According to a recent assessment by PwC, the Moon economy could generate $127.3 billion in revenues by 2050. At the same time, NASA is revising and delaying elements of its Artemis Moon landing program, adding a preparatory commercial lander test in Earth orbit in 2027 before sending astronauts back to the lunar surface. While transportation challenges have captured headlines, some experts argue that the real bottleneck may be far less visible – and far more fundamental.

“Reliable surface energy is still one of the biggest gaps on the Moon,” says Mihails Ščepanskis, CEO of Deep Space Energy.

The 14-Day Problem No One Can Ignore

Solar power is widely viewed as a cornerstone of future lunar operations. PwC’s report highlights solar energy systems as a priority technology for enabling economic growth on the Moon. But the lunar environment presents an unforgiving reality: one lunar night lasts approximately 14 Earth days.

During that period, solar panels produce no energy. Meanwhile, temperatures can plunge below –170°C, forcing missions to consume additional power simply to keep equipment and batteries warm enough to function.

Relying solely on massive battery systems to bridge those long nights would dramatically increase payload weight – and mission costs. “Any long-term operation on the Moon must have reliable solarless power generation to survive lunar night without blowing up the budget,” Ščepanskis explains.

Nuclear Bases Won’t Solve Everything

To address the energy gap, major powers are turning to nuclear fission. NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy have committed to developing a lunar surface fission reactor by 2030. Russia has also signaled ambitions for a nuclear-powered lunar station in the mid-2030s.

Large reactors could power fixed lunar bases. But according to Ščepanskis, that still leaves a major vulnerability.

“There is no grid on the Moon,” he says. “A reactor can support infrastructure at a base, but lunar rovers and scouting missions operating far from fixed installations must carry their own reliable power source.”

Mobility, he argues, is essential to unlocking the Moon’s economic potential. Resource exploration, site assessment, and prospecting missions will require vehicles capable of traveling long distances – often during extended darkness – without access to a stationary power hub.

No Gas Stations in Space

Ščepanskis compares the situation to driving across the American frontier before fuel infrastructure existed. “Imagine you appear in the Wild West era with a car, but there are no fuel stations. Once you run out of fuel, the vehicle becomes useless,” he says. “The Moon presents a similar situation.”

This is where compact, non-solar energy systems come into play.

Deep Space Energy is developing radioisotope-based power systems designed specifically for mobility. Unlike traditional thermoelectric generators used on deep space probes, the company employs a modified Stirling-based conversion system with a simplified thermo-acoustic architecture. By reducing moving parts to a single piston and eliminating the need for a resonator, the design aims to increase conversion efficiency by up to five times.

Higher efficiency is not just a technical milestone – it is a supply chain necessity. Space-grade radioisotope fuel is scarce and expensive. Generating more electricity from the same quantity of material could significantly expand the number of missions that can be supported.

The system is designed to use Americium-241 sourced from commercial nuclear waste, potentially easing constraints in isotope availability.

The Real Foundation of a Lunar Economy

If PwC’s $127 billion forecast is to become reality, experts say energy planning must evolve beyond launch vehicles and landing systems.

Solar arrays may power daytime operations. Nuclear reactors may anchor permanent bases. But sustained exploration – and the commercial activity that depends on it – could hinge on compact, self-contained power systems capable of surviving the lunar night.

“The Moon economy won’t run on transportation alone,” Ščepanskis concludes. “We need a complete energy ecosystem to make sustainable lunar operations possible.”

The post PwC Sees a $127 Billion Moon Boom; But Without Power, the Lunar Economy Could Stall in the Dark appeared first on KIMU.

Musk’s Vision and the New Focus

Musk said SpaceX has already shifted focus to establishing what he called a “self-growing city” on the Moon, intending this to be the most practical way to “secure the future of civilisation” by expanding humanity beyond Earth. He contrasted lunar travel, which can happen every 10 days and takes about two days to complete, with Mars travel windows that occur every 26 months, requiring roughly six months in transit. 

According to Musk, the lunar city project retains the broader SpaceX mission of expanding human consciousness and life off Earth while also postponing full commitment to Mars settlement. He said SpaceX still plans to begin work on a Martian city in about five to seven years, but the immediate priority is the Moon because it can be achieved faster. 

What “Self-Growing” Could Mean

Musk and his team have used the term “self-growing” to imply a settlement that can gradually expand on its own once initial infrastructure is in place. This typically refers to systems that could produce essential resources locally, such as power, oxygen, and perhaps food, reducing reliance on Earth for supplies. Details on how this would work in practice have not been laid out in full technical depth, and Musk offered few specifics beyond the ambitious timeline and conceptual goals. 

This plan also ties into Musk’s broader interest in using space for advanced infrastructure, including launching satellites from the Moon and potentially building space-based data centres connected to artificial intelligence initiatives. 

Skepticism and Challenges

Experts in space science and engineering have expressed caution about the feasibility of a lunar city in a decade, even with reusable rockets like SpaceX’s Starship, which remains under development. Building any permanent human presence on the Moon involves massive challenges including radiation protection, sustaining life with limited local resources, creating reliable habitats, and establishing industrial capability in a harsh environment. 

Some analysts point out that Musk’s timelines have historically been optimistic, with previous projections for human Mars missions slipping repeatedly. Establishing a functioning lunar settlement by 2036 would require not only breakthroughs in technology but also sustained investment, international cooperation, and solutions to logistics that have so far only been tested in theory. 

Strategic and Geopolitical Context

Musk’s pivot to the Moon comes at a time when governments and private companies are intensifying efforts to return to the lunar surface. NASA’s Artemis programme aims to land astronauts on the Moon and establish a long-term presence, and rival commercial ventures such as Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin are also advancing lunar landers and infrastructure plans. China and Russia are collaborating on their own lunar research station. These geopolitical dynamics add further momentum to lunar exploration but also raise questions about regulatory frameworks, resource rights, and global cooperation. 

Broader Ethical and Economic Considerations

A city on the Moon also opens debates about cost versus benefit. Space exploration historically requires huge investment, and critics argue those funds might be more urgently needed on Earth. Proponents counter that lunar development could drive innovation, create new industries, and serve as a stepping stone to solar system-wide human presence.

There is also ethical discussion about who would live in such a settlement, how resources would be shared, and what governance models would apply far from Earth’s legal and social systems.

Conclusion

Elon Musk’s proposal to build a lunar city in less than a decade is emblematic of his ambitious and often controversial approach to space exploration. While the idea energises imaginations and fuels competition in lunar development, substantial technical, financial, and social challenges remain. Whether SpaceX’s vision becomes a reality by 2036 will depend not just on Musk’s drive, but on broad scientific progress, international cooperation, and pragmatic problem-solving in one of the most hostile environments humans have ever attempted to inhabit.

The post Elon Musk’s Moonshot: Can a Lunar City Really Rise Within 10 Years, or Is This His Boldest Gamble Yet? appeared first on KIMU.

From Pioneering Reform to Regulatory Retracement

Back in June 2022 Thailand decriminalised cannabis. That upheaval of decades-old narcotics policy sparked rapid growth of dispensaries, cafes and marketing aimed at foreign visitors. For a while the streets of Bangkok and beach towns like Pattaya buzzed with cannabis shops and bright green signage, giving rise to the impression that weed was squarely legal for both locals and travellers. 

But that chapter has closed. On 26 June 2025, new regulations were published in the Royal Gazette that reclassify cannabis flowers as “controlled herbs” and restrict their sale, possession and consumption to medical situations with a valid prescription from a licensed professional. Skip that prescription and even possession can attract fines or custodial sentences. Licensed cannabis sellers are now expected to operate under stricter oversight, maintain detailed inventory records, and serve only patients with documented medical need. 

The government says the move is about public welfare and control. It reflects growing concern that the free-for-all era had led to greater recreational use, especially among young people, and even smuggling operations. Recent reporting from The Japan Times notes rising backlash over cannabis use by minors, underlining political pressure to rein in the market. 

What This Means for Global Cannabis Interest

At the same time Thailand tightens its domestic rules, global interest in medical cannabis continues to rise sharply. Data suggest search interest in medical cannabis has jumped by over 120 percent year-on-year, with hundreds of thousands of searches each month as patients, carers and curious citizens seek clarity on legal access and therapeutic applications. That surge reflects broader public attention to cannabis beyond recreational contexts, as well as regulatory changes happening in many countries.

This global shift toward medical frameworks is mirrored in industry analyses showing rapid market growth, with projections that sectors such as CBD and medical cannabis oils could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in the decade ahead. What’s driving this attention is not just tourism or curiosity but deepening research into potential clinical benefits for conditions from chronic pain to neurological disorders. 

Yet even as demand rises, the global regulatory picture remains complex. In some markets, tighter controls are being introduced in the name of safety and evidence-based practice, a pattern similar to Thailand’s current approach. Recent coverage of the global cannabis industry notes that the once heady optimism around broad liberalisation has tempered, with regulators and policymakers treading more cautiously into 2026. 

The Traveller Perspective

For travellers thinking about Thailand, this policy shift has real consequences. The relaxed vibe of recent years has given way to enforcement that looks and feels very different on the ground. According to travel advisories and local reporting, cannabis products are now controlled and only available through vetted channels with prescriptions. Tourists need to be aware that public consumption can be treated as a public nuisance offence, and importing or exporting cannabis across borders remains illegal regardless of any medical status. 

The wider lesson extends beyond Thailand. Just because a destination once let something pass doesn’t mean the old rules apply forever. Online chatter and outdated travel tips may still reflect the cannabis “wild west” era, but the law has shifted decisively toward a regulated medical framework. For anyone considering travel with cannabis in mind the safest bet is clear: get up-to-date legal guidance well before you go and treat medical cannabis rules as if they will be enforced, because in many places they now are. 

This evolving landscape highlights a broader tension in cannabis policy internationally: balancing legitimate medical access with public health and safety concerns, all while navigating shifting perceptions and expectations among the public and tourists alike. That tension is likely to be with us for years to come.

The post Thailand’s Cannabis Wake-Up Call: Why Tourists Still Think Weed Is Legal and What the Law Really Says Now appeared first on KIMU.

Greenland was never really about ice. It was about what lies under it.

A Land Rich Beneath the Surface

Greenland is the world’s largest island, and despite its harsh climate, it is sitting on an extraordinary trove of natural resources. As climate change accelerates and ice sheets retreat, access to these reserves is becoming easier and more economically viable.

Among Greenland’s most valuable assets are rare earth minerals. These elements are essential for smartphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, military hardware, and advanced electronics. Currently, China dominates the global supply of rare earths, controlling a large share of production and processing. For the United States, this dependence represents a strategic vulnerability. Greenland offers a potential alternative source that could rebalance global supply chains.

Beyond rare earths, Greenland is believed to hold significant deposits of oil and natural gas offshore, as well as uranium, zinc, iron ore, gold, and diamonds. While extraction remains controversial and technically challenging, the long term economic and strategic value is undeniable. In a world increasingly defined by resource scarcity and competition, Greenland is less a frozen wilderness and more a geopolitical prize.

Trump’s Own Words

Trump did not hide his reasoning. He described the idea of acquiring Greenland as “strategically interesting” and framed it as a real estate style deal, something he was personally comfortable negotiating. At various points, he emphasized national security, economic opportunity, and the importance of staying ahead of rivals.

He also showed irritation when Denmark, which governs Greenland, dismissed the idea outright. Trump canceled a state visit to Copenhagen shortly after Denmark’s prime minister called the proposal “absurd.” The reaction suggested that, in Trump’s worldview, Greenland was not a symbolic ally but an asset, one that should at least be on the negotiating table.

This was not entirely unprecedented. The United States already maintains a military presence in Greenland through Thule Air Base, a key installation for missile defense and Arctic surveillance. Trump’s comments extended an existing strategic interest into something more overt and transactional.

The Arctic Chessboard

The Arctic is rapidly becoming one of the most contested regions on Earth. Melting ice is opening new shipping routes, shortening travel between Asia, Europe, and North America. At the same time, Arctic nations are staking claims to seabeds and resources previously locked away by ice.

Russia has been expanding its Arctic military infrastructure aggressively. China, despite not being an Arctic nation, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and invested heavily in polar research and infrastructure. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland sits at a crucial crossroads of this emerging power struggle.

Trump’s interest can be read as a blunt expression of a broader American concern, that if the US does not secure influence in Greenland, others will. In that sense, the proposal was less about ownership and more about control, access, and leverage.

Climate Change as the Unspoken Driver

There is a deep irony at the heart of Trump’s Greenland fixation. Trump repeatedly downplayed or denied climate change, yet the very reason Greenland’s resources are becoming accessible is global warming. Retreating ice is transforming the island’s economic and strategic value, turning climate catastrophe into geopolitical opportunity.

Greenland itself is caught in a difficult position. Greater resource development could bring economic independence and prosperity, but at the cost of environmental damage and cultural disruption. Indigenous communities, who have lived sustainably on the island for centuries, often find themselves sidelined in global conversations about its future.

A Window Into Trump’s Worldview

Ultimately, Trump’s interest in Greenland was not a joke, nor was it just a real estate fantasy scaled up to nation size. It reflected a worldview where land, resources, and power are inseparable, and where diplomacy is subordinate to deal making.

The idea failed not because it was strategically incoherent, but because it collided with modern ideas of sovereignty, self determination, and international norms. Countries are not properties, and people are not assets to be traded, even if the resources beneath their feet are tempting.

Greenland remains Danish, autonomous, and not for sale. But the question Trump accidentally forced into the open still lingers. As the planet warms and resources grow scarcer, who gets to decide the future of places like Greenland, and at what cost?

In that sense, the real story was never about Trump wanting Greenland. It was about a world entering a new era of resource driven politics, where even the ice is no longer neutral.

The post Why Does Trump Really Want Greenland? appeared first on KIMU.

There’s an understated magic to this emptiness. It doesn’t feel abandoned; it feels protected. Santa Teresa seems to have made a quiet agreement with nature – to let it lead. The lack of visual noise allows the landscape to speak for itself: palm trees bending toward the ocean, sunsets that stop you mid-conversation, and nights where the stars feel unusually close. Everything feels clean, simple, and unforced, as though the town understands that its greatest strength lies in not trying too hard.

This sense of calm carries through daily life. Mornings are unhurried, afternoons melt into golden evenings, and time feels pleasantly irrelevant. People come here to surf, to practice yoga, to heal, or simply to be – and the environment supports that intention. Santa Teresa doesn’t shout for attention; it invites you in gently, rewarding those who are willing to listen.

Because of this deep connection to nature, Santa Teresa feels like a place that naturally aligns with conscious living. Sustainability isn’t just a trend here – it’s a necessity. And yet, this is also where there’s room for evolution, particularly in the food scene. While there are some solid plant-based options, the area hasn’t fully stepped into its potential as a destination for thoughtful, creative vegan cuisine. Given the abundance of fresh fruits, vegetables, and local ingredients, it feels like an opportunity waiting to be embraced.

A more intentional focus on conscious, vegan dining – food that is nourishing, ethically sourced, and prepared with care – would beautifully complement Santa Teresa’s ethos. Travelers drawn to this part of Costa Rica are often wellness-minded, environmentally aware, and curious about how their choices impact the world around them. A stronger vegan culinary presence could elevate the experience even further, reinforcing the idea that living gently on the land can be both delicious and deeply satisfying.

Santa Teresa is already special because of what it chooses not to be. With a continued commitment to preserving its natural beauty and a growing emphasis on conscious cuisine, it has the potential to become not just a place people visit, but a place that quietly reshapes how they think about travel, consumption, and connection.

The post We Didn’t Expect This From Costa Rica: No Crowds, No Resorts – Just the White-Sand Paradise of Santa Teresa appeared first on KIMU.

And yet, for vegans, the food tells a different story.

Here, plant-based eating is rarely central. It is an add-on. A modification. A polite inconvenience handled with a shrug and a removed slice of cheese. Vegan meals, when available, are often nutritionally thin, conceptually lazy, or priced as luxury novelties. Rice, beans, avocado – served without intention – are passed off as adequate. They are not. There is not a single vegan restaurant and you cannot even get vegan pizza. A pack of Beyond Burgers in the supermarket is sold at an extortion of over $50.

This isn’t a supply issue. Costa Rica is agriculturally rich, with an abundance of fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, and traditional dishes that are naturally or easily vegan. The problem isn’t what can’t be done. It’s what isn’t considered worth doing.

That’s where the hypocrisy emerges.

“Pura vida” is more than a phrase. It implies respect for life, harmony with the environment, and mindful choices. Food is one of the most direct expressions of those values. If conscious living is real, plant-based food should be foundational – not a footnote reserved for tourists who ask the right questions.

Instead, Santa Teresa often treats veganism as an aesthetic. Smoothie bowls photograph well. Coconut water fits the vibe. But behind the visuals, the default culinary logic remains animal-centric. Vegan diners are barely accommodated, and not welcomed. Their ethics are tolerated, not understood.

What makes this especially frustrating is the contrast with Costa Rica’s more traditional eateries. Local sodas, without posturing or spiritual branding, frequently do better by accident: gallo pinto, beans, plantains, vegetables – simple, nourishing, and honest. No claims of enlightenment required.

In Santa Teresa, however, critique is subtly discouraged. “Pura vida” becomes a conversational shield, used to soften or dismiss discomfort. To point out inconsistency is to be labeled uptight, ungrateful, or “not chill.” This is not cultural warmth; it is spiritual bypassing. A lifestyle slogan is used to avoid accountability.

The result is a place that looks aligned but feels incoherent. Values are advertised, not practiced. Ethics are optional. And veganism – one of the clearest intersections of environmental, ethical, and health consciousness – is left on the margins.

Santa Teresa doesn’t need more yoga decks or wellness branding. It needs honesty. Either the values matter, or they don’t. If “pura vida” is real, it should be edible.

Until then, the disconnect remains – and for those who notice it, the mess is impossible to ignore.

The post Pura Vida, But Make It Optional: The Vegan Afterthought in Santa Teresa, Costa Rica appeared first on KIMU.

The exhibition is designed to capture the pulse of London through Jade’s signature visual language – layered mark-making, abstract forms, and energetic brushstrokes inspired by the city’s movement, chaos, and rhythm. Each piece will mirror the journeys, stories, and connections that define London, blending seamlessly with Andaz’s vibrant spirit.

Central to the launch is Jade’s seasonal frequency of orange — a colour symbolising creativity, confidence, and unfiltered expression. This energy runs through the limited-edition tee and tote, where Andaz’s signature palette meets Jade’s expressive, movement-driven design style. The result is wearable art that embodies the hotel’s dynamic atmosphere and the city’s electric flow.

A neurodivergent artist of Indo-Caribbean and Indian heritage, Jade Pearl’s practice spans fine art, fashion, colour psychology, and energy-led creative expression. Known for her transformative approach and early innovation with Seacell yarn technology, she creates work that activates emotion and encourages self-discovery, turning creativity into an empowering, intentional experience.

At the heart of her mission is a simple ethos: you are art. Through collaborations, wearable pieces, and immersive experiences, Jade invites people to tap into their own creative power. Her partnership with Andaz London celebrates expression without boundaries, and marks the beginning of an energetic, movement-filled season of creativity.

Read our previous article about Jade Pearl’s I AM ENOUGH collection, here.

The post Jade Pearl x Andaz London Liverpool Street: A Collaboration of Creative Frequencies appeared first on KIMU.

123V (Browns, Mayfair)
When Michelin-starred chef Alexis Gauthier turns his hand to vegan sushi, you know it’s going to be special. 123V’s “Bottomless Vegan Sushi” is London’s most stylish unlimited dining experience – a two-hour session of edible art that never seems to end. Expect maki, nigiri, and crispy rice creations topped with plant-based tuna and salmon so convincing you’ll do a double-take. Everything here is meticulously plated, from the delicate rolls to the glossy cocktails, and the leafy courtyard terrace makes it feel like you’ve escaped to an urban oasis. This isn’t a buffet; it’s a masterclass in cruelty-free luxury.

Amrutha (Earlsfield & Honor Oak)
Amrutha has quietly built a cult following for its soulful, share-and-refill dining model. The concept is simple: order the set menu, eat as much as you like, and let the kitchen keep the good stuff coming. Plates arrive vibrant and fragrant—Thai green curry, beetroot gazpacho, lentil dahl, satay pakoras – and the team’s warmth matches the food’s heart. It’s BYOB, unfussy, and packed with locals who treat it like a second home. Every visit feels like being fed by friends who just happen to be incredible cooks. If vegan dining could hug you, it would taste like Amrutha.

Su Vegan Buffet (Shepherd’s Bush)
For a true “load your plate to the brim” experience, Su Vegan Buffet is the spot. A reincarnation of the long-loved Tai Buffet, it’s 100% vegan and unapologetically no-frills—but that’s part of its charm. For under a tenner, you can pile up endless combinations of mock-duck stir-fry, black-bean seitan, tofu curry, and fresh salads. The food is comforting, hearty, and exactly what you want on a grey London afternoon. It’s budget-friendly, unfussy, and genuinely all-you-can-eat – a reminder that vegan doesn’t have to mean expensive or exclusive.

222 Veggie Vegan (West Kensington)
A long-standing favourite on the plant-based circuit, 222 Veggie Vegan’s lunchtime buffet is one of the city’s best-kept secrets. For a reasonable price, diners can dive into a spread of fresh, wholesome dishes—think baked plantains, tofu stews, and warm grains—all prepared with minimal oil and maximum flavour. It’s light, nourishing, and perfect for a midday refuel that still feels indulgent. The evening service switches to à la carte, but at lunchtime, the buffet remains an institution for those in the know.

Unity Diner (Spitalfields)
Founded by vegan activist Ed Winters (known as Earthling Ed), Unity Diner brings purpose to the plate. While not traditionally a buffet, its “Refill Revolution” events and generous serving style earn it a place on this list. Expect towering burgers, loaded fries, and decadent desserts, all served in a bright, modern space where profits fund animal rescue projects. The energy here is contagious – every bite feels like a small act of rebellion against the ordinary.

From sushi artistry in Mayfair to homestyle soul food in South London, these spots prove that vegan dining in 2025 isn’t about sacrifice – it’s about abundance. Whether you’re here for the bottomless rolls, the refillable curries, or the buffet mountains, London’s plant-based scene is serving generosity on every level. Come hungry. Leave inspired.

The post The Best Vegan All-You-Can-Eat Restaurants in London Right Now appeared first on KIMU.

The Vegan Pivot: A Financial Strategy?

In 2021, Humm announced that EMP would go entirely plant-based, citing environmental concerns and the desire to promote a more sustainable food system. While this decision garnered praise from some quarters, it has since been revealed that the restaurant was facing financial difficulties, with reports indicating that the move was partly driven by economic pressures.

Furthermore, a leaked op-ed draft suggested that EMP had been underpaying its staff, raising questions about the authenticity of its commitment to ethical practices .

The Return of Animal Products: A Contradiction?

In a surprising turn of events, Humm announced that EMP would reintroduce select animal proteins, including fish, lobsters, oysters, and ducks, into its menu starting October 14, 2025 . This reversal not only contradicts the restaurant’s previous stance but also undermines its claims of promoting a vegan future.

Humm’s justification—that the future restaurant might not be 100% plant-based but “much more thoughtful”—appears to be a convenient excuse to cater to a broader clientele, rather than a genuine commitment to sustainability.

The Illusion of Animal Advocacy

Despite his public persona as an advocate for plant-based cuisine, Humm’s actions suggest that his commitment to animal welfare may be superficial. His decision to reintroduce animal products into EMP’s menu raises questions about the sincerity of his previous vegan stance.

Moreover, reports of labor issues and discrepancies between EMP’s public image and its operational practices further tarnish Humm’s reputation as a champion for ethical dining.

The Future of Vegan Fine Dining

The rise and fall of EMP’s vegan experiment highlight the challenges of implementing sustainable and ethical practices in the fine dining industry. While the initial shift to a plant-based menu was seen as a progressive move, the subsequent reversal underscores the complexities and contradictions inherent in the industry’s approach to sustainability.

As consumers become more discerning and demand greater transparency, chefs and restaurateurs will need to demonstrate genuine commitment to ethical practices, rather than opportunistically jumping on trends.

Conclusion

Daniel Humm’s journey with Eleven Madison Park serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of using ethical trends as marketing tools. While the restaurant’s initial vegan menu was lauded, the subsequent reintroduction of animal products and revelations about labor practices suggest that the shift was more about capitalizing on a trend than a sincere commitment to animal welfare. As the culinary world continues to evolve, it is imperative that chefs and restaurateurs prioritize genuine ethical practices over transient trends.

The post Eleven Madison Park and Daniel Humm’s Violent Vegan U-Turn: A Case Study in Culinary Hypocrisy appeared first on KIMU.

But when we look closer, a troubling contradiction emerges.

Despite its ethos of compassion and sustainability, Duck Pond Market continues to allow the sale of animal products, including meat, dairy, and eggs — industries fundamentally built on exploitation, suffering, and environmental harm. Even worse, vegan options are absent, leaving no place at the market for those who actually live by the ethical standards Duck Pond claims to support.

This is not just a misstep. It’s a missed opportunity.

The Ethical Blind Spot

Let’s be clear:

• There is no such thing as “ethical meat”
• Dairy production involves routine harm, from forced impregnation to calf separation
• Eggs, even “free-range,” often come from supply chains where male chicks are culled en masse

By permitting and promoting these industries under the banner of sustainability and kindness, Duck Pond risks greenwashing violence, dressing up exploitation in eco-friendly language.

Words like “ethical”, “local”, and “sustainable” can’t hide the suffering behind products like Parma ham — the flesh of a pig who didn’t want to die — or artisan cheese made from milk forcibly taken from a grieving mother cow. It’s not enough to be “non-factory” — the core problem is exploitation itself.

A Path Forward

Duck Pond has already taken powerful steps, including banning single-use plastics, supporting reforestation, promoting Fair Trade. These are commendable.

Now imagine how powerful it would be if they also:
 Required every stall to offer at least one plant-based option
 Phased out animal products in favour of ethical plant-based alternatives
 Educated their vendors and audience about truly sustainable, cruelty-free choices
 Became a model for actual ethical marketplaces

The good news? The market is almost there. With a genuine commitment to evolving its practices, Duck Pond could become a national leader in ethical commerce — one that fully embraces its values rather than contradicting them.

The Call

To truly honour their claim of loving animals, Duck Pond must stop selling their bodies and secretions. Compassion isn’t something you can apply selectively — it must extend to all beings.

We urge Duck Pond Market to live up to its mission. Not just for the planet, but for the animals, the community, and the credibility of a market that could, and should, be leading the way.

To understand what animals go through, visit www.cubeoftruth.com

The post Greenwashed Good Intentions? A Call to Duck Pond Market For Their Selective Ethics appeared first on KIMU.