From economics to harsh reality: my last week

So I finally have a chance to post - would love to show you my pictures, but will have to leave it till another time. I write from northern India, Dharamshala, where I find myself and my girlfriend Raven, after a week of travelling.

Since my last post I finished exams (just found I got an A+ in one of them, which is awesome), went to a Ecological Economics conference run by the Green Party of Aotearoa, and then shipped off to India (OK, flew. Sorry future generations.)

The Ecological Economics conference was an interesting way to spend time the day after my last exam (on more conventional macroeconomics) but I couldn't pass up the chance of seeing David Suzuki speak. He's an inspirational speaker, and started the conference with putting us within a bio-centric perspective. Instead of the economy, society and the environment being three interlocking, equally-sized circles, a more accurate model, he suggested, was one big circle, signifying the biosphere, and thirty million circles within it - one for each species. The human one though, takes up 40% of the area, and is rapidly expanding. Population and consumption of resources by humans has sky-rocketed almost vertically and many times in just 200 years - a tiny blip of time in the 150 000 or so years of modern humans. Although lost on some other speakers in the conference unfortunately, Suzuki also pointed out that 80% of resource-use is by the wealthiest 20% of the worlds population - a fact no leader of a wealthy country will freely admit. And so a few days later I was off to where the rubber meets the road in this reality - India.

India is one of the great emerging economies, with a high economic growth rate, a poor population overall, around one billion inhabitants, and an emerging wealthy class, taking more than their fare share. I arrived late at night in Delhi, after a day tour around Singapore, which also has a high growth rate, but is more wealthy overall. Four million people situated on a tiny island, with 90% housed apartments in the sky through a government scheme. It's a very clean and wealthy city, with a mind-bogglingly busy port, and an ironically interventionist, single-part government; ironic given it's incredibly high rate of economic growth. It was a great juxtaposition from the city we were about to find ourselves in.

We had heard Delhi was a horrible place from many different people before we got there, and we arrived a quite Indian man from our hotel to pick us up and take us there. The ride from the airport felt like a destruction derby - with less destruction, and more derby, but the car with the front bumper hanging on by a couple of screws, squealing around beside us, certainly increased the destruction side of things. They are incredibly skilled drivers, as we were to discover, weaving in and out of optimistically-painted lane dividers, fitting in as many vehicles into a small space as possible, and beeping to say "I'm coming through!" rather than relying on the silent and leisurely indicators we use in the West. Our room was nice - three star, and we quickly fell asleep.

Our first day was a bit of a walk to get orientated, around Conaught Place, near our hotel. Dogs, dirt, and toilet smell all through the street. Many an eager rickshaw driver, tout and salesman tried to sell us something, or convince us to use a "Government" tourist bureau. Lots of people complimented my beard before trying their tricks - the next day it was Raven's Indian dress she bought the day before to fit in more appropriately with the culture. Despite our best efforts we were screwed over a couple of times - something that gets easier to avoid the more time you spend in a place. I thought this was free market capitalism at its best - game theory of each person trying to screw over the other, especially as they don't think they will ever see you again in the vast city of millions. Needless to say it was quite horrible.

We got to the Red Fort and a Muslim temple on day two. It was also the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, where they sacrifice animals (best to read the link to get a less simple an naive account...). Coincidentally there were lots of goats being traded that day, and lead around the city to people's homes or wherever. We ate some spicy food and gave ourselves horrible stomach pains, and the next day got the hell out of there, to our relief.

Yesterday we flew into Dharamshala, and got a taxi to just north of it, Mcleodganj. Here the Dalai Lama resides, we're at the foot of the Himalayas, and everything is Free Tibet. It's a nice quiet place - slightly spoiled by all the rubbish and fast traffic through its narrow one-way roads - but it's great to be here. We're here for at least the next week, and the internet is surprisingly good, so you'll hear from me soon!

After a break I'm back with a vengence

Kia ora 2009 and readers of my blog - whom I hope will grow in numbers, both through word of mouth, and breeding. I hearby commit to you that 2009 will be a year of regular - though not neccessarily prolific - blogging. I will continue to cross-post onto g.blog where I see fit.

A couple of thoughts to start the year from my new years road trip, which took me to Rhythm and Vines in Gisborne, and north to the Coromandel afterwards.

1) We have a serious drug problem in this country in many ways (and remember, when I use the word "drug" when referring to recreational drugs, this always includes alcohol, which is the worst of the worst.) Having travelled around quite a bit last year, I saw that it's the same in many senses in many countries, but stastically we are one of the worst countries in terms of alcohol abuse. We just drink so much so quickly, and among many people, we lack the ability to have a beer or two or a glass of wine for the enjoyment of it. It's all or nothing. Many of us - especially of my age, but definitely not exclusively - also lack the ability to think beyond drinking as the only option for a Friday or Saturday night. I have my own opinions about how to deal with this - and raising the drinking age is not one of them. We need a shift in our thinking, especially in seeing alcohol as the harmful drug that it is. We should have fun with drugs, expand our relationships and our minds, but not over-indulge.

2) Greater wealth and the accumulation of stuff is the driver of so many people - Whangamata being case and point at this time of year. It definitely is not the driver for me, but drives our current economy. We need to snap out of the dream and focus on what's really important, and realistic. Our environment is in dire straights, but there is currently enough to go around. So freakin' share already!

(The picture above is at Whangamata harbour. What is it that you desire in the photo - the jetski and the "biscuit", or the pristine environment, and the protection of the rare and sensitive ecosystem below the water? What do you think we'll be thinking in 50 years time? It's about having fun, but not over-indulging.)

(Due to a lack of enthusiasm for photography this year, above and below are from a year ago at BW Campgrounds, where my friends and I stayed again in Gisborne for Rhythm and Vines. It was pretty much the same though. Above is New Years day and one of the casualities recuperating from the night before. Below is the workers, paid about $14 an hour this time, predominently brown, many quite young, cleaning up mountains of waste for rich white folk).

Disclaimer: I go to Rhythm and Vines because it's such a huge gathering of my friends and people I know. There's good music and lots of good times. But I ache when I see the mountains of waste from our throw-away existence, even if I may not show it so much at the time.

May your 2009 bring you greater consciousness in your relationships and your understanding of all those things that are bigger than us.

Should you give money to beggars?

An interesting poll this (last) week. Seems the viewers of my blog were split on this moral issue which has no clear answer.

In my opinion of course you can't give a definitive answer that fits with every case. Of course the best thing you can do to help their situation is give them a way to improve their situation greatly, and I'm no expert in this field. But it obviously varies from situation to situation what that might be - some of them have mental and drug problems, others are just simply poor and don't have a place fit in in this world. So I would say it depends on their situation whether you should give them money or not, but if you want to save your resources for more structured programs than that's not a bad thing - as long as you follow through. It's just difficult to judge when the situation presents itself raw in front of your eyes to know what's best. Unfortunately, especially in the countries I've been visiting, there are far too many people like that. Responsibility to do something has to fall on Governments and communities - but in some countries they have many problems of poverty to deal with.

My previous post discussing this issue is here.

Should you give money to beggars?

For this week´s poll another issue more focussed on developing nations.

In the last three months I have seen more beggars and street people than I have in my whole life. I must say, I think it was worst in Brazil, where they have serious inequality issues, though Mexico, especially Mexico City (when compared with Guadalajara) has its fair share. So, should you give them money when they hold out their hand in desperation?

Some things to think about. There are many enterprising people in the countries where I´ve been, earning money how they can, given their situation (educationally and so on). There are so many shoe-shiners, food stalls, CD stalls, newspaper stands and people selling things on the metro and busses, all doing what they can to make money. Not an ideal situation, but teach a man to fish... you know how the saying goes. Perhaps money is better spent on good projects, rather than just handing out money to the individual, so that these people can become self-dependant. A tough thing to think about though when you are confronted by those looks - looks you don´t want to have to get used to.

Another thing, from the point of view of a visitor. One example that illustrates this point well is when I was asked for money by a kid in Sao Paulo who looked perfectly clean, healthy and well-fed. Tourists are seen as a way to make money, nothing else, and people in certain areas have been trained to approach them to make money - whether by selling them something or just begging. Again, not a nice situation, and how can you tell whether the person needs the money more than the next?

Furthermore, how can you tell what they are going to spend the money on? A good case example was Salvador in Brazil. There is a horrible problem with crack there from what I heard, and you can definitely see it in the eyes and health of some of the street people. If you just hand them money, are you simply supporting their crack problem? With structured programs at least you can tell what you are putting your money towards. The other option is, of course, giving them food (and watching them eat it, incase they swap that for drugs, which is not unheard of according to Lonely Planet).

Then there is judging it on their situation. In Mexico City I saw a few people holding out drug perscriptions for them or their children which they claimed they couldn´t afford to fill. There are also many old and disabled people who possibly wouldn´t be able to get employment, and if they can´t get a benefit they have no other choice. Compare this to people who look more like they can make money themselves. However, many street people have problems greater than meets the eye - mental problems, drug problems. But of course these people are probably better in some sort of care to help them get better.

So should you give beggars money directly? A head versus heart question, especially when the situation is infront of your eyes. Or should you just save your money and time for trustable programs, and political action, even though you know that they wont reach every individual, and every situation, and wont help the person in front of you right then, and maybe ever. Being one person, where are you best to place your eggs ( if you indeed want to give any away). So have a think, and move your mouse to the right to vote now.

Developing nations and sustainability

With the latest poll result for this week in, it appears my blog readers who decided to vote agree with my opinion. Yes, everyone does need to play their part in becoming more sustainable. The living world is in a dire state, and as we just continue to produce so much pollution and waste and use up so many resources, things have now reached tipping point. So rich and poor nations alike need to do a lot more, no matter what the state of their population´s living conditions are. Environmental wellbeing and quality of life go hand in hand.

A good example of environmental health and human health from developing nations is a major thing that I didn´t touch on in my last post on the issue. Water quality. Besides the undrinkable tapwater of everywhere I´ve been (which creates extra waste in the form of many plastic drinking bottles), in the Amazon you could clearly see one of the major reasons why the water is so sick. Sewage; raw and untreated. Unfortunately there didn´t seem to be any adequate sewage facilities at all for the people who lived along the Amazon. I saw long drops that were actually a very short drop, straight into the river below. The numbers of people who live along this river can be having no small impact on the health of it, and therefore no small impact on themselves. Perhaps one example of a simple sustainable development for them is composting toilets - dealing with the sewage, and providing the locals with fertiliser for their food crops.

Which brings me to another point in this complex issue. Developed nations, being disproporionately responsible for the pressing current environmental issues such as climate change, have something they can do to help the future of all humanity. Help developing nations develop sustainably by sharing sustainable technology they have developed - which will improve the quality of life for everyone involved.

There are of course many other issues to work through, from liability of developed nations, to the best way to share technology and transform the global economy. The greatest issues of our time, but with care we have the ability to improve the quality of life of everyone and become more sustainble and equal. But the urgency of the situation can not be exaggerated, especially not by scientists who almost unanimously agree it is very urgent. And if we do nothing, who will loose out the most? The poor, of course, especially in poor nations.

Should developing nations be doing more to become sustainable?

As promised yesterday, getting back into the issues with a new poll (finally). This weeks is about developing nations.

Over the last two and a half months travelling around Latin America I have seen first hand what some (admittedly overall realitively wealthy) developing nations are like in regards to the environment. Brazil, for example, has a reasonably strong Green Party, and is a world leader in production of ethanol-based "biofuels", or "agrifuels" as the European Greens insist they are called. However, it is also one of the worst offenders in deforestation in the world, behind, only, perhaps, Indonesia (if memory serves me correctly). Although there were signs of an increasing environmental awareness (demonstrated by some advertisements playing up on people´s want to do something for the environment), there were many signs that Brazil was far behind my experiences in New Zealand, which I believe still has a long way to go as well. Plastic was one of the things that pained me most. Plastic bags handed out with everything, even if you were buying a single bottle of water. I learnt pretty quickly how to say "No bag thanks" in Portuguese. I also endured very strange looks from a supermarket bag-packer when I gave her my own reuseable bag (yes, you should take them travelling too). They also use plastic cups for everything, including beer, and piles paper napkins at all but maybe the fanciest restuarants (I´m assuming, as I never went to one that fancy). There were streets that looked like rubbish tips, and especially in busy cities, people handing you fliers at every corner. Furthermore, a city like Sao Paulo had public transport, it seemed, more out of necessity, rather than out of a Government preference for the more sustainable option. Cycling is a bit of a death-wish, and cars always have priority over pedestrians. You often need to be fast to cross the road.

Brazil is similar to Venezuela and Mexico from what I´ve seen. Except cars are bigger in Venezuela and Mexico, presumably because the two countries have lots of oil. Speaking of oil, and turning to other developing nations, the US Government in particular is pointing at countries like India and China for their skyrocketing emissions when nations are debating what to do about lowering emissions. They are also being partially blamed for record-high oil prices due to their increasing thirst.

The argument over consumption of oil though boils down to an important point. Developing nations are still significantly (and very significantly in many cases) poorer than developed nations, and as such have a lot more poverty. Lower incomes = a lesser impact on the environment through less use and wastage of resources. So even if attitudes to the environment are probably overall behind (though not necessarily that far behind) developed nation´s attitudes towards the environment, per capita developed nations still have far less of an impact on the environment than developed nations. Their priorities lie with economic growth far ahead of environmental protection. Shouldn´t they be allowed to develop so they are on par with developed nations, and can the world cope with the increased use of resources? Do developed nations have any liability for the damage already done, and to help distribute resources more fairly?

These are some of the issues in a very complex one. So with the above (and more) in mind, please vote in this weeks poll.

(The photo with this post was taken in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela. It is a national park in which only indigenous people are allowed to live, and was outside a settlement that tourists have to walk through to get to one of the many waterfalls in the areas. It is a sign meant to demonstrate how long it takes different types of rubbish to break down.)

Travel musings. Yes, I´ve had a lot of time to think lately

I think, after so long travelling and just recounting my journey, it´s about time for some philosophical musings, if you will.

So it seems I´m anti-tour. I went on the 42 day Rio to Caracas tour two months ago with that mindset, and still appear to have it. Once you have a position it´s sometimes hard to change it. So why do I take this position?

Firstly, I guess, I´ve grown up with romantic ideas of what travelling really should be. Hitchhiking, roughing it on a very tight budget, stretching out of your comfort zone to make you quite a lot more tough and worldly in your outlook. But, because of it all, having great experiences and doing amazing things. Perhaps more like Motorcycle Diaries. Quite far from what I did, and far from the norm of travelling in this age. The world is much smaller now.

Touring is very padded, even on the cheapest and most basic ones like I did. Everingthing is pre-organised for you, so the sense of adventure is diminished. And you can do things for cheaper, but you would end up taking a lot longer going to the places you can on a tour because you´re more or less making it up as you go. Tours give you a lot more security (especially for a young, lonesome traveller as myself), but you can easily end up hangin´with all the whities, rather than adventuring out as much. However, that can happen anyway I suppose, at a hostel. But at least your not stuck with the same people if you don´t want to be or don´t like them. Then again, it´s up to you what you do, and I made some great friends on my tour. I found, though, that tours seem more based on going to the destinations, doing the best activities and quickly moving on. This can get tiring and old after a while.

And now, to step back further. Travel. What´s that all about. Seeing amazing new things, meeting new people, getting to know new cultures. Excellent times, and very addictive. Also, in these busy times, taking a break to recharge one´s batteries.

At the start of my tour I started reading Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracey Kidder (and highly recommend it). But it put me to shame. It is a real life account of a doctor called Paul Farmer who has devoted his life to curing patients in very poor countries, and trying to stop the inequalities that make countries like Haiti (his true home) so poor, when the US is so grossly wealthy. It made me resolve that future travel I want to do with more purpose. I like to have concrete reasons for going to places. These range from helping local people to going to Global Green congresses, to seeing family. So I guess on this current trip I´ve had the latter two purposes, among others.

But that leads into the fact that travel is very resource intensive by it´s nature. Carbon emissions are a big one, even if you do a lot of land based travel whilst at your destination. (Incidentally I looked into travelling by cargo ship, which produces far far less carbon emissions, from Canada to NZ on my way back, and it turns out it is much more expensive than flying, even though/because it takes like a month). Other things range from food-related waste if you eat out a lot, and room cleaning if you´re shifting hotels a lot. It depends how you travel. It´s also a very difficult balance to strike between helping local communities with your business, and ruining their local environment with your waste and travel, even if it is unintentional. It´s important to remember, especially as a New Zealander, that you have a magnificent backyard, and an excellent way to clense the soul is to use that backyard sustainably. It is far better for the environment, and get´s you closer in touch with what you loose out on living in the city (ie. go tramping!).

So, before this gets too long, I will sum up this mish-mash of thoughts. Not many people have the money to travel internationally, and there aren´t enough resources in this world to sustain the current style of travel. So if you´re lucky enough to do it, enjoy it as I am, but don´t forget the true cost, and be conscious of trying to travel as lightly as possible. Also learn from it, use it to develop your worldview. There are many other reasons to travel, other than just to see things and do activities, you just have to find them, and judge their merits for yourself.

I´m having a great time and learning about what developing nations are like. New Zealand is still very much my home, but maybe next time I travel I´ll be doing it very differently.

(The picture with this post was taken between Copacabana and Ipanema beaches in Rio de Janeiro. Although it looks like it´s raining in the background, it was a very sunny day. That´s smog).

Favela

Yesterday I did a Favela (or slum) tour, with Marcelo Armstrong`s company. He was the pioneer of the Favela tour, but now there are many companies that do it. Marcelo`s tour takes you to the biggest Favela in Rio (and second biggest in the world - with 60,000 inhabitants) Hocinha. It`s above Ipanema beach area. It also goes to a small Favela, with only 3,000 people, called Villa Canoas.
The whole notion of a Favela tour in the first place can seem a little bit wrong. In a friend`s hostel, someone wrote "It`s not a zoo!" on an advertising poster. However, apparently the communities were consulted before they started getting big, and they decided that they wanted the tours. They bring money, and change people`s perceptions. The first stop, for example, had a small market of local artist`s work to sell to tourists. The tour I went on partially funds a "school" - though really it`s a place to go outside of the short school hours to get fed, taken care of and have extra academic help. I certainly learnt a lot more about Favelas and what they`re actually like.

Favelas are a huge part of Rio. They are unusual in that they are scattered through out the city, instead of being on the outskirts (as they seemed to be in Sao Paulo). Some now famous people - such as sports stars - grew up in Favelas. They are also the driver that started Carneval in Rio, and apparently have the best after-parties. There are about 160 in Rio, so a large amount of people live in them.

On the way to Hocinha there was a graphic illustration of the appalling wealth divide. We went past a private school and saw all the cars and their chauffeurs waiting for the students to come out. Then, just around the corner, we hit the main (and only proper) road in Hocinha (shown in the first picture).

It was different from what I imagined. There`s all the problems you hear about - the low standard of living, the fact that organised crime units run the place and that police are actually worse than the drug dealers who keep the law and order and the buildings that are erected out of the materials people could find, with no building codes adhered to, and no meters attached to the web of power lines. (The gangs are only really are violent over drugs, and if there`s a war between them and another gang unit, or the police. The police on the other hand are lowly paid and corrupt, even robbing a bank not long after in opened in Hocinha). But the reality is they are the same as any people - clean, dressed in normal clothes, and going about their daily lives. There were shops, banks, buses, cars and bikes. They just earn a lot less, are less educated, and live in much more crowded conditions (though things are pretty crowded all over Rio, being a big city and all).

The second Favela, Villa Canoas, was a little different. It was sandwiched between wealthy houses and a golf course, again showing the wealth divide and the integrated nature of the Favelas. But it was small, and more like a labarenth. The houses were a few stories high (some piled on top of each other), and the "streets" were only just wide enough to fit two people across. The buildings closed in above, limiting the penetration of natural light. It was very strange, like walking through a dungeon, but with peoples` houses and even shops on either side. A very claustrophobic existence.

Villa Canoas, being so small and manageable, has had some reforms put in place. There are meters for power, street names, and a sewage system (I think). The federal Government is planning to put this kind of infrastructure in all Favelas - which is very ambitious, and will take some time (of course, being run by the Government) if it happens at all. It`s a trade-off - the people will have more regulation, paying for power and probably taxes too, which they don`t now, but then they get important and vital infrastructure in return.

A great experience, I learnt a lot.