Oxfam Says Environmental Protection Can Alleviate Poverty

Does environmental protection reduce the well-being of low-income people? A new discussion paper from Oxfam says it’s possible to improve the health and income of people living in poverty worldwide while still making environmentally sustainable choices. However, individual environmental policies may or may not help social well-being.

Oxfam uses an infographic to show the zone of sustainability required for global well-being. The graphic is in the shape of a doughnut; the inside ring is the requirements for human health and survival, while the outside ring is the requirements for reducing environmental impact. The paper’s author, Kate Raworth, believes we can live “within the doughnut.”

A colorful doughnut. Source: stock.xchng.

Diagrams in the report show how close we are to living within this zone of sustainability today. Raworth recommends reducing food losses, improving transportation efficiency, insulating homes, and expanding women’s reproductive rights.

According to Raworth, environmental policies can be socially sustainable because the resources needed to improve the health and income of the poor, globally speaking, are much less than the resources used by the wealthy. The massive environmental impacts we face today are directly related to global disparities in wealth.

Advocating a reduced standard of living for the upper and middle classes is unlikely to win many allies in the United States. The Oxfam discussion paper has received no press coverage in the United States, according to Google News. I found the link to the paper on George Monbiot’s blog at The Guardian.

It’s reassuring to hear this “yes, we can” message amid the cries of concern over global warming.

---

If you like this blog, visit my Facebook page and Twitter feed.

Climate Change vs. Public Transit at the Boston MBTA

CommonWealth Magazine has reported the controversial funding and service cuts to Boston’s MBTA transit system hinge on an unlikely competition for dollars: snow removal vs. public transit. City leaders are concerned they will lack the resources to respond to a heavy snowfall and are considering cuts to public transit funding.

As far as I know, no one has seen the irony of this problem. Public transit reduces climate change, which is responsible for at least some of our increased snow and rain here in New England. Expanding and improving public transit should be part of our strategy for fighting climate change. In the face of increased weather risks, we should hurry to fund the MBTA and expand its routes and services.

Boston’s strategy for fighting climate change takes transit into account. The transit section of the city climate website doesn’t mention the MBTA, but the report A Climate of Progress mentions it repeatedly. Organizations like the T Riders Union have been struggling for years to improve the quality of services the MBTA provides. This fight would not be necessary if we saw the collective value of building a transit system that will outlast fluctuations in gasoline availability and price.

Why Communities Should Care about “Third Places”

At the Be the Media conference last week, I heard about “third places” for the first time. A third place is a public place where people can spend time and get to know each other. But I’d never realized third places provide a balancing effect. Third places can strengthen community ties by bringing people out of their houses and apartments.

I am typing this blog post from a location where there are no coffee shops within an easy walking distance. If I wanted to sit in a public place and type this entry, I’d have to walk for half an hour to get to the library. At the library, I can type, but I can’t talk with people.

I think our over-emphasis on the importance of being at home, in the United States, mirrors our misconception that people want to spend all of their time with their families or roommates. Other cultures see this differently. For example, the Iroquois organized their communities around a central space.

An Iroquois community with shared space in the center

I’m interested in the question of whether or not there’s an inverse relationship between the size of people’s houses and the availability of coffee shops and other public spaces. From my experience, that seems true. Coffee shops and community centers tend to show up in areas where people live in apartments. I haven’t looked up any articles about this, though.

Why does it matter to build community interaction? Networking, mutual aid, friendships, local economic development, and offline social circles can begin in these third places. Websites like Meetup.com give people the opportunity to connect through shared interests. Meetups often happen at coffee shops. Book groups, music shows and other social events also happen there.

If your community lacks meeting places, that can encourage people who seek out social and cultural events to move away. This shift could change property values, reduce business development, and make the area less attractive to people under 35.

The perception that “responsible people are at home” also affects street behavior. I notice major differences between neighborhoods where people expect foot traffic and neighborhoods where they are surprised to see people using the sidewalk.

Road trips

It’s a new year, there’s snow on the ground… and I’m living in Boston. If I develop any bad driving habits now, I have an excuse. I moved here last month, in a very rapid time frame, and am starting to explore the city. So this is a good time to blog about walking.

Back in the 20th century, I lived 10 miles from my high school and had to get there by horse-drawn carriage. Oh, sorry… that’s the wrong story line. Actually, I lived about 13 blocks from my school – which was half a mile from my martial arts class – and walked two to four miles a day.

I have a goal of walking more again, now that I’m in a larger city. Boston has at least one organization devoted to walking. Meetup.com lists 67 walking groups in this area. The Museum of Science offers a self-guided walking tour of green buildings.

A few months ago, a friend pointed me to Urban Ranger, a site that encourages people to explore – wherever they live – by walking. Prevention.com is one source for local walking routes. Google has also started including walking directions (although they’re still in beta).

Overall, the United States isn’t the most friendly place for walking. If you are living near a freeway, and that road is the main way you get to work, you probably aren’t going to walk along the margin of the road to get there – even if you only work a mile away from home.

One thing I’ve learned from marketing workshops is that people like their lives to be easy and convenient. We all use shortcuts when we make decisions. If walking becomes an easier choice to make than the alternatives – for example, the default choice for a Google Map – more people will choose it.

Although driving can be fun, walking can reduce stress and improve one’s health. Sitting in traffic can have the opposite effect. So, while I love my car, it’s staying in its parking spot now. The direct experience of walking – or biking – is much more interesting than viewing a new city from behind a windshield.