SCHOOL OF CARING
Learning at Brockwood Park is based on ecology and a sense of the sacred.
THE DAY AT Brockwood Park School begins with ten minutes of silence. All sixty students and thirty staff gather at 8.00am in the school's octagonal assembly hall to share the quiet moments. Silence plays an important part in the school day. Further moments of quiet are held before classes, meetings and other activities.
The school, which occupies an eighteenth-century house and several outbuildings set in forty acres in the Hampshire countryside, was set up in 1969 by the philosopher and educationalist J. Krishnamurti. Brockwood is one of a handful of schools established by him round the world, each with its own structure and role.
Brockwood is an international school, fully residential, catering for students from fourteen to nineteen years of age. They come from thirty different countries, and the mix of nationalities is kept deliberately broad.
Brockwood only takes older teenagers partly because of its aim of creating a small supportive community where the students learn to take responsibility for themselves and others, and where they feel sufficiently secure to engage in a serious exploration of issues that concern young people, such as fear, identity, sexuality and death.
Between the moments of silence, Brockwood is a lively, vibrant place. Students study a range of subjects, from languages to physics and fine art, with music particularly popular. Krishnamurti spoke about two streams of learning - one concerned with the accumulation of knowledge and skills necessary to live and make a living in the world, and the other to do with "the understanding with sensitivity and intelligence of the whole problem of living; the whole structure of human existence". Brockwood aims to ensure that the two streams flow in harmony.
Meanwhile, Brockwood attempts to implement two of Krishnamurti's other founding principles: that it should encourage a sense of the sacred - not in the sense of formalised religion, but in being open to what is beyond the limits of thought - and being close to nature, and learning to observe and care for the Earth.
Brockwood is blessed with being surrounded by glorious English countryside - fields, woods and rolling hills, and, right by the school building, an extended grove of exotic trees and shrubs. Brockwood also has a large organic vegetable garden - the school is vegetarian - and it puts much time and effort into growing fresh food to meet its needs.
All students take the course called Care for the Earth - a ninety-minute session a week where students study ecological and environmental principles, but where most activity is out of doors, either planting and caring for their own small garden plots, or in projects that the students devise for themselves, such as extending the grove, raising owls, or building shelters out of natural materials.
Just recently, three students have been converting an old storeroom into an 'eco kitchen' in a project sponsored by the Millennium Awards Commission and the Young People's Trust for the Environment. The students won a grant of £10,000 for their proposal for the kitchen, which uses solar panels for water heating and photovoltaic cells to generate electricity. They have built the cupboards out of recycled teak desktops, and the worktops out of wood from a cherry tree that had fallen in the grounds. They hope to supply the gas cooker with methane or ethanol generated on site some time in the future.
"The project has given me a lot of experience in things such as conservation and design, but also in things like how to apply for grants," says Peter Spence, one of the students who is studying geography, art and English literature.
CARE FOR THE environment extends to the school buildings themselves. Brockwood doesn't employ any cleaners - instead a half-hour per day is devoted to the cleaning and tidying of the school, with all members of the community taking part.
Some students have been so inspired by the study and experience of the natural environment that they have gone on to devote their lives to environmental activities. Suprabha Seshan came to Brockwood from a Krishnamurti school in India at the age of seventeen. She was already interested in ecology when she arrived, "but my interest in nature deepened while I was at Brockwood - there was a lot of space to explore it, and support from staff who are passionate about the natural world," she says.
After travelling and working on a number of environmental projects around the world, Seshan went back to India to work at the Gurukula Botanical Sanctuary in the tropical forests of Kerala where she is now the education and research co-ordinator. "But for me it began at Brockwood where I experienced an opening of the senses, and learnt the importance of being out in the wild," she says. Seshan maintains her links to Brockwood, and to other Krishnamurti projects in India, and the Sanctuary has become part of the Brockwood network.
Around seventy per cent of Brockwood students go on to higher education, both in the UK and in their home countries. Although the school does not make academic results its priority, many students achieve good grades, while in other cases students who have not achieved the required grades for certain courses have been able to persuade universities that the self-reliance, maturity and independence of thought they have learnt at Brockwood make them good candidates for college success.
Of Brockwood's 1,200 or so graduates over the past thirty-five years a significant proportion have gone into healthcare (either mainstream or complementary), education, and the performing and fine arts. Fewer have ended up as scientists, and still fewer have made their fortune in big business.
Krishnamurti believed that if through education young people could discover their talents and what they enjoyed doing, they would avoid much of the conflict and depression that can torment adult life.
Brockwood offers such opportunity. As former student Ashvin Kumar says, "Brockwood is a school where the arts are as important as the sciences, and where planting a tree is as important as solving an equation."
For further information tel: 01962 771 744 or visit www.brockwood.org.uk.
Clive Davidson is a freelance journalist whose son spent two and a half years at Brockwood.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Monday, 24 November 2008
Ecoliteracy: EE, ESD, EfS, Earth Education - Ivan Fukuoka
Introduction
The root cause of global environmental problems can be traced to a large extent to the currently dominant neoliberal industrial-capitalistic ideology, its derivative the neoclassical economic system and its cult of managerialism. Central to this belief is the [obsolete] assumption of unlimited economic growth driven by consumerism and consumption is possible. However, we must remember that centrally planned socialist or communist and "semi-socialist" state economic systems like China and Russia are also equally responsible for the destruction of their respective local/regional environments too.
The trouble with maintaining growth-economy that relies endlessly on converting natural resources faster than its regeneration is that it is not possible on two counts – first, the planet has limited reserves of natural resources and second, the Earth's growing population demands have surpassed the regenerative capacity of the planet (Wackernagel (2002) in Brown, 2006, p.6). This unsustainable practice is further exacerbated by modern industrial society education system as schools and universities continue to teach neoclassical [i.e.growth-economy] rather than steady-state or ecological economics to students.
The clarion [economic] call here is to live within the means of our ecological regenerative interests [i.e. sustainable] and not on the principal reserves of ecological capital [i.e.unsustainable]. In financial term this situation is call a debt which is clearly not a sustainable way to live on a finite planet.
The clarion [economic] call here is to live within the means of our ecological regenerative interests [i.e. sustainable] and not on the principal reserves of ecological capital [i.e.unsustainable]. In financial term this situation is call a debt which is clearly not a sustainable way to live on a finite planet.
Further examination revealed that the underlying causes of unsustainable activities are usually unaddressed or ignored social problems (i.e. inequality, poverty, injustice etc). It is a systemic [human] problem of values and vision, of motive and meaning as well as of ethics and ideologies – these are the real root of environmental problems. Ecological Footprint proponent Professor William Rees put it this way, ‘…the “environmental crisis” is less an environmental and technical problem than it is a behavioral and social one’ (Rees, 1996, p.xi). To which he concluded that ‘it can be resolved only with the help of behavioral and social solutions’ (ibid.).
As the ‘environmental crisis’ alarm continues ringing the public (led by academics, scientists, radical educators and activists) are awaken and became conscious of the underlying cause of our environmental problems. A quick look at today’s news and magazines will display the planet-wide ecological destruction as scientific reports and studies from almost every parts of the world confirmed that the ‘environmental crisis’ is not only continuing but progressively worsening (Sachs,1996, p.243). Some with unprecedented direct/indirect local, national/regional and global consequences for human like climate change, food/water shortages, dwindling oil reserves etc. The planet-wide reality is this, unlimited conversion of natural resources or ecological capital (i.e. forests, oceans, fauna and flora including indigenous civilisations) into commodities for trades and consumption will have adverse ecological effects on the whole planet ecosystems. And this may interfere seriously with the provision of free ecological services such as fresh air, water availability, agreeable climate etc.
Environmental education (EE) particularly Education for Sustainability (EfS) and its many variants (i.e. Education for Sustainable Living, Education for Sustainable Future etc.) are instrumental in transmitting the concepts, values and principles of planetary ecological sustainability into public consciousness. When the transmission is successful and understood and formed strong ecological worldview then the next step would be the implementation or practice of this worldview so that the goal of achieving ecologically sustainable society is possible. However, we must understand that education cannot achieve this goal alone - it must work in cooperation and in synergy with other transformative agents of [social and cultural]change who shared similar goal in all walks of life.
The context: Sustainable Development is Qualitative Improvement
Before we proceed, I would like to mention about the two types of ‘sustainable development’ approach. The first approach is the ‘flexible’ sustainable development approach of the ‘Brundtland Report’ (WCED, 1987) which was endorsed during the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED, 1992) and later co-opted by pro-growth neoliberal forces in the second Earth Summit (WSSD, 2002), Johannesburg, South Africa. This approach has been subject to much controversy and criticism by ecocentric leaning groups and supporters. They argued about its proximity with pro-growth/status-quo proponents which are part of the problem.
And the second type is the ‘genuine’ sustainable development approach which calls for the reduction of [economic] growth to achieve a ‘steady-state-economy’ through ecologically sustainable development pathway. This school of thought is supported by scholars and thinkers from the Club of Rome with their report Limits to Growth (Meadows et al.) and by those inspired by the ideals of E.F. Schumacher’s book Small is Beautiful. Thus sustainable development becomes the arena for two contesting worldviews of sustainability – the pro-growth technocentrism and the pro-development ecocentrism. These two perspectives are identified by Turner (1988) as ‘...the sustainable growth and the sustainable development modes of thinking’ (Turner in J.Fien and T.Trainer, 1993, p.30).
Consumerism popularised through various media and powered by global transnational corporations created an almost homogenised model of economic aspiration. This condition is particularly true for many third world countries with access to ‘western’ culture and is well represented by the ‘American Dream’. As observed by Carley and Spapen: “The consumption patterns represented by the American dream, encouraged by global marketing, television and advertising, condition social and economic aspiration of people and households around the world” (Carley and Spapens, 1998, p.29). Hence, prolonging the cycle of consumption and consequently further depleting the world’s finite resources.
UNSW's academic Dr Ted Trainer remind us that ‘...the core problems in our economy derive from the fact that it is a free enterprise or free market system. Participants are free to produce, purchase and work as they as individuals wish. This sounds ideal, but unless an economy is under considerable social control it will mostly serve the rich and powerful and deprive the poor.’(Trainer, Website, 1995).
The founder of ecological economy Professor Herman Daly explains that ‘...the term sustainable development is used as a synonym for the oxymoronic sustainable growth’ he further added that ‘[i]t must be saved from this perdition’ of misunderstanding (Daly, 1996, p.193 in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith). He did so by making a clear distinction between the meaning of growth and the meaning of development – growth in his view is quantitative physical expansion whereas ‘development’ is qualitative improvements. He then defines sustainable development as ‘...a process of qualitative improvement without quantitative increase beyond environmental [regenerative and absorptive] capacity’ in other words ‘development without growth’ (Daly, 1996, p.18-9). And considering that we all live within a finite and non-growing planet, I think it made complete sense for sustainable development to be identified as qualitative improvement and not with quantitative [economic] expansion of sustainable growth. To me this ecologically based sustainable development is the true mark of genuine sustainable development.
Table 1 – This graph shows that human has exceeded consuming one planet around mid 1980s.
 |
| Sometime in mid 1980s the world has past consuming one planet! |
Disposable Planet, BBC website retrieved on 01 Sept 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/big_picture/
- It would take 1.2 Earths to regenerate resources at the rate we are using them.
- Humans started to exceed nature's ability to regenerate from the mid-1980s onwards.
- In 1961 humans were using 70% of the capacity of the global biosphere. By 1999, that had risen to 120%.(Source: PNAS, adapted from “Disposable Planet”, bbc.co.uk website)
So it is now clear that the concept of ‘sustainable development’ as growth is misleading and is undeniably ‘part of the problem’ whereas the notion of ‘sustainable development’ as qualitative improvement is ‘part of the solution’ for social-environmental problems. The challenge ahead for those who have seen and understood the root of the problem is to assist the transformation process from the old social-economic regime of growth towards a more holistic and ecologically sustainable paradigm. In this context [environmental] education plays the critical role of guiding and ensuring smooth transition towards the ecologically sustainable global society – by steering the currently reductionist-mechanistic-Cartesian ‘traditional’ education system towards a more inclusive ecologically based environmental education (i.e. Education for Sustainability, Education for Sustainable Living, and Educating for Sustainability) in which principles, languages and stories of ecological sustainability are prominently featured, studied and practiced (Capra and Pauli, 1995, pp.2-3).
Education for SD (ESD) – More conventional approach to EE
ESD evolved from many past conferences that involve educators. This can be traced back to the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972) in Stockholm, Sweden which endorsed environmental education to address increasing environmental problems (i.e. pollutions) as the result of industrialisation. ESD is a vision of education that seeks to balance human and economic well-being with cultural traditions and respect for the earth’s natural resources through transdisciplinary educational approaches to achieve a sustainable future (CEE India,(n.a)).
The concept of sustainability contained in the ‘Brundtland Report’ (WCED, 1987) was originally developed from early 1980s by Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute – ‘[he] defined a sustainable society as one that is able to satisfy its needs without diminishing the chances of future generations’ (Brown (1981) in Fritjof Capra, 2002, p.200). However as noted by Capra, ‘...this definition does not tell us anything about how to build a sustainable society’ (ibid.) within the Earth’s ecological limits.
Thereafter the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) and its publication ‘Our Common Future’ defined the concept of 'SD' as ‘...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Previously, environment and development tended to be thought of as two separate areas – the need for [economic] development on the one hand and the need to protect the environment on the other. During the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the main focus of SD appeared to be the environmental side. While the social aspects like poverty [social-injustice] though seen as important it was not on priority in the main documents from the Earth Summit (i.e. Rio Declaration and Agenda 21). Instead the emphasis is more on protecting the natural environment through a global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem.
A decade later a more integrated model of SD approach was endorsed at the World Summit on SD (WSSD, 2002) in Johannesburg, South Africa. Its declaration states that sustainable development is built on three interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of—economic development, social development and environmental protection—which must be established at local, national, regional and global levels (WSSD, 2002). WSSD model had a strong emphasis on the socio-economic aspects such as poverty, inequity, poor quality of life and associated human suffering while still highlighting how current actions are leading to environmental degradation. And its inter-sectoral approach appeared to be geared for better quality of life for everyone now and for the generations to come – which means it seeks to secure long-term [strong] sustainability.
However, there are unfinished ‘homework’ from the ‘Brundtland Report’ on issues concerning unclear definition of SD and questions like – ‘whose development needs?’ and ‘whose future generations?’ – raised by the South remains unanswered. Furthermore, the underlying issues of inequality due to unrestrained growth-economy, unregulated financial markets and its repercussions are avoided from being discussed in Johannesburg. With this burden of unresolved issues and criticisms in the background it will be difficult to expect any real paradigm shift or transformation to emerge from ESD programmes sponsored or endorsed by the United Nations. In addition, the culture/characteristic of ‘democracy’ in the UN assembly itself is an impediment as it is [mainly] dictated by dominant member nation/s (i.e. the US, Russia, China) thus preventing it from exercising decisive power. In short, the UN (and its agencies) is not an effective agent to implement radical socio-ecological change.
Education for Sustainability (EfS) [More radical approach to EE]
Education for sustainability was the result of many international agreements (WCED 1987, Rio Earth Summit 1992, Johannesburg WSSD 2002) and the global call to actively pursue sustainable development. The interesting difference is that it facilitates new orientation for current practice in environmental education and environmentalism.
Some of the new and distinctive components in EfS are its systemic and critical thinking approach towards achieving a sustainable society. This is done by encouraging learners [and educators] to think beyond treating symptoms like raising awareness or involve in a one-off environmentally friendly activities. But to ‘think-through’ employing critical and systemic thinking to identify the root cause of the issues then work actively towards positive outcomes (Tilbury, D. and Cooke, K. (2005) in Aries).
It also regards people not as the problem instead it views them as agent of change in whatever level of their involvement in life. And more radically it challenges the concept of integration by arguing that integration maintained the status-quo and does not challenge unsustainable practice because it is transformation and innovation that lie at the heart of sustainability.
This new orientation attempts to move beyond education in and about the environment approaches to focus on equipping learners with the necessary skills to be able to take positive action to address a range of sustainability issues. Education for sustainability [supposedly]motivates, equips and involves individuals, and social groups in reflecting on how we currently live and work, in making informed decisions and creating ways to work towards a more sustainable world. Supported by the principles of critical theory, EfS aims to go beyond individual behaviour change and seeks to engage and empower people to implement systemic changes (Tilbury, 2004 in Aries).
After reviewing the main theme in EfS, which is critical and systemic thinking approach. I think the approach will have to overcome the challenge in its implementation because historically speaking radical ideas flourish when there is a person, a character which has been exemplified by many educators (i.e. Montessori, Friere or the Buddha). So shifting from symptom-based treatment to a more thoughtful process of critical and systemic thinking requires fairly developed [western-education] and limited participants.
Education for Sustainable Living/Futures: Developing Ecological Literacy
Education for Sustainable Living/futures (EfSL) originates from the awareness that current [traditional] education system is not geared for living sustainably therefore inconsiderate of future generation needs and requirements. To live sustainably according to Fritjof Capra we do not have to reinvent the wheel. He said we can learn from older sustainable societies or mimic or copy nature, he further added ‘…[that] the outstanding characteristic of the biosphere is its inherent ability to sustain life, a sustainable human community must be designed in such a manner that its technologies and social institutions honor, support, and cooperate with nature's inherent ability to sustain life’ (Capra, n.d.)
There are many important similarities between EfS and EfSL. Among them are the shift from structure to process; from parts to the whole (holistic-view); from objective to contextual knowledge and the prominent one being its systemic view and approach towards education. EfSL also shares at least one significant similarity with ESD, which is its focus on quality instead of quantity.
EfSL such as embodied in ecological–literacy concern itself with principles and values that foster respect for Nature’s biogeochemical cycles and processes this must be facilitated and promoted at all level of EfS. Because when a person, a community or business is ecologically illiterate then it reduces the possibility to achieve sustainable futures. Borrowing from David Orr rather funny but serious comments is that: ‘...ecological illiterates...will have roughly the same success as one trying to balance a checkbook without knowing arithmetic’ (Orr, 1992, p.86).
When ecoliteracy becomes the norms and widely understood by the majority of the planet citizens then the goal of building an ecologically sustainable society is closer to realisation. Education for sustainable living when implemented properly will insure that everyone will have a sustainable future living on this planet.
Conclusion
Conclusion
“[T]he concept of sustainable development did emerge as a means of combining economic and ecological needs” (Odum and Garret, 2005, p.468). And the goal of sustainable development is sustainability, a journey and destination that is to be [socio] culturally negotiated. (Aries,n.a.)
The first priority for any true citizen of this Earth is to learn and realised that the primary goal of sustainability is to live within our environmental/ecological limits. To do so, what we need is not better technologies or new ideologies but social-intelligence, such as sensitivity, care and respect – convivial and vernacular capacities we used to have and experienced but now lost or forgotten in our quest for being ‘civilised’, sophisticated and super-modern – to the point that we care-less for life and care more for the lifeless.
When this happened frequently then it’s time to rethink and reconsider all our basic assumptions, models and paradigms. EE, ESD, EfS and others like education for sustainable living/futures provide the tools to reorient our direction towards appreciating life and the living – a condition and tendency commonly found in our young. Eminent biologist Professor E.O. Wilson call it ‘Biophilia’.
Because in the end what is the use of having an educated person whose character cannot appreciate life or the living. Otherwise what radical author Derrick Jensen said about '...civilisation is inherently unsustainable' (Jensen, 2008) can be further elaborated to include industrial civilisation is absolutely unsustainable—will soon be a reality.
References
Brown, L. (1981) in Fritjof Capra (2002), The Hidden Connections (p.200). London: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Elliot, J. (1999). An Introduction to Sustainable Development (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Fien, J and Trainer, T. (1993). A Vision of Sustainability. In J. Fien (Ed.) Environmental Education: A Pathway to Sustainability (p.29). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Capra, F. (2002). The Hidden Connections. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Capra, F and Pauli, G. (Eds.) (1995). Steering Business Toward Sustainability (pp.2-3). Tokyo: The United Nations University
Capra, F. System thinking. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/education/sustainability.html on 22 October 2008.
(n.a.).CEE India retrieved from http://www.ceeindia.org/esf/esd.asp on 22 October 2008.
Carley, M and Philippe Spapens, (1998). Sharing the World: Sustainable Living and Global Equity in the 21st Century. London: Earthscan
Daly, Herman E. (1999). Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics: Essays in Criticism, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Daly, Herman E. (1996) Sustainable Growth? No Thank You. In J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Ed.). The Case Against The Global Economy: and for a turn toward the local (p.193). San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Disposable Planet, BBC website retrieved on 01 Sept 2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2002/disposable_planet/big_picture/
Jensen, D. (2008). Personal communications.
Meadows, H.D., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the limits: global collapse or a sustainable future. London: Earthscan Publications.
Tilbury, D. and Cooke, K. (2005) A National Review of Environmental Education and its Contribution to Sustainability in Australia: Frameworks for Sustainability. Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources and Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability. In Aries website, retrieved from http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/portal/about/relationship.htm#innovation on 22 October 2008.
Trainer, T. (F.E.) The Simpler Way: Analysis of global problem. Retrieved 18 May 2005, from http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/09c-Our-Economic-System.html
Odum, E. P. and Barret, G.W. (2005). Fundamentals of Ecology (5th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Ophuls, W. and Boyans, Jr. S.A. (1992). Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited: The unravelling of the American Dream. New York: W.H.Freeman and Company.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. New York: State University of New York Press.
Sachs, W. (1996) Neo-Development: “Global Ecological Management”. In J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Ed.) The Case Against The Global Economy: and for a turn toward the local (p.243). San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Wackernagel, M. (2002) in L. Brown (2006).Plan B 2.0: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.
Monday, 17 November 2008
Lulusan SD kwalitas Doktor
Wayan Mertha, Memadukan Bisnis dan Penghijauan
Senin, 17 November 2008 | 03:00 WIB
Oleh Reny Sri Ayu Taslim
Awalnya, I Wayan Mertha tidak berpikir muluk-muluk saat menanam berbagai jenis bibit pohon di antara tanaman kakaonya di Desa Balinggi, Kecamatan Sausu, Kabupaten Parigi Moutong, sekitar 120 kilometer arah timur Palu, pada tahun 2000.
Tanaman kakao harus dilindungi dengan tanaman lebih besar dan rimbun demi mendapatkan buah-buah yang bagus,” cerita Wayan Mertha mengenai pemikiran sederhananya waktu itu.
Selain itu, ia juga berharap, tanaman pelindung tersebut suatu saat bisa dipanen dan menghasilkan uang. Di sisi lain, untuk lingkungan sekitarnya, tanaman pelindung juga dapat berfungsi menguatkan tanah dan menyerap air.
Maka, Wayan Mertha pun menanam berbagai jenis tanaman berakar kuat, berdaun rimbun, dan berbatang besar di antara tanaman kakao. Bibitnya dia pungut di hutan sekitar kebunnya. Pembibitan dia lakukan sendiri hingga menjadi anakan pohon siap tanam.
”Saat itu, banyak yang mencemooh dan menertawakan apa yang saya lakukan. Kata mereka, ngapain tanam pohon, enggak ada untungnya, enggak bisa jadi uang. Lagi pula, orang-orang pada menebang pohon, saya malah menanam pohon,” tutur Wayan Mertha.
Dicemooh, dia bergeming. Dengan tekun, ia terus menanam bibit pohon, seperti meranti, palupi, nantu, dan durian. Khusus pohon durian, Wayan tidak menanam untuk mengambil buahnya, tetapi lebih memanfaatkan batang kayunya.
Suami Ni Wayan Aryani ini tak peduli bahwa penanaman pohon itu mengakibatkan tanaman kakao miliknya jadi tak sebanyak di kebun orang lain yang memenuhi kebunnya hanya dengan tanaman kakao. Namun, kebun sekaligus hutan kecil Wayan Mertha itu terus bertambah sedikit demi sedikit karena ia membeli lahan terbengkalai di sekitar kebunnya. Luas kebunnya pun mencapai 17 hektar.
Ketekunan Wayan kemudian mulai membuka mata warga sekitarnya, terutama para pemilik kebun. Sebab, pohon kakao di kebun Wayan ternyata tumbuh lebih subur dan berbuah lebih bagus dibandingkan kakao di kebun milik petani lainnya. Selain itu, tanah di kebunnya juga menjadi lebih subur. Sumber airnya pun tak pernah kering pada musim kemarau sekalipun.
”Warga lain lalu mulai ikut menanam pohon di antara tanaman kakaonya, atau menebang tanaman kakao yang sudah tua dan menggantinya dengan tanaman pohon. Bibitnya mereka ambil gratis dari saya. Memang, hampir sepanjang waktu saya terus melakukan pembibitan dan memberikan kepada siapa saja yang mau,” katanya.
Industri kayu
Mata warga sekitar betul-betul terbuka, bahkan tidak sedikit yang terenyak ketika, Agustus lalu, Wayan Mertha memanen tanaman pohon yang sudah berumur dari lahan sekitar satu hektar. Kayu dari hutan miliknya itu dijual dengan harga ”lumayan”. Bahkan, ia bisa membuat industri kayu kecil-kecilan untuk mengolah kayu dari hutannya tersebut.
”Tetapi, saya tidak memanen pohon dengan begitu saja. Jauh sebelum saya panen, saya sudah menanam anakan pohon di sejumlah luas areal, atau batang yang saya panen. Jadi, lahannya tidak akan kosong. Lagi pula, pola penanamannya saya atur juga agar panen tidak serentak, melainkan bergiliran sesuai usia pohon dan besarnya anakan yang ditanam,” ceritanya.
Wayan Mertha sejauh ini sudah terbilang berhasil memadukan bisnis dan penghijauan, dengan mengawinkan kebun dan hutan. Dari sisi penghijauan, lahan kosong yang semula telantar kini sudah penuh tanaman dan menjelma menjadi hutan.
Dari sisi bisnis, kayu yang ditanamnya pun menghasilkan uang. Bahkan seperti virus, apa yang dilakukan Wayan mulai menjalar kepada para pemilik kebun lainnya. Di sekitar kebunnya saja sudah ada 50-an petani yang mengikuti jejaknya.
Mukramin, Kepala Dinas Kehutanan Parigi Moutong, bahkan mengakui, konsep bisnis dan penghijauan yang dilakukan Wayan Mertha dijadikan percontohan oleh dinas kehutanan untuk disosialisasikan kepada para pemilik kebun yang lain.
”Masyarakat sudah mulai mengikuti apa yang dilakukan Wayan. Dampaknya, selain menjaga kesuburan tanah dan terpeliharanya sumber air, warga juga sedikit demi sedikit mulai sadar agar tidak menebang hutan sembarangan. Mereka sadar pada pentingnya fungsi tanaman pelindung, sekaligus melihat tanaman pelindung sebagai investasi jangka panjang,” tutur Mukramin.
Manja dan seenak hati
Wayan Mertha adalah lelaki sederhana yang hanya tamat sekolah dasar. Sebagai anak tunggal diakuinya membuat dia menjadi manja dan berlaku seenak hati, termasuk tidak melanjutkan pendidikan ke tingkat yang lebih tinggi.
Masa muda lebih banyak dia habiskan dengan bepergian dari satu tempat ke tempat lain. Keinginannya merantau keluar dari Bali, kendati pada awalnya ditentang orangtuanya, membawa Wayan ke Parigi Moutong pada tahun 1976. Saat itu ia sekadar mengikuti beberapa temannya yang sudah terlebih dahulu pergi ke Parigi.
Tanpa bekal keterampilan dan pendidikan memadai, Wayan Mertha bertahan hidup dengan menjadi kenek. Hidup jauh dari orangtua dan sanak keluarga membuat dia sadar harus menata sendiri kehidupannya, dan tidak bergantung kepada orang lain. Terlebih saat ia memutuskan menikahi Ni Wayan Aryani pada 1982.
Pendapatan jadi kenek dan buruh kasar sebagian dia tabung, dan digunakan untuk membeli sebidang sawah. Penghasilan dari sawah itu dia kumpulkan pula guna membuka usaha warung kecil-kecilan.
Seiring berjalannya waktu, Wayan Mertha lalu membeli lahan kebun untuk bertanam kakao. Lahan yang semula cuma sepetak terus bertambah. Dia kemudian mulai menanam pohon pada tahun 2000.
Pengetahuannya mengenai penanaman pohon, antara lain, diperoleh saat masih tinggal di Bali. Wayan bercerita, tempat tinggalnya di Bali berada di tepi hutan sehingga dia mengenal jenis-jenis pohon, termasuk bagaimana pemeliharaannya.
Belakangan, Wayan Mertha juga melakukan berbagai eksperimen menanam pohon dengan menggunakan batang pohon, bukan bibit.
Kalau semula menanam pohon sekadar melindungi tanaman kakaonya, kini Wayan Mertha terobsesi menghijaukan lahan gersang. Setidaknya hal ini sudah dia mulai dengan membeli 17 hektar lahan kosong di Kayumalue, Palu. Lahan ini akan dia tanami berbagai jenis pohon. Penanaman dilakukan pada November ini, bersamaan dengan datangnya musim hujan.
”Menanam pohon itu mudah, yang penting bibitnya bagus, anakan yang ditanam sudah cukup umur, dan waktu penanamannya tepat. Kalau akarnya sudah cukup kuat, dibiarkan saja juga tidak jadi soal karena pohon akan tumbuh alami. Setelah itu kita tinggal menikmati hasilnya, baik dampaknya pada lingkungan, maupun sebagai tambahan penghasilan,” tutur Wayan Mertha bersemangat.
Senin, 17 November 2008 | 03:00 WIB
Oleh Reny Sri Ayu Taslim
Awalnya, I Wayan Mertha tidak berpikir muluk-muluk saat menanam berbagai jenis bibit pohon di antara tanaman kakaonya di Desa Balinggi, Kecamatan Sausu, Kabupaten Parigi Moutong, sekitar 120 kilometer arah timur Palu, pada tahun 2000.
Tanaman kakao harus dilindungi dengan tanaman lebih besar dan rimbun demi mendapatkan buah-buah yang bagus,” cerita Wayan Mertha mengenai pemikiran sederhananya waktu itu.
Selain itu, ia juga berharap, tanaman pelindung tersebut suatu saat bisa dipanen dan menghasilkan uang. Di sisi lain, untuk lingkungan sekitarnya, tanaman pelindung juga dapat berfungsi menguatkan tanah dan menyerap air.
Maka, Wayan Mertha pun menanam berbagai jenis tanaman berakar kuat, berdaun rimbun, dan berbatang besar di antara tanaman kakao. Bibitnya dia pungut di hutan sekitar kebunnya. Pembibitan dia lakukan sendiri hingga menjadi anakan pohon siap tanam.
”Saat itu, banyak yang mencemooh dan menertawakan apa yang saya lakukan. Kata mereka, ngapain tanam pohon, enggak ada untungnya, enggak bisa jadi uang. Lagi pula, orang-orang pada menebang pohon, saya malah menanam pohon,” tutur Wayan Mertha.
Dicemooh, dia bergeming. Dengan tekun, ia terus menanam bibit pohon, seperti meranti, palupi, nantu, dan durian. Khusus pohon durian, Wayan tidak menanam untuk mengambil buahnya, tetapi lebih memanfaatkan batang kayunya.
Suami Ni Wayan Aryani ini tak peduli bahwa penanaman pohon itu mengakibatkan tanaman kakao miliknya jadi tak sebanyak di kebun orang lain yang memenuhi kebunnya hanya dengan tanaman kakao. Namun, kebun sekaligus hutan kecil Wayan Mertha itu terus bertambah sedikit demi sedikit karena ia membeli lahan terbengkalai di sekitar kebunnya. Luas kebunnya pun mencapai 17 hektar.
Ketekunan Wayan kemudian mulai membuka mata warga sekitarnya, terutama para pemilik kebun. Sebab, pohon kakao di kebun Wayan ternyata tumbuh lebih subur dan berbuah lebih bagus dibandingkan kakao di kebun milik petani lainnya. Selain itu, tanah di kebunnya juga menjadi lebih subur. Sumber airnya pun tak pernah kering pada musim kemarau sekalipun.
”Warga lain lalu mulai ikut menanam pohon di antara tanaman kakaonya, atau menebang tanaman kakao yang sudah tua dan menggantinya dengan tanaman pohon. Bibitnya mereka ambil gratis dari saya. Memang, hampir sepanjang waktu saya terus melakukan pembibitan dan memberikan kepada siapa saja yang mau,” katanya.
Industri kayu
Mata warga sekitar betul-betul terbuka, bahkan tidak sedikit yang terenyak ketika, Agustus lalu, Wayan Mertha memanen tanaman pohon yang sudah berumur dari lahan sekitar satu hektar. Kayu dari hutan miliknya itu dijual dengan harga ”lumayan”. Bahkan, ia bisa membuat industri kayu kecil-kecilan untuk mengolah kayu dari hutannya tersebut.
”Tetapi, saya tidak memanen pohon dengan begitu saja. Jauh sebelum saya panen, saya sudah menanam anakan pohon di sejumlah luas areal, atau batang yang saya panen. Jadi, lahannya tidak akan kosong. Lagi pula, pola penanamannya saya atur juga agar panen tidak serentak, melainkan bergiliran sesuai usia pohon dan besarnya anakan yang ditanam,” ceritanya.
Wayan Mertha sejauh ini sudah terbilang berhasil memadukan bisnis dan penghijauan, dengan mengawinkan kebun dan hutan. Dari sisi penghijauan, lahan kosong yang semula telantar kini sudah penuh tanaman dan menjelma menjadi hutan.
Dari sisi bisnis, kayu yang ditanamnya pun menghasilkan uang. Bahkan seperti virus, apa yang dilakukan Wayan mulai menjalar kepada para pemilik kebun lainnya. Di sekitar kebunnya saja sudah ada 50-an petani yang mengikuti jejaknya.
Mukramin, Kepala Dinas Kehutanan Parigi Moutong, bahkan mengakui, konsep bisnis dan penghijauan yang dilakukan Wayan Mertha dijadikan percontohan oleh dinas kehutanan untuk disosialisasikan kepada para pemilik kebun yang lain.
”Masyarakat sudah mulai mengikuti apa yang dilakukan Wayan. Dampaknya, selain menjaga kesuburan tanah dan terpeliharanya sumber air, warga juga sedikit demi sedikit mulai sadar agar tidak menebang hutan sembarangan. Mereka sadar pada pentingnya fungsi tanaman pelindung, sekaligus melihat tanaman pelindung sebagai investasi jangka panjang,” tutur Mukramin.
Manja dan seenak hati
Wayan Mertha adalah lelaki sederhana yang hanya tamat sekolah dasar. Sebagai anak tunggal diakuinya membuat dia menjadi manja dan berlaku seenak hati, termasuk tidak melanjutkan pendidikan ke tingkat yang lebih tinggi.
Masa muda lebih banyak dia habiskan dengan bepergian dari satu tempat ke tempat lain. Keinginannya merantau keluar dari Bali, kendati pada awalnya ditentang orangtuanya, membawa Wayan ke Parigi Moutong pada tahun 1976. Saat itu ia sekadar mengikuti beberapa temannya yang sudah terlebih dahulu pergi ke Parigi.
Tanpa bekal keterampilan dan pendidikan memadai, Wayan Mertha bertahan hidup dengan menjadi kenek. Hidup jauh dari orangtua dan sanak keluarga membuat dia sadar harus menata sendiri kehidupannya, dan tidak bergantung kepada orang lain. Terlebih saat ia memutuskan menikahi Ni Wayan Aryani pada 1982.
Pendapatan jadi kenek dan buruh kasar sebagian dia tabung, dan digunakan untuk membeli sebidang sawah. Penghasilan dari sawah itu dia kumpulkan pula guna membuka usaha warung kecil-kecilan.
Seiring berjalannya waktu, Wayan Mertha lalu membeli lahan kebun untuk bertanam kakao. Lahan yang semula cuma sepetak terus bertambah. Dia kemudian mulai menanam pohon pada tahun 2000.
Pengetahuannya mengenai penanaman pohon, antara lain, diperoleh saat masih tinggal di Bali. Wayan bercerita, tempat tinggalnya di Bali berada di tepi hutan sehingga dia mengenal jenis-jenis pohon, termasuk bagaimana pemeliharaannya.
Belakangan, Wayan Mertha juga melakukan berbagai eksperimen menanam pohon dengan menggunakan batang pohon, bukan bibit.
Kalau semula menanam pohon sekadar melindungi tanaman kakaonya, kini Wayan Mertha terobsesi menghijaukan lahan gersang. Setidaknya hal ini sudah dia mulai dengan membeli 17 hektar lahan kosong di Kayumalue, Palu. Lahan ini akan dia tanami berbagai jenis pohon. Penanaman dilakukan pada November ini, bersamaan dengan datangnya musim hujan.
”Menanam pohon itu mudah, yang penting bibitnya bagus, anakan yang ditanam sudah cukup umur, dan waktu penanamannya tepat. Kalau akarnya sudah cukup kuat, dibiarkan saja juga tidak jadi soal karena pohon akan tumbuh alami. Setelah itu kita tinggal menikmati hasilnya, baik dampaknya pada lingkungan, maupun sebagai tambahan penghasilan,” tutur Wayan Mertha bersemangat.
Jambore Kemah Hijau dan Lomba Pengetahuan Lingkungan Hidup: Capaian perhatian LH kita
Bapedaldasu Gelar Jambore Kemah Hijau dan Lomba Pengetahuan Lingkungan Hidup Pelajar se-Sumut
Medan, (Analisa)
Perusakan lingkungan yang dilakukan segelintir orang menyebabkan terjadinya degradasi lingkungan yang sangat besar. Sehingga berdampak kepada masyarakat luas.
Kecenderungan perlakuan yang serakah menutup segala pemikiran yang positif sehingga analisis dan analogi yang seharusnya menjadi pertimbangan menjadi tidak berfungsi. Di sisi lain, kebijakan pemerintah telah dimanfaatkan sedemikian rupa untuk mengeksploitasi kawasan tertentu dengan cara tidak partisipatif dan transparan.
Untuk itu diperlukan penguatan pemahaman, kesadaran dan penambahan wawasan harus dilakukan sebagai langkah awal membangun generasi muda yang berwawasan lingkungan. Pemahaman inilah yang harus di-tranformasi-kan dalam bentuk pendidikan formal maupun non-formal.
Dalam pendidikan formal, pengetahuan lingkungan hidup sudah ter-integrasi dalam materi pendidikan. Namun, secara substansi, akar permasalahan terhadap lingkungan tidak pernah terjabarkan dalam mata pelajaran tersebut.
Untuk mengakomodir hal itu, Bapedalda Sumut akan menggelar Lomba Pengetahuan Lingkungan Hidup dan Jambore Kemah Hijau pelajar Provinsi Sumatera Utara dalam rangka Peringatan Hari Cinta Puspa dan Satwa Nasional (HCPSN) dengan mengusung tema Flora dan Fauna Langka Bangsa Kita Adalah Warisan Dunia.
Ketua Panitia Pelaksana Drs Lahuddin Batubara menyebutkan, kegiatan itu dijadwalkan mulai Rabu hingga Minggu (20-23/11) di Bumi Perkemahan Sibolangit.
“Digelarnya kegiatan ini untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan dan memberi penyadaran kepada generasi muda tentang pentingnya pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup dalam pembangunan. Sekaligus meningkatkan kepedulian generasi muda dalam upaya pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup,” ujar Lahuddin menjelaskan tujuan kegiatan itu kepada wartawan di Bapedalda Sumut.
Dengan digelarnya kegiatan yang melibatkan 360 peserta terdiri dari pelajar SD hingga SMA dari berbagai kabupaten/kota se-Sumut, diharapkan, para pelajar yang mewakili sekolahnya, mendapat informasi pengetahuan yang lebih terarah mengenai pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup.
“Kita juga berharap melalui kegiatan ini, para pelajar termotivasi untuk lebih kreatif dan inovatif sehingga memunculkan sikap kritis terhadap berbagai permasalahan yang terjadi pada alam dan lingkungan sekitarnya,” katanya.
Tidak kalah penting, pasca mengikuti kegiatan para pelajar diharapkan pula dapat merubah prilaku ke arah yang lebih positif terhadap alam dan lingkungan sekitar mereka.
Aneka Lomba
Selain jambore, Bapedalda Sumut juga menggelar berbagai perlombaan untuk pelajar SD, SMP dan SMA. Di antaranya, perlombaan pengetahuan lingkungan (SD/SMP), Lomba Kemah Akrab Lingkungan (SMA), Lomba Pidato untuk SMA dan Lomba Melukis (SD).
Serangkaian dengan acara tersebut, juga akan digelar diskusi panel dengan materi pendidikan lingkungan untuk peserta didik, peran guru dalam pendidikan lingkungan, peran pramuka dalam peningkatan kesadaran lingkungan dan pendidikan lingkungan di alam terbuka. (mc)
Medan, (Analisa)
Perusakan lingkungan yang dilakukan segelintir orang menyebabkan terjadinya degradasi lingkungan yang sangat besar. Sehingga berdampak kepada masyarakat luas.
Kecenderungan perlakuan yang serakah menutup segala pemikiran yang positif sehingga analisis dan analogi yang seharusnya menjadi pertimbangan menjadi tidak berfungsi. Di sisi lain, kebijakan pemerintah telah dimanfaatkan sedemikian rupa untuk mengeksploitasi kawasan tertentu dengan cara tidak partisipatif dan transparan.
Untuk itu diperlukan penguatan pemahaman, kesadaran dan penambahan wawasan harus dilakukan sebagai langkah awal membangun generasi muda yang berwawasan lingkungan. Pemahaman inilah yang harus di-tranformasi-kan dalam bentuk pendidikan formal maupun non-formal.
Dalam pendidikan formal, pengetahuan lingkungan hidup sudah ter-integrasi dalam materi pendidikan. Namun, secara substansi, akar permasalahan terhadap lingkungan tidak pernah terjabarkan dalam mata pelajaran tersebut.
Untuk mengakomodir hal itu, Bapedalda Sumut akan menggelar Lomba Pengetahuan Lingkungan Hidup dan Jambore Kemah Hijau pelajar Provinsi Sumatera Utara dalam rangka Peringatan Hari Cinta Puspa dan Satwa Nasional (HCPSN) dengan mengusung tema Flora dan Fauna Langka Bangsa Kita Adalah Warisan Dunia.
Ketua Panitia Pelaksana Drs Lahuddin Batubara menyebutkan, kegiatan itu dijadwalkan mulai Rabu hingga Minggu (20-23/11) di Bumi Perkemahan Sibolangit.
“Digelarnya kegiatan ini untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan dan memberi penyadaran kepada generasi muda tentang pentingnya pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup dalam pembangunan. Sekaligus meningkatkan kepedulian generasi muda dalam upaya pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup,” ujar Lahuddin menjelaskan tujuan kegiatan itu kepada wartawan di Bapedalda Sumut.
Dengan digelarnya kegiatan yang melibatkan 360 peserta terdiri dari pelajar SD hingga SMA dari berbagai kabupaten/kota se-Sumut, diharapkan, para pelajar yang mewakili sekolahnya, mendapat informasi pengetahuan yang lebih terarah mengenai pelestarian alam dan lingkungan hidup.
“Kita juga berharap melalui kegiatan ini, para pelajar termotivasi untuk lebih kreatif dan inovatif sehingga memunculkan sikap kritis terhadap berbagai permasalahan yang terjadi pada alam dan lingkungan sekitarnya,” katanya.
Tidak kalah penting, pasca mengikuti kegiatan para pelajar diharapkan pula dapat merubah prilaku ke arah yang lebih positif terhadap alam dan lingkungan sekitar mereka.
Aneka Lomba
Selain jambore, Bapedalda Sumut juga menggelar berbagai perlombaan untuk pelajar SD, SMP dan SMA. Di antaranya, perlombaan pengetahuan lingkungan (SD/SMP), Lomba Kemah Akrab Lingkungan (SMA), Lomba Pidato untuk SMA dan Lomba Melukis (SD).
Serangkaian dengan acara tersebut, juga akan digelar diskusi panel dengan materi pendidikan lingkungan untuk peserta didik, peran guru dalam pendidikan lingkungan, peran pramuka dalam peningkatan kesadaran lingkungan dan pendidikan lingkungan di alam terbuka. (mc)
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Prof.Donella Meadows - There Are Limits to Growth, but No Limits to Love
There Are Limits to Growth, but No Limits to Love
From corporate boardrooms to primary classrooms to the World Bank to the poorest villages, people know that the human economy is taking too great a toll on nature, growing beyond sustainable limits. We know that, and we mourn the disappearing forests, soils, clear streams, clean air -- and we worry. Some retreat into denial, but most of us ask, anxiously: What can we do?
Government officials often underestimate our willingness to act, if we can just see something that makes sense to do. We'll turn out to plant trees or to pick up litter. Give us a little municipal encouragement, and we'll recycle like crazy. That's wonderful -- recycling helps -- but most of us also know that the present situation requires more of us than recycling our bottles and cans.
What else can we do?
There are many good answers to that question floating around. Read and learn about the world. Limit your own family size. Be a green consumer, not a mindless shopper. Get the junk out of your life, from junk food to junk mail to junk media. Take care of a backyard garden or a neighborhood park.
Multiply your efforts by joining a group with common interests. Get on the tails of politicians; some things only governments can do. On a national level we need energy efficiency and solar energy; sensible, strict environmental regulations; unbiased resource pricing; better care of our common lands. On a global level we need concentrated efforts to protect the oceans and atmosphere, end poverty, and stop population growth.
People have been calling for measures like these for decades. Some of them are being carried out in some places, but much too slowly. My own analysis in Beyond the Limits suggests that the world has at most a few decades to make the feasible, affordable, beneficial, but enormous changes that can lead to a sustainable economy. Twenty or thirty years from now it will be too late.
So what REALLY can we do? In addition to the items on the above list, I'd like to suggest two more. I think they're the true keys to a sustainable world. But they aren't easy. They take great courage. They are so daunting that almost no one tries them. One: speak the truth. Two: operate from love.
SPEAK THE TRUTH. Speak it out loud and often, calmly but insistently, and speak it, as the Quakers say, to power. Material accumulation is not the purpose of human existence. All growth is not good. The environment is a necessity, not a luxury. There is such a thing as "enough." Human progress must be assessed not by quantity but by quality. Our consumption-crazed society has lost its its direction and its soul.
I can assure you that saying these things will not make you popular. But if they are not said, over and over, so often that they begin to supersede the contrary messages that now dominate our airwaves and our lives, we will lose not only our souls, but also the natural systems that might someday support more enlightened souls.
OPERATE FROM LOVE. One is not allowed to say that seriously any more. Anyone who calls upon the human capacity for love, generosity, wisdom, will be met with a hail of cynicism. "Of all scarce resources, love is the scarcest," I have heard people say.
I just don't believe that. Love is not a scarce resource, it is an untapped one. Our jazzed-up, hustling, quantitative culture does not know how to tap it, how to discuss it, or even what it means.
I am a child of that culture myself, and worse, a scientifically trained one. I have been educated to trust in rationality, not in love. But I have also been trained to see whole systems, and the more I do that, the more I see that rationality and love are in fact the same thing. What is love, but the ability to identify with someone or something beyond your own skin? Love is the expansion of boundaries, the realization that another person, or family, or piece of land, or nation, or the whole earth is so intimately connected to you that your welfare and his, her, or its welfare are one and the same.
In truth, of course, we are all intimately interconnected with each other and with the earth. We have always been. Love has always been a practical idea, as well as a moral one. Now it is not only practical but urgent. It is time to accept the astonishing notion that to be rational, to ensure our own self-preservation, what is required of us is to be GOOD. We have to look far into the future, care for and share the resources of the earth, and moderate our numbers and desires. We have to -- and we can -- create a culture that draws out of us not only our technical creativity and our entrepreneurial cleverness, but also our morality.
Nothing is more difficult than to practice goodness within a system whose rules, goals, and information streams are geared to individualism, competitiveness, and cynicism. But it can be done. We can be patient with ourselves and others as we all confront a changing world. We can empathize with resistance to change; there is some clinging to the ways of unsustainability within each of us. We can include everyone in the challenge; everyone will be needed. We can listen to the cynicism around us and pity those who indulge in it, but refuse to indulge in it ourselves.
The world can never pass safely through the adventure of bringing itself to sustainability if people do not view themselves and others with compassion. That compassion is there, within all of us, just waiting to be used, the greatest resource of all, and one with no limits.
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College and a co-author of Beyond the Limits (Chelsea Green Publishing Company), upon which this column is based.
Copyright Sustainability Institute
This article from The Donella Meadows Archive is available for use in research, teaching, and private study. For other uses, please contact Diana Wright, Sustainability Institute, 3 Linden Road, Hartland, VT 05048, (802) 436-1277.
From corporate boardrooms to primary classrooms to the World Bank to the poorest villages, people know that the human economy is taking too great a toll on nature, growing beyond sustainable limits. We know that, and we mourn the disappearing forests, soils, clear streams, clean air -- and we worry. Some retreat into denial, but most of us ask, anxiously: What can we do?
Government officials often underestimate our willingness to act, if we can just see something that makes sense to do. We'll turn out to plant trees or to pick up litter. Give us a little municipal encouragement, and we'll recycle like crazy. That's wonderful -- recycling helps -- but most of us also know that the present situation requires more of us than recycling our bottles and cans.
What else can we do?
There are many good answers to that question floating around. Read and learn about the world. Limit your own family size. Be a green consumer, not a mindless shopper. Get the junk out of your life, from junk food to junk mail to junk media. Take care of a backyard garden or a neighborhood park.
Multiply your efforts by joining a group with common interests. Get on the tails of politicians; some things only governments can do. On a national level we need energy efficiency and solar energy; sensible, strict environmental regulations; unbiased resource pricing; better care of our common lands. On a global level we need concentrated efforts to protect the oceans and atmosphere, end poverty, and stop population growth.
People have been calling for measures like these for decades. Some of them are being carried out in some places, but much too slowly. My own analysis in Beyond the Limits suggests that the world has at most a few decades to make the feasible, affordable, beneficial, but enormous changes that can lead to a sustainable economy. Twenty or thirty years from now it will be too late.
So what REALLY can we do? In addition to the items on the above list, I'd like to suggest two more. I think they're the true keys to a sustainable world. But they aren't easy. They take great courage. They are so daunting that almost no one tries them. One: speak the truth. Two: operate from love.
SPEAK THE TRUTH. Speak it out loud and often, calmly but insistently, and speak it, as the Quakers say, to power. Material accumulation is not the purpose of human existence. All growth is not good. The environment is a necessity, not a luxury. There is such a thing as "enough." Human progress must be assessed not by quantity but by quality. Our consumption-crazed society has lost its its direction and its soul.
I can assure you that saying these things will not make you popular. But if they are not said, over and over, so often that they begin to supersede the contrary messages that now dominate our airwaves and our lives, we will lose not only our souls, but also the natural systems that might someday support more enlightened souls.
OPERATE FROM LOVE. One is not allowed to say that seriously any more. Anyone who calls upon the human capacity for love, generosity, wisdom, will be met with a hail of cynicism. "Of all scarce resources, love is the scarcest," I have heard people say.
I just don't believe that. Love is not a scarce resource, it is an untapped one. Our jazzed-up, hustling, quantitative culture does not know how to tap it, how to discuss it, or even what it means.
I am a child of that culture myself, and worse, a scientifically trained one. I have been educated to trust in rationality, not in love. But I have also been trained to see whole systems, and the more I do that, the more I see that rationality and love are in fact the same thing. What is love, but the ability to identify with someone or something beyond your own skin? Love is the expansion of boundaries, the realization that another person, or family, or piece of land, or nation, or the whole earth is so intimately connected to you that your welfare and his, her, or its welfare are one and the same.
In truth, of course, we are all intimately interconnected with each other and with the earth. We have always been. Love has always been a practical idea, as well as a moral one. Now it is not only practical but urgent. It is time to accept the astonishing notion that to be rational, to ensure our own self-preservation, what is required of us is to be GOOD. We have to look far into the future, care for and share the resources of the earth, and moderate our numbers and desires. We have to -- and we can -- create a culture that draws out of us not only our technical creativity and our entrepreneurial cleverness, but also our morality.
Nothing is more difficult than to practice goodness within a system whose rules, goals, and information streams are geared to individualism, competitiveness, and cynicism. But it can be done. We can be patient with ourselves and others as we all confront a changing world. We can empathize with resistance to change; there is some clinging to the ways of unsustainability within each of us. We can include everyone in the challenge; everyone will be needed. We can listen to the cynicism around us and pity those who indulge in it, but refuse to indulge in it ourselves.
The world can never pass safely through the adventure of bringing itself to sustainability if people do not view themselves and others with compassion. That compassion is there, within all of us, just waiting to be used, the greatest resource of all, and one with no limits.
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College and a co-author of Beyond the Limits (Chelsea Green Publishing Company), upon which this column is based.
Copyright Sustainability Institute
This article from The Donella Meadows Archive is available for use in research, teaching, and private study. For other uses, please contact Diana Wright, Sustainability Institute, 3 Linden Road, Hartland, VT 05048, (802) 436-1277.
Kerusakan Hutan Indonesia 1,08 Juta Hektar Per Tahun
Kerusakan Hutan Indonesia 1,08 Juta Hektar Per Tahun
Jakarta, (Analisa)
Kondisi hutan tropis di Indonesia mengalami deforestasi dengan tingkatan yang cukup memprihatinkan yaitu rata-rata 1,08 juta hektar pertahun.
Deputi III Bidang Peningkatan Konvservasi sumber Daya Alam dan Pengendalian Kerusakan Lingkungan, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Masnellyarti Hilman di Jakarta, Jumat mengatakan, kerusakan hutan itu secara nyata mengakibatkan bencana di Indonesia.
"Indonesia memang rentan terhadap bencana akibat tata guna lahan dan kerusakan hutan yang tidak dikelola dengan baik," katanya.
Pada periode 2000-2007 telah terjadi kerusakan sedikitnya 59,1 juta hektar dalam kawasan hutan dan 41,5 juta hektar diluar kawasan hutan.
Dari luasan lahan kritis ini menyebabkan 294 dari 472 daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS) menjadi prioritas dilakukan rehabilitasi.
"Kerusakan hutan ini secara nyata telah mengakibatkan bencana di Indonesia, baik dalam aspek ekonomi, ekologi, sosial budaya, dan moral yang dampak negatifnya telah melampaui batas Negara," ujarnya.
Ia menjelaskan, deforestasi hutan, antara lain disebabkan pengelolaan hutan yang tidak tepat, pembukaan kawasan hutan dalam skala besar untuk berbagai keperluan pembangunan, penebangan kayu secara tidak sah, perburuan satwa liar secara tidak sah, penjarahan, perambahan, okupasi lahan dan kebakaran hutan.
"Sementara itu, kebutuhan kayu di masyarakat saat ini meningkat, sehingga terjadi kesenjangan kebutuhan kayu di masyarakat, dengan ketersediaan potensi kayu yang ada di kawasan hutan," ujarnya.
Sebagai akibat kondisi tersebut, banyak terjadi kegiatan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan kayu dengan cara penebangan kayu secara tidak sah guna memenuhi kebutuhan industri.
Karena itulah penegakan supremasi hukum di sektor kehutanan merupakan syarat mutlak dalam pelestarian lingkungan.
"Kondisi itu juga semakin diperparah oleh dampak perubahan iklim dimana pada daerah-daerah yang terjadi degradasi lingkungan seperti daerah aliran sungai, lereng dan pesisir semakin rentan terjadi bencana," ujarnya. (Ant)
Jakarta, (Analisa)
Kondisi hutan tropis di Indonesia mengalami deforestasi dengan tingkatan yang cukup memprihatinkan yaitu rata-rata 1,08 juta hektar pertahun.
Deputi III Bidang Peningkatan Konvservasi sumber Daya Alam dan Pengendalian Kerusakan Lingkungan, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Masnellyarti Hilman di Jakarta, Jumat mengatakan, kerusakan hutan itu secara nyata mengakibatkan bencana di Indonesia.
"Indonesia memang rentan terhadap bencana akibat tata guna lahan dan kerusakan hutan yang tidak dikelola dengan baik," katanya.
Pada periode 2000-2007 telah terjadi kerusakan sedikitnya 59,1 juta hektar dalam kawasan hutan dan 41,5 juta hektar diluar kawasan hutan.
Dari luasan lahan kritis ini menyebabkan 294 dari 472 daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS) menjadi prioritas dilakukan rehabilitasi.
"Kerusakan hutan ini secara nyata telah mengakibatkan bencana di Indonesia, baik dalam aspek ekonomi, ekologi, sosial budaya, dan moral yang dampak negatifnya telah melampaui batas Negara," ujarnya.
Ia menjelaskan, deforestasi hutan, antara lain disebabkan pengelolaan hutan yang tidak tepat, pembukaan kawasan hutan dalam skala besar untuk berbagai keperluan pembangunan, penebangan kayu secara tidak sah, perburuan satwa liar secara tidak sah, penjarahan, perambahan, okupasi lahan dan kebakaran hutan.
"Sementara itu, kebutuhan kayu di masyarakat saat ini meningkat, sehingga terjadi kesenjangan kebutuhan kayu di masyarakat, dengan ketersediaan potensi kayu yang ada di kawasan hutan," ujarnya.
Sebagai akibat kondisi tersebut, banyak terjadi kegiatan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan kayu dengan cara penebangan kayu secara tidak sah guna memenuhi kebutuhan industri.
Karena itulah penegakan supremasi hukum di sektor kehutanan merupakan syarat mutlak dalam pelestarian lingkungan.
"Kondisi itu juga semakin diperparah oleh dampak perubahan iklim dimana pada daerah-daerah yang terjadi degradasi lingkungan seperti daerah aliran sungai, lereng dan pesisir semakin rentan terjadi bencana," ujarnya. (Ant)
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Rumput Laut untuk Biodiesel - Gellidium sp
Rumput Laut untuk Biodiesel
Selasa, 4 November 2008 01:10 WIB
Selasa, 4 November 2008 01:10 WIB
Jakarta, Kompas - Indonesia dan Korea Selatan menjajaki kerja sama pengolahan rumput laut jenis Gellidium sp untuk menghasilkan bahan bakar nabati atau biofuel. Perairan Indonesia dinilai potensial untuk membudidayakan Gellidium sp, sedangkan Korsel siap menerapkan teknologi biofuel.
Penandatanganan kerja sama direncanakan akhir tahun 2008 dan implementasinya direncanakan berlangsung mulai tahun 2009. Kitech memperkirakan biaya awal produksi biodiesel berbahan baku rumput laut adalah 2 dollar AS per liter. Biaya produksi itu ditargetkan bisa dipangkas menjadi 1 dollar AS per liter pada tahun 2012.
Kepala Balai Besar Pengembangan Budidaya Laut Lampung Muhammad Murdjani mengatakan, potensi budidaya Gellidium sp meliputi perairan Lombok sampai Papua. Di antaranya, Maluku seluas 20.000 hektar dan Belitung 10.000 hektar.
Pemanfaatan Gellidium sp untuk sumber energi dinilai potensial karena rumput laut jenis itu tidak dimanfaatkan untuk bahan makanan. ”Pemanfaatan Gellidium sp akan mendorong optimalisasi potensi rumput laut yang selama ini belum banyak diolah,” kata Murdjani.
Menurut Murdjani, kendala utama pengembangan rumput laut adalah minimnya aplikasi teknologi pengolahan dan transportasi angkut. Akibatnya, sebagian besar produk rumput laut dijual dalam bentuk bahan baku sehingga nilai tambah rendah.
Menurut data dari Inha University Korea, satu hektar areal rumput laut bisa menghasilkan 58.700 liter biodiesel, dengan asumsi kandungan minyak dalam rumput laut yang dihasilkan berkisar 30 persen. (LKT)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)