Environment: Twisted As Unnaturally as the Banks
BARCELONA - The financial meltdown in most of the industrialised world presents an opportunity for a new economic model that would end short-sighted search for high returns, according to leading economists attending the IUCN World Conservation Congress here.
"Right now, the most conservative leaders in the industrialised world, such as George W. Bush of the U.S. and Angela Merkel of Germany are allocating public money to save the banks from bankruptcy," Alejandro Nadal, a Mexican economist attending the congress told IPS.
"This rediscovery of the role of the state as a major actor in economic affairs, and the perspective of a new regulation of international financial transactions opens a window of opportunity to rethink neoliberalism in the developing world," Nadal said.
"This is not only an academic question, it is an extreme political matter," he said. And it can have an environmental dimension, he said. Nadal urged the IUCN to coordinate a global effort among civil society organisations to rethink the role of the state in linking macro-economic and environmental policies.
The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), organiser of the Barcelona congress that continues until Oct. 15, is the oldest and largest global environmental network, with a membership of more than 1,000 governments and NGOs, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries.
"It is time for civil society and environmental organisations to take the world," Pavan Sukhdev, an Indian economist and co-author of 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Sustainability' told IPS.
Unlike earlier crises such as the stock exchange crash of 1987, or the currency crisis of the 1990s in Latin America, South East Asia and Russia, the present crisis has come amidst a new awareness of the dramatic environmental costs of neo-liberalism, Sukhdev said.
"Back then, most of us had no idea of the environmental crisis lurking in nature. But now we are aware that we cannot go on with this economic model based on the destruction of biodiversity and the abuse of most of humankind.
"Now we have the wind on our backs. And when you have wind in your sails, you sail. Let's sail towards a new economic model, one that respects both nature and humanity, instead of this one that destroys them."
Joan Martínez Alier, professor of economics and economic history at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, said the present economic crisis "will mean a welcome change to the totally unsustainable increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the last few years."
Carbon dioxide is considered by scientists to be the principal greenhouse gas arising from the combustion of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming, and consequently climate change and the decimation of biodiversity.
Alier believes the economic crisis, by reducing industrial and transport activities, offers an opportunity to put the economy on a different trajectory regarding material and energy consumption, and could therefore help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"The crisis might also offer an opportunity for restructuring social institutions in industrialised countries, with the objective of living well without the imperative of economic growth," Alier said. "Happiness is not necessarily a function of economic growth, above a certain level of income."
But in developing countries, the economic crisis could damage the environment for the converse reason. Since below a certain income level wellbeing is dependent on economic growth, governments may push economic activity regardless of its environmental costs in order to overcome the economic crisis.
"The global economy could suffer a deep and protracted recession as a consequence of the financial crisis," Argentine economist Alain Cibils told IPS. "As the crisis unfolds, priorities will be put on recovery for growth and employment, and controlling inflation, instead of forestalling climate change. Protecting biodiversity, aquifers and soil erosion may be seen as non-priorities."
Cibils said that the neoliberal economic model applied in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and other Latin American countries since the late 1980s has given priority to macroeconomic policies aimed at reducing inflation and fiscal deficits, and increasing export, regardless of social and environmental costs.
"These policies are epitomised in Argentina by intensive year-round agriculture concentrated on a couple of crops such as soybean and maize, and priority to short-term high-returns, very much as in financial globalisation," Cibils said.
The land area cultivated with soybean has more than doubled in Argentina from seven million hectares in 1997 to 16 million hectares in 2008. The land for wheat cultivation has remained constant.
"Soybean growing has taken place in Argentina at the expense of native forests," Cibils said. "Year-round agriculture has produced severe soil nutrient depletion and soil degradation, and a substantial loss of biodiversity."
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
47 Comments so far
Show AllBy switching to sustainable economics we can create jobs, save the environment and actually help the longevity of the global economy. This is yet another wake up call...I hope they don't hit the snooze button.
.
UNbelievable – but GOOD!!!
Last week I called my wonderful, down-to-earth Aunt who lives in a very conservative rural area of Western Pennsylvania for some medical advice.
Our conversation flowed from health care costs to politics.
Never discussing politics with me before, she ventured “I’m afraid.”
“Of what?” I asked.
.
“Well, that Obama might be the Anti-Christ” she stated.
.
I replied that dozens of persons including JFK, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, had all been accused of being the Anti-Christ.
“Yes, I know, but I’m still really concerned Obama is the Anti-Christ” she repeated.
“But I think I’m going to vote for Obama anyway.”
.
BillofRights
Nikkei DOWN 9.4%, Russia DOWN 14%, Jakarta DOWN 10.4%, at 3:15am
The Euro is ready to FAIL, each individual "Euro" Nation will do their own BAILOUT
Will State Socialism = the RISE of FASCISM?
Will Bush bomb Iran & cancel the election, now that it's becoming obvious McCain can't win?
With all this newly printed "liquidity" being pumped into all these monetary systems, will the COLA's of my 3 pensions be able to keep up with DOUBLE DIDGET INFLATION in '09, '010, '011, '012, '013, ad infinitum?
Watching with wide eyed wonder, yours truly,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just got this from a friend, hope it is not the OCTOBER surprise!
A sustainable economy is one that draws human population size, consumption and technologies back within the carrying capacity of the planet and its respective bioregions. Because of our globalized growth-dependent economy, we have long ago far exceeded each bioregion's carrying capacity.
To accomplish this goal, it is necessary for the people in each bioregion to relocalize their economy. When economies are relocalized, they become resensitized to the limited local resources, upon which all economies depend for their existences. Such an organic feedback system reveals when resources are being threatened, and balance is restored. Thus, population and consumption shrink on their own until the threat is gone. Technologies adapt to the needs of the bioregion and the species, human and others.
Globalization artificially expands a bioregion's carrying capacity. Costs are externalized as resources are displaced from one bioregion to another, causing the obliteration of warning signals that resources are being stressed or depleted. The impression is given that resources are unlimited because the residents of one bioregion don't witness how their drawing down of another bioregion's resources are depleting that other bioregion's carrying capacity. The same goes with the residents of each bioregion where resources are unnecessarily imported and exported.
Peak oil, natural gas, and water will remove the artificial benefit of externalizing costs, leveling the playing field and exposing the benefits of local production, manufacturing, distribution and sales over global. This will also bring it home tangibly to residents of over-industrialized bioregions the need to restore and build up their natural resources, which is their natural capital, their carrying capacity, rather than consistently depleting it in the name of progress and economic development.
As Herman Daly put it susinctly, an economy can grow without developing and develop without growing. So true economic development is one where life is made better for residents, not one that simply grows for the sake of growing bigger. An economy in a bioregion can get only so big before it grows into a cancer and eats away its own carrying capacity, causing a crash.
This crash is where we are arriving at now. Seeds of renewal come as we concentrate on preserving what we have left and restoring it to a large enough store for our survival. The planet will survive. The question is whether we will.
I agree with most all of this, and that is a very good way to put it. Re-localize. An alternative to global death capitalism.
After the banks crashed it took 3 years for the great depression to occurr.
snydly
THE SPEED OF SPEED HAS INCREASED.
"Happiness is not necessarily a function of economic growth, above a certain level of income."
Great line. But the only way that will happen is if a limit is placed on personal net worth, high enough to preserve natural competition and the profit motive, but low enough to prevent the dictatorship of extreme money-power concentration.
Because them with the gold makes the rules, only direct democracy can achieve a Wealth Cap. Incorporating We the People and issuing equal non-transferable shares of and dividends from the public treasure to every citizen, will achieve instant direct democracy.
The article did not mention the second major problem for achieving a sustainable society, lowering the birth rate.
If a yearly cap on money-power is made inversely proportional to the birth rate, there would be a money incentive to lower the birth rate. The more people, the lower the cap and the lower the personal net worth, the less people the higher the cap and the higher the personal net worth.
The Wealth Cap should be global in order to prevent capital flight. The Internet can give us the global and decentralized direct democracy to achieve this.
Once you manage to amass enough wealth to sustain you , and a few "goodies", aI do not see why you medded to have anythign more. It is the "profit motive" that got this planet where it is.It leads to social darwinism. After $1 million, what would fill the hole in someone's soul??
I think that a well-regulated socialist democracy would serve us very well. The Parliamentary system, with proportional representation is preferable , also.
I have no idea how the internet can control the birth rate. We could start with not allowing Bush et al to make "abstinence training" part of any aid package (many other strings are attached, also--some immoral as hell) It should be obvious that it wil not work. Teach safe sex, and send women to school. There, they can learn that it is not their moral or social obligation to have sex with their husband every time he feels like it.
I mean, just teaching birth control in the uS would help. The neo-cons screamed bloody hell over China's "one chld per couple" system. But, now that they are US-taught "merry little capitalists" (theyre alot better at it than we are!), birth rates are soaring.
I would think to eliminate the child tax credit, but, maybe only above a certain income level, We have to watch this, so it does not become the rule that only wealthy people can afford to have kids, who wil , tax free, inherit their estates. The idea of a "death tax' is a hoax. Ditto for "clear skies", "freedom fries", etc.
The Repug's and Dem's are doomed shytmates. Although they do feel a sense of dis-ease they are still in denial. The great awakening has arrived and yet, they will be the last to know.
It all started under the Bill Clinton regime...He introduced Nafta and all
the attached legs.Yet he seems to be getting a pass on this, why?
Freddie Kilowatt October 7th, 2008 6:29 pm
"It all started under the Bill Clinton regime...He introduced Nafta and all
the attached legs.Yet he seems to be getting a pass on this, why?"
He doesn't and never has gotten a pass from me for passing and signing NAFTA.
Lobo Gris
No, it started under George HW Bush, who signed the agreement with the Mexican and Canadian reps in December of 1992, under the President's "fast-track" provision.
Bill Clinton was not in office until Jan, 1993.
He did eventually sign the treaty after it was passed by the Republican Congress along with some added labor rusle, etc. So, Billy was just following up on something GHWB already signed and had his Repug congress pass.
amitola October 7th, 2008 10:37 pm
"He did eventually sign the treaty after it was passed by the Republican Congress along with some added labor rusle, etc. So, Billy was just following up on something GHWB already signed and had his Repug congress pass."
The congress was controlled by the Democrats when NAFTa passed. It wasn't until the following election that the Republicans took control. A big change over with 75 seats changing hands if I remember correctly.
Lobo Gris
Technically, you're correct - except that it was the Republicans in Congress in 1993 who were mostly responsible for the ratification of NAFTA.
(132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[13] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[14]
.Please stop interposing facts into the delusions of the semiliterate.......Is it any wonder we are in the mess we are with an electorate barely able to read headlines?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The parasitic rich and powerful will oppose any change to the current faltering system. They will use any means, including use of the military, against American citizens.
It is time for THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
Read about it on:
www.dangerouscreation.com
Regulate! Regulate! Regulate!
Do as much as possible locally.
non-profit, single-payer, health care
Reagan lied. The economy died.
jcalvert
thanx for providing the link to http://www.tinyurl.com/zeitgeist2; looks like it will answer lots of my questions;
THANX also to all contribtors to cd as in the years i have been following it, daily, i feel like ive gotten more of an education than 14 years of formal schooling
Tuesday DOW - another 500+ point loss
psychological support level - 9,500
technical level for program buying - not reached today... probably around 9,100
700 point range, no real program buying. Closed just under the psychological level at 9,447 - trending downward at close.
No fundamental change in long term perceptions. Down and sold out.
This just-released film spells out the inherent problems with a money-based economy and provides the solution – a resource-based economy.
Excellent! Must See!
"Zeitgeist Addendum" (2 hrs.)
View it online here (Google Video):
http://www.tinyurl.com/zeitgeist2
(click lower right of player for full-screen mode)
See also the official movie website:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
And activism site:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
great links
Mister, we could use a man like Franklin Roosevelt again.
He couldn't stand up but he sure stood up for the people!
Amen!
OK, so now we throw out Hamilton's world of an industrialized society and move to Jeffersons model of 40 acres, a mule and only then trade with your neighbors? Would be nice but doubtful. After all, there is a $200 million dollar center being planned at The Univ. of Chicago FOR Milton Friedman and his demented economic philosophy. The Friedmanites will never stop coming. Humanity is simply not their concern. Their focus is on manipulating the planet for their own purposes-to get more stuff, more power. The less they hear from humanity and its genuine needs, the more comfortable they are destroying peoples' lives. And that is exactly what they do, and like the Terminator, that's all they do and they never stop. Unless they meet with an equal force that terminates them first. Then, then we can begin again and seek the peace and fulfillment we are all needing.
There is a petition at Naomi Klein's site (Shock Doctrine) to protest the opening of the school. People from all around the world are signing it. I did. And I've been trying to find the link,. but I cant.
Does anyone have a link to that petition?? Thanks!!
U of Chicago speech transcript: Naomi Klein: Wall St. Crisis...
believe the petition may have already been delivered... could be wrong on that.
Non sustainable business and social models create opportunity for much higher and faster profits than sustainable models do. Although only a small percentage of the population benefits from those higher and faster profits, that small percentage of the population is in control and has convinced enough of the losers to support them. Until the losers quit denying that they are losers, we will see no movement to more sustainable models.
I sincerly doubt that we will have a new economic model....but considering I just heard that a 35 year old from Goldman Sachs has just been put in charge of the 850 billion dollar bail out..........we may get some real modifications if this bunch are left in charge.
Can't remember his name, but its close to Cash and Carry.
I do believe that the recession we are in will generate exactly what a lot of folks have been asking for. Conservation, fiscal responsibility, a combination of energy sources containing sustainable energy like wind and solar instead of just new coal and nuculear plants and a better delivery of social services.
I also believe it will promote more local commerce and farming, both good things.
And, methinks this little "depression" that is coming will generate a little civil unrest in many places around the globe along with a considerable number of deceased persons.
I certainly hope you are wrong, but I'm afraid you are more than right.
"the present crisis has come amidst a new awareness of the dramatic environmental costs of neo-liberalism, Sukhdev said"
The costs of Friedmanite neoliberal/laissez-faire capitalism extend way beyond environmental costs. Sure, the environmental costs of Friedmanite capitalism are dramatic. 1/3 of species will become extinct this century under the USA's current combination of gluttony and neglect.
But the social costs are as dramatic. A majority of people worldwide are now or have long been forced out of independent sustainable livelihoods and forced into bondage to Friedmanite capitalism. In the USA they are pushed into this bondage through social pressure created by the propaganda apparatus. In Mexico they are forced to migrate north illegally to work in underclass conditions so their families back home may afford the US subsidized corn. The Friedmanites' over-arching goal has been the same predicament for the ENTIRE WORLD.
Countries that have resisted neoliberalism and maintained closed economies include Japan, which have thrived by reserving local markets for local producers. Friedmanites in the USA depicted the USA policy of opening its markets to globalism as bold and generous but now as this propaganda crumbles, the policy is seen for what it really is: stupid and evil. The domestic US population lost control of production to elites, becoming wage+consumption slaves in service industries while foreign workers became wage+consumption slaves under dark/dirty factory conditions.
Do we want a world of wage+consumption slaves or a world of small but strong and independent local economies? Worldwide we need an end to Friedmanite capitalism, an end to US influence in the economic affairs of the world's people. Each society that allows the Friedmanites in will choke. Each society that keeps the Friedmanites out will thrive.
Yes, I agree entirely woth what you say, but how do we get rid of the creatures we've already got running our country/economy??
Thank you!! Friedmanite neo-liberalism kills!
tetti_tatti October 7th, 2008 12:30 pm
Democrats reversed the New Deal, Roosevelt's greatest greatest gift to America, with the passage of the bailout on Oct. 1st, 2008.
America's dead.
You got it. We are going to experience the economy of the grave which has no more ups or downs or fluctuations in the overall parameters of supply side hoo hah or credit default exchange rates and where the hell did all my money go? The grave is quiet, even somewhat dull and boring. Welcome to America. I always said I wanted peace and quiet as I starved to death.
We live in "interesting times". Welcome to AmeriKKKa!!!
That's what I've been doing, preparing for this moment, while you guys have been debating Obama vs. Nader. These are exciting times, filled with opportunity, both personal and financial.
Before, Green was a choice, now Green is survival.
Do The World A Favor And Retire!
Green Retirement Planning
An ideology based on non humaneness would be better. Humaneness is wicked. Cruel, sadistic, arrogant, selfish.
The rest of the Natural world is far more logical.
"These policies are epitomised in Argentina by intensive year-round agriculture concentrated on a couple of crops such as soybean and maize, and priority to short-term high-returns, very much as in financial globalisation," Cibils said.
**dont forget the soybeans are being grown to feed European livestock.
Better to go vegan.
He was not "complimenting" Argentina for growing so many soybeans (for export). He was saying that it displaces natural vegetation and trees.
Why cant you eat soybeans as a vegan?? You will become protein defficient
This is a wonderful approach; an ideology based on humaneness and sanity. To think/hope that the powers now running this Earth into oblivion will suddenly reverse their course of greed and immorality because of what we "peons" see as a setback is quite naive. This most recent theft was well planned and executed with incredible precision. Do not think that any of these incidents are accidents. Want change? Numbers...masses....discipline... sacrifice...revolution....evolution. NONE of this requires violence...only intelligence.
Democrats reversed the New Deal, Roosevelt's greatest greatest gift to America, with the passage of the bailout on Oct. 1st, 2008.
America's dead.
More accurately, they completed the reversal - which has been unfolding for several decades, largely due to Republican and conservative influences. But in either case, to focus this as a political party issue is a disservice to the greater conversation, and naively ignores the root causes, which if better understood and appreciated, would transcend such party pettiness.
I don't believe there's a difference between the parties either, but I focussed on Democrats because more Republicans in the house voted against the bailout than in favor of it and there are so many delusional Dem Party Apologists on CommonDreams who think Democrats are to be preferred over Republicans, which is simply uninformed.
The Dems didn't start the freakin' war!
The Dems aren't making NASA and NOAA pretenf there os no global warming!
Just for starters.
.The Dems didnt prevent the stinkin' war either...and many NASA and NOAA scientists have commented upon the global warming issue as well. Your partisan loyalties should not make you blind.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Republicans voted against it because they worried it would constitute an admission that laissez-faire economic policies do not work. The Dems are despicable craven feckless opportunists, but the Republicans are frightening fascist monsters. We need to build alternative media to give progressive parties a chance (under corporate media domination of the information streams a third party has no chance to grow), but which of the two major parties is more likely to enslave the great majority of people on the planet, or risk human extinction in the effort, in the meantime?