Are you thirsty?

When you see the Save Sudan shirts around campus, you think “oh, that’s a good cause.” It’s a mighty good thing we Punahou students are doing something to help those in Africa. Spread the word. Donate money. But then, I pick up this current issue of Time that I just got out of the mailbox. The pictures, for one of the first times, aren’t the part of the feature that hit me. It was the way the journalist framed the issue of genocide and overall fighting in Darfur, or anywhere is Africa for that matter, that really hit me. He didn’t nee to use the word “genocide” in his introduction. We all know. I think the issue claimed a feeling of danger instead of pity. In lame man’s terms, I got really scared reading it.

“How to Prevent the Next Darfur. Step one: Get serious about climate change”

Everyone disregards the fact that problems exists here, in Darfur, as a result of the lack of resources. No food, no arable land, and no water. No, allow me to rephrase that. Limited food, limited arable land, and very limited supply of water. How can you expect there to be any peace? Hunger breeds contempt. Farmers and non-farmers are unable to work in collaboration when there is not enough land to share and crop. Forget about the daunting numbers (200,000 people killed in the past 4 years and 2.5 million more refugees). Not to sound shallow, but we hear it all the time. We think, “whoa” but we need to take it one step further.

“Environmental skeptics, including the Bush Administration, dispute the more dire predictions about climate change.” Interesting. Now we’re arguing about whether the climate change will get worse. What about now?

Is it not enough to see that the environmental condition they are in now is already killing them? One farmer at a time, one family at a time. Those people couldn’t care less about global warming. We’re talking about their day to day meals and for god’s sake, water.