Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corporate Monopolies 'May Dominate Green Economy'
NEW DEHLI - The global push towards a 'green economy' risks being hijacked by large corporate monopolies trying to gain control over natural resources, a report has warned.
A report released earlier this month has warned that global companies, positioning themselves for a post-petrochemical future, may use the idea as a pretext for gaining control over biomass resources, which would eventually replace petroleum as the feedstock for energy and for industrial products. There is a growing emphasis on the concept of a green economy in the run-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), in June 2012, in Brazil. A green economy is widely seen as a way of tackling environmental challenges including climate change, failing fisheries and water security.
But a report released earlier this month (14 December) has warned that global companies, positioning themselves for a post-petrochemical future, may use the idea as a pretext for gaining control over biomass resources, which would eventually replace petroleum as the feedstock for energy and for industrial products.
The report, published by an international nongovernmental organisation Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conservation (ETC Group), in Canada, says that most of this biomass is in developing countries, where it is managed by poor peasants, forest dwellers, fishing communities and livestock-owners whose livelihoods depend on them.
The report urges developing countries to craft policies that will protect them from such encroachments.
If they do not, they risk being "seduced" by the promise of quick green techno-fixes, which appear as "a politically expedient" alternative plan to save the climate, the report says, because "techno fixes are not capable of addressing systemic problems of poverty, hunger and environmental crises".
"In the absence of effective and socially responsive governance and government oversight, the bio-based economy will result in further environmental degradation, unprecedented loss of biodiversity and the loss of remaining commons," it says.
The report's authors said they were not rejecting the concept of green economy, but that countries should build sustainable economies based on using new, more socially and ecologically sustainable economic models.
Hoysala Chanakya, principal research scientist, at the centre for sustainable technologies at the Indian Institute of Science, said that the report was right to highlight that there was potential for corporate take-overs in the absence of adequate policy support and that developing countries need to have policies to ensure that public resources do not get monopolised.
He added that the assumption that technological advances in algal or plant-based biofuel systems, for example, would solve environmental problems, is based partly on hype.
"The [biomass-based] technologies are still in a stage of infancy," Chanakya said. They also leave lots of organic waste which can be polluting, he added.
Other sustainable development policy experts in India suggested that a solution to some of the problems forecast by ETC Group was to decentralise food and energy security programmes and push for small, farmer-centred agriculture.
Instead of the "overarching generalised programmes involving blanket application of solar or hydrogen power" developing countries should move towards decentralised, locally-managed food and energy security programmes that are rooted in their unique local environments, said Rajeswari Raina, scientist at National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.
Ambuj Sagar, professor of policy studies at the Indian Institute of Technology, agreed: "We need a different narrative that places value on the livelihoods of small farmers in developing countries rather than on food production at lowest cost and protecting interests of farmers in industrialised countries through subsidies."
"Private-sector and market-oriented food and agriculture systems are unlikely to deliver this kind of outcome since that is not the primary objective of these actors and institutions."
Link to full report
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
20 Comments so far
Show AllIn the meantime, large corps and prestigious universities dominate the research dollar feed trough down at the beltway. They may not be inventing anything at all, but at least they're getting rich off of Washington.
In Brazil people are awakening to the disasters of GM monoculture for both food and biofuel - the implicit indigenous genocide of that and the massive hydroelectric dams characterized by the appaling Belo Monte dam on the Xingu in the Amazon. The marginalization of science by the technocracy is galvanizing the world. We are in a war on error.
BBC in 2010 produced a pro-development monoculture series that inadvertently perfectly illustrates how fast the turn around in global public awareness is occurring. These are 58 minutes each, but highly instructive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hFvFYty5Aw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9bdqGwaMA&feature=related
and hilariously effective Brazilian artists PSA calling for public awareness to continue to oppose Belo Monte - English captioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVUYV4YuKjc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Friu5-kdXMU&feature=related
MF Global exec chairs EPA financial advisory committee
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43553
Note: this article is in The Washington Times but is difficult to access.
More on Bradley Abelow, who is the MF Global executive who chairs the EPA financial advisory committee..
http://mba.yale.edu/alumni/alumni_profiles/abelowb.shtml
Prior to joining MF, Brad was a founding partner of NewWorld Capital Group, a private equity firm investing in businesses active in environmental opportunities (alternative energy, energy efficiency, waste and water treatment, and environmental services).
All corporate charters need to be reviewed once a year to see if they fall under the heading of 'creating public good'. That should be their (our govt and that of all countries) one and only consideration. And all corporations need to 'die' once they reach a certain size and be split into a 'family'. The original 'parent' has to die just like a human. Most places of employment actually need to be cooperatives owned by the folks who work at that company.
The process decried in the report is already happening, as China Inc. has made the executive decision to dominate the market for solar panels.
Corporate Monopolies 'May Dominate Green Economy'???? Am I surprised by a headline like this???? Oh, hell no.
Good eye. The headline is, in fact, redundant.
The whole point of monopolies is to dominate economies.
"Rio+20" (UN Conference on Sustainable Development), mentioned in this article, may be some kind of a last chance for humanity, IMO, to agree on a major change of direction to try and avoid disaster. I am worried that already its significance is sought to be undermined in some quarters:
From "The Guardian":
*************************
Rio Earth Summit postponed after clash with Queen's diamond jubilee -
Rio+20 dates rearranged to avoid jeopardising the attendance of 54 Commonwealth leaders, including David Cameron
>>"Brazil has postponed the biggest environmental summit in 20 years to avoid a clash with the Queen's diamond jubilee.
The Rio+20 summit was scheduled for 4-6 June but has been moved to 20-22 June to avoid jeopardising the attendance of 54 Commonwealth leaders, including David Cameron. But Cameron, who said last month that he would not attend, is still not planning to attend, Downing Street said on Monday, despite his pledge to lead the "greenest government ever". Instead, the environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, will be leading the negotiations, a Downing Street spokesman said."<<
From "Down To Earth":
Rio+20 postponed. Date clashed with Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee -
54 Commonwealth head of states would have had to choose between the two events
>>"The Rio + 20 summit will mark 20 years since the first Rio earth summit of 1992. The event is seen as an opportunity to renew international political commitment to sustainable development and mitigation of climate change. ...
Cameron had earlier said that he would not be attending the Rio+20 summit because of Queen’s diamond jubilee. This is in spite of a report by Britain’s Environment Audit Committee of MPs last month, calling upon him to lead by example and attend the summit. The country's environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, would lead the negotiations.
Cameron’s move has been criticised by many green groups. Margaret Ounsely, head of public affairs at WWF-UK, is reported to have said that after the change of dates, it was hoped that the prime minister would find time from his busy schedule to address one of the biggest challenges of earth. It would sound like he was making excuses if were still unable to go, she said. "<<
*************************
In 1992, at the height of the presidential election campaign, George H.W. Bush, no friend of the environment himself, was forced/shamed into attending the meeting, and he even signed the landmark Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). Even though he signaled the American mindset by declaring that the American way of life was non-negotiable, the fact remains that he felt compelled to attend the meeting and put his signature on a few important declarations. Imagine Obama, with all his rhetoric, being "shamed" into doing the right thing! Of course, Obama went to Copenhagen in 2009, but only to sabotage that important opportunity as well. We will see which other "world leaders" decide to skip this important meeting, possibly some kind of a last chance for humanity to agree on some major change in direction to avoid disaster.
Oh heavens above guys they are all Masons/The Illuminati is the Pope attending the lizzie bash at buck palace by chance ??…its also a big meeting to praise each other for how much they have completed on their repective agendas.Just to think how they can live in such a way of the backs of others.its deplorable .Satantic is my favorite word this week when speaking of these slimy souls.We do not need them or any of their ways ..Guy had it right!!
Interesting thought, cker17. But when you say "above guys", I don't know if you're referring to the "54 (so-called) Commonwealth leaders" - because a majority of these nations are republics, with their own heads of state, with only a dozen or so holdouts with still the queen as their head of state. Nevertheless, it is puzzling and seems like a needless show of power that a meeting as significant as Rio+20 could be postponed for a "jubilee celebration". Somewhat unbelievable!
Hello Alcyon !
Yes - Rio+20 - a last chance - it feels that way - but I have to admit it is increasingly difficult to hold onto hope any more.
Rather - it seems like the thing to do now is to realize fully - and I'm not sure how this develops in each person - that we who hope are in a sense deluded.
We have been at war with power and privilege without fully realizing it for a long time. There was no Cold War - it was always Hot - i.e, utterly violent, causing the deaths of untold numbers directly through our actions - or more accurately - our lack of actions - an entire populace too scared to act boldly in defense of the right - as given to most of us to see the right.
We knew it was wrong - and proceeded anyway.
Increasingly I wonder - is it only the mentally disturbed who seek power and privilege - and attain it?
Mike
=====
PS
I'm tiring of Common Dreams - as I tired of the BBC -
So many words - so little action - it feels pathetic - and I don't like to feel this way
I don't think it's good for me - or for anyone
========
PS #2
You know - I was out in the Canadian Rockies just the other day - doing a bit of climbing - introducing a friend to a tiny bit of danger.
He loved it !?
In 1972 I read the writing on the wall that I have spoken of in another thread, when I read the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth"
Now here we are, in a struggle for physical survival - and most people in the developed world are completely oblivious to this - and talk endlessly - like dinner table guests aboard the Titanic, in the minutes before collision,
You are a good man Alcyon - and I always appreciate your posts.
I was just looking over the Rio+20 website, and I can find nothing on Rights for the Environment.
The Dec 17 editorial in New Scientist nicely sums up results from Durban, and gives us a look into what Rio+20 is shaping up to be:
"We may, in truth, have to forget about the world's governments and the folly of their short-sighted and parochial ways, and instead seek technological fixes. If going green can be made profitable, it will become a no-brainer. Self-interest may serve the greater good where national interest does not."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.700-we-can-still-avoid-a-lost-decade-on-climate-change.html
-----------------
So we have two or three ways forward discussed in this "New Scientist" Editorial.
But not the idea(s) so well spelled out in Naomi Kline's "Capitalism vs the Climate"; nor Lysander's legal argument that all legislation is a "usurpation" of the people's rights, i.e., no democracy at all; and of course, no mention of "Rights for the Environment", which, as I have written many times previous to this, is actually not a new idea, not even new in modern times (Chris Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing?"; Bolivia's World Climate Conference on Rights for Mother Earth, etc...
Some of my French ancestors were actually 'voyageurs', and I remember well seeing their names in the historical books in Winnipeg, on my six month sojurn in 1994 - my "Year of the Pilgrim".
A seventy something retired voyageur, penniless but still colorful, related this to someone who copied it down (paraphrasing):
"I wouldn't change a thing - though I have only the shirt on my back...
Huzzah, huzzah por le pays sauvauge"
(Hooray for the wild country)
-----------
A profitable green economy - or is it business as usual?
Something to think on, if you haven't seen it before - "The Dark Mountain Project", also known as "Uncivilization"
http://www.dark-mountain.net/about-2/the-manifesto/
Manysummits
========
Thanks for the kind words, Michael Desautels.
I first read the "30-year update" of the Limits to Growth when it came out, although I had had access to the original LTG for quite a while before that, but never read that. Just a quick thought on your reference to it as the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth": the modeling work itself was carried out at MIT, as you know, although the research group might have had funding support from the Club of Rome. The reason I think it's important here is because there are conspiracy peddlers all over the internet who have linked the Club of Rome (a strange name, IMO) with other conspiracies and have made climate change as part of some grand conspiracy. Totally sick! Anyway, like I said, just a quick thought.
"Green," like peace, can't happen until those who rule the world can figure out how to make money from it. (...and prevent others from doing likewise.)
It will be turned into the brown slurry & sludge economy.
Just in the same way that the greed mongers figured out a way to rule thru debt, turn the Arab spring into more of the same while capturing those markets that had eluded before, they are one step ahead of the 'green thing' too. Such is the nature of greed. Any one seen the commercials with the head thief of EXXON touting natural gas as a 'safe alternative, environmentally responsible' and how EXXON as ahead and blah blah blah (no mention of fracking, of course)? Well, it's the same with green technology. As soon as they come to the conclusion that there's nothing left in fossil fuels, they'll figure out a way to hijack it. Heavens knows they've got the money, the governments, the press, the weapons, the armies and all the necessary means to do it with.
"and I get on my knees and pray...we don't get fooled againIt Pays to be smart and think for your self in these times.
Hasn't anyone thought about why we don't have wind and solar power as integral parts of our energy grid? The greedy corporatists have a lock on the mainstream energy supply, and won't give up on what they can soak the hoi polloi for. Solar and wind don't make them any money; anybody can create energy from these sources, in their own back yards, essentially for free. Electric or fuel cell autos will never become the majority as long as the corporations are in control (remember the EV 1?).
Growing plants for the purpose of burning them for fuel is another terrible idea. Burn anything and CO2 is released to the atmosphere. There is also a cruel effect on food based agriculture and on hunger. Biomass should never be called green energy.
Let's not forget who the kings of the energy monopoly in the US really are, surprise, it's the Koch brothers, yes the same good old boys that bought Wisconsin, Ohio and the tea party.
An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
~ Albert Einstein