Category Archives: Environment

Earth Citizens Organization

I have taken up the cause of the Earth Citizens Organization and I ask that you join with me.
Thank you.
Emanuel
On September 11, 2013, EARTH CITIZENS ORGANIZATION (ECO) was formed to develop leaders committed to making a difference in their lives and communities for a healthier and sustainable world.
47349_2394674_233502_image
Since that date, ECO’s focus has been on providing training and education, developing training facilities, and organizing community events that help people live mindfully and get healthier naturally. Through these actions, ECO desires to catalyze a shift that will change the future of the world to one of peace and sustainability. We call this collaborative effort the Earth Citizen Movement. Our goal is reaching 1% of the world’s population and to help them incorporate Earth Citizenship into their lifestyle and daily choices.

OUR NAME

ECO was named to reflect our belief that we are all citizens of the Earth and share the responsibility to care for the Earth’s well being in every way. Sharing this idea and creating changes in our daily lives is the essence of the Earth Citizen Movement.

ORIGIN

The seed of the Earth Citizen Movement was planted by one person when he started teaching exercise at a public park in South Korea 30 years ago. This person was Ilchi Lee. He believed, and still believes, that hope for a better world lies in awakening the greatness in human nature, and has dedicated his life to helping people harness their brain potential. It was through his dedication and spirit that ECO was created.

Throughout his life, Ilchi Lee has strived to help millions of people worldwide enhance their physical, mental, and spiritual capabilities by learning to control and direct the energy of their brains. He has formed several non-profit and for-profit organizations, authored over 30 books, including New York Times Bestseller “The Call of Sedona,” and organized numerous events to help bring that vision to fruition.

 

OUR FUTURE

ECO plans to expand its education to develop Earth Citizen Leaders by creating an online education system and building Earth Citizens Learning Centers in major cities, including its main campus in Northern Arizona.

Earth Citizen Learning Center in Arizona is an educational center where people can visit, experience and learn all aspects of sustainable living such as healthy eating, natural health, organic farming, sustainable housing, renewable energy and water-recycling. ECO Learning Center will provide training programs targeted towards young leaders of our community.

“No to coal!” button (February 29, 2016)

I recently asked a friend to design a button for me to protest the increased use of cheap coal with a high sulfur content in Korea. The air in Korea is growing worse rapidly in Korea the last few years, and the primary reason is the complete lack of regulation of emissions. What is most disturbing to me is the complete lack of concern on the part of Koreans who have to breath the air every day here.

I made a “No to Coal! Killing us slowly” pin recently and had a friend do the final design. I have worn it on almost all my jackets. But many Koreans do not seem to understand what it refers to.

I am happy to give one to anyone who is interested.

And please do start to make an effort to reduce the carbon in the air and the micro-particles as well.

"NO TO COAL: KILLING US SLOWLY"

“NO TO COAL: KILLING US SLOWLY”

“Time for the US to Start a RIMPAC for Climate Change” (The Diplomat, January 20, 2016)

The Diplomat

“Time for the US to Start a RIMPAC for Climate Change”

January 20, 2016

 

 

Rising tensions between China and Japan over territorial issues, combined with disputes over historical issues such as the Korean comfort women, have created a political environment that encourages military responses and confrontation. The recent nuclear test by North Korea has heightened the distrust to such a level that we can look forward to a massive arms race that will involve not only the nations of Northeast Asia, but possibly those of Southeast Asia as well.

Now is the moment for moral courage on the part of the United States. The United States, and specifically the Pacific Command, must step forward and engage in honest and practical dialog on security issues. It needs to suggest innovative, collaborative approaches to security problems, interacting with all the nations of the region in a transparent manner that encourages cooperation, not competition. We must make sure that security and defense policies are not rooted in an unimaginative and outdated Cold War conception of deterrence and containment, but rather are responses to emerging nontraditional threats.

The recent Paris Climate Conference (COP 21 Paris) has laid down concrete demands for a rapid shift to a low-carbon model for development that should serve as the basis for closer collaboration in military affairs between the United States, Japan, Korea and China, and ASEAN nations.

The Pacific Command should engage all members of the Asian community in a deep dialog about how the region’s militaries can transform military relations in the region. This transformation would take place through the military’s transitioning to play a leading role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, and it would create a new, regional, cooperative culture in the Pacific. Read more of this post

Public events at the Paris Climate Summit prohibited

Here is today’s notice from 350.ORG which is organizing a protest on the occasion of the COP Meeting in Paris.

In a sense the content is entirely predictable. We are being led down a rabbit hole and away from addressing the most serious security threat in history. Now I think the significance of recent developments should be apparent.

Quote:

 

Yesterday, we got some disappointing news. Citing security concerns, the French government has prohibited many of the Paris mobilizations and events connected to the upcoming climate summit from going forward — including the massive march being planned for November 29th.

This is a heavy blow, especially for the many organizers who have been working around the clock for months to bring hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets of Paris. It’s a heavy blow, too, because it makes our job — of making sure this summit actually yields real, ambitious results — that much harder.

While activists in Paris are revising their plans, it’s up to the rest of us to kick it up a notch.

The Global Climate March — which already consists of thousands of events, small and large, all around the world — will continue. From London to Los Angeles, Quito to Quezon City, people are still taking to the streets.

Organizers in Paris are still reeling from Friday’s terrible attacks, and now they’re scrambling to figure out what they can still do to have an impact in the face of a potentially repressive security situation.

We need to speak up for activists in Paris, who are struggling to be heard. Those of us who can mobilize, must. The Paris Climate Summit is still a crucial opportunity for world governments to send a signal that the world is moving away from fossil fuels. In fact, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the world needs this sort of global cooperation urgently.

Even as climate change contributes to conflict around the world, this summit is an opportunity for us to come together and finally grapple with the scale of the problem we’re facing. Unfortunately, that’s not the sort of ambition that governments and politicians muster on their own. That’s the sort of thing only mass social movements have the power to make happen.

more

 

 

 

Buddhist Economics as seen by E. F. Schumacher

In preparation for my short remarks at tomorrow’s Seoul Climate-Energy Conference, I started rereading E. F. Schumacher’s classic book and stumbled on his chapter “Buddhist Economics” which builds on his ideas about a participatory economy based on his experiences learning about Buddhism while in Burma in 1955. Perhaps we can find something of the future in his words today. He speaks of a “middle way” between  “materialist heedlessness” and “traditionalist immobility.”

 

E. F. Schumacher

Small is Beautiful

 

 

Chapter 4: Buddhist Economics

 

Economists themselves, like most specialists, normally suffer from a kind of metaphysical blindness, assuming that theirs is a science of absolute and invariable truths, without any presuppositions. 

The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give a man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence.

It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilisation not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character. 

From a Buddhist point of view, this is standing the truth on its head by considering goods as more important than people and consumption as more important than creative activity.

The keynote of Buddhist economics, therefore, is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist’s point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern—amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfactory results.

The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means.

From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale.

Modern economics does not distinguish between renewable and non-renewable materials, as its very method is to equalize and quantify everything by means of a money price. 

Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does.

As the world’s resources of non-renewable fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men.

Before they dismiss Buddhist economics as nothing better than a nostalgic dream, they might wish to consider whether the path of economic development outlined by modern economics is likely to lead them to places where they really want to be.

It is a question of finding the right path of development, the Middle Way between materialist heedlessness and traditionalist immobility, in short, of finding “Right Livelihood.”

 

Kissinger Institute on Security Challenges in East Asia

Just received this little treasure from the Kissinger Institute. You will notice that in the discussion of “Security Challenges in East Asia” climate change is not mentioned one time. What planet do these people think they are living on? If these so-called “security experts” keep leaving climate change out of their discussions, I am going to have to ask that they resign their positions due to their incompetence. Do you think I am kidding?

 

 

Kissinger Institute | Wilson Center

Security Challenges in East Asia

The National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) in collaboration with the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States and Asia Program invite you to a public briefing on Security Challenges in East Asia based on recent high-level meetings in Taipei, Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo.

Issues that will be addressed include: Cross-strait relations in light of the January 2016 Taiwan presidential elections; prospects for managing frictions in U.S.-China relations; the North Korea nuclear issue;and the state of Sino-Japanese relations.

Speakers

Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy
Distinguished Scholar, Kissinger Institute
Gerald Curtis
Burgess Professor of Political Science, Columbia University
Evans Revere
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution
Rear Admiral Michael McDevitt
Senior Fellow, Center for Naval Analyses

Moderator

Donald Zagoria
Senior Vice President, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

RSVP NOW » Forward to a Friend

RSVP NOW

Monday, November 9, 2015
2:30 PM4:00 PM

6th Floor Auditorium, The Wilson Center

Program Sponsors:


Connect KICUS

    

Directions

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202.691.4000

china@wilsoncenter.org

Privacy

Denial to the grave: our new culture of self-destruction

Boston Massachusetts

February 11, 2022

Young man and woman walk up sand dunes in the Sahara Desert, Morocco

“What a beautiful warm day! I really enjoy getting outside at times like this.”

“Yes, what a clear blue sky! Let us send an Instagram to the kids.”

 

 

“Call for Sanity on Sixtieth Anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto” (Foreign Policy in Focus,July 9, 2015)

Foreign Policy in Focus

“Call for Sanity on Sixtieth Anniversary of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto”

Emanuel Pastreich

July 9, 2015

It was exactly 60 years ago that Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein gathered together with a group of leading intellectuals in London to draft and sign a manifesto in which they denounced the dangerous drive toward war between the world’s Communist and anti-Communist factions. The signers of this manifesto included leading Nobel Prize winners such as Hideki Yukawa and Linus Pauling.

They were blunt, equating the drive for war and reckless talk of the use of nuclear weapons sweeping the United States and the Soviet Union at the time, as endangering all of humanity. The manifesto argued that advancements in technology, specifically the invention of the atomic bomb, had set human history on a new and likely disastrous course.

The manifesto stated in harsh terms the choice confronting humanity:

 

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?

 

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto forced a serious reconsideration of the dangerous strategic direction in which the United States was heading at that time and was the beginning of a recalibration of the concept of security that would lead to the signing of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968 and the arms control talks of the 1970s.

But we take little comfort in those accomplishments today. The United States has completely forgotten about its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty, and the words “arms control” have disappeared from the conversation on security. The last year has seen the United States confront Russia in Ukraine to such a degree that many have spoken about the risks of nuclear war.

As a result, on June 16 of this year Russia announced that it will add 40 new ICBMs in response to the investment of the United States over the last two years in upgrading its nuclear forces.

Similar tensions have emerged between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Isles and between the United States and China over the South China Sea. Discussions about the possibility of war with China are showing up in the Western media with increasing frequency, and a deeply disturbing push to militarize American relations with Asia is emerging.

But this time, the dangers of nuclear war are complemented by an equal, or greater, threat: climate change. Even the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, told the Boston Globe in 2013 that climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

More recently, Pope Francis issued a detailed, and blunt, encyclical dedicated to the threat of climate change in which he charged:

 

It is remarkable how weak international political responses (to climate change) have been. Consequently the most one can expect is superficial rhetoric, sporadic acts of philanthropy and perfunctory expressions of concern for the environment, whereas any genuine attempt by groups within society to introduce change is viewed as a nuisance based on romantic illusions or an obstacle to be circumvented.

Read more of this post

DECLARATION ON THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE RUSSELL-EINSTEIN MANIFESTO

DECLARATION ON THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF

THE RUSSELL-EINSTEIN MANIFESTO

 

JULY 9, 2015

In view of the growing risk that in future wars weapons, nuclear and otherwise, will be employed that threaten the continued existence of humanity, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them. We also propose that all governments of the world begin to convert those resources previously allocated to preparations for destructive conflict to a new constructive purpose: the mitigation of climate change and the creation of a new sustainable civilization on a global scale.

 

This effort is endorsed by Foreign Policy in Focus, the Asia Institute, and World Beyond War, and is being launched on July 9, 2015.

You can sign, and ask everyone you know to sign, this declaration here:

 

http://diy.rootsaction.org/p/man

 

 

 

WHY IS THIS DECLARATION IMPORTANT

 

Exactly 60 years ago today, leading intellectuals led by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein gathered in London to sign a manifesto voicing their concern that the struggle between the Communist and Anti-Communist blocs in the age of the hydrogen bomb guaranteed annihilation for humanity.
Although we have so far avoided the nuclear war that those intellectuals dreaded, the danger has merely been postponed. The threat, which has reemerged recently with the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, has only grown more dire.
Moreover, the rapid acceleration of technological development threatens to put nuclear weapons, and many other weapons of similar destructiveness, into the hands of a growing circle of nations (and potentially even of “non-state actors”). At the same time, the early possessors of nuclear weapons have failed to abide by their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to destroy their stockpiles.
And now we are faced with an existential threat that may rival the destructive consequences even of a full-scale nuclear war: climate change. The rapacious exploitation of our resources and a thoughtless over-reliance upon fossil fuels have caused an unprecedented disruption of our climate. Combined with an unmitigated attack on our forests, our wetlands, our oceans, and our farmland in the pursuit of short-term gains, this unsustainable economic expansion has brought us to the edge of an abyss.
The original 1955 manifesto states: “We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings,” members of the human species “whose continued existence is in doubt.”
The time has come for us to break out of the distorted and misleading conception of progress and development that has so seduced us and led us towards destruction.
Intellectuals bear a particular responsibility of leadership by virtue of their specialized expertise and insight regarding the scientific, cultural, and historical forces that have led to our predicament. Between a mercenary element that pursues an agenda of narrow interests without regard to consequences and a frequently discouraged, misled, and sometimes apathetic citizenry stand the intellectuals in every field of study and sphere of activity. It falls to us that it falls to decry the reckless acceleration of armaments and the criminal destruction of the ecosystem. The time has come for us to raise our voices in a concerted effort.

Last January the famous Doomsday Clock was moved two minutes closer to midnight, the closest it has been since a major war scare 30 years ago.  The accompanying declaration, which warned that the constant threat of nuclear war and “unchecked climate change” severely threaten human civilization, brings to mind the grim warning to the people of the world just 50 years ago by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein, calling on them to face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” In all of human history, there has never been a choice like the one we face today.”

 

Noam Chomsky

Professor Emeritus

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

 

English

http://www.asia-institute.org/2015/07/08/2647/

 

 

中文

日本語

한국어

 

Read more of this post

“A potential dynamic duo: AIIB & GCF” (JoongAng Daily, April 30, 2015)

“A potential dynamic duo”

 

Joongang Daily

April 30, 2015 

Emanuel Pastreich

 

Koreans perceive themselves to be stuck between the Bretton Woods financial system the United States created after the Second World War and an emerging new financial order centered on the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), led by China and joined by a host of major countries.

On the one hand, Korea has benefited greatly from the global trade system that developed thanks to the Bretton Woods system and a close alliance with the United States. Yong Kim, a Korean, is president of the World Bank. At the same time, China has become the dominant economic power in Asia and Korea’s most important trading partner.

The attraction of the AIIB, as a possible source for funding infrastructure projects of value to Korean companies, is simply irresistible.

But could it be that what Koreans see as a tragic choice between the U.S. and Chinese camps is really more a lack of imagination than a true dilemma? Could it be that Korea, rather than being a passive player in a geopolitical shakedown, can serve as a key nation in defining what exactly the AIIB will be and keep it on a positive track as it develops?  Read more of this post