Mencari Partikulat, Berkencan dengan Laser Egg

Beberapa hari ini saya punya buntut baru, namanya laser egg. Benda yang lucu yang saya pinjam dari Greenpeace Indonesia pasca mereka meluncurkan aplikasi pemantauan kualitas udara bernama “Udara Kita.” Laser egg yang saya bawa (dan saya namai Si Telur) kebetulan hanya mampu mendeteksi debu, atau nama lainnya partikulat matter (PM). Debu sendiri terbagi beberapa jenis, ada yang besarnya lebih dari 10µm (TSP); ada yang kurang dari sama dengan 10µm (PM 10); dan partikel halus yang berukuran kurang dari sama dengan 2,5 µm (PM 2.5). Untuk pengantar singkat mengenai signifikansi perbedaan ukuran ini, silakan cek jawaban di Quora berikut. Untuk membayangkan seberapa kecil masing-masing debu, silakan lihat gambar di bawah. Singkat cerita, makin kecil ukuran debu, makin besar tingkat kebahayaannya. Soalnya, ia bisa masuk semakin dalam ke dalam sistem pernafasan. 

Si Telur mampu mendeteksi debu dan menampilkan kadar debu di udara dalam 4 bentuk: Air Quality Index (AQI) China; AQI USA; jumlah partikel; dan baku mutu udara ambient (dalam satuan µg/m³). Namun, yang ia tampilkan hanya PM 2.5. Kenapa alat ini yang dipilih? Karena, justru PM 2.5 lah yang kerap luput dipantau oleh pemerintah. Padahal, dari sisi kebahayaan, secara medis konsentrasi PM 2.5 yang terlalu tinggi di udara sudah terbukti dapat menyebabkan berbagai gangguan pernafasan akut (misal ISPA) dan kronik (misal asma, bronkitis, dan penyakit paru obstruktif kronik); selain itu, pencemaran udara oleh PM 2.5 dapat menyebabkan sakit jantung, stroke, serta kematian dini. Inilah yang tidak diketahui banyak orang. Sebagai anak kota, kesehatan kita jauh lebih rentan lho, karena udara yang kita hirup setiap hari ternyata sangat signifikan pengaruhnya terhadap kesehatan – dan umur – kita.

Saya membawa Si Telur untuk misi Bond 007 – alias misi rahasia. Namun, ada beberapa hal yang bisa saya ceritakan kepada kalian, terutama jika kalian berminat mengunduh aplikasi Udara Kita atau membeli laser egg sendiri. Kebetulan mobilitas saya cukup tinggi saat membawa Si Telur ini, yaitu dari selatan Bali (bandara) menuju ke utara nan segar; baik di perkampungan ataupun di jalan raya, baik di dalam rumah maupun di luar rumah. Sebagai patokan, biasanya saya melihat indeks AQI USA. Ingin tahu bagaimana bentuk indeks AQI USA?

Inilah beberapa pelajaran yang bisa saya petik dalam beberapa hari kebersamaan bersama si telur.

1. Nggak semua debu bisa kita rasakan.

Beberapa partikulat halus bisa kita rasakan sensasi mencekiknya dengan jelas, misal, knalpot yang mengepulkan asap, sumber pembakaran terbuka seperti sampah/BBQ, asap rokok, dll. Dalam radius dekat dengan sumber pencemar tersebut, Si Telur jelas bereaksi – dan reaksinya lebay, bisa sampai angka ideks 500 (sangat berbahaya / indikator warna hitam). Tapi, ada waktu-waktu di mana saya dan rekan tidak merasakan atau melihat apapun, namun angka indeks meningkat pesat sampai pada level tidak sehat bagi grup sensitif atau sangat tidak sehat (bagi grup manapun). Kebetulan, di tempat kami meletakkan si telur, memang terdapat sumber pencemar yang terus beroperasi 24 jam (dalam skala yang berbeda-beda). Dan dari hasil ngobrol ngalor ngidul kami dengan beberapa warga lokal, kebanyakan dari mereka justru mengungkapkan keluh kesah terkait dengan debu (TSP) yang kasat mata, bikin kotor namun kebahayaannya tidak sesignifikan PM 2.5.

Artinya, memang ada gap “rasa” dalam mengapresiasi PM 2.5 di sini – ia tidak selalu terlihat, tidak selalu terasa, tidak selalu berbau; namun ia ada. Seperti kamu dalam hatiku. Apasih, Quin, okelah kembali ke debu. Jadi, perlu dikritisi ya lagunya the Massive, aku tanpamu butiran debu – debunya TSP, PM 10, PM 2.5 atau bahkan nanopartikel? Kalau dua yang terakhir, artinya kamu sangat signifikan! (Mohon maaf atas kesimpulan yang ngelantur ini)

2. Udara dalam ruangan kita bukan tanpa masalah!

Salah satu fakta mengejutkan yang saya pelajari dari Si Telur adalah betapa udara di dalam ruangan bisa begitu keji dibandingkan dengan rekannya di luar. Ada masanya selama saya melakukan pengukuran di luar ruangan hasilnya baik-baik saja; namun begitu dibawa masuk ruangan, Si Telur bereaksi. Lalu, ada satu ruangan yang tercium bau debunya, di situ Si Telur langsung menunjukkan angka 170-an atau berbahaya (bagi semua grup). Yang paling mengejutkan, pagi ini, saat saya bangun tidur di resort cantik ber-AC dengan pintu tertutup, Si Telur menunjukkan indikator berbahaya bagi grup sensitif!

Sebagai orang kota yang menghabiskan sebagian besar hidup kita di dalam ruangan, tentu saja jadi was-was. Memang sih Bali berbeda kondisinya dengan Jakarta, karena di Jakarta luar ruangan mungkin terlalu keji. Tapi, Bali yang kondisi luar ruangannya minim debu saja bisa menghasilkan tumpukan debu yang tinggi di dalam ruangan. Nah, nasib Jakarta bagaimana donk? Tentu untuk menjawab kegamangan ini saya harus membawa Si Telur ke kamar-kamar orang, dari yang di lantai bawah hingga nun jauh di atap. Tunggu laporan berikutnya ya!

PS: Oiya, kita belum punya peraturan yang mumpuni lho tentang pencemar udara dalam ruangan – bahkan, level aturan yang menyuruh KLHK/Kemenkes mengedukasi atau memberikan informasi tentang pencemaran udara dalam ruangan. Tanya kenapa, silakan hubungi KLHK.

3. Jika kamu ingin mengukur dampak dari sumber pencemar tertentu, sebaiknya terlebih dulu cari informasi pendahuluan.

Ketika kamu sudah mengetahui kualitas udara di tempatmu, tak dinyanya mungkin kamu mencurigai aktivitas tertentu sebagai penyebab utama tingginya PM 2.5 di tempatmu. Tapi, tunggu dulu, logika berpikirnya tak semudah itu.

Pertama, agar dapat mengukur dengan valid, ada beberapa persyaratan yang harus dipatuhi. Apakah kamu sudah mengukur jauh dari lokasi pembakaran? Kamu yakin kamu menempatkan Si Telur di tempat yang minim debu?

Kedua, apakah kamu sudah tahu sumber-sumber pencemar di sekitarmu? Apakah ada data mengenai perkiraan kontribusi sumber bergerak (misal, kendaraan bermotor) dan sumber tidak bergerak (misal, pabrik)?

Ketiga, apakah kamu memahami perilaku angin dan cuaca di tempatmu? Bertiupnya angin akan sangat mempengaruhi ke mana debu jatuh; dan arah angin ini akan berbeda-beda bergantung musim dan iklim. Selain itu, musim juga berpengaruh – di musim hujan, kemampuan air (dan uap air) untuk “mengencerkan” pencemaran kemungkinan akan menyebabkan hasil pengukuran yang lebih rendah dibandingkan dengan di musim kemarau.

Untuk informasi lebih lanjut, saya juga masih mencari “air pollution investigation for dummies,” atau mungkin perlu ada tim kolaboratif untuk membuatnya ya?

Demikian cerita tentang Si Telur dan tiga kesan utamanya di hati saya dalam beberapa hari ini. Jika kamu ingin menemukan (baca: meminjam) telurmu, coba kontak Greenpeace Indonesia via Twitter/IG.

Selamat mencari udara bersih!

Sebuah Doa Penghiburan bagi Pemenang yang Dipaksa Kalah [Untuk Kendeng]

“Kita telah melawan, Nak, Nyo, sebaik-baiknya, sehormat-hormatnya.” Nyai Ontosoroh, Bumi Manusia.

Lima tahun lalu saya pertama kali berkenalan dengan Pram. Yang tadinya hanya tugas mata kuliah Hukum Antar Tata Hukum kemudian meresap ke dalam hati. Cara yang unik dari dosen saya membentuk kami. Roman, yang bercerita dan bicara pada rasa; bergandengan dengan buku teks, yang memberikan kami pengetahuan: tentang hukum, tentang logika dan analisis, tentang apa yang dikatakan di undang-undang dan diputuskan di pengadilan. Seakan-akan saya bisa mendengar dosen saya berpesan, “Di balik setiap kasus, ada cerita. Bersama setiap norma, ada rasa – ialah keadilan itu.”

Kemarin saya merasa sedikit patah hati. Alkisah petani pegunungan di suatu tempat bernama Kendeng – melawan. Penguasa menginginkan tanah mereka – pegunungan karst Kendeng yang telah turun temurun didiami mereka – menjadi pabrik semen. Mereka melawan; sebaik-baiknya, sehormat-hormatnya. Seperti Nyai Ontosoroh yang menghadap ke muka pengadilan, mereka lalui semua proses itu. Mereka ajukan gugatan ke pengadilan. Mereka berdialog, mereka berjalan kaki ratusan kilo, mereka lakukan aksi damai mengecor kaki di depan Istana Negara, mereka berkemah berhari-hari lagi di kantor Gubernur, mereka bergeming ketika tenda mereka dirusak paksa, dan mereka berdoa. Ketika akhirnya Mahkamah Agung memenangkan gugatan TUN mereka dalam Peninjauan Kembali, beberapa dari mereka sedang menjalani proses hukum pidana – seperti biasa, dalam konflik, korban yang melawan akan dikriminalisasi.

Terakhir hati saya terpaut perjuangan seajeg dan setulus ini adalah ketika saya membaca sejarah konflik warga Porsea dengan PT Indorayon Inti Utama pada era 80an akhir hingga 90an awal. Akhir cerita PT IIU pernah indah – setelah perjuangan panjang dengan menempuh jalur hukum, lobi, demonstrasi – Pemerintah Pusat dan DPR RI pernah memutuskan kegiatan ini tidak dilanjutkan. Namun, di era Megawati, pemerintah memutuskan melanjutkan proyek ini, memberikan izin baru dan menjamin “paradigma baru” dalam operasinya. Kini, Porsea menjadi mantan pemenang yang tak ingin bicara – yang membiarkan camatnya menolak siapapun yang ingin bicara “lingkungan” untuk masuk ke kampung. Yang kuli-kuli pabriknya menghapus sejarah perjuangan mereka di masa lalu, enggan bercerita karena takut terdengar atasannya. Yang mantan aktivis terberaninya bisa berkata, “Kalau kamu tanya saya tentang TPL, saya tidak akan jawab.” 

Warga Kendeng menang di pengadilan. Tapi kemenangan itu sementara – penguasa mematuhi putusan MA dan mencabut Izin Lingkungan yang menjadi pokok permasalahan. Namun, ada ranah di mana suara mereka, dan suara kami, kurang bertenaga. Warga Kendeng tidak memiliki kemewahan ahli-ahli yang turun ke jalan sebagaimana warga Porsea dulu. Dan dalam sekali sidang addendum AMDAL, dokumen yang dipermasalahkan bertahun-tahun dalam gugatan TUN itu kembali dinyatakan layak – sekalipun ada beberapa perubahan yang disyaratkan. Saya tak ingin menuduh siapapun menjual ilmu pengetahuan, tapi bisakah saya tak mempertanyakan – tak adakah suara yang mewakili karst pegunungan Kendeng, dan bercerita pada yang mulia para anggota komisi sidang AMDAL mengapa ia begitu signifikan bagi lingkungan? Tak adakah yang memastikan penilaian holistik dalam Bab 4 AMDAL benar-benar dinilai secara holistik? Tak adakah yang mempertanyakan jika sidang sehari cukup untuk melihat kembali ekosistem karst Kendeng secara utuh? Dan mengapa hanya ada satu alterantif bagi warga Kendeng – relokasi, pindah paksa?

Annelies juga kalah, tapi Nyai Ontosoroh dan Minke yang hidup dari pena Pram memenangkan hati orang-orang seperti kami. Ada yang pernah berkata, kami harus tabah untuk selalu kalah. Sekalipun kami menang di pengadilan, penguasa pasti punya cara memaksakan keinginannya – dan ilmu pengetahuan tak selalu jujur. Kendeng belum berakhir – dan semoga sisa-sisa tenaga mereka untuk melawan tetap ada. Saya ingin mendongengkan Bumi Manusia kepada ibu-ibu yang lelah, dan memberitahu mereka bahwa mereka adalah bagian dari cerita.

Saya ingin memaksa lembaga saya untuk bersikap dan bersiap - memaksa mata dan jari saya mengeksplorasi di mana celah hukum yang cukup strategis untuk melawan.

Kami akan melawan, Nyai. Sebaik-baiknya, sehormat-hormatnya.

Kisah kita adalah Bumi Manusia yang sesungguhnya.

Public Trust Symposium Panel 4: Future Development of the Public Trust

John Dernbach from Widener University Law School started this session with the Robinson Township case and the potential meaning of Constitutional Public Trust. As many environmental lawyers in the US might reckon, Robinson Township is a groundbreaking case which strikes down a fracking statute under the Pennsylvania constitution. However, this is still potential, because there are many meanings and implication which might be taken from the case.

Prof. Dernbach broke down Penn's environmental amendment in Article I, Section 27, into two big part: (1) right to environment; and (2) public trust language. However, like other environmental rights constitutional provision, it gets buried right away, with the former case saying it is not self-executing. It was followed with other of the litigation which did a remarkable judicial activism, giving three balancing test to the right, the "protect and conserve" test. Next, entered the Robinson Township, challenging Marcellus legislation, and decided using a public trust framing of its environmental rights amendment!

On his words, what the court saying was, "We know that industry needs predictability, but also the people who's living under the place vulnerable to this oil and gas exploration - they need predictability, too! Their interest and expectation must be protected!" -- A totally quotable words!

Pre-Robinson Township, the PTD in Article I, Section 27 might be: (1) Confirm and extend governmental authority; (2) Guide statutory interpretation; (3) Provide constitutional authority for laws which legislation/executive enacted against. And, the potential effect of Robinson Township will bring these three functions further: (1) Strengthens each of these; (2) Imposes duties on government, not just confirming and extending governmental authority. And hey, it might happen in Indonesia, too, if we can do some test case!

After him, Richard Frank took the floor, pointing to the groundwater pumping that affect navigable waters and the PTD implication to that. He begun with the Waiahole Ditch case from Hawaii and some other cases, also some states' legislation which give trust language in protecting groundwater. His primary focus is the Scott River litigation in NW California, regarding the Klamath & Scott Rivers, which getting dried because of more and more wells being drilled around the river for the agricultural purposes. The case was filed in 2010 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the main argument relying on Mono Lake's decision, that the government have an affirmative duty to do something about the water, and the agencies have disclaimed authority/obligation to do so, and asking the court to issue order requiring management consistent with PTD. The litigation is still ongoing, but a positive development is signalling.

And here comes the man, Michael Blumm, my PTD Professor in Lewis & Clark, and I enjoyed the way he used his first 7 minutes to give entertaining rebuttal to the previous panels! If there's one skill I adore from lawyers, is their ability to use the rightest words to give mean rebuttal. And finally he started, bring a light to the Lake Oswego case, a private lake just three miles from the law school. Relying on two preposition: (1) the water is navigable; and (2) there should be public right to access based on the Statehood Act right. Again, the case is still on going, but if they lose, they'll just get to the Supreme Court. And then things get mushy, I can't remember how, but then he start to talk about the Federal PTD, which I think actually just an impromptu "lecture" to the previous panelists. That was fun, old man!

The next speaker, Mary Christina Wood, is the co-writer of the PTD textbook that Blumm wrote, and she's one of "the guy" in the US PTD world. She started with a really romantic method, brought all the audience to imagine what climate and PTD might look like at the end of the century... and think about how our childrens' life right then. She really get into the point when she mentioned that we lawyers tend to be trapped within the statutory analysis, discussing what might fit to be brought to court and which fits for the other branches, and forgetting that the nature is actually already working so much faster than we anticipated. And then she got back to climate change, comparing how the regulations have been the micro approach, while the trust litigation are macro approach, basically saying "government need to have a plan"! She also mention about the "Our Children's Trust" where children brought petition to the government, saying that the agencies must have a plan. One of the case that got through the court was brought in Eugene, OR, and you can google about it.

That's kind of the end of this Symposium for me. Totally cool, but definitely cooler if we can try it back home ;)

Public Trust Symposium, Panel 3: Perspectives from Governance

So this is the 3rd Panel of the Public Trust Symposium in Lewis & Clark Law School on this sunny Friday, April 10, 2015. It was really interesting to see the perspective of government in responding to Public Trust Doctrine (PTD). I skipped the first speaker, a really interesting lady who practiced law for 23 years before work for the Department of Interior with a policy hat, Janice Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Lands and Minerals Management., U.S. DOI, nominated by Obama and approved by Congress.

So I started with Geoff McQuilkin, Executive Director of Mono Lake Committee, who shared his experience with implementing the famous PTD case, Mono Lake, which declared as victory by environmentalists some 20 years ago. A photo he shown to us told us how standing at the same edge of Mono Lake can look so differently in some two years in different timing - drought time and normal time. It's pretty heartbreaking to see the hard work to raise the Mono Lake water to certain level finally ends up with the nature's power. "What we're still doing to protect this public resource to be ecologically sound. But if we're heading towards getting the water level to its 'normal' level as set out in the case, we might be heading to the wrong direction,"

Richard Wisman, the Director of Oregon Governor's Natural Resources Office, took the floor afterwards, "You might remember that Montana has the right to clean and healthy environment. But you might not remember that in Oregon, in 1970s, people enacted Scenic Waterways Act," he started, talking about the PTD implementation in Oregon. However, the real challenge right now is real: the water reservoir level in Wilammete basin goes down to 1/3 of its normal level, and its beyond direct human action - it's nature. He pointed to California's Preposition 1: the $7.5 bond dedicated for water storage, water recycling, and many other holistic approach to deal with the drought that threat them. See what Oregon has been doing is fascinating, although environmentalists will probably demand more. Coordination with tribes, protection and restoration of fisheries, groundwater apportionment water right scheme (which is pretty unique water right system in the west as oppose to prior appropriation), CFS through in-stream leasing, and the public investment, all is ongoing. He even pointed that people power to demand is needed, full engagement with executive and judicial system.

All of them comes with the same message: the challenge of climate change is a huge chunk of additional homework. We're talking about drought in the west right now, which might be problematic if we want to see PTD in its traditional sense. We also take into account changing condition of nature, which completely different with 20 years ago.

Erin Ryan raise a really interesting question about how these executive people worry about the separation of power posed by the PTD. Wisman points to the possible backoff caused by overreaching judgment by the judiciary, which might frustrates both parties in the end with its unintended political consequences. McQuillin made a point about the balancing of special interests, where there's always be people who are not satisfied and then the court step in, put a hammer on what's actually been satisfactory for some groups. He pointed that PTD really have its role working when government fails to take certain actions. Scheider points that the agencies' objective to work in a collaborative action to make sure they're not get sued, and nodding to the points raised by her co-panels. She also points about hoping people realize how open the executive branch is to have conversation from the stakeholders -- the more they hear from people, the better decision they can make. Additional issue raised by Wisman on the climate change issue: the court will not make a sound decision on the climate, especially related to the complicated science involved in that, and only by locking people together in the room a sound solution can be reached.

LAW 101: Loving Your LAW Jobs

I love cases. 

I can't say enough how I LOVE observing people's story in cases: the more heartbreaking it is, the more interesting it is. Like one of the complicated case about defining "wetlands" in Rapanos v. United States, decided in a rare 4-1-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. The case, and the judges opinion, is just about "water of the US" and CWA jurisdiction -- and I was not that interested to the case until I found out the story behind the case,

"After seventeen years of protracted civil and criminal litigation and a denial of certiorari in the criminal trial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Rapanos' civil case." (68 La. L. Rev. 983)

There you go. A single definition of a single WORD has ruined someone's life for seventeen years, and a small (or huge, depends on your perspective in seeing that) shift on interpreting that word can affect everything from a huge sum of penalty to criminal conviction.

The way law dramatize people's stories is simply fascinating.

Sweetness Level: Godzilla!!

Again, about American food. If you start hating me, fine, shut this window down. I know I've been talking too much about food when I'm here.

When I can talk for hours about Portland's great local coffee and cool microbreweries, I can't resist to raise a concern about some intolerably unhealthy sweetness level in some of the beverages. Everytime I forgot to say "LESS SUGAR," the rest of my day will be a bad turbulence in my tummy - yes, that kind of sweetness that you think gonna give you instant diabetes.

First, let's examine this jar of coffee. I swear it's huge! At least you can drink 5 *NORMAL* cup of coffee and it's still sweet enough if you add ice as much as 20% of the volume you have in your cup. And where is it come from?

A grande Starbucks Java Chips Frappucino. More precisely, 3/4 of the grande frappe.

So in a beautiful grey day of Portland, I ordered my coffee, chatted with the server, and made the most fatal mistake of that day: forgetting to say "LESS SUGAR" for my order. Voila, what I got is a *NORMAL* sweetness level according to that server (or maybe any other server in particular places in particular country). So what happened next was I almost thrown up, and after couple of sips I gave up drinking it and bought a cup of regular Stumptown instead. But... I brought my frappe home.

And to satisfy my curiosity about my normal sweetness level, I made another coffee and added it to the grande frappe. It was 5 spoons of coffee with 16 ounces (yes, a full medium cup) of water. And I mix them. The result: it's still too sweet. But it's tolerable enough because I can add ice blocks as I drink that later. So, moral of the story: Even though I have added amount of water DOUBLE the original volume, American Starbucks is still too sweet (for me).

And today, I made the same mistake again. But, this time, with bottled juice. (How am I supposed to say "less sugar" to something bottled??). Anyway, this is a really healthy juice: 4 fruits blend, no GMO, not from concentrate, gluten free. So it's supposed to be awesome!!

But again, I got an instant "ding" in my head as I started sipping. Disaster!

As I flipped the bottle and see the sugar level, and it's well explained why the sweetness level is crazy: this 450ml juice contains 44 grams of sugar. In other words: 11 teaspoons*) of granulated white sugar!! While, according to AHA (American Heart Association), the maximum intake of sugar for woman is only 25 grams per day, and for man 37.5 grams per day.

Anyway, just a random statistic based on this page:

"According to data from the U.S. in 2008, people are consuming over 60 pounds (28 kg) of added sugar per year and this does not include fruit juices (1). In 2008 the average intake was 76.7 grams per day, which equals 19 teaspoons or 306 calories. According to this study, sugar consumption went down by 23% between the years 2000 and 2008, mainly because people drank less sugar-sweetened beverages"

Meanwhile, a *not so* recent opinion in Jakarta Post raised a concern about the opposite trend growing in Indonesia: more sugar! You can see the opinion here, written by the vulnerability assessment officer for the UN World Food Program (WFP) in Indonesia and East Timor in 1998-2002.

So, think your own sweetness level, and have a good day, sugar!

*) one teaspoon of white granulated sugar equals to 4 grams of sugar

Lost and Damage Climate Compensation

DISCLAIMER: It's not a legal argument, at all. In one of the International Environmental Law class, my Professor raised a question about the CC's lost and damage climate compensation -- somewhat in a way discrediting developing countries' position in demanding that. For a quick reference about loss and damage climate compensation, see Saleemul Huq's writing in UNEP's CC website. So when I worked on my paper I couldn't stop thinking about that, and before I realized I already start writing this in the class' forum, wasting my precious 1 hr to write this non-legal response. Here it is, copied verbatim:

So I was curious about the lost and damage and I researched more about this since I couldn't believe something as non-sense as our discussion in the class could go as far as reaching an agreement to be considered. It makes more sense to me after reading more sources.

I think there's a big difference between (a) "any kind of damage that adaptation won't be able to answer" with (b) "unavoidable damage that already occurred and no matter what we do, adaptation is too late".

Lost and damage sounds more like (b) for me, if I understand it correctly. It might be easier for developed countries to be technology optimistic, but for the poorest parts of the world where electricity & fridge not even accessible for some of its citizen? Not so -- it should be predictable that adaptation tends to come too late for them, leave them with no option but to losing more and sacrificing their chances to improve their already-screwed life (see: Guardian, Climate Change, the Poor Will Suffer Most). At least from my limited knowledge, it doesn't sound like unimaginable scenes to lost too much before adaptation finally arrive. Sounds fair, especially for those country whose historical emissions are among the lowest, but forced to live with disaster for years before some foreign aid come and safe them with adaptation project. Does it sound fair for 39 millions of Bangladeshi citizen who live below $2/day to face constant flood that made their food security worse and cause more water-borne diseases, in addition to their already-low living standards? If you were Bangladeshi citizen, will you be patient enough to wait some 2 years being homeless or live in the disaster camp until your new adaptation house built without being compensated a single penny? If you're the government, how will you manage your low budget to ensure these people get just compensation? Or maybe it's their cross to suffer a bit, no compensation is needed since everyone's suffering in natural disaster, no? Sounds like natural disaster, but with some historical proof on who should bear the most responsibility.

My biggest concern, however, is that the state being the subject demanding the compensation, while that the people impacted with these kind of situation are usually the ones whose voice are the least heard by the state, especially in the developing world. These are the kind of people who don't trust government because they have been forgotten by government too many times. And suddenly developing countries' governments stand up for these people in the name of climate justice? Sounds fishy. Maybe, developing countries governments are predicting a big wave of angry citizen who will blame governments for their failure in promptly implementing the adaptation plan -- that's why this loss and damage compensation being advocated.

In addition to the (b) situation, as absurd it might sound, I also can imagine permanent loss situations in point (a). Culture and way of living is one of them -- when an indigenous tribe is separated from their subsistence way of living because of climate vulnerability, what is the right adaptation plan? When Pacific Islanders tribes have to be evacuated from their indigenous lands to the city, is it as easy as city people moving from one apartment to another? It might be really, really difficult for city people to understand, but indigenous people's connection with their lands can be as stubborn as 'better to stay and die in my land than living somewhere else'. As they flee somewhere else, an irreplaceable value that money can't ever cover have lost (I'm not romanticizing, these stubborn people have caused me some troubles in real life evacuation). It make sense that Pacific Island nations take a pretty strong position on this, since some of the proponents are small nations with strong cultural identity. If culture sounds too absurd, non-use value, as we have seen a lot in ESA litigation, might be more imaginable for us, although this will be more universal and not unique to developing countries. However, these non-use value loss can be really tricky in its threshold and limits, as I raised yesterday.

PS: Viv raised the issue that adaptation will be needed eventually. Loss and damage compensation does not come as substitute of adaptation, but in addition to that. This is what makes it so controversial, because anyway, every nations are impacted. 

Public Interest Environmental Lawyer Conference 2015, Eugene, OR

So I skipped a class and dropped my Fulbright seminar opportunity in order to attend this conference. I've heard about this conference quite a lot, and since Lewis & Clark's biking squad has started their practice since months ago, I knew I must make my best effort to attend. And it turns out to be really worth it: they have 10 parallel panels, and each panel consisted of 16 different panels that you have to choose. Aside from that, they have amazing keynotes.

I really have no idea how grassroot activists will see this conference, but since I am not grassroot activist, all I can say is: PIELC is not for mediocre. It's serious, man. Not necessarily you must be lawyers, but you must be an environmental activists in order to fit within the crowds. My conclusion was not without some reasonable rationale. Look at these grandmothers.

Raging grannies and a Fransiscan eco-activist

Yep, as absurd as it sounds, it's the Corvallis and Eugene Raging Grannies who sang against XL Keystone, modifying the tone of Are You Sleeping into provoking but funny lyrics, bringing protest signs with them so bold and provocative. And those grannies really know what's at stake! I spoke to some oldies, and how they know so much about the XL Keystone advocacy makes me feel like a baby.

We also chanted a lot during keynote speeches, as you can see in one of the picture above (top left) - that's Gary Nabhan, a Fransiscan brother who happen to be an ethnobotanist and agricultural ecologist. He asked us to chant a line (that sounds like prayer) stating a totally demanding commitment in environmental advocacy, basically avoiding adversarial tactics when we can compromise, avoiding harm to the least-powerful community.

Another funny greeting came from Bill McKibben, who joked around with his "see you in jail". Even with this subtle kind of greeting, we know that true activists do not say "see you in other conference" and instead picking a place like street and organizing efforts - even jail. Also, these activists throw jokes around without trying to be politically correct, like when Antonio Oposa from Philippines bragging about how bad the western world is in front of a white majority who attended the conference.

The other interesting stuff is the combination of nature and session. We went hiking at McGowan Grove, a pretty off-trail hike (and that's why they suggest 'moderately experienced hikers') with a Congressman and a Senator as our guide. And yeah, they're badass either as a guide and as a field speakers. I don't think Indonesia's congressman would ever do that.

Congressman DeFazio and Senator Wyden lead the walk in the grove

Eugene's awesome McGowan Grove

Another funny speaker was this 14 years old climate justice public speaker, a cute indigo kid named Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez who sang some awesome environmental justice hip-hop songs and spoke about public trust doctrine like it's he knows all about it. Here's one of his song with his kiddo gang: Take You to Court. Okay, kid.

I guess that would be sufficient since it's impossible for me to tell you all about each and every panels. Just if you're in the US and want to network with real activists, learn great strategy about stuffs and really implement it back home, know some people who keep doing great without funding, this conference is definitely your place.

See you somewhere on the earth! (Hopefully not in a boring conference room)