Green Capitalism The God that Failed

Richard Smith, an economic historian, has written an amazing article which I have only just discovered, (thanks to the wonderful people on our Facebook group). He comprehensively dismisses green capitalism, as recommended by people like Paul Hawken and Amory Lovins. He says green growth is a completely blind alley, a God that failed. You can't shop your way to sustainability. He describes scary scenarios for a four degrees global warming, notes the lack of progress on reducing emissions over two decades and concludes that there is something wrong with capitalism itself. "From Kyoto to Cancun, governments have all made it abundantly clear that they will not sacrifice growth today to save the planet tomorrow." Cap and trade usually gets watered down. This is because there is such a huge range of occupations that negatively affected by it that the lobby opposing it is too broad and too powerful. The theory was nice. The cap was supposed to come down over time, but industry lobbyists in Germany badgered the government for higher caps and special exemptions of all sorts. "They warned of unemployment, threatened to pack up and leave Germany and so on.  In the end governments caved." So in the market solution – cap and trade – profits ended up with the polluters and traders.  He says even carbon taxes when implemented can never be set at high enough levels to make a difference. And it makes no difference if it is revenue neutral or not. Smith writes,"But the problem is not just special interests, lobbyists and corruption. And courageous political leaders could not turn the situation around. Because that's not the problem. The problem is capitalism.....There is no way to cut CO2 emissions by anything like 90 percent without imposing drastic cuts across the board in industrial production. Because we live under capitalism, not socialism, no one is promising new jobs to all those coal miners, oil drillers, gas frackers, power plant operators, farmers and fertilizer manufacturers, loggers and builders, auto builders, truck drivers, airplane builders, airline pilots and crews and countless other occupations whose jobs would be at risk if fossil fuel use were really seriously curtailed." This book reminded me of Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything in that it clearly states the problem is capitalism. The article was written two years ago. During the last eighteen months the price of oil has declined 70% and now hundreds of thousands of oil workers have lost their jobs. Soup kitchens in Aberdeen are feeding former oil workers and tens of thousands of jobs continue to be lost in Alberta and North Dakota and Texas alone. In Nigeria 120,000 jobs have been lost. This month the New York Times put the global figure at 250,000 jobs lost. Meanwhile, and connected with this, the global economy is under severe threat of a complete meltdown, and central banks clamber to find yet another way to calm the markets, always by injecting more debt into the system. So what answers does Smith come up with? He offers eco-socialism. A quick look at their website indicates they would nationalise the fossil fuel industry and the industries that are heavily based on them which means the auto industry, aircraft and airlines, petrochemicals, and so on. So while it is wonderful to see Richard Smith facing the political realities of climate change, overconsumption, waste and pollution, there is another step or two he could take. He could ask, "And is there something structurally in the system that has demanded this incessant growth? Is growth written into the system? Which system? And if so can that be reformed?" Now Richard Smith may know this. I wonder if he also knows you have to transform the land tenure system if you change the money system, since the first reform demands the second. When you know about the money system you often wish you didn't – that you could put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. The corporates, as TPP has shown us, are more powerful than ever before in history and that changes the political landscape and our strategies. Few centralised solutions are now politically possible. In our movement we have been struggling for over four years to work out some politically viable solution to our massive global problems. Maybe nationalising all these industries doesn't get to the bottom of the problem. We need elegant, more lasting solutions. Anyway his article is superb as far as it goes. He also has a book of that name.
 

At last a good explanation for the rise of ISIS

Thank you, thank you Jim Tankersley of the Washington Post. You have finally answered the question about why people from the Middle East feel so bad about the west that they need to commit dastardly acts of terrorism. I don't have friends who are experts on the Middle East's inequality and Piketty has spelt it out for us so well. Finally! Your article should be read by everyone. You say the inequality is due to the concentration of oil wealth into a few countries with relatively little population. You draw attention to the oil monarchies controlling 60-70% of the wealth. It seems he is talking about Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman. They had 16% of the region's population in 2012 and almost 60% of its Gross Domestic Product. Within those monarchies, Piketty says, a small slice or people controls most of the wealth while a large proportion, including women and refugees, are kept in a state of 'semi-slavery'.  Piketty's list starts with the first Gulf War, which resulted in allied forces returning oil 'to the emirs.' The wars that benefited only a select few have become what Piketty calls a 'powder keg for terrorism across the region'. Tankersley writes 'Terrorism that is rooted in inequality is best fought economically.' Piketty says the region is the most unequal on the planet. And Piketty says the Western nations largely have themselves to blame for terrorism as the west perpetuated the wars that worsened inequality. 'The countries in question are the regimes that are militarily and politically supported by the Western powers, all too happy to get some crumbs to fund their (soccer) clubs or sell them some weapons.' It looks like this is what Piketty will be remembered for. The discussion is only just beginning. Of course this brings us to searching for the real political solution, otherwise terrorism will persist for ever. I am reminded of the first part of Silvio Gesell's wonderful 1906 book The Natural Economic Order. The part is called Free Land and he writes,' Free Land means that the earth is to be conceived as a globe on which there is no import or export of goods. Hence Free land also implies universal free trade and complete elimination of all tariff boundaries. National boundaries must become simply administrative boundaries, such as, for instance, the boundaries between separate cantons of Switzerland. From this description of Free Land it follows that such expressions as 'English coal, 'German potash', 'American oil and so forth can be understood only in a geographic sense. For everyone, no matter to what race he may belong, has the same right to English coal, German potash and American oil.' Work this out, using the principle of sharing the rents from the earth's resources. Quite a challenge.  

The Simplicity Option

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” – Leonardo da Vinci

Since the industrialization of society over the last two hundred years, humans have physically and mentally remained unchanged. We have, however, surrounded ourselves with accessories, added layers of complexity, and confusion in our lives. This urbanization has reduced humanity’s connection with nature.

Connection to the land and natural environment has been replaced by freeways, cities, concrete landscapes, and technological gadgetry that bring little solace and opportunity for reflection for individuals. Inner peace and happiness can be hard to find in a world of constant diversion and distraction. The ability to witness nature and live in harmony with the natural cycles provides unquantifiable experiences for those living a resilient life.

The 2010 Living Planet Report, based on the scientific research of the Global Footprint Network, reports humanity’s ecological footprint now exceeds the planet’s sustainable carrying capacity by 50 percent. In other words, human beings are now consuming ‘natural capital,’ which is diminishing the capacity of the planet to support life into the future. The propaganda and ideology that many economists, governments, and business people have been espousing in an effort to continue exploitation of resources is that developing countries can have similar standards of living to those in the West. The reality is that the West has been exploiting developing countries’ resources to fund our resource intensive lifestyles for many decades.

Think about this for a second. If the expected 9 billion people were to enjoy the “living standards” forecast for Western countries such as Australia, Canada, U.S., U.K, or Europe by 2050 (assuming 3% yearly economic growth), the world’s total consumption would be about 30 times as much as it is now. That would mean 30 times greater use of land, soils, trees, forests, minerals, fishing, energy, etc… With already stretched and depleted natural resources and ecosystems, this scenario would most likely end in ecological catastrophe.

Dr. Ted Trainer, senior Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Australia, has been teaching about sustainability for many decades. He suggests:
It is difficult to see how anyone aware of these basic numbers could avoid accepting that people in developed countries should be trying to move to far simpler and less resource-intensive lifestyles and economies. The decreases might have to be around 90% – something that can only be achieved through dramatic reductions in production, consumption, and economic activity. To transition to a low energy society which resembles our current high energy model will be a significant challenge and highly unlikely. The enormity of the transition to alternative fuels and/or technologies will require a coordinated approach on an unprecedented scale. It would require vast amounts of resources and capital investment. (1)

Enter Voluntary Simplicity

As reported in the Melbourne Age, a growing number of people in the “voluntary simplicity” movement are choosing to reduce and restrain their consumption – not out of sacrifice or deprivation, but in order to be free, happy, and fulfilled in a way that consumer culture rarely permits. By limiting their working hours, spending their money frugally and conscientiously, growing their own vegetables, sharing skills and assets, riding bikes, rejecting high-fashion, and generally celebrating life outside the shopping mall, these people are new pioneers transitioning to a form of life beyond consumer culture. (2)

An Institute For Simplicity

There is even an Institute for Simplicity. The Simplicity Institute is an education and research centre seeking to:
  • seed a revolution in consciousness that highlights the urgent need to move beyond growth-orientated, consumerist forms of life.
  • envision and defend a ‘simpler way’ of life at a time when the old myths of progress, techno-optimism, and affluence are failing us.
  • transform the overlapping crises of civilisation into opportunities for ‘prosperous descent’

Goals of the Simplicity Institute

“To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – Buckminster Fuller
SAMSUNG CAMERA PICTURESThe global economy is undermining the ecological foundations of life, producing perverse inequalities of wealth and spreading a cultural malaise as ever-more people discover that consumerism cannot satisfy the human craving for meaning. While industrial civilization continues this inevitable descent, humankind is being challenged to reimagine the good life, tell new stories of prosperity, and get to work envisioning and building a new world within the shell of the old. Genuine progress towards a just and sustainable world requires those who are over-consuming to move to far more materially ‘simple’ and less energy-intensive ways of living. This does not mean deprivation or hardship. It means focusing on what issufficient to live well, and creating new cultures of consumption, new systems of production, and new governance structures that promote a simpler way of life. Our basic needs can be met in highly localized and low-impact ways, while maintaining a high quality of life. The Simplicity Institute seeks to provoke a broader social conversation about the need to transition away from growth-based, consumer societies toward more resilient, egalitarian, and rewarding societies based on material sufficiency and renewable energy. Rethinking growth, capitalism, and consumerism in an age of environmental limits and economic instability cannot be avoided. The only question is whether it will be by design or disaster. (3)

To find out more about the Simplicity Institute CLICK HERE

  Article by Andrew Martin, author of  Rethink…Your world, Your future. and One ~ A Survival Guide for the Future…  RethinkcoverCE2Sources: excerpts from Rethink…Your world, Your future.  facebook (1) http://theconversation.com/the-simple-life-manifesto-and-how-it-could-save-us-33081 (2) http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/the-simple-life-has-benefits-for-us-all-20120315-1v6f7.html#ixzz3jmqytmtA (3) http://simplicityinstitute.org/