Sunday, July 30, 2023

 

‘Please Hate the Terrorist State’: Trans People and Allies Speak Up Against a Transphobic Law in Russia

 

Activists post statements from trans people in response to repressive ban on gender transitioning.

 

By Daria Dergacheva

On July 14, Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, approved a new law that prohibits gender reassignment surgery, marking another setback for LGBTQ+ rights within the country. As the BBC reports,  the bill, which also includes a ban on changing genders in official documents, received the Duma’s endorsement on Friday. Typically, these measures are expected to pass through the upper house and gain the final approval of President Vladimir Putin, by July 19.

Vyacheslav Volodin, the Speaker of the Duma, announced that the bill aims to “safeguard” citizens. Activists and transgender individuals have voiced desperate concerns regarding the potential consequences of this legislation. The Moscow Times reports that ,since the bill’s introduction in May, many people have rushed to begin the gender reassignment process due to fears that this opportunity may soon be revoked.

Critics of the law warn that it could exacerbate the already alarmingly high rates of suicide and suicide attempts among transgender people. Furthermore, they argue that it might give rise to an underground market for surgeries and medications. Yan Dvorkin, the leader of Center-T, an organization that supports transgender and non-binary individuals in Russia, stated that many people feel that their prospects for the future are collapsing, leading to a significant increase in suicidal messages.

A group of anonymous activists who call themselves The Ural Queer Republic, from the Russian city of Ekaterinburg, announced an action and launched Twitter and Telegram channels before the approval of the law. They gathered statements from trans people from Russia in an anonymous form, published them on Twitter, and then printed them out and posted them on walls of buildings in Ekaterinburg during the night before the ban.




This is what they stated as their goal:

Our project aims to provide a secure and anonymous platform for the transgender community to voice their thoughts and experiences. In countries like Russia, where repressive laws and societal pressures restrict open expression, many individuals find themselves unable to speak up, even within their close circles. However, on T*witter, you can speak freely without fear.

 

We believe that the right to vote, the right to control our own bodies, and the right to shape our own futures are being unjustly stripped away from us. Our voices are being silenced, but we refuse to stay quiet. We are determined to amplify our voices, and we need your help.

 

We are gathering the voices of trans* people and their allies, and all you have to do is answer a simple question: “What do you think about all this?” You can share your thoughts by filling out a Google form.

 

This platform is a safe space where you can express yourself freely. Allow yourself to be angry, as your words can convey the pain, fear, and powerlessness that these oppressive laws inflict upon our community. You can also offer support to other trans* individuals, reach out to allies, and share your hopes for a better future.

 

All the responses we receive will be posted on a dedicated Twitter account, and some of them will be chosen for an offline artistic action. The greater the number of responses we receive, the stronger our collective message will become. It will be increasingly difficult to silence, cover up, or erase our voices. We will make it evident how many of us there are.

Your comments will remain unedited, allowing you to express whatever you want to convey, whether it’s political, profane, or personal. The only limitation is the maximum text size of 280 characters, in line with Twitter’s format.

 

Rest assured, your safety is our utmost priority. We prioritize your privacy by not collecting any personal data whatsoever. Our questionnaire guarantees complete anonymity, and you are not required to have any registered accounts to participate. If you share a device with others, we recommend using private mode for added security.

 

As for the impact of our statements, we cannot predict with certainty. However, there are moments when people simply need to speak out because silence becomes unbearable. Sometimes, the act of speaking itself holds immense value, regardless of immediate outcomes.



Their Twitter account now has 166 anonymous tweets from trans people and their supporters in Russia.  The activists, as promised, printed some of them and pasted them on the city’s walls during the night of July 13.

After they posted numerous posters with quotes from trans people on the streets of Ekaterinburg, the activists wrote on their Telegram channel:

During the night between the second to the third reading [of the law], Ekaterinburg spoke with the voices of trans people. From the walls of houses and fences to bus stops and iconic landmarks, the entire city, including residential areas, became a canvas for our message. We printed numerous unaltered posts from Twitter, alongside our manifesto.

The cities we live in are our home, and in our home we want to express our thoughts freely. In our home, we can experience this pain and be healed because hope lives on in us and in our surroundings.

 

Ural Queer Republic dedicates this night to all transgender people whose lives are endangered. It is a night for those who are going through challenging times, as well as for those whose lives are about to change.

 

Remember, this darkness is not everlasting. It has an end, and light awaits us beyond it.

As the Moscow Times reported, since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the escalating domestic repressions, transgender people have been among the hundreds of thousands of Russians who have chosen to leave their country. However, seeking refuge abroad comes with its own set of challenges and risks, not to mention the financial burdens it entails.

The number one cause for suicide is untreated depression. Depression is treatable and suicide is preventable. You can get help from confidential support lines for the suicidal and those in emotional crisis. Visit Befrienders.org to find a suicide prevention helpline in your country.

Previously Published on globalvoices.org with Creative Commons License

 

Wildfires Have Long-Term Health Effects, Both Direct and Indirect, Several Studies Show

 

A recent systematic review of studies on long-term impacts of wildfires finds they are associated with mental health disorders, COVID-19 complications, death from heart disease, shorter height in children and poorer overall health.

By Naseem S. Miller

From the U.S. to Canada to Greece, wildfires have been wreaking havoc across the globe in recent months, burning land, forests and homes, and killing or displacing wildlife and humans. The smoke can affect people near and far from the fires.

Wildfire smoke is a mix of gases and fine particles from burning trees, plants, buildings, and other material, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The smoke contains small pollutants known as particle matter, or PM 2.5, which are 30 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. These particles can go deep into the lungs and reach the bloodstream.

Exposure to wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs, cause inflammation, alter immune function, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections, including COVID-19, according to the CDC. In June, the agency issued an advisory to health professionals about the acute signs and symptoms of smoke exposure, as smoke from wildfires in Canada affected air quality in parts of U.S.

Moreover, wildfires can upend people’s lives, leading to mental stress.

Several studies have established the short-term health effects of wildfire exposure, finding an association with higher risk of death and respiratory and cardiovascular complications. A 2022 study, published in Science of the Total Environment, finds the Australian bushfires in 2019 and 2020 were associated with a 6% increase in emergency department visits for respiratory diseases and 10% increase for cardiovascular diseases.

But there’s still a dearth of population-based high-quality evidence on the long-term health effects of wildfires, according to the authors of “Long-term impacts of non-occupational wildfire exposure on human health: A systematic review,” published in Environmental Pollution in March 2023.

The authors review 36 academic studies, mostly from Australia, Canada and the U.S., which were published between 1987 and 2022. The majority focus on health impacts one to two years after exposure to a wildfire. More than half of the studies focus on mental health. The authors note that most of the included studies were from developed countries with limited data.

Study findings

The analysis finds in the long term, wildfires and wildfire smoke are associated with mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder, respiratory diseases and COVID-19 complicationsdeath from heart disease and poorer general health.

Among the findings:

There was no significant long-term association between wildfire exposure and child mortality and hospitalization due to respiratory diseases.

Several studies showed an association between wildfire exposure and increased risk of flu rates, asthma in children and different types of cancer.

One study from Israel found higher hospitalization rates two years after wildfire exposure compared with the year before the wildfire occurred. In addition, people with underlying health conditions, such as overweight or obesity, diabetes and heart disease, and lower income had higher rates of hospitalizations than those without underlying health conditions and higher income.

Two studies found that wildfire exposure is associated with shorter height in children, especially when moms were exposed to the smoke during the pregnancy. One study suggests that may be due to the impact of wildfire smoke on pregnant moms’ respiratory health.

The authors of the systematic review add that current evidence, although limited, suggests people with certain vulnerabilities — including smoking, lower levels of education, obesity, older age, underlying diseases and lower income — might be at higher risk of negative long-term effects of wildfire exposure.

All 21 studies that assessed the association between wildfire exposure and mental health found negative impacts in adults. Those associations include anger problems, possible post-traumatic stress disorderdepression and heavy drinking. Most studies found a higher rate of PTSD symptoms after exposure to wildfires.

There are several reasons why wildfires have long-term impacts on health, the authors of the systematic review explain.

  • Direct impact, including long-term injuries, and even death, resulting from burns and inhalation of smoke during the fires.
  • Indirect impact via air pollution and mental stress resulting from economic loss, casualties and forced evacuations.
  • Damage at the cellular and molecular level. Air pollution, including smoke, might cause DNA damage, decrease the viability of cells and result in cell death. The smoke can also lead to inflammation in the body and the brain.

“The population-based high-quality evidence with quantitative analysis on this topic is still limited,” they write. “Given the long-term projections of increasing frequency of wildfires and length of the wildfire season due to climate change, the anticipated increase in the frequency and acreage burned by prescribed fires, and the increasing aging population that is more vulnerable to suffer from long-term impacts of wildfire exposure, more scientific evidence is urgently needed to determine long-term impacts of wildfire exposure on human health.”

Wildfires and climate change

Compared with 2001 to 2004, nearly 60% of countries experienced an increased number of days that people were exposed to very or extremely high fire risk and 72% of countries had increased human wildfire exposure during 2017 to 2020, the study authors note.

The intensity and frequency of wildfires is increasing in the U.S. and worldwide. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there were 20 wildfires that caused more than $1 billion in damage between 1980 and 2021 in the U.S. Sixteen of those have occurred since 2000, according to data from the National Interagency Fire Center.

Wildfires are among the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change indictors, which show the causes and effects of climate change. Wildfires occur naturally and play a role in maintaining the ecosystems in forests and grasslands, but too many wildfires can throw off the nature’s balance.

Wildfire season has gotten longer and there are more wildfires affecting more areas. This increase is due to several factors, including warmer springs, longer dry summers and drier soil and vegetation, according to the EPA.

Funding

The study was funded by the Australian Research Council and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The authors declared no competing financial interests.

How to access this study

Environmental Pollution is published by Elsevier, a Dutch publishing company specializing in scientific research. This study is behind Elsevier’s paywall, but there are several ways you can access it, including emailing the senior author, Shanshan Li. We also have a list of academic journals and publishing companies that offer journalists access to their content upon request.

Additional research


Resources to track wildfires and air quality

 

This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

 

New Tree Tech: AI, Drones, Satellites and Sensors Give Reforestation a Boost

 

Current forest restoration efforts fall far short of international goals, and behind the hype lies a string of failed projects and unintended environmental consequences that have left a bad taste in the mouths of many investors, politicians and conservationists. Projects are often expensive and labor-intensive.

By Claire Asher

  • This four-part Mongabay mini-series examines the latest technological solutions to help tree-planting projects achieve scale and long-term efficiency. Using these innovative approaches could be vital for meeting international targets to repair degraded ecosystems, sequester carbon, and restore biodiversity.
  • Current forest restoration efforts fall far short of international goals, and behind the hype lies a string of failed projects and unintended environmental consequences that have left a bad taste in the mouths of many investors, politicians and conservationists. Projects are often expensive and labor-intensive.
  • Applying cutting-edge technology to the problem is helping: Advanced computer modeling and machine learning can aid tree-planting initiatives in identifying a diverse set of native species best able to thrive in unique local conditions, today and in a warming future.
  • Drones are revolutionizing large-scale tree planting, especially in remote and inaccessible locations. Once trees are planted, satellite-based and on-site sensors can help monitor young forests — offering long-term scrutiny and protection often missing from traditional reforestation initiatives, and at a lower cost.

This story is the first article of a four-part Mongabay mini-series exploring in-depth the latest technological solutions to support reforestation. Read Part TwoPart Three and Part Four.

“Plant a tree!” has become a go-to, nature-based solution and green rallying cry, proclaimed in the mainstream media by climate-conscious celebrities, corporations and influencers eager to promote mega-planting projects. These reforestation efforts often bring out thousands of volunteers — shovels in hand — to abandoned cow pastures and other degraded landscapes to disperse millions of small saplings.

Regardless of whether these initiatives are sincere attempts at conservation or cynical greenwashing exercises, tree planting is often portrayed as a silver bullet to mitigate climate change — sometimes allowing polluting industries to continue with business as usual by counting proposed reforestation as carbon offsets.

Tree planting is usually marketed for its carbon storage benefits and for mitigating rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions. But these projects often have other valid and laudable environmental and social goals, such as regulating water cycles and preventing desertification, protecting against soil erosion, restoring biodiversity, and alleviating poverty.

The oft-cited goal is to plant a trillion trees by 2050, which global NGO Plant-for-the-Planet says could capture up to a trillion metric tons of CO2. Likewise, the Bonn Challenge, launched in 2011 by global wildlife conservation authority the IUCN, has accrued pledges to restore 210 million hectares (519 million acres) from governments and NGOs. Reforestation in Brazil and many other forest-rich countries has even become key to these countries meeting their Paris climate agreement carbon commitments.

Consequently, billions of dollars have been committed to tree-planting efforts by governments, private companies and NGOs worldwide.

But long after the volunteer planters go home, out of sight of TV cameras, many forest restoration efforts fall far short of their lofty goals. Behind the hype lies a string of failed projects and unintended consequences that have left a bad taste in the mouths of investors, politicians and some environmentalists. Though many projects never report their results, the few estimates that exist suggest anywhere between 20 and 100% of seeds and seedlings planted die.

Poor planning, execution and inadequate monitoring contribute to reforestation failures. Often, underlying causes of already occurring local deforestation aren’t addressed by the projects, dooming newly planted forest to the same fate. Or the trees planted are the wrong ones and not well suited to the habitat. In other cases, a lack of long-term monitoring or community support means that newly planted trees are neglected or cleared.

The challenge, then, is to match rising demand for restoration with ecologically sound, scalable reforestation methods — solutions that better address the many technical, environmental and social challenges that have so far prevented tree planting from living up to its promise.

Planting with, not against, nature

Tree-planting initiatives face myriad hurdles. For starters, tree planting isn’t always the right approach. “Many people think restoration means the mass planting of trees. [But] this is not how we achieve global restoration,” explains Tom Crowther, an ecologist at ETH Zürich in Switzerland.

Ecologists recommend natural forest regeneration as a first priority, where degraded land is allowed to recover on its own without a single seed or seedling being planted.

Of course, some forests are unlikely to recover on their own. “Soil degradation or invasive species can limit this natural regeneration process,” says Crowther. In these cases, active interventions — such as soil treatments, rewilding animals, or microbiome inoculations — may be used to help sites restore naturally. Also, if there are no standing forests nearby to seed regrowth, then tree planting can lend a helping hand.

But tree planters need to plan with nature in mind: carefully selecting native species able to thrive in local conditions.

The wrong tree species planted in the wrong place can do more harm than good. For example, non-native species planted in drought-prone regions can exacerbate water scarcity, and forests planted in grassland ecosystems can actually reduce carbon sequestration and increase air temperature. Plantation forests, too, are a problem; they lack biodiversity and are more prone to disease and fire.

Choosing multiple native species, each with different functional roles, is crucial to creating balanced, resilient, long-lasting ecosystems. “Successful restoration is never the mass plantation of monocultures,” Crowther notes.

Right tree, right place

Clearly, such in-depth planning can’t be haphazard. Instead, conservationists need to gather complex statistics and feed that data into sophisticated computer models to understand the environmental niche of a particular species, and determine precisely where that niche exists in a given degraded landscape.

Advances in artificial intelligence have lately allowed scientists to boost the accuracy of these computer models, using machine learning to perform detailed analyses of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of ecological niches for future climate scenarios.

But much more data on the physiology and ecology of different tree species — especially tropical trees and others that have historically been understudied — is needed to help scientists home in on the right species for each ecosystem.

Read more about these “right tree, right place” models in Part 2 of this series.

Smart planting

Once appropriate species have been identified for a location, the next challenge is planting those trees, either as seeds or saplings, and giving them the best possible start in life.

Most often in the past, this has involved large numbers of people going out with shovels to plant saplings one by one — an inspiring photo op, but extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. Tree planting at scale has proven difficult, but new technologies are helping make the task far easier, faster and more effective.

“Scale is the biggest challenge to restoration and reforestation projects worldwide,” says Charlotte Mills, chief ecologist at AirSeed Technologies in Australia.

Seed-sowing drones can autonomously drop seeds in precise locations, especially at remote and difficult-to-access sites where volunteers are unavailable. The seeds can even be prepackaged in custom-designed pods containing just the right nutrients for a plant as it starts out.

Advances in “swarm” robotics mean that many drones can work together simultaneously, supervised by a single pilot. This kind of one-to-many approach will be essential to scaling up restoration projects to meet global reforestation and climate targets.

Read more about drone seeding in Part 3 of this series.

In it for the long haul

The final step in the restoration process, one all too often forgotten amid the enthusiasm of big reforestation projects, is monitoring of the growing trees long after they’re planted.

“I think a lot of the time that’s what’s missing, because it’s not just planting trees, but it’s really helping them get established,” says Cynthia Gerlein-Safdi, an ecohydrologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Without ongoing monitoring, accompanied by responsive long-term support, new seedlings are left to fend for themselves, having little defense against disease, fire and illegal harvesting. Without monitoring, scientists also lose a valuable feedback opportunity, failing to collect ongoing data that can turn mistakes into more effective and resilient future projects.

One reason so few reforestation projects include monitoring is that the traditional way of doing the work — sending people out to assess the health of trees — is incredibly time-consuming and labor-intensive.

Trees can take years, even decades, to mature, so conducting this type of field monitoring for a large plot of land from first planting through to mature forest is prohibitively expensive.

Satellites can help solve the monitoring problem by providing extensive large-scale data sets over time on the success or failure of reforested sites. The latest satellites are kitted out with high-resolution cameras, laser scanners and other sensors that help researchers understand how trees are faring. More detailed data can be gathered by drones fitted with sensors and flown over growing forests.

Perhaps the ultimate solution to forest monitoring, however, is to attach sensors to the trees themselves. That’s already being done, using QR codes, GPS trackers, and distributed sensor networks strapped to tree trunks. Many more high-tech methods are springing up to improve real-time data gathering and facilitate remote, long-term observation of new forests in detail.

Read more about high-tech monitoring in Part 4 of this series.

Making forests work for everyone

Not all reforestation solutions are high-tech. Local knowledge and long-term local support are crucial to successful restorations.

“Restoration means finding the solutions that make healthy biodiversity the economic choice for local people,” says Crowther. “When nature becomes the economic choice for people, you cannot stop [forests] from growing across the landscape.”

Well-designed tree-planting projects that meet ecological needs and that are developed in partnership with local communities can reap dividends for everyone for decades to come.

“Human life and the health of our environment are intertwined,” says Mills. “Through our social impact projects, we are seeing firsthand how working on restoration can contribute to the well-being of a community.”

This reliance on the buy-in of local people didn’t always occur in the past, with top-down restoration mega-projects sometimes forced on traditional or Indigenous communities without their consultation.

While high-tech solutions can save time, work and money, they can’t do the job alone. Local people need to be engaged as full participants in reforestation projects from the start, bringing benefits to their livelihoods, lifestyle and recreation.

Protect, restore, replant — cut emissions

While a huge amount of excitement and high finance have powered global tree-planting efforts lately, there’s a far better, far more efficient approach that is all too rarely considered: Preventing deforestation in the first place.

An estimated 15 billion trees are cut down each year, cancelling out much of the hard work being put into reforestation and restoration. Protecting existing forest tracts is a cheaper and quicker solution for storing carbon and maintaining biodiversity.

Taken together, this triad of forest-focused approaches — halting deforestation, helping degraded ecosystems recover naturally, and planting trees in an efficient way — could have a major impact on the climate crisis.

However, these techniques must also go hand in hand with drastically curtailing fossil fuel production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic warming, which could kill off forests and release stored carbon on a massive scale.

“We have to stop emitting and we have to get the trees in the ground. We need both halves of this equation,” says Raymond Menard, founder of U.S. biotech company Spades.

Planting trees is often hyped as a quick fix to the climate and environmental crises, but the reality is more complex. While the recent scale of investment in planting is heartening, those efforts can’t generate significant returns — sequestering carbon, boosting ecosystem services, and conserving biodiversity — unless the latest technologies offer strong evidence-based planning, coupled with a long-term commitment to preserving ecosystems and local communities.

High rates of project failure are discouraging some investors, causing them to question whether tree planting is worthwhile. But companies and governments need to invest more in tree planting, not less, to curb climate change, Menard believes. “The cheapest tree you can grow is the one that lives. The one that dies, that’s a total loss.”

This post was previously published on news.mongabay.com and under a Creative Commons license CC BY-ND 4.

***

 

Our Circular Future: “We Don’t Want to See the Circular Economy Become a New Marketing Campaign”

 

The evolution of our digitally connected world has moved at a frenetic pace of consumption with little regard for the life cycle of digital devices.

 

By Leila Nachawati and Maja Romano

Translated by: Laura Pérez Carrara

The evolution of our digitally connected world has moved at a frenetic pace of consumption with little regard for the life cycle of digital devices. The resulting exacerbation of an already tenuous climate crisis reveals the urgent need for significant transformation. “We need to radically improve our relationship with nature, and that requires rethinking decisions and reorganising many processes.” This quote is taken from A guide to the circular economy of digital devices, published by APC. In this context, education is essential to ensure that climate justice is central to how we develop, use and dispose of technology.

In this fourth part of the series on Our Circular Future, Plácido Silva, of APC member organisation Colnodo, tells us about good and bad e-waste management practices in Colombia and their impact on education.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In your case study, you presented achievements but also challenges in e-waste management. Tell us about the current situation. Have conditions worsened or improved?

Our work covers rural areas that are far from Bogotá and with which contact is not always easy. The digital divide in which Colnodo works is wide and deep, but we continue to make progress both in bringing connectivity to these remote areas, which have not been considered profitable by large providers, and in education-related initiatives. The Computadores para Educar (Computers for Education) project continues to move forward in its efforts to close the technology gap by fostering innovation. Today we are at a ratio of four students per computer.

We are currently receiving more support from industries, including from the company PCSHEK, which collects electrical and electronic equipment and sees whether it can be recycled and delivered to the community. This whole process is improving quality of life for children.

Based on your experience, how do you see the future of circular economies?

In the case of Colombia we are witnessing quite a lot of momentum in this kind of economy. In its development plan, the new government stresses the importance of fostering the circular economy and green growth.

The National Association of Industrial Operators is engaged in these efforts, which it views as an opportunity for business development and sustainability processes. This has resulted in a strengthening of material recycling companies, especially those that recycle electrical and electronic equipment.

More specifically, what priorities would you highlight, in your local setting, in that effort toward building a circular future?

A crucial issue identified has to do with plastic polymers. A treaty is currently being negotiated on pollution caused by toxic substances introduced in polymers, which are materials that are hazardous for human health and the environment. These substances undermine the circular economy by making it toxic.

With the aim of addressing these risks, Colombia’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development published the document “Technical guidelines for handling and managing plastic materials recovered from WEEE and dismantled vehicles”. These guidelines provide practical tools and reference material for the value chain responsible for managing recycled waste, in particular for those that recycle waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and offer alternatives for closing their cycle. This is critical for supporting the economic sustainability of recycling processes in Colombia.

Tell us about good practices. What policies or regulations would you highlight as positive or encouraging examples in the case of Colombia?

In the field of electronic waste, the government has been working for years on regulating parts of the process, from separation at the source to computer delivery.

Also, as consumers we have learned about and adapted ourselves to this process, following the necessary steps and respecting the designated delivery places, being responsible with the environment and human health… This is so with electrical and electronic waste, but also with packaging and other contaminating products. And there is a differentiated responsibility that people are assuming, with everyone playing their part.

What about the challenges and difficulties? What bad practices, policies or regulations would you highlight?

How can we go about developing a pollution-free circular economy? That is a key question. The circular economy is gaining followers because it allows us to improve production systems, increase prosperity, and cut down raw material demand, but we also need to reduce health and environmental risks. We need to train people working in this economy so they can identify the more contaminating products and remove them from the recycling chain.

The circular economy boom also reminds me in a way of another boom that we saw in the 1970s, with the concept of “total quality” coined by Japanese companies. It became a marketing mantra that was repeated over and over but was never translated into good practices. We do not want to see the same thing happen with the circular economy, with it all being reduced to a marketing campaign.

That is a real risk faced by the circular economy: the risk of becoming one of those trendy projects that upon review reveals poor results because they failed to involve all the variables and the only thing that mattered was the market image. This approach, sometimes referred to as “greenwashing”, promotes a green image without making any substantial changes or achieving significant results. That is not what we are aiming for or what the planet needs.

Going back to the guide, what uses do you think it has? What would you like it to expand on in future editions?

An issue that I would very much like to see it deal with in greater depth has to do with mutual learning and enhancement networks. The guide should serve as a basis for adopting and implementing solutions in certain places around the world by drawing on successful experiences in other places. In Colnodo’s case, we are working with, among others, the Media Awareness and Justice Initiative (MAJI), also a member of the APC network, which has a lot of experience in the use of digital technologies and data gathering for environmental protection in Nigeria. We have to avoid duplicating efforts or reinventing the wheel and we need to share learning experiences among Africa, Latin America… That is something that benefits the community as a whole.

Our Circular Future series

Further reading: APC’s Guide to the circular economy of digital devices describes the concepts and processes of circularity and summarises the key challenges and opportunities, including for policy advocacy.

Previously Published on apc.org with Creative Commons License

***

 

Extremists Want to Ban Discussing Their Abortion Bans

 

Sensing just how unpopular their agenda is, anti-choice extremists are attacking reporters for calling their abortion bans “bans.”

By Jim Hightower

Unfortunately, it’s 1984 again in America.

Not the year. The book. George Orwell’s classic novel tells of a far-right totalitarian clique that uses “newspeak” and “doublethink” to impose their rigid, anti-democratic doctrine on society.

Their regime held power through mind control — they had a “Ministry of Truth” for perverting language and manipulating facts, while their “Thought Police” enforced ideological purity and suppressed dissent.

Thirty-nine years later, here comes a clique of theocratic extremists in our country using Orwellian manipulation in its crusade to take control over every woman’s personal reproductive rights.

Having seized the Supreme Court and practically the entire Republican Party, these present-day autocrats are now demanding that state and national lawmakers enforce the group’s ultimate dictate: A total ban on abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

To their amazement, however, the great majority of Americans — including many Republican voters — think abortion ought to be generally available, with each woman deciding what’s best for her. Moreover, the idea of Big Brother imposing a federal ban is massively unpopular.

No problem, say today’s Orwellian newspeakers, we’ll just ban the word “ban” from our PR campaigns. Thus their harsh abortion ban has magically morphed linguistically into a “pro-life plan.” There — feel better?

Doubling down on their propaganda ploy, the abortion truth twisters are also plotting to ban reporters from using what one called “the big ban word.” Anti-abortion agents are now barraging news outlets with warnings that any use of that verb will be considered proof of political bias.

Sure enough, rather than risk right-wing fury, some scaredy-cat reporters are already caving in, meekly describing bans as “restrictions on procedures.” How nice — a kinder, gentler tyranny!

To keep up with the 2023 version of Orwell’s Thought Police, follow journalist Jessica Valenti’s diligent tracking of anti-abortion trickery at Jessica.substack.com.

 

Previously Published on otherwords.org with Creative Commons License