While packing for my first real Africa experience I tried to ignore the fact that the trip would entail no less than ten flights (which later turned into twelve). I told myself that my environmental karma would be restored by the fact that our safari lodge, Basecamp Masai Mara, was the winner of both The Responsible Tourism Award and the Eco Warrior Award. The camp's electricity is generated using solar power, the waste water is used to irrigate trees and all the kitchen waste is separated and composted. They have a number of ongoing environmental projects and the local Maasai clan are stakeholders. Suddenly I was a saint!

Getting to this eco-wonderland turned out to be an experience on its own, though. After two delayed flights and three lost bags we were in Nairobi and found out that the drive to Basecamp Masai Mara would take seven hours instead of five. It had been raining the night before and some of the worst roads I have ever seen were covered in mud. Questions about how far the camp was were methodically evaded with "It's still very far" and the more eager-to-please, but for the most part less correct, "About twenty minutes". For great portions of the drive there was a sad strip of remaining asphalt in the middle of the dirt road which, along with the worn-down sides of the road, made traveling very diagonal. My sense of balance was surprisingly quick to adjust though, and had I at this point seen a single car driving horizontally I'm sure I would have found it to be most peculiar. As we got closer to Basecamp we got stuck in the mud several times but there were always people, mostly Maasai men, coming to the rescue.

If you're the least bit car-sick there is an airport consisting of two huts and a landing strip about half an hours drive from the camp, but as I look back on the trip I'm glad we went by road. For example, if we hadn't, I would never have gotten to see our driver Joseph revolutionize the auto repair industry. I'm not kidding, this man fixed a busted cooler using a bag of curry.

We arrived at Basecamp Masai Mara bruised, hungry and starting to accept that to fully enjoy our trip we would have to give in a little and just go with it. My brother and I went to look for our tent, no 5 out of a modest 15, and as we found ourselves on the generous porch we agreed that 'tent' is a humble definition if there ever was one. It was almost like having our own treehouse with a wonderful view of the river passing right beneath us. Our late arrival caused us to miss our first game drive which had been planned for that afternoon, so we had a late lunch, unpacked and then went for dinner.

After dark there wasn't a whole lot to do at Basecamp. There was a bar in the restaurant but no one seemed to stay up late. The sun set at around seven o'clock and when it did everything turned pitch black. A Maasai man came by to leave a lantern on our porch every night which along with the somewhat dim solar powered lighting set a romantic mood. Since my need for romance wasn't exactly peaking while bunking with my dear brother, a headlamp wouldn't have killed me.

I loved that we were constantly reminded of the wilderness; leaving anything from make-up to clothes out in the bathroom, where you showered under the open sky, was not considered wise unless you were trying to bestow a fashion sense upon thieving monkeys. And to protect us from wild animals roaming the camp we were advised not to go anywhere after dark without a guide. Not even to the restaurant which was just 50 meters from our tent. Once or twice we cheated and I was sure there would be an angry hippo waiting for us by the buffet.

On day two our luggage was still missing and needless to say the outfits we wore on the way to Stockholm Arlanda in December weren't really suitable for safaris. One crazy shopping spree on the insurance company's dime later and we were off, still in the same winter gear but with matching Basecamp sunhats to boot. Had we been anywhere else in the world we could just as well have been carrying signs saying “we don’t fit in, please rob us”, but in Masai Mara there was never any need to worry. We had two game drives planned for the day and every little problem faded once we were on route to the first one. The guides were brilliant; right off the bat we got to see a family of elephants and five minutes later a pregnant lioness cooling off under a tree. The rain had turned the whole savannah a beautiful green. We got surprisingly close to the animals but the respect that the guides had for them was obvious; one water buffalo looked at us the wrong way and we went straight back the way we came from. And really, who put the water buffalo on The Big Five anyway? Grumpy bastards. Then and again we drove past deserted safari vans that had been trapped by the mud. I was told that one car had actually gotten stuck under a tree with a cheetah resting in it. I don't know what would be worse, getting out to push or staying in a van with no roof? At the end of our second drive we had seen almost every animal you dream of seeing at a safari and we were starting to become a little bit spoiled. As if they could read our minds, the guides pulled up and stopped smack in the middle of a group of ten lions. They were all completely comfortable, and except for some playful cubs utterly uninterested in us. I could have sat there all day just to watch them, but another car drove up and we took off. We only came across two other tourist groups all in all, and the fact that one always drove away seemed to be part of all the lodges' ethics.

On day three we got up at the crack of dawn for a five hour drive to Lake Nakuru Park, known for its flamingo- and rhino population. The chefs had breakfast ready at six, bless their hearts. Had we known then that the only bridge out of Masai Mara was flooded we would have told them to sleep in. I would have loved staying an extra day or two at Basecamp. Not to do more game drives, walking safaris or any other activities for that matter, I had already seen everything I had hoped to see. But just to sit on the porch and watch the river pass by.

As we arrived at Lake Nakuru Lodge four hours late Joseph told us that our lost luggage had been found and delivered to Basecamp Masai Mara.

http://www.tribes.co.uk/countries/kenya/accommodation/basecamp_masai_mara.html

Being the poster child of Agnosticism makes sure things somewhat of a luxury. I enjoy knowing that my parents will still be out shopping on Dec 24th (which is the day we celebrate Christmas in Sweden), that I keep extending my gym membership with the naive intention of actually going and that hydroelectric plants don’t emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). Of course, like in the case of the power plants (but never the gym), even our sure things sometimes take us by surprise. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation had consultant Göran Eklöf analyse the studies claiming that many hydroelectric plants actually emit as much or even more GHGs than your everyday fossil fuel plant would, to produce the same amount of electricity. In his analysis “A wolf in sheep’s clothing? - Water power and greenhouse gases”, Eklöf emphasizes the importance of different biotopes’ relationship to carbon, the base of GHGs carbon dioxide and methane. To put it very crudely, natural habitats can emit carbon, store it or function as a carbon sink. Stagnant waters like lakes or dams naturally emit carbon, whereas for example forests often have a balanced intake and emission. So if a reservoir floods a forest area the vegetation will rot, stored carbon will be released and the net emission of GHGs will rise. Furthermore, should this emission take place in an oxygen-free surrounding (as is often the case in the bottom layers of a dam), the carbon could be released into the atmosphere in the form of methane. Methane is about 20 times more powerful a GHG than the carbon dioxide that is usually emitted.

To get exact calculations on hydroelectric GHG-emissions we need to know the specific area's pre-dam relationship to carbon, and since these theories are fairly young there isn’t an abundance of statistics. But worst case scenario, do these findings constitute the end of water power? No; if executed correctly and under the right circumstances, GHG-emissions from hydroelectric plants are minuscule compared to those from the burning of fossil fuels. Generally, higher emissions seem to come from shallow dams in tropical areas. I on the other hand can splurge on hydroelectric power without giving a thought to global warming. It’s just one of many perks that come with living in a country dominated by complete, subzero darkness six months a year.

As you may or may not know, Sweden recently underwent a change of government, leaving a right-wing coalition in power. This is sort of a big deal since the left-wing Social Democrats, our biggest political party, have been in power for roughly 65 out of the last 74 years. Adding insult to injury, this is the first time ever that the Social Democrats have lost an election during an economic boom. It’s quite clear that Sweden has taken a turn to the right. Still, I have yet to meet a single soul in this oblong country who would vote for Bush (should they get the chance to). This is partly a reflection on the president himself of course, but it also shows that our major political blocks are situated to the left of the American ones. Our right-wing Alliance has much more in common with the American Democrats than they do with the Republicans. This political difference is often noticeable in how we deal with our environmental issues.

Although our personal every-day efforts usually don't extend past recycling or buying ecological foods and veggies, we Swedes often pride ourselves for being among the leading countries when it comes to environmentalism. We quickly catch on to the environmental issues, and often with a burning conviction. This conviction undeniably comes with both pros and cons. The greenhouse effect for example, has basically been treated as an unquestionable fact in Sweden for quite some time. I remember learning about global warming in middle school, more than ten years ago. We were taught that the Gulf Stream would change direction (and literally leave us in the cold) should the release of greenhouse gases not be seriously curbed, a theory that up until today actually hasn't been proven. With the Kyoto Treaty left unsigned, America or more specifically George W. Bush became the powerful and ignorant villain in our pursuit of a sustainable environmental policy. At this point it felt like it wasn't about the facts anymore; it got personal. 'Oh, so you believe climate changes are a result of mainly natural causes? Well, why don't you just vote Republican, burn down an abortion clinic and do some gay-bashing while you're at it.'

Over on your side of the pond it almost seemed like the situation was the opposite, that the greenhouse effect was mostly for apocalypse nuts. Now, with the success of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," global warming is getting the recognition that it deserves in the States. As a result, the issue which had almost lain dormant in Sweden, now once again raises public interest. And with a decade of new data behind it, it's no longer as untouchable to scientific critique as it formerly was. This also comes with both pros and cons. On one hand, global warming is too important to not have every single fact double-, triple- and quadruple-checked, and the public should never have it reduced to a mere magazine scare sensation. On the other hand, scaring people straight is just so darn time efficient!

---------------------
Nanna Brickman is a Swedish student who loves happy endings and hopes to become filthy rich while saving the world at the same time.