Is it really that easy to save the world? That was the title in an article of Marie Claire that suggested internet users to contribute in their own way to the environment. First of all, funds can be raised for many causes. We’ve seen the Goodsearch engine donating 50% of its advertising revenue to charity, we’ve also seen all those social networking websites creating groups throughout which, people can donate money for different causes. Another interesting point is that those websites also feed us with news from the globe concerning any environmental disasters or news in general. They make people aware of situations they might have not heard of and also encourage them to help. An example is myspace that aims to make a difference and puts users in touch with various campaigns, charities and social causes they are interested in. The exact same thing takes place in facebook in which its members can find out what Greenpeace is up to next, they can log on to a forum or leave comments or even come to contact with other people to start organising a world-changing event, and so on.

Maybe there isn’t such a thing as saving the world that easily, but at least, along with governments, NGOs and corporations, the internet is becoming really responsible towards the society and its problems targeting users of all ages.

Did you watch the documentary  presented by Leonardo Di Caprio last night? I decided for my dissertation to conduct a research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) towards the environment and I found that show rather interesting and informative. I think it’s really important to create awareness on problems that directly affect our lives. Can you imagine that in the middle of the century it is predicted there will be about 150 million refugees from those areas with the highest temperatures? And can you imagine that the worst case scenario for earth is to become like Mars? A desert with no oxygen to support any kind of creatures. What are we going to do about it? I’m not sure myself whether this situation can be reversed; maybe it’s too late, but things can definitely get better for our planet if radical measures will be taken. Governments and NGOs have already started doing what they think can help this difficult condition in which people put themselves into. What needs to be done is for publics to be aware of what is going on. Any individual action can contribute for the wider good of the environment. For instance the energy we use all the time, or the way we drive, etc. If we are environmentally responsible as a whole, maybe we can save the earth before it’s too late. What one of the experts on this matter said in the documentary was that “people can never get enough of what they don’t actually need”. I mean…let’s think about it…why would we spend so much on what we don’t need and why our consumerism has no limits at all? And why all that when we know how much damage we cause? For our sake we should start caring more about the environment and to be more responsible and conscious on our choices. 

Here’s a video from YouTube with Leonardo Di Caprio taking about the documentary and its scope and quotes from the experts that took part on it.

Nowadays people are better informed about hybrid cars and that could lead to a new dynamic market. Environmental issues are in the focus of concern and that is shown in the activities of many companies around the world. Motor industry is one of those and seeks to produce and sell ‘green’ products. Experts have been trying for decades to create a car design that would pollute less than the compatible ones and now, we are talking about ‘clean’ cars. They are supposed to benefit the ‘economizing’ of fuel and CO2 emissions.

But how is this perceived by the consumers? And how this clean side of the car, is the one that will motivate people to buy a hybrid when they could as well buy a less expensive compatible car? 

Eco-driving is a way to promote hybrid cars by suggesting a smart way of driving that contributes to the decrease of fuels and CO2’s emissions, which are the main reasons for the global warming phenomenon and needless to say it also promotes a ‘driving safely’ message.

Last year, America set a record in the sales of hybrid cars. The following video shows why there’s such a demand…

I recently read an article of Melchett Peter; of the Soil Association, in the Green Pages of The Independent about organic farming and its contributions to the environment. I thought it was interesting and it would be worth sharing some of his views with you.

Organic farming was introduced,60 years ago, by scientists and farmers, who had set as a long-term goal the development of a more sustainable way of producing food. They had  and continue to have the support of the Governement, which believes that organic farming has transparent environmental benefits as it’s considered to be better for wildlife, lower pollution from sprays, it produces fewer dangerous wastes and less carbon dioxide. As we can tell from the above, it contributes to the issue of climate changes since, for instance, we are all aware of the carbon dioxide’s effect on the atmosphere or how wastes pollute the environment.

The Sustainable Development Commission is also on organic’s farming side. They stated that organic certification represents the ‘gold standard’ for sustainable food production, which takes us back to that long-term goal set 60 years ago.

Thus, I believe it would be good to give organic food a chance since it’s not just about the food itself-which by the way is at the same quality as non-organic food- but its production process as well that contributes to the environment, which we have been exhausting on a daily basis mostly during the last century.

The Nargis cyclone in Burma!!!

The number of victims keeps rising with 22.500 dead so far and who knows how many more? The State Department’s Minister of the country reported that 41.000 people are missing and that victims must be more by far, since census hasn’t yet taken place in certain villages that have been influenced the most by the cyclone.

The humanistic organization Save the Children evaluated that victims could be up to 50.000. The organization has shown its concern by acquiring 500 employees in Burma to offer food and other products to 30.000 citizens of the five areas with the greatest disasters.

National assistance for the victims is more than welcome, as the Minister stated, but representatives will have to negotiate with the current status quo of the country in order to gain entrance permit into Burma.

It’s really sad when I come to realize the one disaster follows the other. First it was the Tsunami, now this…who knows what’s next to come?

Even if the climate changes’ consequences are expected to become more noticeable in the poles, scientists report that it’s possible to also cause a greater threat for the species that live in the tropical zones. Tropical species are used to live under small temperature ranges, thus, according to a published analysis in a weekly edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they might not be able to face even variabilities of a few degrees. Until today, the scientists’ priority has been the research of the climate changes’ influence on species in the poles, for instance the polar bear. Those animals though, seem to be used to those changes of temperature, in contrast to those that live in the tropical zones.

I’ve been coming across articles on Unilever using palm oil from Indonesian rainforests for a while now. Greenpeace started a war against that act as the biota of the ecological system is threatened. Along with the climate changes, what we don’t need is less green and extinction of animal species. Three companies are on Greenpeace’s side; Lexisw PR, JCPR and Ogilvy that will hopefully push Unilever to stop using palm oil. There is evidence indicating that the brand Dove of Unilever make extent use of it for its products causing damages to the rainforests of Indonesia. Lets hope Greenpeace meets its cause and Unilever is finally stopped.