Dalai Lama: Cultivate Inner Peace to Save the Planet

Posted by News Editor in Air/Climate, Latest News, RSS on May 13, 2013 1:31 am
Article from http://ens-newswire.com/

PORTLAND, Oregon, May 12, 2013 (ENS) – “The main thing is the oneness of humanity,” His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, said during an environmental summit Saturday in Portland.

“In 1959 I came from Tibet and escaped to India. Now the whole world has some problems, but there is no other place to escape,” he told an audience of 11,000 people. “Environmental protection, taking care of our world, is like taking care of our own home. This is our only home, so we have to take care, and not only for our generation.”

The Dalai Lama shared the summit stage with Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Executive Director of the Oregon Environmental Council Andrea Durbin, and David Suzuki, a Canadian scientist, broadcaster and environmentalist.

The Tibetan spiritual leader says the world’s environmental problems stem from greed, a lifestyle based on over-consumption and a global population of seven billion that is outstripping the Earth’s ability to sustain it.

“By the end of this century, there may be 10 billion people,” he said. “We have to think very seriously about the future of humanity. Environmental issues are a key factor.”

“Due to global warming, the south pole, north pole ice quite rapidly melting, so sea level is rising, also climate now change, also earthquakes,” said the Dalai Lama. “We are responsible for the emission of carbon dioxide, also deforestation.”

“Meantime, there is serious concern about the gap between rich and poor on a global level and also on a national level,” he said in excellent English, consulting with his translator, Dr. Thupten Jinpa, only occasionally.

“We take growth for granted. Just making money, money, money, money, money – and spend on luxurious lifestyle. I think in the long run this is not good,” he said.

He asked the audience to imagine what the world would look like if each of the two billion people in India and China had a car as do people in “so-called developed countries.”

Just to find the space for so many cars would be difficult, the Dalai Lama said. “We must think about these problems that are coming; they are inevitable, these problems,” he warned.

Governor Kitzhaber said one of the problems we face is “the assumption that consumption can go on forever and at an increasing rate.”

“Global climate change, the decimation of our rainforest, the collapse of fisheries – a whole host of things suggest that unlimited economc growth on a finite planet is beginning to bump up against the physical limits of our planet,” said the governor. “More people are impoverished, their kids are hungry, fewer and fewer people are being lifted up by that economy.”

Another problem is that “we measure the wrong things,” said Kitzhaber.

The Gross National Product measures all the economic activity of the country and anything that produces a profit counts as a plus. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was “great for the economy,” he said, “carnage on the highways, crime, the prison system, the war in Afghanistan – all count as positive in our current way of measuring,” the governor explained.

“We need first of all a new metric that balances and counts as a deficit environmental degradation, that counts as a plus stay-at-home mothers, volunteerism in the community, and healthy kids,” he said.

“I think the fundamental challenge is to say – what does an economy look like that can operate within the environmental and physical limits of the planet and actually moves everybody up,” Kitzhaber said.

“If we’re going to have a consumption-based economy, and I can’t envision an economy that doesn’t involve consumption or a life that doesn’t involve consumption, then what we consume and the rate at which we consume it really matters,” said the governor. “If you start with the assumption that it has to be sustainable both environmentally and socially, then it opens the field to creative thinking of what that might look like.”

The summit had been planned for months, but it happened to occur just two days after scientists announced that for the first time in human history, atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, CO2, have risen above 400 parts per million.

Many climate scientists have warned that 350 ppm is the safe upper limit for CO2 in the atmosphere to avert the worst consequences of climate change – droughts, floods, wildfires, sea level rise, extreme weather and extinction of species.

Dr. Suzuki responded with alarm. “A lot of people I have respect for in the world are saying we’ve passed too many tipping points to go back. The annoucement of 400 ppm is absolutely catastrophic,” he said.

“We have a very, very urgent crisis right now just in terms of the atmosphere,” Suzuki warned. “We elevate the economy above the very atmosphere that sustains us. We’ve lost the sense of what are the really important things that keep us alive.”

“His Holiness talks about how we have to act as one species, as one group. Now the only time we see that is in movies when aliens attack the planet – then you see the Russian president calling the Chinese president, calling the Americans,” said Suzuki.

David Suzuki

“Now the atmosphere is the unifying issue. It’s unAmerican to say we can’t do anything about this. It’s not the American way,” said the Canadian environmentalist and broadcaster.

Durbin, who heads the Oregon Environmental Council, said, “I think climate change is the most significant issue of my generation and my childrens’ generation,” but she is also concerned about the prevalence of toxic chemicals.

“We are exposing ourselves every day to untested, unregulated toxic chemicals in the food we eat, in the water we drink, our air, the products we use, the buildings we live, work and go to school in,” Durbin said.

“We’re all participating in a big chemistry experiment. These chemicals are being passed on from generation to generation. These chemicals can last for hundreds of years.”

“Babies are being born pre-polluted,” she exclaimed. “An American pregnant woman can be carrying, on average, 43 chemicals in her body that she would be passing on her child in her womb. We learn increasingly about their impact – cancer, autism, learning disabilities, early onset puberty, infertility, birth defects – to me that is just morally wrong.”

We have a broken system in the United States. Regulation of toxics haven’t been updated in nearly four decades. There are 80,000 chemicals that are in use today, we’ve only tested 200 of them. Clearly, we’re out of step with where our laws need to be to protect human health.

Durbin would like to see the United States adopt the European system that requires companies to prove a chemical is safe before they allow it into the market. “We need that kind of refom at a national level in Congress,” she said.

All speakers agreed that education is the key to environmental protection.

“If we use our human thinking of long-term interest, then we truly become human beings,” said the Dalai Lama. “Not through prayer, not through blessing, but through education. So education is the key factor. The existing education system is not adequate; it is very much oriented toward material values.”

In addition to education, Suzuki, Durbin and Kitzhaber all agreed that more political action is needed to turn back the environmental threats facing the planet.

Governor Kitzhaber believes we need to put a price on carbon so carbon dioxide emissions can be limited.

“Most people know in their hearts that we will sooner or later be putting a price on carbon. It’s happened in California, it’s happened in British Columbia with the carbon tax, which is a much simpler more direct way,” he said. “The point is, we’re going to get there. We need to be much more explicit about having this conversation. It’s beginning to surface in this state, I’m sure it will surface in Washington under Governor [Jay] Inslee’s jurisdiction. If the West Coast were to move in that direction together, it’s the sixth largest economy in the world.”

“Fundamentally rethinking the economy is the long-term solution,” he said.

During this summit and throughout his three days of appearances in Oregon, the Dalai Lama said time and again, “Inner wealth – human affection, human friendship, these are the most important.”

“Just to think of yourself, is foolish, selfish,” he said. “One company, one family, one individual who always consumes – more greed, more greed more greed. regardless of other consequences – this is a mistake.”

“Develop inner strength,” said the Tibetan leader. “The person who develops inner peace – that person develops a precious human life.”

Posted by News Editor in Air/Climate, Latest News, RSS on May 13, 2013 1:31 am
Article from http://ens-newswire.com/

On Criticizing China

A unified field theory on assessing goods and bads.

JAMES FALLOWSMAY 11 2013, 12:25 AM ET
Article from http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/05/on-criticizing-china/275704/

The day just ended, Friday, May 10, was an absolutely beautiful day in Beijing. Warm, clear, sunny, fresh -- the kind of moment I celebrated when living here as representing "Paradise Beijing." What you see above is a random shot I took through a bus window this afternoon on the west side of town. 

That's probably a useful context for a long note from a reader now based in the Boston area, who is taking me to task for the tone of recent commentary about China. I disagree with a lot of his incidental points but actually agree with where he ends up. I'll explain after giving him his say -- and after adding some interior reference numbers for later discussion. This reader writes:

I've been thinking quite hard about the amount of negative China articles that have appeared on your blog, usually in the form of links to Western laments about Chinese life and culture, as well as, of course, pictures of Beijing's pollution [1]. This is part of what I view as a general media trend of China-bashing [2]. Clearly, you love China, so I'm not accusing you in any way of being anti-China or malevolent, but I think you would agree there has been a rise/change in tone in coverage of China over the last year and a half.[3]

A prime example is the piece you linked to two days ago, where the author made sweeping generalizations based on singular anecdotes that paint the entire Chinese populace as rude, shallow and sub-human (or at least sub-Western.)[4] In analyzing a country of over a billion people, how can we take seriously someone who can paints with such a biased (and shockingly untruthful, if we were going to compare anecdotal memories) brush? Wouldn't it be similarly possible to write a similar anecdotal and nonfalsifiable story about America? Or any other country? Would we assume a fair appraisal if a Chinese person did the same to us?[5] I doubt it.

So why does this piece get coverage from you and the rest of the internet? I believe it's because it fits a media narrative that has been growing in strength over the last year or year and a half. I would summarize this narrative  as: "News Stories That China is Not As Good As The West."[6] Examples of these stories include the story making the rounds the last week on the quality of lamb in restaurants,[7] ubiquitous reports on various degrees of Chinese corruption and of course, pollution pictures.[8]

Now these are big important stories (except the lamb one,) but the focus on on China as opposed to say, India seems particularly acute. I am assuming that this is due to the news media's need for a rival to the United States in the post Soviet Era.[9] As China actually has some potential to pass the US in GDP (kind of meaningless) and perhaps have a say in regional (and maybe global?) security matters, I guess this is makes for news? I am assuming it's the present version of the Cold War Era "look how long the Soviets had to wait in line for bread" stories.[10] 

But at least China is open for Westerners to visit,[11] as opposed to the USSR of the 70s, leading to a particularly annoying narrative: the disgruntled foreigner leaving China because of excess pollution/corruption/hurt feelings. What kills me about this type of article is the total lack of acknowledgement of a huge advantage any Westerner gets when living in China: a five or ten fold increase in purchasing power.[12]

Some small examples from my time there:

• You can ride the Beijing subway, whose frequency and coverage exceeds all American lines with the possible exception of New York, for 30 cents (2 yuan.)
• You can take a taxi for 2 miles (maybe 3 or 4?) for an initial fee of 10 yuan in Beijing, or $1.60.
• You can swing into a hutong restaurant and order enough (incredible) food for 4 easily for 80 yuan, or maybe 3$ a person.
• You can hire a maid for 50/100 yuan to clean your likely cheap apartment. 
• So why wouldn't someone expect a tradeoff if they moved to China between prices paid and living standards? And why isn't it explained by China watchers that while Chinese GDP per capita is 1/6th the US? That China is not a developed country, and that it's nowhere close to being one, despite it's massive growth of the last few decades? That Westerners who travel or live there that are expecting the comforts of home are fooling themselves?

Excuse the rant. I'm not sure why I'm responding to you about this. I think it's my fear that over the coming decades, the US and China will be thrown into an antagonistic relationship that will be an antagonism of choice.[13] And people who do not share the love for China and the Chinese people you and I do, will  look to this rising negative tide for rationalization of fear and hatred of the other. But in doing so, both countries will be turning their backs on incredible places and peoples that offer so much to each other. 

Thanks for listening. And here's hoping you have many future sunny Beijing days. The mountains ARE beautiful when you can seem them.

On the assorted points of disagreement:

I should probably underscore the context of the "I hate China, and that's because I hate the Chinese people" rant I provided a link for [4]. The initial surprise value is that it comes from a site whose usual tone is "We hate foreigners, and that's because they criticize China." This post, equal in fury though opposite in direction to what normally appears, was from an ethnically Chinese foreigner who was having difficulty in his several months of living here.

The central message of that post was: the Chinese people are worse than their system. As I pointed out in linking to it, my view has been the reverse: "Even though a thousand aspects of modern Chinese life drive me crazy, I still can't help liking the openness, the vim, the life of most of the people I meet here. That is, I find it easier to get along with the people than with the whole system." For instance, see a moment from one of my early visits to the Qingdao Beer Festival, at right.

What's the reason for noting harshly critical material like this at all? It is because modern China -- like America, like Israel, like Turkey, like Mexico, like any other place that matters or any topic that deeply engages people -- is the subject of ongoing, passionate debate. People have strong views pro and con; opinions interact with one another and evolve; realities are so complex that many contradictory statements can all be "true" at the same time. I didn't agree with this (pseudonymous) writer or think that he had provided a "fair" [5] overview of everything Chinese. But I thought his venting was worth noting as part of the mix.

Anyone, including me, needs to struggle against being defensive when criticized, and I realize that the reader-in-Boston is going out of his way to say that he doesn't think I agree with the ranting guy. But for record, the balance I've tried always to convey, and that I actually believe, is this: China is a society with enormous problems and probably-greater strengths and assets; life in China was, for my wife and me, usually harder than in other places, and usually more rewarding; the relationship between China and America involves very serious disagreements, but much more numerous areas of common interest; and so on. Check out here or here or here for chapter and verse.

Skipping past a bunch of other incidentals, here is the big point of agreement: Like the reader in Boston, I think it's possible (1) that the U.S. and China could end up in a snarling position of mutual suspicion and hostility, (2) that if this happened it would be self-induced, since it is not inevitable, (3) that a mainly hostile rather than mainly collaborative US-China relationship  would be bad news for people in the two countries and everywhere else, and so therefore (4) it is very important that it not occur.

Where I differ from that reader is on whether "critical" stories about China -- carefully alarming ones, about food safety or pollution, or insanely hostile ones like the "I hate China" rant -- are driving the countries apart. To me, on balance, they suggest a properly realistic portrayal: neither too rosy and credulous, nor too resentful and suspicious. This is why in everything I write and everything I say I urge Americans to "take China seriously, without being afraid of it." Americans understand the realistic mix of goods and bads in our own country. Of course it's easier to maintain that balance about your own self/family/country to apply it externally. But I think the range of good and bad coverage of China now being presented to the world -- and the mix goods and bads about America that have long been on display to everyone  -- is in the long run indispensable to, rather than destructive of, a real relationship.

Enough in that vein. The book-length version of the argument above is China Airborne. For the record, specific annotation points:

____

[1] It is worth harping on pollution, because (according to me) "sustainability" in all its aspects is the major threat to China's continued development, and the major challenge China's economic growth poses for the world as a whole.

[2] For the record, I'm against any variant of the term "bashing" to describe international discourse -- Japan-bashing, China-bashing, America-bashing, etc. It assumes, rather that argues, that any criticism reflects prejudice rather than actual grounds for complaint. Saying that America has a Guantanamo problem -- or a social-class-divide problem or a drone-warfare problem -- is not America-bashing. Saying that China has problems of its own is not China-bashing.

[3] I think there has been both "good" and "bad" coverage (ie, both positive and negative stories) about China in that time. It is inarguable that in 2010 and 2011 China's foreign policy claims (based on its increased economic confidence) provoked reactions in many other Asian countries. Similarly, the Bo Xilai case occurred in this time; pollution levels rose; etc.

[4] Yes, this was a rant, revealing as much about the author as about the subject.

[5] Yes, but people make extreme complaints about America all the time -- I do it myself. For a subject as vast as America, or China, no single assessment can be perfectly "fair." If it tried to be, it would be really boring. You hope that the  flow of info and argument in its entirety will be enlightening and thus "fair" over time.

[6] Speaking personally, I have zero interest in whether China is "better" than America, or vice versa. It's like asking whether a car is better than a baseball game. These are societies with some points of similarity and a lot of points of difference. Even the Cold War-era arguments of whether the "American model" or the "Soviet model" offered a better path to development doesn't apply here. For reasons of scale, history, geography, and other factors, China and America are each a case-of-one internationally. Neither offers a realistic model for others to apply.

[7] The lamb-meat-or-is-it-rat? stories are important rather than trivial, because they're connected to larger concerns about food-safety that matter to much of the Chinese public.

[8] Again: pollution and the environment constitute Issue Number One.

[9] As I argued in a long story here, during America's era as a world power, it has often projected fears about its own economy or society onto foreign rivals. I think it's a big mistake to do so with China. Whatever is wrong with America now would be just as wrong if China didn't exist. The converse is mainly true for China. The right way to use the Chinese "challenge," in my view, is the way Obama has in some of his big speeches. That is, as a positive challenge: If China can develop wind energy, so can we, etc.

[10] I agree on this. Whether from Americans or Chinese or anyone else, the "well, what about your problems" reflex gets you nowhere. China has pollution problems; to say, "Well, America has too many schoolyard shootings" doesn't get you anywhere. America has violence problems; to say "Well, China is polluted" also does no good.

[11] China is more open than the Soviet Union generally was, and more than it used to be. It is not as fully "open" as it should be. Ask the Western journalists and scholars whose visas are denied or yanked on purely political grounds. (Yes, I know, the US also has a visa problem, but one of different nature and scale.)

[12] For what it's worth, the China-as-bargain-basement angle is, for me, not a significant part of its appeal. Some things are very cheap; others are expensive. Mainly, as noted, it is the life and vividness of the typical day in China that attracts me.

[13] Back to our agreement. From Richard Nixon's through Barack Obama's, an otherwise completely different sequence of American administrations has adopted policies based on the premise that the United States and China need to find ways to work together rather than become enemies. That the relationship between China and America has been as constructive as it has been reflects credit on people on both sides. It's worth working to continue it.

Now preparing for the trek back to the U.S. -- and in the knowledge that the airport from which I begin the trip, Beijing Capital, will be far more convenient, modern, and pleasant than the one where I'll arrive, Washington Dulles. I suppose you could fairly call me a Dulles-basher.

JAMES FALLOWSMAY 11 2013, 12:25 AM ET

Article from http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/05/on-criticizing-china/275704/

Want to be a strong leader? Be hopeful

LEADERSHIP

BARBARA MORRISSpecial to The Globe and MailPublished Wednesday, May. 08 2013, 7:00 PM EDTLast updated Wednesday, May. 08 2013, 4:37 PM EDTFrom http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/want-to-be-a-strong-leader-be-hopeful/article11790784/

Do you want to know how to improve your leadership potential one skill at a time? The first tip is to exemplify hopefulness.

Are you surprised to see “hopefulness” described as a leadership skill? Think about it for a minute. It’s hope that enables us to cope with life’s obstacles and problems. It’s hope that encourages contestants to audition for Canadian Idol, propels sports phenoms to new records, drives workers to achieve goals.

Team and organizational leaders who are hopeful tend to visualize positive future outcomes and are able to resolve problems and achieve goals with less effort than their gloomier counterparts. Leaders who exemplify hopefulness for their teams can instill positive thinking about the future and motivate team members to pursue ideas and solutions. Personifying hopefulness to others also helps them recognize they are adaptable and offers reassurance that they can overcome difficulties.

In fact, leaders who don’t have this skill often waste valuable reserves of energy getting employees back on track. One manager, for example, was awarded a team of four people and six months to complete a key company project. One individual on the team was a “complainer.” His thinking soon affected the others. Within a few weeks, all of them were expressing negative comments about the work. Progress inched ahead slower and slower. It was only when the manager started guiding the group firmly toward a clear and hopeful vision of the future that she was able to arrest the negativity. Keeping her team focused on a positive outcome enabled her to push them to be better.

The hopeful team is a powerful team. And this is why exemplifying hopefulness is an essential skill for effective leaders. It’s also a skill that can be learned. Start by personally practising hopeful thinking and practices. Here is a list of them.

• Remember that risk-taking is a critical part of learning and developing leadership capabilities. Therefore when you experience losses or failures, think of them not as setbacks, but as learning opportunities by reflecting on what you would do differently next time.
• Be aware of your own negative thinking and make a conscious effort to visualize positive outcomes. When handling a task for example, create a mental image of what the end result looks like. Then visualize yourself succeeding.
• Pursue daily opportunities for laughter (people, activities, books, movies) – especially when times are difficult. Inject humour into conversations.
• Care for yourself; fatigue plays strong role in negative thinking. Get enough sleep and exercise for at least 30 minutes every day; your body’s endorphins will support a hopeful outlook.

When working with employees, project teams and customers the following strategies can help you project hopeful thinking.

• Make an effort to develop a reputation for positivity.
• Hire positive people who are supportive.
• On your way to work every morning, spend 10 minutes deciding how you’re going to convey hopefulness during the day. For example, be proactive and enthusiastic about your responsibilities, accept challenging goals with the anticipation of success; and communicate your expectations of others with optimism and confidence.
• Appreciate the power of the messages you communicate – focus on being the leader who believes 100 per cent that the future will be better and communicate this with confidence to your employees and team members.
• Set clear, achievable organizational and team goals that are meaningful to those who must accomplish them. This means defining goals in a way that enables others to feel they are making a valued contribution, rather than simply working. You can do this by ensuring that goals contribute to the vision and mission – and are challenging but also realistic. Energize group members by engaging them to develop creative strategies for achieving targets.
• Accept bad news with equanimity. Don’t point fingers; instead, encourage your teams to learn from the experience and to identify specific ways to prevent the situation from reccurring or learning how to do better next time.

Whether you’re leading a large organization, a small company or a small team, by exemplifying hope you can engage, motivate and succeed. And remember, it can feel lonely to be the one who bears the burden of reality while helping others stay positive. So check in regularly with someone you like and trust to celebrate your progress developing this important leadership skill.

One final suggestion: keep in mind Superman’s (Christopher Reeve) words, “Once you choose hope, anything’s possible.”

Barbara Morris, president of Elevate Organizations,is a leadership development specialist and coach who helps individuals and organizational teams optimize potential and achieve goals.

BARBARA MORRIS
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, May. 08 2013, 7:00 PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, May. 08 2013, 4:37 PM EDT
From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/want-to-be-a-strong-leader-be-hopeful/article11790784/