The term "Green Revolution" is associated nowadays with the increased level of environmental consciousness: businesses changing their operations to incorporate more environmental practices, and the advent of environmental consumerism. Actually the "Green Revolution" was a 1960's term that referred to new varieties of rice and wheat for developing countries that were more drought and pest resistant, more responsive to advanced fertilization methods, and ultimately produced higher yielding crops. A comprehensive report [PDF] on the Green Revolution by the International Food Policy Research Institute describes the background and history of this movement.
 
This "Revolution" was a great way to increase yields of wheat and rice production, alleviate hunger and provide an income to poverty-stricken farming communities in developing countries. But now, 4 decades later, other problems are arising. The land is no longer arable due to the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, polluted waterways, salt build-up and eventual loss of biodiversity on farms. The people forced to leave their land are known as environmental migrants or climate refugees. More details on the environmental impacts of the Green Revolution can be found on Wikipedia.

Developing countries, such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia, that could be considered to be among the least responsible for major climate change, are the ones that are being the hardest hit. A video report created by the U.N. Development Program explains the relationship between human development and climate change.

Rice farmers in Bangladesh have lost their crops due to excessive flooding, while farmers in Ethiopia are praying for rain, all resulting in more poverty, starvation and refugees as land becomes less and less arable.
 
However, Indian farmers have taken matters into their own hands by shunning modern agricultural technologies and going back to their traditional ways of farming. According to this article on NPR’s website, an Indian farmer named Sharma enjoyed 20 years of an increase in crop yields and subsequent income as a result of the Green Revolution. Then his soil began to deteriorate and he needed to buy more and more fertilizers to grow the same amount of crops. He soon realized that the only way to sustain his crops was to go organic. In another article, the Guardian states that "Sustainable agriculture involves hard work and does not guarantee huge profits, but it will not harm the farmers' health, brings personal satisfaction, and involves fewer financial risks."
 
The U.S., as one of the world’s largest consumers, can take a stand in reducing its own unsustainable agricultural practices and become a model for other nations, by increasing the demand for organic farming and native plant propagation. The Slow Food Organization is a great international proponent of eating locally grown and prepared foods. Furthermore, if we as citizens of this country demand more government subsidies for organic farmers, then perhaps sustainable farming will gain significant momentum. Here is an article that points to how little the government supports organic farming. The International Society for Cow Protection talks about how the future lies in organic farming, and industrial farming practices are becoming less and less attractive, especially for small farmers. This video indicates how the future might look if we adopt organic farming practices fully. It seems bright indeed!

And learn more about the current state of the food crisis on our dedicated Issue page.

In a season of a high-profile Supreme Court nomination, economic stimulus, and early health care negotiations, why are we hearing so little about the Obama administration's environmental and energy policy?

The answer may lie in Obama's use of terms like "clean coal," "carbon capture and storage," and "cap and trade" that imply more a gesture of environmentalism rather than a full-scale energy revolution. In recent weeks, Obama has deferred to House Democrats to craft a climate change bill that creates the first carbon emissions trading system loosely modeled on EU energy policy. The plan though, in giving away 85% of carbon trade permits to industry for free, sets far more modest goals than the EU system for reducing carbon emissions.

Obama has been even more quiet about a $2.4 billion rollout this month of "clean coal" investments designed to reduce the environmental impact of coal-powered energy. Environmentalists like Al Gore mock the very idea of clean coal power, but similar programs are being implemented in the EU and China as economic stimulus measures.

Even as energy policy takes a back-seat to other administration priorities, there is still pressure to move quickly on new programs. Obama has promised to raise substantial revenue from carbon emissions trading to help pay for expenses like universal health care. Also, there is hope that Obama will sign on to global energy standards this December in Copenhagen to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which previous U.S. administrations never implemented.

Watch the Global Pulse episode on "clean coal" policy here.

We're feeling a bit calmer about the swine flu today. Planes are flying empty to Mexico and 30,000 restaurants lie quiet across the Mexican capital. But as the first week of swine flu hysteria draws to a close, the Mexican death toll appears to have stabilized and fears of a mounting global apocalypse have yet to materialize.

We're more prone now to heed the words of pandemic skeptics, like virologists that contend the swine flu mortality rate is likely to be not far off the typical seasonal flu death rate. We are also swayed by histories of the epic false alarm that was the last swine flu outbreak in 1976.

Still, for panic-watchers we do note the beta launch of Google Flu Trends for up-to-date tracking of swine flu spread across Mexico. And for those who opt to don a face mask when venturing out of home, recognize that a mask can fast become porous as it absorbs humidity.

Does the arrival of swine flu constitute real reason for alarm? Or like SARS and the avian flu before it, is this more a minor local than major global tragedy?

Watch the Global Pulse episode on swine flu here.

China's economy is slowing as it is the world over. One cause is the dramatic recent drop in U.S. consumption of Chinese imports. But nearly every day now, we are reading of deals struck by China that promise to turn the economic tide in Beijing's favor.

In Latin America and Vietnam, Chinese firms have signed deals to expand natural resource production. The New York Times reports that deals made in recent weeks in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil include terms designed to decrease demand for the U.S. dollar. From Vietnam, TIME interviews locals fearful that China's plans to mine bauxite will result in devastating environmental and job losses.

China's military is also assuming a more aggressive stance. The state navy hints that it may soon develop an aircraft carrier and expand its global missions along the lines of recent anti-piracy sorties in the Gulf of Aden.

The Economist though predicts China could chart a more peaceful route to recovery. This scenario would include long-term investment in domestic priorities such as public transit and health care. Chinese officials are reportedly "fascinated" by European models of welfare and public health, and could cooperate with the EU on future projects.

Can China achieve economic recovery in a manner that is peaceful and sustainable? Or should we remain skeptical of a world shaped by Chinese priorities?

The Chicago Tribune reports today that Illinois will move ahead with construction of a new power plant that aims to implement Obama-approved "clean coal" technology. But is there anything even remotely "green" about this plan to expand coal power production? The American Coalition for Clean Coal Technology, a coal power lobby organization, thinks so and uses an Obama campaign speech to prove their point in a recent ad below. For a more sobering take, check out views expressed here and here.