EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Currency
When it comes to climate change, altruism and self-interest go hand in hand.
If the recent record-breaking temperatures and freak thunderstorms in Washington were nature's way of telling Congress that climate change is real, it's here, and it's time to do something about it--it didn't work.
Just before lawmakers left for summer recess, they let a comprehensive climate and energy bill--albeit riddled with loopholes and corporate giveaways--die in the Senate. R.I.P.
But nature can't give up on delivering this message. While incumbents and electoral hopefuls are busy stumping back home, severe monsoon floods have left hundreds of millions of people homeless in Pakistan, heat waves and wildfires have transformed Russia into an inhospitable inferno, and three days of back-to-back storms have turned creeks in Iowa into dam-bursting torrents.
These catastrophes are well in line with the extreme weather events that scientists warn are par for the course on a warming planet. We can either get used to it or get serious about putting the brakes on rising greenhouse gas pollution.
Since it looks (shamefully) unlikely that we will do much in the immediate future to stem climate change here in the United States, it's time to step up our support for developing countries to do so. Yes, even during an economic downturn--in fact, because of the economic downturn. There are at least two reasons why.
First, investing money overseas is investing in America's future. Three-fourths of the increase in global energy use between now and 2050 is predicted to occur in developing countries, making the global South the largest future export market for clean industrial and renewable energy technologies. The International Energy Agency estimates that $27 trillion in clean technology investment will be needed in developing countries during that time. According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund, capturing just 14 percent of the clean tech export market--equivalent to our current market share of environmental goods and services in these countries--would generate between 280,000 and 850,000 new long-term jobs for American workers.
Second, the cost of doing nothing is more expensive than acting. The droughts, floods, rising sea level and loss of human life associated with climate change pose a real threat to the supply chain of American companies, and in turn their long-term sustainability. Oxfam America recently released a report showing that investing in climate resiliency in the countries where much of our raw materials come from is good for the U.S. economy.
We need public money to prime the pump for private investment in clean energy. And we need public money to help people in climate-impacted countries adapt to a warmer world--an investment not often seen by the private sector as a profit-maker, and thus chronically underfunded.
Here's the good news: There are some great ideas about where to get this money.
The Investing in Our Future Act, introduced in July by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), would put a tiny levy of 0.005% on currency transactions--a slice of the financial market that is largely untaxed. The levy is big enough to raise tens of billions of dollars each year, but small enough to be barely noticeable to the average day trader. Anyone trading less than $10,000 would be exempt.
As an added bonus, a currency transaction levy would help curb the kind of speculation that creates bubbles and crashes our economy. More than 50 organizations in the U.S. have already endorsed the idea.
The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs, we may be facing a double dip in the worst recession our generation has seen, and because of climate change the one thing certain about our future is that it will look remarkably different from our world today. Sure, we should support impoverished countries to deal with climate change because it's the right thing to do--but also because it's in our best interest.
Real recovery from the economic meltdown must be a global recovery, and real investment in job creation and climate stability in the United States means investing in climate stability globally.
- Posted in
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...
43 Comments so far
Show AllA currency transfer tax is a good idea. Better still would be the Tobin tax. We could pay for most government functions plus a new infrastructure by taxing these socially useless but privately lucrative activities.
But this isn't how government works...not here anyway. You pay a bribe, you get the law. Reason, fairness are irrelevant.
Smart, thoughtful folks can come up with all sorts of good ideas on how we could manage things better...especially the financial sector. But it's all so much wailing in the wind.
If we could only get the necessary amount of investment in renewables in the USA we would create jobs and slow the climate change.
But we have been held captive for 100 years, ever since the Oil companies decided it was better to put gasoline in combustion engines, than to put gasoline ( a waste product of oil production) in Pennsylvannia's rivers.
Cars began by running on electricity and steam.
The fuel cell was invented 100 years ago.
Photovoltaic modules (as far as we know) produce energy forever.
Photovaltic cells do degrade over time
Their manufacture creates residues that are highly toxic, but are now being recycled into te process.
Wind technology is more suistainable, and as we can see the world is getting windier by the minute.
Power storing mechanisms are still in their infancy, and quiet expensive.
Love
Zero
Everything we do has two sides to the coin. There is never just an upside, even if we haven't discovered the downside yet. The only solution to the world's problems is decreasing human population until sustainable level.
" The only solution to the world's problems is decreasing human population until sustainable level. "
I've been plugging this point for years. The sooner we (earthlings) start doing something about it the better (less horrendous) will be the the future for our descendents. One child per family for several generations would quickly reduce the destruction of the environment we are trying to live in.
Sorry, PV cells do have a limited life (not the crystalline structure, but the encasing materials and back-plane). If well-maintained, 20-30 years longevity is well documented in arid regions, considerably less in humid and wet environments.
One reason for the Pakistan disaster is the rampant timber cutting in the mountains to (I bet) feed factories in China to make cheap furniture for the the American market. Consumption
in the 'consumer society' drives our economy. Seventy five percent of our economy is consumption based. Consumption drives energy use and resource use.I believe as we consume our way out of recession we consume our way into global warming. There is no solution that is acceptable to the American consumer that involves lower levels of material affluence.
The floods in Pakistan are not the result of climate change, but of deforestation.
Your right. However, climate change will make these events even worse.
Deforestation is largely driven by the need to sustain an increasing population.
Guess what is the main driving force in climate change? An increasing population.
David Suzuki, eminent Canadian environmentalist, has stated that the maximum sustainable global human population is 25 million. The current human population exceeds 3 billion.
Many 1970s-era sci-fi movies made the connection between human population and environmental degradation ("ZPG", "Silent Running", "Logan's Run", etc), each proposing a draconian solution.
Taxation on polluters and stupid political intent provide no relief. The solution to profligate human breeding habits requires draconian techniques. Solutions that come to mind are:
- mandatory sterilization
- no foreign intervention in a state's civil problems or natural disaster
- heavy taxation on breeders
- monetary reward for voluntary euthanasia
- tax palliative care
- no foreign intervention in conflicts between combative states
Sad, isn't it, that we have come to this, but it is better than global desertification.
The increasing population is a huge problem. This problem is two-fold. First of all, there are already too many people living 'our' western lifestyle. Second of all, the rest of the world wants to move toward our lifestyle. My unscientific estimate would be that no more than about 500 million people can live our lifestyle without destroying the biosphere. David Suzuki, having increased global population by 5 children, is not someone I can respect. He has made environmentalism his livelihood, but his personal choices in adding to the problem in such an excessive way, make him a hypocrite.
As far as your suggestions about forced measures to bring human population down, "nobody" will accept that, as "reproductive rights" are universally treated as something of a holy cow, even if it means the destruction of the biosphere. Aside from that, it would have to be done in a very organized manner, in order to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of an aging population. Environmental taxes are hardly a solution, as I don't trust government to administer them in an equitable and fair manner, as well as the probability that these taxes will unfairly hurt the poorest and be hardly noticeable to the wealthy. What we need is a worldwide energy rationing, which gives the individuals who use less than their quota the ability to sell their excess capacity to those who want to consume more... at a heavy price which directly benefits the poorest... not government, not NGO's, not billionaires, not corporations... energy must become the new currency, so to speak.
As far as the 'solutions' you list, while some of them make me cringe, I nevertheless - from a logical standpoint - see the necessity of it. I would add to this the necessity for dismantling the modern healthcare system for chronic illness, which has increased life expectancy by too much. In addition, I would like to see worldwide 'Right to Die' legislation, because I feel that at some point in the future I will want to terminate my own life, rather than vegetate away in some hospital or nursing home for months or years, without quality of life. I am sure that different people have different feelings about this, not all agreeable. However, I would like to make clear that I do not agree with involuntary Euthanasia.
Agreed, the solution(s) are "cringeworthy" and worse, reading like extracts from Hitler's playbook, but anything less will not work.
I'll take up the "reproductive rights" issue, however. I believe you nailed it when you labeled these rights as a "holy cow", the operative word here being "holy". Religion and the accompanying infantile belief in faith are the showstoppers.
So what's it to be? Logic and assured continuation of both home sapiens and a favorable biosphere, or faith and guaranteed annihilation of both species and biosphere?
I wish the former, but I 'fear' the latter will ultimately be the reality, because humanity lacks the intelligence to plan toward a sustainable future.
"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." - Agent Smith, The Matrix... how fitting
The Matrix represents the world of contemporary America. The rebels discover its illusory quality, discover the truth about our world: that the Matrix deserves to be overturned. "The Matrix" is a political allegory about US imperial capitalism.
You left out the most effective means to control population: family planning services for all. Many women want such services, but for a variety of reasons cannot get them. Contribute to Planned Parenthood.
Thanks. I forgot about this. But make it mandatory family planning.
You need to do some more reading.
Canada has a population of 33 million.
The world population is around 6.865 billion.
Two billion people live on 2 dollars a day and use no fossil fuel.
The US with 5% of the population uses over twenty percent of the world resources.
So if you want to reduce the effects of population on the environment reduce the number of Americans.
I suggest you start your population reduction program by eliminating your own impact on the ecosystem.
Thanks for updating my world population figure. Clearly, things are even worse than I proposed.
The 2 billion that you mention have caused desertification or other irreparable ecological damage in their search for fuel. They live on $2/day because their environment cannot support further consumption. These people are *surplus* because they are too poor, lacking the necessary income to translate their needs into effective demand. The other 4 billion people use fossil fuels and live unsustainably.
Seems you need to do some more reading as well. Within 20 years, Americans as consumers will be considerably outnumbered by consumers in China and India.
I've not bred, live off grid, maintain a healthy forest that heats my home and the homes of several neighbors, and barter. Whats your contribution, or are you all talk? As the title says; altruism and self-interest go hand-in-hand.
just curious. what part of the country are you in that you can do that? sounds nice.
New Mexico. Plenty of sun for PV. A pinon-juniper forest (I don't cut ponderosa-douglas-oak) in a canyon with lots of water. And a nearby reservation with plenty of kids that need tutoring in exchange for fresh vegetables or use of heavy equipment. I consult for the Govt. to make ends meet. Yes it is nice now, but when I made the move from Washington DC when I was 50 and took a 70% cut in income, it was followed by a number of very anxious years.
RE:"over-population"
The average person living in Bangladesh, one of the world’s poorest and densely populated countries, consumes about 1/50th of the amount of energy compared to the average American. The US population is roughly 300 million. If we were to keep total energy use constant, we could replace the American population with (50 x 300 million) or, 15 billion Bangladeshi’s and consume no more energy than before. Obviously, energy is only one index of consumption, but I think it clearly makes the point that the “problem” is consumption in rich countries (whose populations are more or less stable) not “over” population in poor countries. It seams counter intuitive, but within global capitalism, consumption is only weakly related to population. You can't consume much if you don't have any money. Incidentally, there is a strong correlation between poverty and over-population. Studies have shown that by addressing issues of economic justice families tend to have fewer children thus drastically reducing the population problem.
See:
“Stuffed and Starved”, By Raj Patel
Also addressing overpopulation directly:
http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/node/253
“Population, hunger, and environmental degradation:
Are there too many people? “ By Chris Williams
http://www.isreview.org/issues/68/feat-overpopulation.shtml
“Diet for a Small Planet.” By Francis Moore Lappe
Tom Larsen, tiresome as it gets, I suppose these points need to be repeated. The overpopulation as an issue must be addressed ***separately*** and should never be used as a cover to hide or evade the over-consumption in the rich countries. I would say the extreme inequalities (and the corruption that accompany these) in the developing countries should be right at the top, next to overconsumption in the rich countries.
Can we all agree that we don't want to live like Bangladeshi's? I mean, I don't want to waste resources, but neither do I want to burn "dung cakes" to cook with. If we don't want to live like that, then the only longterm solution is population reduction. There are currently 1.2 billion people, counting the EU, Japan, Canada and the US. That's too many people for that level of consumption, not even counting the rest of the world. Instead of taking in immigrants, these four regions/countries need to drop in size by 7/8th (and so does the rest of the world) to reach a global population of under 1 billion (which may still be too much to be sustainable at the current western lifestyle). I think the planet is screwed.
Heartfelt, truthfully spoken response. While life itself is priceless, living life can be hell. But does the Bangladeshi see his/her life as hellish? I rather doubt so because of being raised into the reality of living that life. It could be argued that Bangladeshis are more civilized because the shared harshness of their living conditions promotes cooperative behaviors instead of destructive competitive ones.
Throughout most of human history, success as defined at the family level consisted of providing fundamental security--food, water, shelter, clothing, heat--and a platform for the continuance of that security all obtained via a steady-state, cooperative economy with minimal exploitation of resources. The advent of settled agriculture and advances in food storage technology started us on the road we are now on--ever increasing reliance on complex systems based on atomized levels of specialization and competition for the planet's remaining finite resources, while massive investments are made to deny the self-destruction manifest in this behavior. Indeed, the global "Deception Industry" (media, sports, "entertainemnt," etc.) is huge, "worth" $everal trillion. This "Industry" is the one most needing to be overthrown if we are to have any opportunity to control our economic descent.
Vasectomy for every male child over the age of ten for the next six generations ought to cure the problem.
if every male child gets one, then how do you get to six generations? ;-)
>>"if every male child gets one, then how do you get to six generations? ;-)"<<
Hi Jonathan Edwards, that occurs to me every time I see such "recommendations" or, should I say, "decrees". The best that can be hoped for is to enforce a "one child per couple" (or as someone said, 0.5 child per person!) for the next few generations. And share the resources equitably in the meantime.
I think some people are totally clueless on this issue - because there is simply NO WAY to achieve a drastic reduction in human population in our lifetime using any means acceptable to a decent human being. Even forced sterilization has to be performed only **after** an adult has had a chance to have one child if he or she wants to have a child. Not before. Otherwise you raise the question as to where to start. I think it would be logical to start with those who have the highest levels of consumption. If someone doesn't like that, then they should wait for a 100 years or 150 years to see a significant reduction in the human population.
I would hate to think that it would be necessary to resort to any forced 'solution'. But even if it comes to forced sterilization, I would agree that even in that case it should not happen until a couple has had the chance at one child. I haven't done any calculations what would happen in such a case, how fast global population would drop. There will always be people who choose not to have children, as well as homosexuals, as well as those who never really find a partner, so population would probably drop quite fast. Perhaps so fast that it would be better for those who will have no children to sell their "rights" to someone else.
>>Jonathan Edwards wrote: "There will always be people who choose not to have children, as well as homosexuals, as well as those who never really find a partner, so population would probably drop quite fast. Perhaps so fast that it would be better for those who will have no children to sell their "rights" to someone else."<<
I said something very similar on an article last year:
"Six Reasons Why Earth Won't Cope for Long"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/17-0
When someone had said, "I have/had zero kids. So someone else can have my kid ration", I was joking: "Are you giving up your ration for free? Why not trade, as in cap and trade?". I think not everyone liked that joke, as they probably feared some sinister implications.
In the same article, I had also gone on a rant on the limitations with a Malthusian-type thinking, pointing out that there was no way that Malthus could have foreseen easy, ready-to-use birth control. There was a lot of debate on population - you can check it out.
I think some of the real fight on population should really happen on religious and right-wing sites. I think it's stupid to argue about population on THIS site because I don't think anyone here really denies that the human population should go down or on the need for birth control.
The objection is really against using "overpopulation" to hide or evade the larger factor of "over consumption". Besides, it is so exasperating to keep pointing out that a drop in population cannot come about in a hurry, whereas a drop in consumption can be achieved in fairly short order. The objection is to such a dishonesty that overlooks or downplays the overconsumption.
I also think that politicians and governments in the rich countries are afraid to talk about overpopulation in their own countries and to recommend smaller families. In contrast, you cannot travel through India without being bombarded by all kinds of "messages" on the need to stop with one child per family - from TV to billboards to magazines and newspapers. Some state governments give incentives such as a cash handout after a vasectomy or a hysterectomy, and some state governments give special considerations to girl children, as one of the reasons for large families among poor and less-educated people is the desire to have a male child, because women's position is still a bit inferior, in general. Oh, and there used to be a brand of condom that was highly-subsidized in India, made by a government-run company. I am pretty sure the Chinese are tackling this problem much more aggressively than the Indians. It's only in the rich countries there is this squeamishness to talk about population in their own country. And some countries have incentives for more babies, while keeping a tight lid on immigrants. Go figure!
As to your question of how fast a drop would occur, in general, a figure of 2.1 children per woman is considered the "replacement rate" - where the population numbers will hold steady. Anything less will lead to a drop in the total population. So, a one-child per couple (or 0.5 child per adult) should bring about a faster drop. When all the people can be assured of their basic needs for food, water, sanitation, health care and a basic livelihood, a drop in population will occur fairly rapidly, unless there is heavy interference by religious outfits. And assuring the basic needs for all people, on a sustainable basis, is really the most important issue to be addressed by all ***DECENT*** human beings.
I will check out the article you pointed out to me later (bookmarked). Thank you for that.
As far as overconsumption and overpopulation goes, I agree with you on both counts. Again that is not easy though, because we're all integrated into the consumption society, and maddening as it is, waste is an integral part of our employment and job market. Imagine things didn't break as often as they did. Less people would be needed to produce what we consume. Less people in transportation. Less people in waste management. The trap is built into humanity. A self-perpetuating mechanism. If population drops too fast, then the young will be overloaded with pension and healthcare requirements for the old. We're already overloaded with paying fictitious debt on fictitious money that never existed, created out of thin air in a privately controlled fiat-currency economy. Several issues all intertwined.
I wasn't aware of the ad campaign in India. It appears that voluntary control is indeed not working. And when they cannot feed their children, the parents then appeal to the 'compassion' of outsiders. It's a sad world we live in.
RE: Deforestation is largely driven by the need to sustain an increasing population.
RE: Guess what is the main driving force in climate change? An increasing population.
Do you have some evidence to back up these two assertions? Contemporary deforestation has a lot more to do with the needs of the global forest products industry than population. And plenty of direct links can be shown that global warming's roots lie in the exigencies of global capitalism, again, not population.
The Malthusian argument has been debunked since Malthus' own time again and again. The reason why it keeps rearing its ugly head is that even though Malthus' argument was unscientific, it defended the faith (capitalism) and got people to blame the victims of capitalism instead of the capitalists. See my sources above.
I would think that the global forest products industry is provided by forest farms. Deforestation of "old growth" as occurred in Northern Africa, and is occurring in the Amazon Basin, is directly attributable to profits obtained by clearing land for meat and soy farming. India too is today a wasteland of crops viz healthy forests.
I did read the lengthy article by Williams that you referenced, and this led me to the downloadable book by Lester Brown (the author of the Scientific American article referred to in William's article). See Brown's book here:
http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4/pb4_table_of_contents.
I prefer a scientific approach over the Malthusian approach, simply because I am a scientist and respect the scientific method. I'll be reading Brown's book over the next few days.
In the days before global capitalism, over-population reared its ugly head again and again, through disastrous famines that today are amazingly less pervasive. Globalism, technology and education are giving over-populated countries a second wind, a respite from crushing hunger and illness.
We are becoming more efficient at feeding the masses and protecting them from disease, and we are giving them jobs as well so that they can feed their growing consumer appetite. There are people that will argue that given today's technology, the Earth can support a human population in excess of 14 billion with absolutely no change in status quo other than distribution systems and will power. Alas, the ecological impact would be irreversible.
Well, if you read Chris Williams' article, you'll know that there is no correlation between food scarcity and going hungry under capitalism. The reason is that starvation, famine, etc, has to do with not having enough money to buy food, not that there is no food available. Today food production is far greater today than in Malthus' time, when he claimed that there wasn't enough food to feed all the people going hungry and he therefore created the specter of "overpopulation".
The food riots and food insecurity we saw in Haiti, was due to the fact that Haiti's domestic rice production had been decimated by dumping US government subsidized (by us) rice into Haiti pushing Haitian rice farmers out of business. In 2008 commodity speculation drove rice prices up so high that Haitians couldn't afford to buy imported rice. There was no food shortage, but there was (and continues to be) a surplus of poverty.
We have an global economic system which by its nature "stuffs" some and "starves" most to paraphrase Raj Patel. It creates vast inequality. Our solution should not be to reduce the population (genocide anyone?) to such a level where that inequality is environmentally sustainable, but rather to provide an economically just and environmentally sustainable life for all. There's more than enough food to go around, but not at such profits to keep ADM, Cargill and Monsanto happy (not to mention Wall Street).
Not just food. Meat.
I agree with you that grain and bean production is super efficient, and it simply becomes a matter of distribution to feed the world. However the world craves meat, and the planet is consuming thousands more times meat than in Malthus' time. Hence the deforestation of the Amazon basin to produce soy to feed cattle. The Amazon is being tapped for its water which is drying the basin. Near-desert exists in areas that were vibrant rainforest 40 years ago. The climate in the Amazon basin is changing because of meat farming.
Global distribution of surplus grain and beans is also a simple matter, accomplished easily where there is political and capital will. It just needs.... energy. Energy (and its hurtful step-sister, Pollution) that by its very nature is eco-genocide. Energy production and consumption are major contributors to climate change. Look no further than micro-climates that exist around cities arising from inefficiencies in consuming energy.
So I'm interested to hear your ideas of how to provide 6+ billion people a gratifying and meaningful existence and yet be Earth friendly? I'm all for tending (and returning to) this garden of Eden we inhabit.
For a return to the reality of the Malthusian Trap, read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120613138379155707.html
"New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears", Lahart, Barta and Batson, WSJ, Mar 24 2008.
RE: So I'm interested to hear your ideas of how to provide 6+ billion people a gratifying and meaningful existence and yet be Earth friendly?
Lester Brown's book has a lot of good information. However, while he may chide the system by saying that we can't continue "business as usual", he basically takes capitalism as a given and unchallengeable. His three modes of social change don't include changing to a non-growth, non-exploitative system that promotes economic democracy. So I propose an economic system where providing human needs and the needs of nature are paramount - not profit. Every one of the problems you list are generated by need for ever increasing profits in a finite world, including poverty, the primary cause of overpopulation and food insecurity.
I am not really familiar with Malthus, so I had to have a look what this is all about. From what I read, I don't see how he was fundamentally wrong, because the ability to feed more people is not the result of technology, but of the fortunate find of an energy source which could provide artificial fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and increase yield - at what price, is another issue altogether - which has sustained us for the last 160 years. How much longer the resource will last is the million dollar question. Once that resource is gone, food production will collapse, and so will human population.
Actually, Jonathan Edwards, it would be more correct to say that the unusually heavy downpour was a result of global warming. The flooding that resulted was made worse by the deforestation.
The article mentions a new tax....the republicans and tea party people will immediately protest. The only things our tax dollars should do are fight wars and keep any person associated with Islam from building anything anywhere.
If the US government would get out of the business of "corporate business" and ensure 'freedom, liberty and justice for all', then the US and the world might stand a chance of a better future, because any future is at least a good future.
A good idea on its' face, but what about enforcement and implementation?
Well, there's the rub. There have been lots of good green ideas over the last 40 years and few if any have been implemented at a scale that would make a difference. Why? Who benefits from these good ideas? The majority of the world's population. Ok, great. But who benefits from the economics of the "grow or die", consume your way to happiness system? A tiny fraction of the world's population who control the world's largest corporations. Their aim is to maximize profits. And, they are already doing that. The profit margin using green technologies just isn't as good as using up resources like there's no tomorrow (for the rest of us). If we really want to do something about global climate disruption, we need to face up to the elephant in the room: capitalism.
How about enforcing an old tax - Many states have sales taxes. If collected on financial transactions, which is quite feasible given today's information technology, the states could hire back teachers, and invest in the green opportunities best fitting their state. Tax the rich, too.
We don't need more taxes. I am already exhausted with the tax load, and the inability to save for my future. A future which will unlikely have any sort of pension plan. Government wastes taxes on wars, on art, on programs. We need government to return to the basics. I can accept a fair rationing of energy, which allocates an equal amount of energy to each person, but I cannot accept more taxation.
The emphasis of growth for the sake of growth is embedded in the dollar currency. The only way to remove this growth virus is to consider other forms of money that aren't growth driven.
As an example, consider electricity as an alternate form of money. Electricity is a primary societal need. Everybody is wired to electricity. To not have electricity would severely disrupt society. The intrinsic value of an electrical unit, measured in kilowatts, is uniform and measurable. The root of all comparative valuation could be a kilowatt.
Since the storage capacity of electricity is negligible, the extraction rate of electricity equals its consumption rate. For the most part, what’s produced is consumed immediately. Though the extraction rate and the consumption rate may increase, they increase proportionately. As long as the storage capacity of electricity is negligible, the result is a zero growth rate of money. A zero growth rate does not facilitate the application of interest. Society will restructure itself to accommodate a zero growth form of money.
Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro are the predominate sources of energy used in the production of electricity. Solar, wind, and bio are ancillary energy sources. Oil, natural gas, and coal are finite resources with extremely low replenishment rates. The relationship of a kilowatt with its energy source would become primary societal knowledge. To ‘save money’ would be to save electricity, perhaps enough to eliminate the need for nuclear and foreign fossil fuels immediately.
The immediate source of money would be the utility serving the local power grid. In California, PG&E would be the utility for Northern California and Socal Edison would be the utility for Southern California. The production of electricity comes from many sources contracted with the utility; however, the distribution of electricity is centralized and controlled by the utility. The management of money would go from global to regional while still maintaining a global form of money. Eventually and perhaps quickly, more independent ways to produce electricity would be creatively found.
From there, the logistical details of how an actual transaction occurs using electricity as a form of money becomes academic. It takes a lot of people to run the utility and they have needs like everyone else i.e., the basis of trade with others. The rest is accounting.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/6/21/3015861.html