To be quite honest, I'm not completely sure whether I would call the Japanese way of living eco-friendly. Sure, people often argue that "mottainai" sales are a way of recycling, but combine that with the fact that Japan combusts a large percentage of its garbage and offers few places for people to recycle clothes, and you've got a bit of a dilemma.
Moving on...
People tend to react to things that affect them or their immediate lives — this is one of the reasons why the movement to be friendly to the environment has only caught on in certain regions of the world. While individuals may care about others, past examples have shown us that few people will go out of their way, will inconvenience their lives, merely to assist a complete stranger — less so if said individual is on the other side of the globe. This idea is especially prominent in the Japanese sphere, where we need only to look at the principles of 外 and 内.
In the same vein, Japanese people are more willing to adhere to the government-set 節電 principles because they feel for their countrymen and do not want their fellow Japanese to be energy-less throughout the entire summer. This year has been a year of many natural disasters, but not once have we seen the Japanese government (and the people, accordingly) honestly attempt to conserve energy the way they are doing now — never mind the fact that many scientists are attributing this sudden spike in natural disasters to global warming, which everyone in the world will be affected by someday. Cool Biz, for example, is something that has been around for a few years now, but people did not really start acknowledging it until after the disaster.
Preserving the environment is incredibly important to me, but selfishly enough, I also like the status quo of my own life. While shutting down the AC on the trains from 12-3 p.m. is not exactly a desirable action during a mushimushi summer, I think that it is good that the Japanese people are finally learning how much energy they waste by leaving the giant screens at ALTA and Shibuya on night and day, by having more than one 24-hour conbini on each block. Setsuden, thus, means very little to me, because it is something that Japan should have started years ago — but better late than never, right?
I suppose my biggest gripe with the entire thing is how commercialised it's becoming. You can buy a smartphone app or purchase toys that are marketed as eco-friendly. How does buying something new actually help conserve resources?
21 June 2011
20 June 2011
The worst time to be lost in translation
My story comes firsthand from a friend who was trapped in Sendai when the earthquake and tsunami hit. She had just landed in Japan as a newly arrived JET programme participant and was excited to teach English in Japan for the first time. Her plane landed at the Sendai airport only an hour or so before the quake, and in a stroke of good luck, she somehow managed to take the train in the opposite direction of where she was supposed to go, and ended up heading much further inland than she needed to be.
Caught without a phone and unable to speak a word of Japanese — she was newly arrived, after all — she had absolutely no idea what to do. The day after the quake, I received a call from her worried parents — I hadn't even known she was supposed to fly in the day before — asking me whether I could try contacting her. I couldn't. Hours passed that felt like days, and days passed that felt like weeks. She had no access to a phone and clearly hadn't had time to register with the embassy or her local city ward office, so all we could do was wait. And wait we did. I posted messages on all of the messageboards I could find, put up an alert via Twitter and asked friends who were going up to the affected area to ask about a lost foreigner.
Four days later, right before my flight was scheduled to depart from Haneda, I received news from an anonymous person on the Person Finder. My friend was alive and had barely managed to escape being caught in the epicentre of the quake. Having heard all of the stories about the people who were scamming others and seeking to profit off their misery, I was sceptical at first, but the anonymous poster offered to set up a Skype meeting with her to prove it to me. I don't think I've ever felt more relieved in my life.
Her parents, of course, were relieved, but it was one of the most harrowing experiences I think they've ever been through — and for me too. While a lot of foreigners were going about their daily lives here in Tokyo, I was burdened with worrying about a girl who was only kilometres away from where the quake impacted most.
I don't know whether she ever will be able to get back to her normal life. She was scheduled to start teaching in Ishinomaki in April, but returned home at the bequest of her parents. The last time I talked to her, she said she doesn't know whether she will be able to return to Japan because all she can remember is being a newly arrived tourist being yelled at in confusing Japanese.
Perhaps not the most traumatic story of all, but one that impacted me personally.
Caught without a phone and unable to speak a word of Japanese — she was newly arrived, after all — she had absolutely no idea what to do. The day after the quake, I received a call from her worried parents — I hadn't even known she was supposed to fly in the day before — asking me whether I could try contacting her. I couldn't. Hours passed that felt like days, and days passed that felt like weeks. She had no access to a phone and clearly hadn't had time to register with the embassy or her local city ward office, so all we could do was wait. And wait we did. I posted messages on all of the messageboards I could find, put up an alert via Twitter and asked friends who were going up to the affected area to ask about a lost foreigner.
Four days later, right before my flight was scheduled to depart from Haneda, I received news from an anonymous person on the Person Finder. My friend was alive and had barely managed to escape being caught in the epicentre of the quake. Having heard all of the stories about the people who were scamming others and seeking to profit off their misery, I was sceptical at first, but the anonymous poster offered to set up a Skype meeting with her to prove it to me. I don't think I've ever felt more relieved in my life.
Her parents, of course, were relieved, but it was one of the most harrowing experiences I think they've ever been through — and for me too. While a lot of foreigners were going about their daily lives here in Tokyo, I was burdened with worrying about a girl who was only kilometres away from where the quake impacted most.
I don't know whether she ever will be able to get back to her normal life. She was scheduled to start teaching in Ishinomaki in April, but returned home at the bequest of her parents. The last time I talked to her, she said she doesn't know whether she will be able to return to Japan because all she can remember is being a newly arrived tourist being yelled at in confusing Japanese.
Perhaps not the most traumatic story of all, but one that impacted me personally.
19 June 2011
Disaster Preparation
Today's class about disaster preparedness got me thinking about Sophia University and its bureaucracy. I find it hard to believe that full-time professors have neither evacuation guides nor drill instructions that they can follow in case of an emergency. While I know that during class, many people made the point that it is the students' responsibility to know what they should do, I think that people are less likely to listen to one incredibly majime student than they are a professor with a loud voice and an inherent authority.
At the same time, after growing up in another earthquake-prone city thousands of miles away from here, I've also learned that it is incredibly easy to disregard emergency drills... or worse, an actual disaster. This is a trend that people in Miyagi have also been discussing as of late — the idea that we disregard warnings when we see absolutely no immediate personal danger. I think that if Sophia University were to start having emergency drills, people would ignore them out of the desire to maintain their studious, concentrated atmosphere and might not be able to move fast enough in the case of an actual disaster. The only way to get around this, however, is to take people by surprise.
Oh, and I definitely do not feel reassured about the fact that Building 2 is supposed to be a backup evacuation centre — those cracks in the wall made me wonder about just how stable the building truly is, and why the school has not invested the money to fix — and perhaps even reinforce — the structure.
Lastly, I think that the school should begin implementing randomly scheduled earthquake drills just to get people in the habit of knowing where to go. Sure, there is the possibility that the drills could become too frequent and the school would have a "boy who cried wolf" scenario on their hands, I think that it would be better than nothing. Even as a regular degree student, I would have had no idea where to go — those emergency maps are not as common as people make them out to be.
Overall though, it was a thoroughly informative and entertaining class.
At the same time, after growing up in another earthquake-prone city thousands of miles away from here, I've also learned that it is incredibly easy to disregard emergency drills... or worse, an actual disaster. This is a trend that people in Miyagi have also been discussing as of late — the idea that we disregard warnings when we see absolutely no immediate personal danger. I think that if Sophia University were to start having emergency drills, people would ignore them out of the desire to maintain their studious, concentrated atmosphere and might not be able to move fast enough in the case of an actual disaster. The only way to get around this, however, is to take people by surprise.
Oh, and I definitely do not feel reassured about the fact that Building 2 is supposed to be a backup evacuation centre — those cracks in the wall made me wonder about just how stable the building truly is, and why the school has not invested the money to fix — and perhaps even reinforce — the structure.
Lastly, I think that the school should begin implementing randomly scheduled earthquake drills just to get people in the habit of knowing where to go. Sure, there is the possibility that the drills could become too frequent and the school would have a "boy who cried wolf" scenario on their hands, I think that it would be better than nothing. Even as a regular degree student, I would have had no idea where to go — those emergency maps are not as common as people make them out to be.
Overall though, it was a thoroughly informative and entertaining class.
10 June 2011
And now for something a bit different... Russia.
According to the World Nuclear Association, Russia began researching the properties of radioactive materials in the early 20th century and commissioned and built the 5MWe Obninsk reactor — the first of its kind and the first to function as a power source — in 1954. These were followed by several more, until the country had 25 nuclear reactors powering the nation when the Chernobyl incident happened in 1986.
Although Russia currently has 32 nuclear reactors in commission, not everyone agrees with the idea of powering the country with a source of energy that caused an unspeakable, nearly immeasurable amount of damage almost three decades ago. Others argue that it is necessary to power a country of Russia's size and population. It's important to note that the country is currently attempting to curb its nuclear reliance by building hydroelectric plants in order to balance out the power sources.
Statistics provided by Europe's Energy Portal state that in 2009, the Russian Federation used 135 Terawatt-hours of nuclear energy, which places them fifth on the list of countries' nuclear consumption amounts. The amount of power Russia managed to generate in 2009 — roughly 149 Terawatt-hours — makes the country pretty much break even in terms of their energy production and consumption ratio.
An April article from The Telegraph summarises the opinions of both leading specialists and general non-involved parties about whether Russia has become too reliant on nuclear energy. In this article, we learn that Russia has a) devised and passed a plan to build 20 more nuclear reactors and somewhat paradoxically, also b) plans to cut down on its nuclear energy reliance within a couple of months. This idea is directly reflected in the fact that, when polled, nuclear power is the best alternative when compared to hydropower or gas. Along these same lines, the voters also maintained that the Russian Foundation should be focussing its efforts on improving the current condition of the reactors.
After researching a bit about Russia, I found it interesting that instead of calling for the shutdown of all the nuclear plants located throughout the country — despite the system's faults, members of the Russian Federation seem to have accepted the usefulness and convenience of nuclear energy and thus are not calling for the shutdown of plants that the nation relies on.
Although Russia currently has 32 nuclear reactors in commission, not everyone agrees with the idea of powering the country with a source of energy that caused an unspeakable, nearly immeasurable amount of damage almost three decades ago. Others argue that it is necessary to power a country of Russia's size and population. It's important to note that the country is currently attempting to curb its nuclear reliance by building hydroelectric plants in order to balance out the power sources.
Statistics provided by Europe's Energy Portal state that in 2009, the Russian Federation used 135 Terawatt-hours of nuclear energy, which places them fifth on the list of countries' nuclear consumption amounts. The amount of power Russia managed to generate in 2009 — roughly 149 Terawatt-hours — makes the country pretty much break even in terms of their energy production and consumption ratio.
An April article from The Telegraph summarises the opinions of both leading specialists and general non-involved parties about whether Russia has become too reliant on nuclear energy. In this article, we learn that Russia has a) devised and passed a plan to build 20 more nuclear reactors and somewhat paradoxically, also b) plans to cut down on its nuclear energy reliance within a couple of months. This idea is directly reflected in the fact that, when polled, nuclear power is the best alternative when compared to hydropower or gas. Along these same lines, the voters also maintained that the Russian Foundation should be focussing its efforts on improving the current condition of the reactors.
After researching a bit about Russia, I found it interesting that instead of calling for the shutdown of all the nuclear plants located throughout the country — despite the system's faults, members of the Russian Federation seem to have accepted the usefulness and convenience of nuclear energy and thus are not calling for the shutdown of plants that the nation relies on.
07 June 2011
The American image as perceived by Japan
US image in Japan up sharply after quake
The above article was written by Shaun Tandon on behalf of the Agence France-Presse, a well-known, nonprofit newswire agency, and was released to the public last Tuesday. Originally written in English, Tandon's article focusses on the results of a recent Pew poll that aimed to gauge whether the Japanese opinion of the United States rose or fell after the calamity that was 11 March. Citing statistics, Tandon notes that there has indeed been a large increase in the percentage of Japanese people who view America in a favourable light — 85 percent of those surveyed, to be exact. Tandon also notes other tangentially relevant statistics, such as the percentage of people who no longer believe nuclear power should be in Japan's future.
While most newspaper articles demonstrate a strong bias towards one political viewpoint or another, newswires tend to state the technical facts and provide little analysis about what said numbers allude to in the greater scheme of things. That said, however, it is clear that Tandon is clearly writing this article for an English-speaking, most likely American audience — the location provided before the story's lead notes it as having been written in Washington and thus the information he provides is somewhat tailored to be pleasing to the American ear — he mentions Operation Tomodachi and helpfully notes that the word means "friend", which demonstrates that this article is targeted towards people with little knowledge of the Japanese language. Furthermore, Tandon's statement that "More than half of Japanese" believe that America has helped Japan through this crisis is designed to reassure non-Japanese readers that Japan now views the United States in a much more favourable light — indicating that the "majority" supports the relief efforts is much stronger than saying "52 percent".
Even though newswires are supposed to be somewhat unbiased, it is clear that this article has a somewhat Western-centric point of view — rather than differentiating between the categories of individuals surveyed, Tandon (or perhaps the Pew researchers) groups high school students with women and does not elaborate about their ages or why the individuals felt the way they do, and it is thus arguable that Tandon does this for simplicity's sake, in order to allow people uneducated to understand the gravity of the situation.
The above article was written by Shaun Tandon on behalf of the Agence France-Presse, a well-known, nonprofit newswire agency, and was released to the public last Tuesday. Originally written in English, Tandon's article focusses on the results of a recent Pew poll that aimed to gauge whether the Japanese opinion of the United States rose or fell after the calamity that was 11 March. Citing statistics, Tandon notes that there has indeed been a large increase in the percentage of Japanese people who view America in a favourable light — 85 percent of those surveyed, to be exact. Tandon also notes other tangentially relevant statistics, such as the percentage of people who no longer believe nuclear power should be in Japan's future.
While most newspaper articles demonstrate a strong bias towards one political viewpoint or another, newswires tend to state the technical facts and provide little analysis about what said numbers allude to in the greater scheme of things. That said, however, it is clear that Tandon is clearly writing this article for an English-speaking, most likely American audience — the location provided before the story's lead notes it as having been written in Washington and thus the information he provides is somewhat tailored to be pleasing to the American ear — he mentions Operation Tomodachi and helpfully notes that the word means "friend", which demonstrates that this article is targeted towards people with little knowledge of the Japanese language. Furthermore, Tandon's statement that "More than half of Japanese" believe that America has helped Japan through this crisis is designed to reassure non-Japanese readers that Japan now views the United States in a much more favourable light — indicating that the "majority" supports the relief efforts is much stronger than saying "52 percent".
Even though newswires are supposed to be somewhat unbiased, it is clear that this article has a somewhat Western-centric point of view — rather than differentiating between the categories of individuals surveyed, Tandon (or perhaps the Pew researchers) groups high school students with women and does not elaborate about their ages or why the individuals felt the way they do, and it is thus arguable that Tandon does this for simplicity's sake, in order to allow people uneducated to understand the gravity of the situation.
02 June 2011
Volunteering
I've always interpreted volunteering to be a form of community service, and vice versa. In my eyes, regardless of whether the "volunteering" is optional or mandated, a service to the community is a service to the community. Volunteering and other charitable activities are never altruistic because the both parties receive something -- whether that something has any value is different, but even someone who volunteers out of the kindness of their heart often does it because it makes them feel like they are making a difference, it gives them pleasure to help other people.
As great as it would be for more individuals to step up and contribute to the well-being of society on their own, I think that many people assign a value to their time, and unless they receive something in return, it's not worth it.
I'm not sure whether it is the definition of volunteering or what people think being helpful means that is different in Japan. I grew up in a city where all kinds of charitable work are encouraged and pretty much every event is a fundraiser of some type. To me, volunteering means contributing some of my time to help others. That's it. It seems like in Japan, people do it for different reasons, be it due to peer pressure, to personal guilt, or just to say they did it. I'm not saying that there is no meaning behind it, but I think that it is rarely self-motivated -- we don't exactly see people taking time off work to do it, and when they do, they get a lot of attention for it and are treated as heroes. Actually, one of the things I've noticed about how volunteering here is different is how it is perceived in the media. The media here have jumped on top of it, like it is some amazing thing that Japanese people are helping out.
That doesn't happen back home. Whenever a huge disaster strikes an area, people rush to the affected area just the same, hang posters and hold fundraisers, but these kinds of things are expected. It seems here that a lot of people go up to Tohoku to say that they went, and so they can alleviate the feeling of having not done anything.
As great as it would be for more individuals to step up and contribute to the well-being of society on their own, I think that many people assign a value to their time, and unless they receive something in return, it's not worth it.
I'm not sure whether it is the definition of volunteering or what people think being helpful means that is different in Japan. I grew up in a city where all kinds of charitable work are encouraged and pretty much every event is a fundraiser of some type. To me, volunteering means contributing some of my time to help others. That's it. It seems like in Japan, people do it for different reasons, be it due to peer pressure, to personal guilt, or just to say they did it. I'm not saying that there is no meaning behind it, but I think that it is rarely self-motivated -- we don't exactly see people taking time off work to do it, and when they do, they get a lot of attention for it and are treated as heroes. Actually, one of the things I've noticed about how volunteering here is different is how it is perceived in the media. The media here have jumped on top of it, like it is some amazing thing that Japanese people are helping out.
That doesn't happen back home. Whenever a huge disaster strikes an area, people rush to the affected area just the same, hang posters and hold fundraisers, but these kinds of things are expected. It seems here that a lot of people go up to Tohoku to say that they went, and so they can alleviate the feeling of having not done anything.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)