When the complex folded like a house of cards, killing 1,334 people, it exposed the true cost of our fast fashion habit. How to make sense of that terrible tragedy and the aftermath? I’ve found it almost impossible to reconcile. Rana Plaza cannot be shelved as an ‘act of god’ and, of course. neither was it deliberate. Technically the disaster qualifies as an accident, but to me and the many campaigners who challenge the fast fashion system, it was avoidable. Greed, speed, corporate irresponsibility and a business model built on exploiting the most vulnerable—lowly paid garment workers—were the root cause of the Rana Plaza collapse.

In Los Angeles, when film director Andrew Morgan saw the front page of The New York Times featuring a photo of two young boys—the same age as his own sons—desperately searching through the Rana Plaza rubble for their mother’s body, he was hit by the true cost of today’s apparel industry. “Why would two young kids be looking for their mother amid this chaos? No bomb had gone off, no earthquake…[Behind its] aspirational, fun, carefree aesthetic there was obviously some terrible hidden danger in the [fashion] industry. Immediately I needed to find out what was going on.”

Determined to unravel the $3 trillion global fashion industry, Morgan spent the next three years travelling to 30 countries collecting footage from factories, workshops, sometimes even homes, in garment industry hot spots. His 2015 documentary, The True Cost (available on Netflix) exposes the dark side of an industry that we all contribute to.

Around the crater that Rana Plaza left behind, as international news crews departed the scene, the relentless cycle of fashion clicked back into gear. Orders that couldn’t be completed at Rana Plaza were quietly transferred to one of Dhaka’s many other factories. The manufacturing army of predominantly young women reassembled. Survivors of Rana Plaza, who’d been pulled from the rubble, queued up at the gates of a new factory, traumatised but in desperate need of work.

On visits to Bangladesh I have been privileged enough to meet garment workers. More often than not, these encounters happen late in the evening as the workers stream out of the garment factories at a time when I’d be thinking about going to bed. This is all the spare time they have. At around 10pm I sit on the floor in a circle, with a dozen or so women who have been working since 7am. I learn about their lives—their migration from villages in the north where their kids are being looked after by relatives. I hear of their frustration that even after the Rana Plaza disaster, their hours remain unremittingly harsh, and their low wages and poor living conditions remain unchanged. And that’s before we even get onto the subject of whether or not they feel safe at work. They are quick to laugh despite all the hardship and very frank. “I am bored,” says a young woman. “This is a boring existence.” When I see them at work the next day, they avoid eye contact.

Those with life-changing injuries, who number over 2,500, began the fight for compensation, but in many cases progress was glacial. Over 700 orphans or at-risk children were created by Rana Plaza. The industry’s response was split into two main tracks: The Rana Plaza Arrangement—a compensation fund which brands pay into—and The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh—a five-year, legally-binding agreement between 200 brands and trade unions intended to promote a safer and healthier garment industry in Bangladesh. Some US brands decided to develop their own response known as the Alliance.

On the fifth anniversary of Rana Plaza, expect a flood of hefty self-congratulatory announcements coming from these bodies. In fact, it has already begun. “We are extremely proud of the progress we have made in just five short years,” a spokesman for the Alliance announced last month. “With all of the investments we have made in the training and empowerment of the workers themselves, factory remediation remains on schedule,” he continued. “If these gains are going to be sustained over the long-term, however, they must be owned and led locally, from within Bangladesh.” To me, this sounds like they are passing the buck.

The Accord meanwhile has been extended to run until 2021, but it’s alarming that only 60 brands have signed up for round two, down from 200. Still the message broadcast is that lessons have been learned and that factories in Dhaka are safer. But by how much? And what does less bad really mean? These are questions that have vexed the whole process and it makes me wonder—is it even possible to reform the fashion production system?

According to Siegle, the current approach simply isn’t working. “Progress has been painfully slow,” she tells me. “Research in Bangladesh by Dhaka University academics has flagged up delays and gaps in implementation from the outset.”

Siegle is also concerned that some brands have had to be taken to court to pay up. In January, $2.3 million was finally extracted from a global fashion brand (name redacted by the terms of the settlement) at The Hague to fund overdue remediation to factories. “When Rana Plaza happened it was clear a clock was ticking, but the timescale appears to have been lost and the next generation of garment workers has again been subjected to unsafe, unacceptable and in many cases illegal conditions,” she says. “It’s really hard to [communicate] that to the shopper when the Accord or Alliance says your jeans are made in a factory that could be 84 per cent safer than it was five years ago.” We should, she rightly believes, be aiming for something better.

In my own pursuit for something better, over the past year I’ve worked closely with lawyers affiliated with The Circle,Annie Lennox’s NGO dedicated to championing women’s rights, to compile a report reviewing the minimum and living wages, and the protection of workers’ rights in 14 major garment-producing countries. Our objective? To show brands they have a responsibility to treat garment workers fairly. We are now using trade law to try and implement this.

In the five years since the Rana Plaza tragedy, the industry has often claimed it’s spearheading change to ensure fashion changes forever. In reality, the required overhaul of this unsustainable and corrupt business model has in no way been achieved. While some factories provide safer working environments, they haven’t considered the fundamental right to a living wage, and vice versa.

To see the real engine of change, we need to take an outside perspective. I ask Andrew Morgan if he thinks any progress has been made five years on from the disaster that compelled him to make The True Cost. “In an industry increasingly fixated on profit at all cost, Rana Plaza was an undeniable warning that people ultimately and always pay the price for our careless consumption,” he says, “This warning, while ignored by most major fashion corporations, has ignited a new wave of activists and entrepreneurs dedicating themselves to the belief that we can and must create a more just, humane and sustainable future.” This is the true change ignited by that tragic, fateful day.

1/7 Livia Firth at the Green Carpet Fashion Awards, Italia

Image: Getty

Image: Reza Shahriar Rahman

Image: Reza Shahriar Rahman

Image: Reza Shahriar Rahman

Image: Reza Shahriar Rahman

Film still from The True Cost

Image: The True Cost

Film still from The True Cost

Image: The True Cost

The post What has—and hasn’t—changed, 5 years since the Rana Plaza disaster appeared first on VOGUE India.

[colloquiam]

 Food Insecurity and Sustainable Food Systems: Intersecting Challenges

Most Americans don’t think about where their food comes from. We’ve all heard rumors about factory farms, monoculture, and the possibility of our food having a negative impact on the environment. Furthermore, very few people talk about food deserts and how people with lower socio-economic status have less access to healthy foods. What we don’t talk about is how the modern system for food cultivation is unsustainable. People must understand the impact of sustainability and food insecurity if we are ever to resolve these issues. 

The industrialization of agriculture has allowed billions to eat. According to an article by the Harvard School of Public Health, it isn’t enough. 3 billion people across the Earth are malnourished. What’s worse, the modern system of agriculture aggravates the problem of food insecurity across the world. 60% of the world’s fishing population are overfished, 40% of the world’s land is used for agriculture and agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s fresh water use.  At this rate, future generations will not enjoy the privilege of regular meals. 

The problems associated with food insecurity are numerous. Yes, it is unpleasant to spend the night on an empty stomach. However, the long-term effects are what can truly damage society at large. Carine Deeds of the American Youth Policy Forum illustrates how this issue impacts children’s psychology. Without food children take longer to develop, they do worse in school, and have more problems with their mental health.  These problems are exacerbated in food deserts. In class, my group discussed how in the poorer areas of town, it is harder to find good healthy food. Having spent 6-months living near MLK, I distinctly remember how easy it was to buy McDonalds and how difficult it was to buy groceries. 

Experts have come up with solutions for both food security and unsustainability. According to Fiona Harvey of the Guardian, the solution could be as simple as changing our food habits. Livestock accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cows also require large plots of land to graze and therefore contribute to soil erosion. If a significant amount of people can make the switch to a plant-based diet, that would solve these problems. There is also the possibility of making our food systems more efficient. Tara Garnett highlights the possibility of government and food industry actors maximizing the efficiency of the resources we already have. This involves improving the quality of fertilizers, decreasing the emissions made by livestock by improving the food supply, increased refrigeration could be a solution to the unsustainability of our modern agricultural system. Personally, I don’t think we can solve this issue by simply decreasing demand or increasing supply. A problem as paradoxical as feeding the world in a way that does not destroy it for future generations requires a revolutionary idea that is not present in today’s world. 

On a local level, people are already taking action to bring life to food deserts. As Devita Davidson makes clear in her TedTalk, Detroiters have created urban gardens to allow locals to have access to local foods. Detroit has miles of empty city blocks. So entrepreneurs took the initiative and built farms in these areas.  In neighborhoods many would have felt unsafe in previous years are now home to farmer’s markets featuring urban art. These businesses attract customers from out of the area and employ a number of people. This solution is similar to Ron FInley’s “Gardening is Gangsta” initiative in Compton. There is a heavy contrast between the macroeconomic ways to solve unsustainability and food insecurity and the macroeconomic ways. Yes, we can look at infrastructure and improvements in technology to resolve these issues on a large scale, but the small things help as well. Human beings are extremely resourceful, these issues can be resolved if a few creative individuals can take the initiative to build a better present and future for themselves.

In conclusion, addressing the disconnection between people and their food sources, along with food insecurity and unsustainability, requires urgent action. By changing our food habits, improving efficiency, and supporting local initiatives like urban gardens, we can build a better future for all.

In conclusion, addressing the disconnection between people and their food sources, along with food insecurity and unsustainability, requires urgent action. By changing our food habits, improving efficiency, and supporting local initiatives like urban gardens, we can build a better future for all.