In 2011, I was riding my motorbike and stopped at a traffic junction in Hanoi. I was then studying Vietnamese as an undergraduate student in Vietnam. As the traffic light was red and the drivers were patiently waiting for the traffic flow from the intersecting street to die down, a few students with raised posters and uniformly dressed in “350.org” t-shirts, bravely crossed the street in front of the motorbikes. The words on the posters read “Đen đỏ tắt máy” [Red light, turn off your engine]. Having been involved with the environmental movement in Germany since 2005, I was intrigued, to say the least.

This was the first time I had personally witnessed public environmental action in Vietnam. The incident happened at a time when the 350.org movement gained momentum and spread worldwide, transforming many young people into activists. At the time, I was not aware that this global movement had spread to Vietnam. I was fascinated at what this movement meant in different places and how actions were adjusted to different contexts.

I continued to stay in touch with environmental student groups throughout my undergraduate years in Hanoi. Even after I have graduated from university, I remained interested in environmental movements in Southeast Asia. After graduation, I got a role as a coordinator between the head office of a German political foundation in Berlin and country offices in Southeast Asia. While I was working with the people and organizations in Southeast Asia, a few questions came to my mind: Are we actually dealing with the same problems from all perspectives? Do the solutions we are jointly working towards make sense? How much must the project partners in Southeast Asia perform in order to get funding?

What remains true across borders and boundaries is that in times of environmental crises, immediate and effective actions are necessary to save lives and livelihoods. Environmental projects are needed not only to mitigate crises, but also to adapt to unavoidable consequences. Yet, in a global context where resources are unevenly distributed and the needed actions rely on projects and funding from another place, a few questions remained: Are the projects that exist necessary and effective? Or are power relations and misunderstandings of sociocultural translations hindering truly meaningful actions? This book cannot provide answers to all these questions.