In Guyana and Suriname, it’s hot. Mosquitos and rain are my constant companions. Right now, I’ve got one eye on the sky, so I can grab the sheets and towels from the line before the rain begins. The longer they can hang outdoors, the better, because it’s so humid, it can take two days for clothes to dry. It rains so often and so copiously, I don’t feel guilty taking several showers a day.

I’m sweating inside the “Lungs of the Planet”–the Suriname-Guyana portion of the Amazon rainforest, home to a multitude of plant and animal species, and an important ally in fending off global warming, as these trees recycle carbon dioxide into 20% of the world’s oxygen.

95% of Suriname and 75% of Guyana are covered by rainforest. Considered developing countries (scoring  #97 and #114 respectively on the Human Development Index, out of a possible182), they are urged by conventional economists to increase their wealth by kissing their forests goodbye. Guyana listened to the World Bank and the IMF in 1991, and awarded a 50-year, gazillion-dollar contract to a Malaysian logging company. That’s one reason why it has so much less forest than Suriname today.

Now that contract has been revoked, and Guyana’s president, Bharrat Jagdeo, is promoting an alternative point of view. Instead of earning money by destroying our rain forest, he’s asking, why not keep our forests intact, and focus on harvesting their renewable products like nuts, fruits, medicinal plants? Better yet, how about paying us to leave those forests alone? For his advocacy, Mr. Jagdeo was recently named a “Champion of the Earth” by the United Nations.

In Guyana, people are very proud of the president's new title and international recognition

What Mr. Jagdeo is talking about is a concept called ecological or ecosystems services. From this perspective, the rainforest doesn’t have to be turned into furniture in order to have value. It’s intrinsically economically valuable, because it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, and sustains animal, plant, and human life. Also, the services it provides would be expensive or impossible for humans to duplicate, like figuring out how to turn all that CO2 back into oxygen by ourselves.

The concept of paying something to do nothing with a natural asset is hard to grasp for people like us, who are used to paying for something in order to consume or do something with it.  By contrast, this is not buying, but paying just to let something… be.

I’m excited about it, though. In my view, the economic paradigm that demands continual growth is going to have to change if we are to adopt more sustainable ways of living. Ecosystems services is an early sign that our whole idea of what constitutes profit and success will shift.

You can read more about payments for the ecological services of rainforests here For rainforest countries, these are important tools for preserving the forest and earning much-needed income.

Consumers like us need tools that help reduce our consumption of rainforest products. At the website of Rainforest Relief: exposing and challenging rainforest consumption you can learn how to avoid buying tropical wood products,  and see who the world’s biggest buyers are. How astonishing to learn that the government of New York City is the biggest consumer of tropical hardwoods in the US! It uses the wood for outdoor boardwalks.

It’s a two-step process. As Suriname, Guyana and other countries get paid for the intrinsic ecological value of their resources, fewer tropical wood products will be sold.  Demand will go down as we convince NYC and others to replace tropical wood with recycled plastic lumber, but income in rainforest countries will rise as alternative compensation becomes more common.

I look forward to the day when I can profit in all senses from the very existence of the rainforest. Meanwhile, I’ve got a couple more weeks of sweaty, firsthand appreciation ahead of me!

Anne Basye, Sustaining Simplicity

It is finally close to the frost-free date here in Chicago – the date that gardeners have been waiting for to get their hands dirty!  But what does that have to do with world hunger?  “World hunger” sometimes seems too big (and too complicated) of an issue.  But how about planting a few extra plants and helping others learn how to grow food?  This summer, I challenge you to grow food for your family AND donate some of your produce to your local food pantry.  Wouldn’t it be great to get your church involved too?

Planting extra to share is not a new idea, but one that seems to have become increasingly popular with the economic downturn.  More people seem to be gardening this year, and many in my community have been reminded of just how important food safety nets are.  Here are just a few examples of how churches are helping to get fresh produce into the hands of those who might not otherwise have access:

Cincinnati, OH:  Lutheran Church of the Resurrection’s “Garden of Eatin’” community garden donated approximately 700 lbs. of food to a local pantry in 2009.  http://www.lcresurrection.org/earthministry.php?submenuheader=1

Milwaukee, WI:  All People’s Church converted a vacant lot to a community garden that provides healthy produce to their food pantry, and more . . . http://www.elca.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Responding-to-the-World/ELCA-World-Hunger/Hot-Topics/LifeLines-Newsletter/Milwaukee-Sum10.aspx

Does your church have property that could be used for a community garden?  A high percentage of renters who are unable to grow their own food where they live?   An existing relationship with a local food pantry? 

Before dropping off your fresh produce, call ahead to your local food pantry to make sure they are equipped to accept it.  Join ELCA World Hunger’s social networking site – The Table – to share your plans for community gardening and sharing!  http://elcaworldhunger.ning.com/group/communitygardeningandsharing

Erin Cummisford

Each week I (or one of my colleagues) prepare sermon starters based on the lectionary that have hunger related themes (check them out and/or sign up to receive them here).   For those of you who use the Revised Common Lectionary, you know we have been working our way through the book of  Revelation.  As I was preparing May 16’s reflections I got grumpy. We are to read Revelation 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21.  Now, skipping over redundant passages or litanies of names or food laws, I understand.  I mean who really needs to know who begat whom or whether or not we can wear polyester.  I get it.  But this picking and choosing in Revelation is absurd (I told you I got grumpy).

The book of Revelation is a tough book.  It has some of the most beautiful images of worship, redemption, and hope.  It also is incredibly violent and vindictive.  What the lectionary has done throughout our journey through this tricky book is to cut out all of the latter.   So for the passage in question, Jesus is offering hope and solace and healing.  Any of the passages about judgment are removed (read for yourself here).  The lectionary is careful not to upset our modern sensibilities.

Now, I am not one who is all keen on fire and brimstone.  I don’t really want to know what horrors await fornicators or what plagues will afflict anyone who adds or removes words from the book (note the irony!).  But I do think that we are intelligent people who don’t need to be protected from the text (my feminist friends might disagree with me–let me hear your thoughts).

So how does this relate to hunger and poverty?  Well, as I so eloquently put it in my sermon starter, “Talking about poverty and hunger can make us very uncomfortable.  The statistics are daunting.  The solutions are difficult.  The whole problem in some or another may implicate you and I somehow.  It takes courage to speak about these issues.”  Yet it is precisely by speaking about these issues and engaging that discomfort that we can begin to actually bring changes.

So although it may upset us (and those around us!) I think we have to speak.  We have to engage.  We cannot be like the lectionary.

– David Creech

I”m struggling today with my willingness to contribute to the causes world hunger. I read Peter Sawtell’s “Eco-Justice Notes” from Friday, April 24. In it, he talks about the eruption of Ejyafjallajokull and the ash that disrupted flights around the world. Mr. Sawtell says:

“The interconnection of commerce, culture and climate has become real. I made a comment to friends last weekend that what we were seeing in Europe may be just a taste of how the world will soon change. The dramatic scale of action that is needed to minimize global heating should mean that the travel and trade that we now take for granted will be seen as luxuries. If we are responsible in dealing with climate change, then we will no longer see fresh produce rushed around the world. The short business trips and quick vacations to far-away lands that now seem routine will be a thing of the past. The quiet skies over Europe may be the new “normal” within a few decades.”

What? I can’t fly anymore!?

Now, I know how bad flying is for the atmosphere and the climate. I’ve known that for a long time. And I know how bad climate change is for everyone, but especially those living in poverty. Still, somehow this particular article hit me more personally than others, and I bristled as I came face to face with a problem: I love to travel, and I’m not ready to give it up. I’d even go so far as to say I value travel. Not only do I find it enjoyable, but I think I’m a more educated, appreciative, and broader-minded person because of the places I’ve seen and people I’ve encountered. Travel has changed my perceptions and enhanced my life. I want to do more of it, and I’m not likely to tell others to knock it off, either. (In fact, I know some folks who could really benefit from some global exposure!) But here Mr. Sawtell tells me my actions are irresponsible. If I’m serious about tackling climate change, I need to stop with the elective flying. And I see his point. I don’t want to trash the planet. I don’t want to add to the burdens already borne by those living in poverty. And I wouldn’t have to go anywhere. Which leaves me wondering: when your values clash, which one wins? How do you choose, and then how do you live with the choice?

What do you think? Insights welcome…

-Nancy Michaelis

~ Lana

Sources:

• FAO – www.fao.org
• WHO – www.who.int; www.wssinfo.org
• USDA – www.usda.gov
• World Food Program – www.wfp.org

According to the World Health Organization, in 2008 there were 247 million cases of malaria and nearly one million deaths—mostly among African children. In Africa, a child dies every 45 seconds of malaria, and the disease accounts for 20 percent of all childhood deaths there.

April 25 is World Malaria Day.  On this day devoted to addressing one of the most widespread fatal diseases of our time, we know that bed nets are one of several important tools to combat this disease.  Bed nets are important and the most publicized form of prevention, but that’s one of many aspects of combating this far-reaching epidemic.  It’s also about education, safe drinking water, and a global cooperation of people and organizations working together with affected communities to halt this disease.

The ELCA is part of an inter-Lutheran effort to combat malaria: the Lutheran Malaria Initiative.  As this work gains momentum, consider what you can do to support it.  Learn how youth are getting involved.

Like hunger, whether you understand malaria on an academic level or by virtue of experience with the disease, a communal gut reaction is needed to the widespread devastation this epidemic continues to cause.  As one of the body of Christ suffers, so do we all.  As one of the body of Christ has AIDS or malaria, so do we all. 

Those who have the ability to act have the responsibility to act.  Whether malaria, AIDS, hunger, and countless other justice issues in the world that disproportionately affect people living in poverty, let us step forward boldly as a public church whose witness is visible in endless acts of human connection and meaningful systems of change.

-Aaron Cooper is writer-editor for ELCA World Hunger

The causes of world hunger are complex and inter-related. The single biggest cause of hunger is poverty. People keep themselves out of poverty by earning money. How do you earn money? You get a job. BUT…What if the job you get is dangerous? What if the only job available to you doesn’t pay enough to cover all of your expenses? What if it does, but the company you work for is polluting the environment or consuming natural resources at an alarming rate? Will you quit over it, knowing that if you do, you won’t have an income?

Individuals who are lucky enough to have choices of employment offers and/or some disposable income have a responsibility to consider how their choices affect the world and others who live here. But not all individuals are so privileged, and if faced with the choice of working for a polluting factory or eating, I’m going to eat now and worry about the pollution later, even if that pollution is a danger to me and my future employment. Businesses play an important role in building sustainable livelihoods. Arguably the best businesses find a way to earn a profit while also treating their employees well and not ruining the environment.

Perhaps one example of this type of business is Grays Harbor Paper, a small town paper mill located in Hoquiam, WA.  Formed to bring jobs back into the local community, Grays Harbor Paper is dedicated to increasing its sustainability as it focuses on people, paper and the planet.

Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with Jamie, Grays Harbor Paper’s Sustainability Coordinator. Her job includes over-seeing the biannual sustainability report (following reporting guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative) and making sure that the company follows through on their sustainability promises. Jamie helped me understand a little bit about how an 82 year old mill site is giving back to the local community and the environment; thanks to a belief in sustainability’s economic, social and environmental benefits.

Grays Harbor Paper provides more than 230 full-time jobs

Caring for people and communities:

The original mill site was built in 1928 as the Grays Harbor Pulp Company and has changed hands over the decades. In 1992 the functioning pulp and paper mills on-site were closed and about 600 local jobs were lost. A year later, in 1993, Grays Harbor Paper was opened by local investors and as of 2008 reporting, 231 full-time jobs with benefits are in full swing (in a town of roughly 9,000 inhabitants.) The mill also houses a water treatment plant. Grays Harbor Paper’s 125 acre riverside location means that special care must be taken not to pollute the local waterways as nearby beach towns are historically supported by the fishing and crabbing industries. In addition, docks located close to the mill are a favorite spot for local recreational fishermen. All of the mill’s storm water, as well as water used in the paper manufacturing process, are sent into the water treatment system before being released into the natural environment. They also treat waste water from a neighboring fish protein plant.

Caring for the earth – an economic competitive advantage:

In 1997 the mill installed its first of three turbines which generate thermal and electrical energy from biomass. This carbon-neutral process was initially installed as a cost saving measure. Biomass comes from the wood waste of logging and clear cut sites in the forests found within a 20 mile radius of the mill. Normally, the wood waste would be burned on the logging site, releasing CO2 back into the environment, and preparing the land to be replanted. Today, Grays Harbor Paper collects this wood waste and brings it to the mill where it is burned to create the energy necessary to produce paper. It is considered carbon-neutral because the carbon released through burning is equal to that which the trees sequestered during their lifetime. While there is some debate over whether this waste should be left on the land to rot and return to the earth, using it as biomass keeps the methane which may be produced from it rotting out of the air, uses its energy to create a product and clears the land for replanting. Additionally, the scrubbers and filters present in the machinery at the mill allow the biomass to be burned slightly cleaner than it would in a forest environment. In addition to its carbon neutral energy, 30% of the mill’s paper is made from post-consumer recycled pulp. Harbor 100, their 100% recycled paper product, is “Green e” and “Forest Stewardship Council” certified. According to Grays Harbor Paper’s 2008 Sustainability Report “every ton of Harbor 100 produced saves an estimated 11, 847 gallons of water, 8 million BTUs of energy, 719 pounds of solid waste, and 2,460 pounds of greenhouse gases.” Harbor 40 is the other recycled option – it contains 40% post-consumer recycled pulp. Grays Harbor Paper purchases its pulp on the open market. The majority of its recycled pulp is trucked from a mill in Oregon, just 80 miles away. Other pulp is delivered by rail from the Midwest.

The on-site water treatment plant helps Grays Harbor Paper to be a good steward of their riverside location

It is also encouraging that other organizations are catching on to this recycled paper trend. Nike, the World Bank, the State of Washington and the International Monetary Fund all use Harbor 100. There are a number of paper mills who produce 100% recycled paper in the United States. Grays Harbor Paper is one example of an exciting and growing trend, but is going above and beyond with their use of biomass for power production.

Lessons:

It is important to remember employment’s relationship to hunger as well as a business’ relationship to the environment. As we purchase products in our everyday life, we must consider who we are supporting. Are the businesses behind the products that we buy concerned with ethical, environmental and social standards? When we support, lead or work for businesses which care for creation – God’s earth and people – we also support positive employment opportunities, helping more individuals to support themselves and their families. Also, the more sustainable a business, the more generations it can benefit.

Current book: Strategies for the Green Economy by Joel Makower…good stuff so far!

Today’s favorite link: www.waterbobble.com

Happy Earth Day ~ Lana

*ELCA World Hunger receives no incentives from any of the companies mentioned in this blog series. The writer has chosen each company based on their proximity, availability and their work toward green and/or sustainable practices.

Cellphones are everywhere in Guatemala. You might see one peeking from the skirt of a girl in beautiful, traditional traje, on the dashboard of a bus, or in the shirt pocket of the man collecting quetzales from passengers squeezing out of an overstuffed microbus. Cellphones and texts intensify connections in a society that is already very communal. Ipods, which I only see used by young tourists from Europe and North America, sever us from the surroundings we paid so much to reach.  And when we are lost in our music, what are we missing? The late poet Bill Holm wonders in this little poem, which appeals to my luddite side.

EARBUD

Earbud–a tiny marble sheathed in foam
to wear like an interior earring so you
can enjoy private noises wherever you go,
protected from any sudden silence.
Only check your batteries, then copy
a thousand secret songs and stories
on the tiny pod you carry in your pocket.
You are safe now from other noises made
by other people, other machines, by chance,
noises you have not chosen as your own.
To get your attention, I touch your arm
to show you the tornado or the polar bear.
Sometimes I catch you humming or talking to the air
as if to a shrunken lover waiting in your ear.

Bill Holm. Playing the Black Piano. Milkweed Editions, 2004.

Enjoy your old-fashioned ears today, and all that they bring you.

Anne Basye, Sustaining Simplicity

This is the seventh and final post in a series considering the root causes of hunger. The Millennium Development Goals serve as a helpful framework.

Millennium Development Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Because everyone lives on a single planet and participates in a global economy, poor countries and hungry people can’t solve their problems alone, and shouldn’t have to. There are too many ways the problems and solutions are connected to – and in some cases caused by – the rest of the world. Much of Goal 8 has to do with issues of  debt, trade, and aid, and all countries have a role in implementing changes that will give developing countries a better chance at success. Honestly, I’m feeling like I should have an advanced degree in economics to do this topic justice. Since I don’t, I’ll treat it briefly, point to other sources of information, and welcome your comments!

Debt

The debt crisis facing many developing countries is severe. Governments owe billions of dollars of debt to developed countries, and they have no way of paying it. With widespread poverty and insufficient economic output, some indebted governments do not generate even the funds to pay the interest (which is substantial). With so much of their limited money going to developed countries in debt payment, developing countries have little left over for infrastructure like roads and sanitation, or economic development policies like job creation plans and education. That such large amounts of money were loaned in the first place is the fault of both borrowers and lenders, and sometimes go back decades to corrupt regimes that no longer exist. The situation today is that many countries are facing debilitating debt that they have no way of paying and which ensures their continued national poverty. The solution includes working with developed nations on policies of debt relief and cancellation.  Jubilee is an organization doing lots of work on this front, and I recommend checking out their website if you’re interested in learning more.

Trade

Trade is another area where global partnerships between developed and developing nations is needed. Exporting goods is one way developing nations can generate more income. However, there are many barriers to their doing so successfully. First, many developed countries protect their own markets and citizens through tariffs and subsidies. Tariffs on imports increase the purchase cost of foreign goods and therefore make them less desirable than cheaper, domestic goods. The result for the developing country is that, while their production costs may be the same or less, few people in developed nations will buy their products because the final price is higher than competing products. Subsidies are another trade barrier, and agricultural subsidies are especially problematic. American farmers receive government payments for some crops, which encourages them to overproduce.  With lots of, say, wheat available, the price drops. Since American farmers get paid more than the market price through subsidies, low wheat prices aren’t much of a problem for them. But low prices and lots of wheat mean that others in the world who are growing wheat without payments from their governments can’t compete with our low prices. Not only can they not sell it to other countries, they may not even be able to see it in their own. In this example, individuals certainly won’t make a living as wheat farmers, and the country won’t make money as a wheat exporter.

So, some would say, don’t grow wheat. Make and export something else the world needs. That can work, but for a country to move into new or different industries, they need things like investment money, skilled employees, marketing knowledge, and infrastructure. If the country is already poor (and spending much of their GDP in interest on their debt), funding this type development isn’t realistic. Providing assistance for trade development and reducing trade barriers are ways wealthy countries concerned about poverty can and should help developing  countries gain entry into the global economy. Developing countries, in turn, have a role in creating governmental structures and financial policies that encourage and sustain investment and assistance.

The issues surrounding global trade and its effects on developing nations are complex. A few starting places for more information include the One Campaign website’s overview of “the issues,” Bread for the World Institute’s 2009 Hunger Report titled, “Global Development: Charting a New Course, and Paul Collier’s book titled, The Bottom Billion.

Aid

Obviously, the partnership of wealthy countries is required to funnel enough aid money to developing nations to make a difference with things like economic development. But Goal 8 goes beyond sending money. It considers other assets of the developed world and how to more equally distribute them. Of particular interest is developed countries’ possession of technology, especially in the area of computers, and pharmaceuticals. As the developed world continues to advance in these areas, its people live longer and become more sophisticated, educated, and competitive in global markets. Meanwhile, the developing world continues to suffer with preventable and treatable diseases, and lacks the benefits that mobile phone, computers, the Internet, and other technology provides. To end poverty and hunger, the partnership of developed nations must incorporate these less traditional forms of aid.

More information about pharmaceutical assistance, telecommunications, and actually all of Goal 8 – as well as the other MDGs – is available at this UN website.

Conclusion

I started this series of posts by saying that the reasons world hunger exists are complex and interrelated. While that’s very true, the upside is that it also means there are many points of entry and leverage in making a difference. ELCA World Hunger is committed to taking a comprehensive view of the problem of world hunger and tackling it from many directions, including relief, development, education, and advocacy. We hope you’ll join our efforts. To make a donation and/or learn more about how to get involved with ELCA World Hunger, please visit our website at www.elca.org/hunger.

-Nancy Michaelis

A while back I expressed concern about the way in which some of the biblical identity texts could be divisive.  I made particular reference to Paul’s letter to the Galatians that on the one hand so beautifully declares that “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus ” (Gal 3:28) while on the other hand wishing that those who disagree with him would just go ahead and castrate themselves (Gal 5:12).  (Elsewhere in 5:2-4 he declares that if anyone is circumcised, Christ is no use to them, they have fallen from grace.)

A similar situation is present in the Johannine literature.  The Gospel and the epistles of John have some of the most inspiring language around love for one another (see, e.g., John 13:34-35 or 1 John 3:16). At the same time, the Gospel has some of the fiercest vitriol in the whole New Testament aimed at Jews (John 8:44) and 2 and 3 John make it clear that the community is to show no hospitality to leaders of rival factions.

For me, texts such as these are uncomfortable.  I want every one to get along.  Picking sides and anathematizing certain groups and/or individuals challenges my ecumenical and pluralistic proclivities.

Bishop Desmond Tutu perhaps helps  with this dilemma.  He reminds us that “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.  If an elephant has its foot on the tail of mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Maybe picking sides is not such a bad thing…

– David Creech