Uncertainty and choice: A reflection on World Food Day

Uncertainty and choice: A reflection on World Food Day

Budi Widianarko, Semarang | Mon, 10/17/2011

Opinion - The Jakarta Post

A | A | A |

In 2011, the most threatening food safety crisis has been the outbreak of a nasty strain of Escherichia coli that began in Europe. The crisis is clear proof that food safety is an arena full of uncertainties. And it can be forecast that we will witness more of such similar crises in the future.

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to infer what the outcome might have been had this crisis occurred in this country, where the consumption of fresh – and yet raw – fruits and vegetables is part of the eating culture. Even worse, the fruits and vegetables supply chains are still not well documented here, resulting in very limited traceability.

It was the enterohemorragic E. coli (EHEC) which shocked the European food safety system in mid-2011. The outbreak killed more than 30 persons and infected more than 3,000. The EHEC bacteria can cause a wide range of illnesses, from bloody diarrhea, and hemorrhagic colitis to renal damages leading to the life threatening conditions of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP).

The German food emergency system was branded too bureaucratic and disorganized – fragmented in each state. As a result, the process to locate the source of the infection took a long time and raised confusion about who was in charge. The EU even pressured Germany to ask for international assistance.

Naturally, Germany’s reputation as one of world’s most advanced countries was at stake. Even Der Spiegel (Aug. 6, 2011) called German government’s slow handling of the EHEC case a disgrace to the country.

In the midst of uncertainty, the German government told the citizens to avoid consuming cucumbers, lettuces and tomatoes. The announcement instantly cut vegetable sales across Europe, because of the cross-border interconnectedness of the European food supply chain. Victims were not only limited to German farmers, they also extended to farmers in other European countries.

Spanish farmers suffered the most damage after German officials prematurely accused Spanish cucumbers to be the source of the bacteria. This accusation prompted consumers to stop buying Spanish cucumbers.

As reported by Der Spiegel (Aug. 6, 2011), John Dalli, Commissioner for Health ands Consumer Policy of the EU, warned Germany of the accusation. He said that information released to the public must be proven scientifically.

In front of the European Parliament, he said: “It is crucial that national authorities don’t rush to give information on the source of infection when it’s not justified by the science. That creates fears and problems for our food producers. We must be careful not to make premature conclusions”.

Furthermore, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a European MP from Germany’s Social Democrat Party accused the German government of creating communication chaos.

From the European food safety crisis, it is clear that consumers have the right to informed choice. Without information transparency, consumers would not be able to be actively involved in a food safety system filled with uncertainty. Consumer empowerment is therefore the main pillar of food safety governance – i.e. the most recent food safety paradigm.

As food consumers, the public increasingly demands transparency because since the birth of food industry, food production processes have became longer and more complicated. Humans, as consumers, become more and more distanced physically from food production.

This complication contributed to the birth of what is called Food Control. The most popular Food Control concept right now is “the integrated farm-to-table concept” or also known as “from land to mouth”.

Informed choice as an element of the consumer awareness movement has surfaced in Indonesia.

It was started by the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) research report in 2008 that stated that 22.73 percent of 22 formula milk samples on the market were contaminated by Enterobacter sakazakii. The samples were collected in the market, from 2003 to 2006. On the basis of that information, a citizen named David ML Tobing sued IPB, the National Food and Drug Control Agency (BPOM), and the Health Ministry for not disclosing the brands of the contaminated formula milk.

In the latest development, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by IPB, BPOM and the Minister of Health related to the suit. As a consequence, those three institutions should disclose the brands of the contaminated milk. Unfortunately, so far the three institutions have failed to do so.

This failure has prevented efforts to uncover the source of the contamination. This can be seen as a violation of the precautionary principle, a pillar of food safety system. This lack of transparency shuts down consumers’ opportunity to make informed choices in the midst of risk uncertainty (see Frewer et.al, 2002).

Empowering consumers to be able to understand risk uncertainty is very important. Ideally, consumers need to be empowered so that they can select and choose safe and quality food based on sufficient knowledge (informed choice).

It could be that when the three state institutions refused to disclose the names of the contaminated baby milk brands, it assumed that the public was unable to process the information about the uncertainty of risk. This assumption is indeed typical of conservative food safety regimes, which unfortunately have been discarded by food authorities in many countries.

If the Indonesian food authority sticks to its adopted food control principles – “land to mouth”, risk analysis and transparency – it should welcome the existences of consumer groups who championed informed choice. In the modern era of food control regimes, it is not the safety certainty that is managed, but rather the risk of uncertainty. The abundance of easily available information by every individual requires the food authority – as the risk manager – to adapt.

Thompson in the editorial of the journal Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (2002) said that in the era of risk management, effective communication was a critical factor in consumer health protection. Consumers must be empowered so they can choose the best decision based on the information they have. They also need to be provided the knowledge of risk uncertainty.

Food safety authorities who only disclose good news and deny bad news will lose credibility and be abandoned by consumers. The good news that formula milk circulating in Indonesia is free of E. sakazakii, as announced by the authorized institution in early July 2011, won’t reduce consumers’ suspicions because the bad news was presented without transparency. Instead of making smart decisions, consumers are actually struggling with preconceptions.

The writer is a professor who teaches Risk Analysis and Food Safety at Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang.

Adipura scandal a slap in the face for Indonesia

The Jakarta Post | Sun, 02/06/2011 7:17 PM | Opinion

Budi Widianarko

Amid a growing global awareness of sophisticated and far-reaching environmental challenges — such as carbon footprints and climate irregularities — the Adipura award scandal (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 14, 2011) is really a big slap in the face for this country.

The high-profile pledge of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to reduce Indonesia’s carbon emissions by 26 percent by 2020 suddenly seems absurd in the light of recent revelations of bribery linked to the most celebrated environmental award. This is truly an embarrassment, since it grossly violates the fundamental ethics of care for the environment.

It was reported that the Corruption Eradication Commissions (KPK) conducted an investigation seeking evidence of alleged graft at the Environment Ministry linked to the 2010 Adipura Cleanliness Award for Bekasi, one of filthiest cities in Indonesia. The mayor of Bekasi was detained for allegedly bribing officials at the ministry to gain the award. Anyway, the Bekasi Adipura Award is by no means a unique case, since environmental activists said the award often goes to dirty and heavily polluted cities (the Post, Jan. 14, 2011).

Launched in 1984, the Adipura Cleanliness Award was once regarded as a prestigious award given to local administrations committed to keeping the environment clean. As times went by, however, the award has been losing its allure. The culprit, in this case, was the regional autonomy which has pressured local government officials to seek awards signifying their achievements. And the Adipura Award is one such awards and at the same time a political commodity to win the hearts and minds of voters and support from the central government.

The Adipura award, which was meant to honor the best environmental programs of Indonesian cities, has been twisted to become just a tradable symbol. This scandal should not be taken lightly, as it betrays the true spirit of sustainable development.

During the era of Prof. Emil Salim’s leadership at the Environment Ministry, Indonesia enjoyed a global reputation in mainstreaming environmental considerations in development. As a consequence, several of Indonesia’s environmental initiatives then become international references. The Adipura Award was, for example, launched three years ahead of the publication of the United Nations’ report Our Common Future (1987) — which is globally regarded as the birth source of the sustainable development model.
In other words, the Adipura initiative was born before the adoption of sustainable development as a new paradigm in environmental policy worldwide. So, contaminating these awards with corruptive minds is a big setback for this country’s environmental reputation.

Environmental protection in Indonesia is, in fact, now at a crossroads; one path heading toward genuine actions, and one going toward green-washing and cosmetic quick-fixes. The cosmetic approaches will only result in gimmick compliance. In this case, gimmick means a trick used for publicity purposes. Instead of contributing toward environmental betterment, a gimmick of environmental compliance is used solely to boost the political reputation of regional chiefs.

The creation of the Adipura Awards was, in fact, a promotion of environmental citizenship. Along with the increase in environmental thinking, the definition of citizenship has improved. Environmental apprehension has significantly changed people’s understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Environmental responsibilities are reflected in the way citizens care for their environment — as the core element. In this context, the Adipura Awards were intended to rate how much citizens’ care for their environment.

When we let bribery sneak into the realm of environmental responsibilities, we tolerate a new breed of environmental non-compliance, namely corruptive environmentalism. However, this does not belong in any of the three factors of environmental non-compliance forwarded by K. Hawkins (1984) in his book Enforcement and Environment, i.e. “amoral calculators” — stemming from economic calculations of cost and benefits; “political citizens” — a principled disagreement with regulations regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable; or “organizational incompetence” — failures of management, knowledge and systems.

Letting this country get trapped in this corruptive deed will destroy the true environmentalism. In the long run, falsified environmental compliance will cost this country severely, in terms of environmental destruction. This is, probably, the real root of Indonesia’s ever-increasing environmental calamity — despite of the mountainous piles of environmental awards and assessment reports.


The writer is professor of environmental toxicology at Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang(www.unika.ac.id/staff/bwidianarko)

Winding stream of e-waste

The Jakarta Post | Fri, 01/14/2011 5:16 PM | Opinion

Budi Widianarko

Reading David Pogue’s column in The Jakarta Post (Jan. 3, 2010) I found a spirit of optimism. The message is clear: The government and consumers can join forces to pressure electronic gadget manufacturers to adopt an extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle.

Pogue’s assertion is contextually right since he referred to countries where some sorts of e-waste management system, however pre-mature, have been in place. His column is, anyway, intended for US readers.

In a country with a skyrocketing trend of electronic gadgets consumption, but without e-waste management system in place, like Indonesia sharing Pogue’s optimism, would be misleading. Unlike in US and European Union (EU) countries, the e-waste stream in Indonesia is longer and winding.

Indonesia’s consumption of electronic goods is among the highest in Southeast Asia (www.tempointeraktif.com). In 2007, Indonesia consumed 4.3 millions units of TVs, while Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore put away 2.7 million, 1 million, 530,000 and 300,000 units respectively. Indonesia is also leading in refrigerator consumption in the region with 2.1 million units annually.

Import of electronic products by Indonesia during the period of January to November 2010 was 50 percent higher than in the same period in 2009, amounting to US$3.66 billion.

China is the largest electronic exporter to Indonesia with a 35 percent market share. This trend will most likely continue, particularly due to ever increasing demands of notebooks and cell phones. In 2010, shares of cell phones and notebooks were 58 percent and 26 percent of the total electronic goods imports.

Among the electronic products, cell phones are likely to experience the highest growth in consumption.

Unlike TVs, refrigerators or air-conditioner, cell phones are personal. The cell phone is also short-
lived in terms of design and performance. There is a clear tendency that the “in-service lifetime” of the cell phone is getting shorter and shorter.

Penetration of the cell phone within the population is really deep and wide — users are those who are virtually 5 years of age, elementary school students to those in their 70s. Cell phones are also widely distributed in the population regardless of the great discrepancy in income levels.

However, as Graciela Flores (Natural History Jul/Aug 2007) put it, “talk is toxic”, cell phone content has a reasonable amount and variation of toxic substance. A study by Timothy G. Townsend and colleagues from University Florida six years ago elucidated that typically a cell phone — without a battery — contains 45 percent plastic, 40 percent PCB (printed circuit board), 8 percent metal, 4 percent LCD and 3 percent magnesium plate.

Employing a special test known as the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), these researchers found metals, such as lead, copper, zinc and iron in the leachate.

They also uncovered that leachates from 38 of 53 cell phone samples tested contain lead exceeding
the toxicity characteristic (TC) limit, i.e, higher than 5 milligrams per liter.

Among these metals, lead is the most notorious. It is toxic to both humans and the environment. In humans, it has an effect on the central nervous system, immune and vascular systems, kidneys and the endocrine system. It has damaging effects on the development of children’s brains and the resulting cognitive performance.

Lead is also considered as a potent carcinogen. This metal may accumulate in the ecosystem and is toxic for microorganisms, plants and animals. Lead is widely used in electronic products, especially to attach components to the printed circuit board.

EPR, take-back or product stewardship stands for responsibility of producers throughout the entire life cycle of their products. Product stewardship or EPR for electronics is still a rather new endeavor.

In EU countries it was initiated in 2005 following the issuance of the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEED). This directive requires producers in member states to finance electronic waste take-back programs and they should also treat the collected waste.

Similarly, Japan has also enacted a take-back law to impose stewardship. Nowadays it is not strange to see consumers in EU countries and Japan to bring their old electronics to the collection points established by producers. The Japanese and EU manufacturers also take back computers and TVs, but also refrigerators, stereo equipment, and even toys.

The US, however, took a different route. Instead of mandatory, EPR in the US is voluntary. EPR was, thus, implemented only by proactive, forward looking, companies. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also formed partnerships with industry to promote safer electronics; this includes using safer chemicals.

EPR, however, can only take place in ideal circumstances. In fact, take-back will stimulate manufacturers to apply Design for the Environment (DfE), for example, to produce electronic gadgets designed for disassembly, reuse, remanufacturing or recycling.

However, EPR will not work easily in a country like Indonesia, where secondary or even tertiary and further markets for the electronic products exist. In other words, unless in an irreparable state an electronic product, say a cell phone, still has a market.

Later, after passing through several tiers of waste collectors and even flea markets, some portions of this broken cell phone will find its way to a recycling factory while some other portions will be dumped freely in the environment. So even if the recycling takes place, it will only be partial.

Under EPR, producers must develop detailed knowledge of their products and of their products’ life cycles.

This will be difficult to take place here in Indonesia, since in most cases we are not always dealing directly with the manufacturers.

In the case of a cheap cell phone from China, we are dealing with traders. The government should impose an EPR regulation to pressure major cell phone manufacturers.

But how about less “established” brands of cell phones? It is no longer a secret that by importing several thousand units of cheap cell phones from China traders, there is the privilege to label them whatever brand you like.

Will these traders care about the lifecycle of the products they sell? I doubt it. But should we let this pollution time bomb tick faster?

The writer is professor of environmental toxicology at Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang.

Climate talks and carbon solidarity

The Jakarta Post | Wed, 12/29/2010 4:40 PM | Opinion

Budi Widianarko

The subheading of Sunday’s The Jakarta Post editorial (Nov. 28, 2010) was “Is there hope on the horizon?”, which perfectly reflects the current state of global climate change discourse.

The Conference of the Parties (COP) on climate change has occurred 16 consecutive times. Never in history have countries from all over the world — large and small, developed and less developed — been so unified in recognizing the threat posed by climate change as a common challenge during the latest COP in Cancun, Mexico. But, the world was still unable to make an agreement on truly global climate action.

The current global approach to climate action is still to some extent trapped in “reductionism”, meaning the earth’s carbon-cycling capacity is treated like a tradable commodity on the global market. This clearly shows there is a problem with global leadership.

To deal with the climate challenge, the world needs a new kind of leadership, one that is capable of eliminating a wide array of frictions, like those between rich, emerging, and poor nations that have different carbon agendas; between national growth aspirations and individual rights; and between those with hedonistic and those with modest lifestyles.

At the global and local levels climate change is not a uniform process, especially in terms of causes and impacts. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by country, sector or individual varies. Likewise, different countries or segments of the population in a country experience different impacts from climate change depending on their geographical position and specific traits.

One way to measure an individual, organization or nation’s contribution to climate change is by calculating its carbon footprint. As the commonly accepted basic definition, the carbon footprint is a certain amount of gaseous emissions that are associated with human production and consumption and are related to climate change.

Recently, Hertwich and Peters in Environmental Science and Technology (volume 43, 2009) presented a new way of calculating carbon footprints in terms of tons of CO2 per person based on a single, trade-linked model of the global economy. Based on their calculations, we can see there is great variation in per capita GHGs footprints between countries in the world.

The per capita carbon footprint of East and Southeast Asian countries reveals huge gaps. Each person in Hong Kong releases 14 times more carbon than someone in Indonesia or the Philippines, while Japan, Taiwan and South Korea have about half the per capita carbon footprint than Hong Kong.

More strikingly, looking closer at contributing sectors, the population of Hong Kong spends 28 percent of their carbon footprint just on clothes.

Less developed countries in Southeast Asia like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines consume more carbon for food, almost twice those of their more developed counterparts in East Asia like Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

On the contrary, more developed East Asian countries spend two to five times more of their carbon footprint on manufactured products than the less developed counterparts in Southeast Asia.

The slow progress of concerted action to deal with climate change clearly shows how socio-economic and political barriers work to hamper problem resolution. Referring to the A-K-T-E-S-P scheme for a better environment outlined by Stephen Trudgill two decades ago: economic (E), social (S) and political (P) barriers cannot be left out, although agreement (A), knowledge (K) and technology (T) have been overcome.

The challenges posed by climate change are significant and demand strong commitment from leadership at all levels of government and society. In addition, since the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, political, social and spiritual challenges is becoming increasingly obvious, Mary Louise Flemming and her colleagues stress the importance of a “shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”.

The fight against climate change is certainly more of a problem of ethics than merely a technical obstacle. What is needed is a strong public stance by leaders. There are, of course, enormous political constraints at the national and global levels to avoid doing what is best for the planet and to leave a good legacy for the next generation.

While the discourse on climate change has occupied so much space in the local and global arena, solidarity is somewhat neglected. Countries still fail to bring a concept of solidarity to the meeting room.

The deficiency of all global summits on climate change has clearly demonstrated how countries are still absorbed by their own interests rather than seeking a mutual win-win solution.

Climate change, as the most pressing global sustainability challenge, requires a collaborative, global response. Leadership and acceptance of differentiated responsibilities must be at the heart of any future global agreement to reduce the carbon footprint.

Lord Nicholas Stern and Ian Noble endorsed three basic criteria of global action to combat climate change, effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Equity has to become the core of all decision making and the starting point for action. Wealthy countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions.

As the late Pope John Paul II put it “The challenge ... is to ensure a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization”. Climate change has confronted the global community with the challenge of building an equitable society. To achieve this, the global community has a duty to ensure solidarity. Further, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the vast spectrum of solidarity. Ecological crises in our time call for “a solidarity which embraces time and space”.

To achieve sustainability on this earth, a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity has to be supplemented with a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in the relationship between developing countries and highly industrialized countries, or between low and high carbon consuming individuals and countries. Only when the spirit of solidarity prevails will the biggest challenge to human civilization be overcome.

Paving Pathways to Sustainable Asia: Enhancing the Roles of Christian Higher Education Institutions

Keynote Presentation II

2010 ACUCA Biennial Conference & 18th General Assembly "Sustainable Development and Christian Initiative", November 1-3 2010, Keimyung University,

Daegu, Korea

Dr. Budi Widianarko, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia

Introduction

For decades, various man-made environmental problems have been threatening the sustainability of our planet. Among these environmental problems, climate change has been at the center stage of global attention. One probable explanation is that climate change is a multi-dimensional environmental problem with manifold impacts.

Many parts of Asia have been hit by many natural disasters and environmental calamities, which are believed by many as the impact of climate change. Irregularities, such as extreme weather, disruption of seasonal weather patterns, floods, erosion, landslides and drought, have taken place in many areas in the region. In Asia, as in other parts of the globe, climate change is listed as one of the challenges to environmental sustainability. Climate change has been recognized as one of five challenges to the environmental sustainability of Asia, in addition to pressure on land, habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity, water scarcity and water pollution and air pollution (Mishra, 2002). In their most recent report Krechowicz & Fernando (2009) also identified climate change as a key environmental trend associated with considerable risks to Asia’s emerging countries – India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam – on top of deforestation, water scarcity, food security, energy security, air pollution, urbanization and population growth. In 2010-2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has focused its efforts on six priorities, including climate change, resource efficiency, disasters and conflicts, environmental governance, harmful substances and hazardous waste, as well as ecosystem management (UNEP, 2010). In short, climate change has been collectively recognized as a threatening phenomenon across all levels, from local to global.

Both at the global and local levels, however, climate change is not a uniform process, especially in terms of causes and impacts. The contribution of green house gases (GHGs) emission by countries, sectors, or individuals varies. Likewise, different countries or segments of the population in one country face different impacts, depending on their geographical position and particular features.

Despite these great variations, we may notice that never in history have countries from all over the world - large and small, developed and less developed - been so unified in recognizing the threat posed by climate change as a common challenge. Climate change has become a buzzword used in various conversation settings, from elementary school classrooms to world leaders conferences.

Countries have also been aware of the need for a concerted action to deal with the challenges of climate change. However, the agreement on problem recognition does not necessarily lead to a consensus on how to deal with the problem. The slow progress of concerted action to deal with climate change clearly shows how socio-economic and political barriers work perfectly in hampering problem resolution. As described in the A-K-T-E-S-P scheme for a better environment by Trudgill (1990), economic (E), social (S) and political (P) barriers cannot be left out, although three other barriers, i.e. agreement (A), knowledge (K) and technology (T) have unraveled.

Actions required to tackle climate change (climate action) is a hard challenge to sustainability because it is complex and still evolving. The current approach to climate action is still, to some extent, trapped into a “reductionism”, i.e. regarding the earth’s carbon-cycling capacity as a tradable commodity on the global market (Moosa, 2008). Along this line, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Copenhagen accord and other related negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have resolved this problem. This clearly shows that there is a problem of global leadership.

To deal with climate challenge, the world needs a new kind of leadership, one which is capable of eliminating a wide array of frictions, e.g. between rich, emerging, and poor nations which have different carbon agendas; between national growth aspiration and individual rights; between individuals with hedonistic and those with modest lifestyles. This new kind of leadership requires a specific character. Since climate change is one of the most significant faults produced by human civilization, a concerted action by nations and communities is needed to deal with it. However, the existing climate related initiatives at the global level still seem far from perfect. One character which has a potential to transform the current leadership into a new leadership - capable of creating a concerted action against climate change - is solidarity. This paper attempts to describe why solidarity is a core value of the new leadership which is expected to escape from the trap of climate change deadlock, and to explore the possible role of Christian universities in cultivating solidarity.

Carbon Footprint: A Sustainability Challenge

Anthropogenic or manmade climate change, or simply known as climate change has become a catchword, not only among scientists, but also in the conversation of lay persons across communities and nations. In his popular book, “Collapse How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive” Diamond (2006) affirmed climate change as one of 12 processes of ecological suicide which might bring the world into collapse. Out of these 12 processes, there are 8 which have been attributed to the collapse of past societies. These processes include deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and the increased per capita impact of people. Ironically, humans do not seem to have learnt from the past. Furthermore, Diamond (2006) asserted that instead of reducing the number of these suicidal processes, modern civilization yields four additional processes, i.e. the buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, full human utilization of the earth’s photosynthetic capacity, and human-related climate change.

It has become common knowledge that the uncontrollable emission of green house gases (GHGs), i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) by various human activities are the culprits of climate change. Over the last 250 years, human activities such as deforestation, burning of fossil fuels and intensive agriculture have significantly elevated concentrations of GHGs. In 2005, concentrations of CO2 (379 parts per million, ppm) and CH4 (1774 parts per billion, ppb) in the atmosphere have exceeded the natural range of the last 6500 years (IPCC, 2007). In its fourth evaluation report (2007), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that temperature rise since the mid of twentieth century is very likely due to the elevated level of GHGs concentrations. In the same report, the IPCC also showed that the increased emission of GHGs have been associated with an average global temperature rise of 0.3°C-0.6°C since the end of the nineteenth century; at the end of twenty first century the emission of GHGs will further induce global average temperature rises of 1.4°C-5.8°C.

The rise in average global temperature has been projected to induce a range of environmental and health impacts, such as water scarcity as well as water destructive redundancy (e.g. flood), ecosystems destruction, degradation of coastal areas, health problems and food shortages. Food production will be impacted particularly by the shift in the planting season. Sea water rise will threaten human settlements and agricultural activities along coastal areas, leading to numerous economic and health problems. Increased frequency of extreme weather events will also threaten agriculture and food production, as well as human health. Actually, the impact of temperature rise has already taken place. According to a recent report by Oxfam International (Schuemer-Cross & Taylor, 2009), between 1998 and 2007 on average 250 million people were affected by “natural” disasters each year, and 98 % of them were victims of climate-related disasters, such as droughts and floods. The same report also projected that by 2015 the average number of victims will reach an annual rate of 375 million.

One way to measure an individual, organization or nation’s contribution to climate change is by calculating its “carbon footprint”. It has become a widely used term and concept in the discourse on global climate change. The term carbon footprint is rooted in the concept of an ecological footprint. The Ecological Footprint concept was established by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees at the University of British Columbia in the early 1990’s. The Ecological Footprint calculation is designed to embody the human consumption of biological resources and the generation of waste in terms of a utilized ecosystem area, as compared to the biosphere’s productive capacity in a given year (Ewing et al., 2008).

As the commonly accepted basic definition, the carbon footprint stands for a certain amount of gaseous emissions that are relevant to climate change and associated with human production or consumption activities (Wiedmann & Minx, 2008). While its baseline definition is widely accepted, so far there is no consensus on how to quantify a carbon footprint - ranging from direct CO2 emissions to full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions - and no standard unit of measurement agreed upon. Without undervaluing its limitation, however, the carbon footprint accounting can now serve as a tool for identification and comparison of carbon contribution by individuals, organizations or nations (see e.g. Table 1). Recently, Hertwich & Peters (2009) invented a new calculation method which is based on a single, trade-linked model of the global economy. The model is claimed to offer the most consistent global comparison across countries currently available.

Table 1. Per Capita GHG Footprint of a Selection of Asian Countries in 2001

(From Hertwich & Peters, 2009)

	Hong Kong	Japan	Taiwan	Korea	Thailand	Indonesia	Philippines
Footprint [tCO2e/p]*	29.0	13.8	11,3	9.2	3,2	1.9	1,9
Domestic Share	17%	68%	68%	75%	78%	89%	76%
Population(million)	7.2	126.8	22.3	47.6	62.8	213.3	79.9
Construction	13%	14%	10%	11%	11%	8%	8%
Shelter	8%	12%	17%	15%	12%	20%	13%
Food	7%	11%	14%	12%	21%	28%	36%
Clothing	28%	4%	2%	3%	4%	1%	1%
Manufactured products	20%	15%	16%	12%	8%	4%	5%
Mobility	11%	22%	21%	32%	25%	22%	17%
Service	9%	18%	15%	19%	17%	16%	17%
Trade	7%	8%	7%	7%	2%	1%	4%

*) tCO2e/p = tons of CO2 equivalent per capita

Based on Hertwich & Peters (2009) calculation, we can see that there is a great variation of per capita GHGs footprint between countries in Asia (Table 1). The Per capita carbon footprint of Hong Kong, for example, is about 14 times higher than those of Indonesia and the Philippines. Globally, carbon dioxide emissions per person are also very unequal and the gap is widening. According to the concept of equitable ecological space the “per capita right to emit carbon dioxide” for a sustainable carbon future is estimated at 1.8 tons CO2 (MacGregor & Vorley, 2006). This estimate represents the estimated absorptive capacity of natural carbon sinks, both on land and at sea. Similarly, a closer look at each country will probably reveal a highly unequal distribution of carbon footprints between segments of the population. So, carbon footprint gaps can, indeed, be found between countries, as well as between the segments of a population within a country, i.e. due to economic status, geographical settlements or occupations.

Solidarity and Leadership

Since climate change is one of the most significant faults produced by human civilization, it is natural that humans have to mitigate its effects. A concerted action by nations and communities is therefore needed to deal with it. However, the existing climate related initiatives at the global level still seem far from perfect. Countries still fail to bring the notion of solidarity into the meeting room. The deficiency of the Copenhagen Accord, the latest global summit on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution.

While the discourse on climate change has occupied so much space in both the local and global arena, there is one dimension, however, which has been left behind. The solidarity dimension is somewhat neglected in the discourse. At the global level, climate change is not a uniform process, especially in terms of causes and impacts. The contribution to the carbon footprint by countries varies. Likewise, different countries will face different impacts, depending on their geographical position and features. Ironically, countries with larger carbon footprints do not necessarily face a higher impact.

As pointed out by Sweeney (2008) humans must bear the consequences of growing pressures on our natural resource base. Income per capita is growing sharply in the most densely populated countries, particularly China and India. Higher income implies higher consumption; higher consumption implies higher production; and higher production leads to increased utilization of natural resources. Sweeney (2008) further asserted that a set of tools and approaches are required to curb the carbon footprint in developed countries, including setting carbon prices through a tax and/or trade system, technological innovation, regulatory frameworks, utility based programs, local land use planning, infrastructure design, and corporate government, NGO and civil society leadership, and most importantly changes in behavior and ethics.

None of the tools and approaches suggested by Sweeney (2008) is novel or new. What would be new is a public stance by leaders of nations and programs to consummate the goal of making new nations which are not dependent on fossil fuels and the political entanglements that seem to surrounds the world ‘s fossil fuels based economy (see e.g. Johnson, 2005). There are, of course, enormous political constraints, both at national and global levels to avoid doing the best for the planet and our legacy to the next generation. Johnson (2005) suggested that instead of overcoming these barriers through political muscle, there is a need for visionary leadership that can care enough about the welfare of future generations (Johnson, 2005).

This global sustainability challenge requires a collaborative, global response. Leadership and acceptance of differentiated responsibilities must be at the heart of any future global agreement to reduce the carbon footprint. According to Stern & Noble (2008) developed countries must lead the way in taking action: by the adoption of ambitious targets for the reduction of their GHGs emissions; promoting technological innovation to mitigate the effects of climate change; supporting programs to stop deforestation; encouraging effective market mechanisms, and honoring their aid commitments to the developing countries.

Stern & Noble (2008) endorsed three basic criteria of global action to combat climate change, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. In this case, equity has to become the heart of all decision making, as the starting point for taking action it is already inequitable. Wealthy countries are responsible for the bulk of past emissions. The same holds true for wealthy families or individuals in a country. They tend to release more GHGs than those of lower economic status. The deficiency of the Copenhagen Accord, the latest global summit on climate change, has clearly demonstrated how countries are still imprisoned by their own interests, rather than seeking for a mutual win-win solution. The fight against climate change is more a problem of ethics rather than merely a technical obstacle.

Rigoberta Menchu, a Nobel Peace Laureate from Guatemala, once said that “Nothing is larger than life coexistence” (see Widianarko, 2007). Life-coexistence is also easily found in many Christian teachings. If coexistence is the most important aspect of life, it is imperative to promote the value of solidarity in facing the issue of climate change. Clearly, the current attitude of countries toward the common challenge of climate change tends to deny the most important aspect of life, i.e. life coexistence.

Roles of Christian Higher Education

The challenges posed by climate change are significant and demand strong commitment and leadership at all levels of government and society. In addition to that, since the interconnectedness of the environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges is becoming increasingly obvious, Flemming (2009) stresses the importance of the so called, “shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community”. Flemming (2009) further asserted that such a vision can be found in the Earth Charter which provides sixteen “interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and trans-national institutions is to be guided and assessed”.

Principle 14 of the Earth Charter emphasizes the need to “integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life” (Hessel, 2002. According to Flemming (2009) education is critical in the promotion of sustainable development and improving the capacity of people to address environmental and developmental issues. Education is also critical in achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior coherent with sustainable development, and for effective public participation in decision-making. As a special case, universities are “an integral part of the global economy, and since they prepare most of the professionals who develop, manage and teach in society’s public, private and non-government institutions, they are uniquely positioned to influence the direction we choose to take as a society” (The Talloires Declaration 1990 - Association of University Leaders for A Sustainable Future quoted in Flemming, 2009). The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future also stated that a bold agenda to make sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic practice is required for higher education institutions to succeed in the twenty first century. Further, Flemming (2009) stated that for universities and colleges to achieve their significant role for sustainability they can focus on four interconnected elements, i.e. institutional policy and commitment, operational activities, teaching and research, and professional development/ extension activities.

If peaceful and equitable life coexistence is the ultimate vision of the global community, education, Christian Higher Education, in particular, has a deep moral obligation to promote the value of solidarity throughout its agenda. Solidarity is certainly not a new concept in Christian teaching. Pope John Paul II in his address, “From the Justice of Each Comes Peace for All” for the celebration of World Day of Peace, 1 January 1998 wrote

“...........We are on the threshold of a new era which is the bearer of great hopes and disturbing questions. What will be the effect of the changes taking place? Will everyone be able to take advantage of a global market? Will everyone at last have a chance to enjoy peace? Will relations between States become more equitable, or will economic competition and rivalries between peoples and nations lead humanity towards a situation of even greater instability?

For a more equitable society and a more stable peace in a world on the way to globalization, it is an urgent task of the International Organizations to help promote a sense of responsibility for the common good. But to achieve this we must never lose sight of the human person, who must be at the centre of every social project. Only thus will the United Nations become a "family of nations", in accordance with its original mandate of "promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom". This is the path for building a world community based on "mutual trust, mutual support and sincere respect". The challenge, in short, is to ensure a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization. This is a clear duty in justice, with serious moral implications in the organization of the economic, social, cultural and political life of nations.”

Climate change has confronted the global community with the challenge of building an equitable society. To achieve an equitable society we cannot rely only on international organizations, although they have managed to promote a sense of responsibility for the common good among nations. The global community has a duty to ensure “a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization”.

More recently, Pope Benedict XVI in his address, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation” for the celebration of World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010 wrote

“..A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries; for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family. Universal solidarity represents a benefit as well as a duty. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community”. Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future. In addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly industrialized countries: “the international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future”. The ecological crisis shows the urgency of a solidarity which embraces time and space. It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries. Yet the less developed countries, and emerging countries in particular, are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation, for the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies is incumbent upon all. This would be accomplished more easily if self-interest played a lesser role in the granting of aid and the sharing of knowledge and cleaner technologies."

In the above address Pope Benedict XVI emphasized the wide spectrum nature of solidarity. Ecological crisis in our time has called for, “a solidarity which embraces time and space”. To achieve earth sustainability, a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity has to be supplemented with a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly industrialized countries, or between high and low carbon consuming individuals or countries. Pope Benedict XVI also stated that the less developed and emerging countries are not exempt from their own responsibilities, i.e. the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies.

Since solidarity is one of the core values of Christianity, Christian universities and colleges have, naturally, a pivotal role in breaking up the climate change deadlock. Christian higher learning institutions have to become the promoters of Christian-Eco-Solidarity values. In the context of ACUCA, the promotion of Christian-Eco-Solidarity values can be genuinely reinforced through concerted actions involving member universities representing countries with different carbon footprints. ACUCA’s collective initiatives - such as joint research, joint curriculum development, student camps, service learning, as well as student and faculty exchanges - are potential vehicles to disseminate and cultivate Christian-Eco-Solidarity values in member institutions.

References

Benedict XVI (2010). If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for The Celebration of The World Day of Peace, 1 January 2010.

Diamond, J. (2006). Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Pengin Books. London.

Ewing B., S. Goldfinger, M. Wackernagel, M. Stechbart, S. M. Rizk, A. Reed & J. Kitzes (2008). The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008. Global Footprint Network. Oakland.

Fleming, M.L. (2009). Ecological sustainability: What role for public health education? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6: 2028-2040.

Hertwich, E.G. & G.P. Peters (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 6414-6420.

Hessel, D.T. (2002). The Earth Charter: Guide to a sustainable way of life. In Biodiversity Project: Ethics for A Small Planet. Biodiversity Project. Madison.

IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

John Paul II (1998). From the justice of each comes peace for all. Message of His Holiness Pope John Paul II for The Celebration of The World Day of Peace, 1 January 1998.