Zero Waste Day is lovely, but what is sustainability was elsewhere?

Apparently yesterday was "International Zero Waste Day". I was an environmentalist even before the word. I grew up in a family where nothing was thrown away, everything was "make do and mend", we lived by "waste not, want not" without even knowing it existed. We "recycled" and "upcycled" even before any of this became a fad. And even at AUB, I used to speak of all such topics way before any of this reached media and hype.

The reason though I speak of all of this today is because apparently yesterday was "International Zero Waste Day". I saw a nice segment from Spinney's - here. But it shocked me. It pretends people waste food massively. First, it ignores the ongoing crisis since 2020 where poverty have soared to almost 80% of the population (extreme poverty at 60%) and these are not just "numbers". People look in garbage containers in broad daylight.

The other thing is assumes is that people all go to supermarkets to get their food. Do you know how I get my fruits and vegetables? There is a van that passes by weekly or bi-weekly and it stops all along the village and it sells its different products. His name is Zakaria if you must know. Do people care if an apple has a small dent on it or a lettuce is not hunky dory? No they do not. Once more, the idea that everyone flocks to giant supermarkets to get their fruits and vegetables is not applicable.

Do people waste food? Not as much as one thinks at this point. Just to be clear, no, the majority of the Lebanese population does not have a degree in circularity and environmental studies. But they do have - at least since the crisis broke and devaluation (now estimated at 128%) hit - is a sense that nothing is to to be wasted. 

I spoke extensively about the "Middle Class" (here, as an example) and how it ought to be reshaped and re-labeled and reformed. And there is no shame in that. But again, where I am - that's a village, which - yes - indicative of how people purchase or behave. As I said, one does not need a university degree or major environmental theories for "sustainability" to happen. It could be, simply, a way of life to many.

Climate activism is now down to stunts.

Italy's Ultima Generazione (the last generation) have done it again. After gluing their hands on the Botticelli apparently without ruining the artwork itself as they only glued their hands on the glass (here) now they have glued their hands again on the base of the sculpture Laocoön and His Sons - in the Vatican museum.

In a statement Ultima Generazione (which had banners saying "ultima generazione no gas no carbone" in both "actions") said " “As witnesses of a crisis ignored for decades, we have chosen to draw attention to our message by drawing close to the figure of Laocoön, the seer who suffered extreme repression for having tried to warn his fellow citizens of an impending catastrophe, there will be no open museums, no art, no beauty in a world plagued by the climate and ecological emergency. Drought, floods, fires, pollution and scarcity of resources will take over if radical choices are not made in this regard.”

Add this to Gustav Martner handing back his Cannes Lions award (here) because he had previously won it working for Volkswagen, and well, I do sincerely think that environmental activism is now down to gimmicks and stunts. Sure, there are people (here's looking at you staunch republicans in the US) who deny that the climate is changing despite it happening under our noses.

You know that Andy Warhol saying "in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes", except that between all the stunts happening simultaneously, and what's with everyone vying for our attention at the same time, and everything happening in different sectors and fields (did you know one in three children in Tigray in Ethiopia is malnourished due to war?), the "15 minutes" have dwindled to 15 seconds.

We barely skim through the headlines. Here's a confession, for someone who is an avid reader (my library is about a thousand books strong) who does nothing but read and analyze all day, I have not - repeat, not - read any article about Ukraine and the war there since it started. Am I suffering any direct effects of the war? I think I am - it seems wheat is not reaching us because of this (though with all the machinations and back-deals on high echelons of Lebanese authorities I can never be sure of that).

So why am I not reading about Ukraine? Because in the echelon of problems and issues I face it barely scratches the surface. I keep reading "provocative" titles such as "the horror of being in Bucha" and whereas I sympathize, I also know that atrocities just as bad are happening in Gaza, Palestine. I do read more about Gaza mind you, but again not as before, because once more, I am drowning in problems and eventually I end up truly stretching the limits of my empathy.

In an over-saturated world, our span limit is decreasing and stunts get much less eyeballs and interest than they used to. And yet, the world is full of more and more gimmicks and stunts.

Botticelli: Sacrificing cultural heritage for gimmicks

Botticelli - Primarvera

Before I start this post let me tell you that I was one to speak about environment and the heating of the planet long before it was fashionable to do so. My whole lifestyle is too "green". Still, there are areas which are of major debate to me.

So it seems environmental activists have glued their hands on Botticelli's Primavera painting in the Uffizi gallery in Italy. International media mentioned the activists, their mission, and their cause. Mission accomplished? Well, here's where the debate comes.

Ruining cultural heritage - and I am sure Botticelli's Primavera ranks as one - is no laughing matter. 

Sadly this is how the communication world is being run these days. Gimmicks, leading to eyeballs on social media, and on to the next one. Little or no strategy behind anything. Basically this is what is called Clicktivism/Slacktivism as opposed to activism.

Don't believe me? Think back of the #bringourgirlsback campaign. Remember the furor? Remember how much it trended online? Remember how everyone who was anyone either reshared it or retweeted it or re-whatever it? The result? Negligible.

Look I do not want to be nasty, and I suppose everyone who reads this blog knows at this point that I have tremendous respect for Tahaab Rais and his work, but I also wonder how his film about the 47 years of electricity problems in Lebanon will impact daily life (see here). 

As we drown in a world of "grand actions" and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility - which turned out to be a hypocrite act - see here) I really wonder where we are going in terms of communication. Because grand, shocking, media-stealing actions are now a dime-a-dozen. The world is full of them and basically we just look at them, then look away. 

Everything is done for the here and now. For the fleeting eyeballs on social media. For that - not even - 15 minutes of fame (these days if you make it to 15 minutes then you must be Kim Kardashian in some latex suit). 

And then what?

And then the world is left impoverished because Botticelli's Primavera will now require restoration.

Gustav Martner just returned his Cannes Lions - yes, but what does it mean? UPDATE

Interesting, Gustav Martner who - according to his Linkedin profile - works as head of creative (Nordics) at Greenpeace just returned his Cannes Lions awards which he won in 2007 for an ad for Volkswagen (he actually crashed the opening ceremony). My research led me to this ad as the winner in question (here). Mr. Martner even had a lovely "No Awards On A Dead Planet" banner with him as he crashed the stage.

His main gripe is with ads about cars using fossil fuel. Which according to new laws are to be banned by 2035 as per the European Union. Just the fact that am writing this means that Martner managed to stir the conversation.

Being very very eco-friendly even before the word, I can understand his gripe.

Yes, but now what?

Someone on Linkedin wondered how Martner managed to travel from Sweden to Cannes and still uses a smart cellphone (here) all while being anti-fossil fuels (presumably Martner travelled by plane, which, interestingly uses fossil fuels). Someone else chimed in that "it is not up to him to come up with answers" (here). So perhaps Martner's main aim was just to protest then.

But is protesting for the sake of protesting worth it?

I know it seems I am defending the use of fossil fuels, I am not. I am just trying to comprehend how Martner's return of his Cannes Lions Awards can have a ripple effect (except clearing space on his mantle). Kind reminder, John Lennon returned his MBE award in 1969 which he was awarded by the Queen in 1965 so Martner is not alone in this league, at the time Lennon was protesting Britain's involvement in the "Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam, and against Cold Turkey slipping down the charts" (source) - for information about Biafra please go here. Well, Biafra no longer exists but I am not sure how much Lennon's involvement had anything to do with it.

So whereas today many of us are talking about Martner's act (or antics?), I wonder what his award returning (and show crashing) repercussions will be on a wider scale if there will be any.

Also, remember the saying (which I used in my own ad by the way - see here), "awards are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later ever a**hole gets one". I am not implying Martner is an a**hole just to be clear however.

UPDATE:

Gustav Martner just answered direct via a Linkedin comment:

Just a note: No, I did not go by plane to Cannes. I co-shared a electric car with 3 other activists and drove from Sweden. However - focusing on individual consumption instead of the big issue (which in this case is the billion dollar ad industry and the even bigger fossil industry) is a greenwashing technique mentioned by the IPCC as a huge distraction when it comes to make the planet better for all of us. Yes, it is a complex issue and we have to look at different angles - and obviously you can't drive from Japan to Cannes Lions etc. Cheers!

What we speak of when we talk about global warming

Still from an awareness ad by Babel agency about plastics in the blood

A friend of mine contacted me lately, and considering that I started my career as an agriculture engineer, he had some questions regarding two cedar trees he planted around 15 meters apart with a small brick-stoned alley in between the two. I gently tried to explain to him that by now, the roots of the two cedar trees would be so heavily entangled under the soil there'd be no way to move one of them.

Did you know a chewing gum takes 500 years to decompose?

Am sure you're thinking, "what is Tarek ranting at now?"

Here's the idea, the two elements above are interlinked. How?

Let me tell you how: since I have been living in a village since 2010, I can tell you this story. During the last years of his life, my uncle who is also my next door neighbor, developed a severe case of OCD. When we were rearranging the house in 2003 he would repeatedly accuse the workers and the architect of trespassing on his land. So much we had to install a woven iron wire between the two neighboring lands to appease him. Prior to passing away, he planted a lemon tree, and his idea was that it would be on his land. Two weekends ago I was talking to his son, my cousin, across the famous iron wire, turn out not only half the tree has gone into my land from above the white painted iron wire, but a branch has specifically entered my back patio from one of the holes of the said wire. My cousin asked me "does the tree bother you, do I cut it off from your side?"

My answer is what will wrap all this ranting into one neat piece "forget it, nature will do what it will go with or without our permission".

And this is the point that people do not understand about global warming. 500 years for a chewing gum to decompose is basically nothing in the time of earth (now of course, scientists estimated earth to be 4,5 billion years old, if you are a creationist it would dwindle down to 6000 years, but let's stick to scientific facts here). 

Morale of the story: the earth, the species (current or extinct), the geology, the layers, the ecosystems (whether we understand their construct or not), they will adjust themselves. But it is the homo sapiens (insert sitcom Friends joke about them being "people" here) who are problematic.

In fact the whole issue about global warming, the half a degree increase of temperature, the carbon emissions, and that is how we - as a species are going to react to that. Already micro and nano plastics have been found in human blood, plastics are found in the most remote regions under the sea.

I have said it before, inside every act of generosity there is a selfish element (it has been proven psychologically), so by caring for the oceans, by living a minimalist lifestyle, by not purchasing new items, by using thrifting, by not using plastic straws at restaurants (remember this fad?), by avoiding single-use plastics, we are not just caring for the environment.

No, scratch that, we are not caring for the environment. We are caring for ourselves.