Back in May 2013, two environmental activists took direct action against a coal company by blocking a 40,000 ton coal shipment with their lobster boat, the Henry David T., successfully preventing a shipment to the largest coal in New England. They were brought to court and charged with disturbing the peace, conspiracy to disturb the peace, negligent operation of a motor vessel and failure to act to avoid a collision of a boat. If convicted they would be facing years in prison.
The court decided to allow the activists to use 'necessity' as a defense, this would allow them to claim that they had no choice but to break the law in order to prevent an even more overwhelming harm from happening. This was big, it was the first time that the courts had allowed the necessity defense when it comes to environmental activism. In this case the charges were all reduced to civil infractions, because the defendants were planning on calling in climate change experts, like Bill McKibben, to argue their case. The prosecutors didn't like the idea of looking stupid if they tried to argue against climate change experts, and the court didn't like the idea of the reality of climate change being downplayed.
So the case never went to trial, and necessity was never able to be used as a defense, meaning this case didn't set any actual precedent. BUT, this case did set a social precedent, meaning that it could be more acceptable for judges to lean in favor of addressing climate change issues.
Another climate change related lawsuit has been filed more recently. As part of the divestment movement efforts, 7 law students and undergraduates filed a lawsuit against Harvard Corporation, which is the governing body that makes Harvard College's investment decisions and includes the college's president and fellows. The students are suing for the "mismanagement of charitable funds" and is partly invoking a tort for the "intentional investment in abnormally dangerous activities". This tort has no precedent to stand on, but the complaint itself is standing on the precedent that allows "those with special interests" in an organization to bring claims concerning mismanagement of its funds.
This case is going to make a big impact to either hurt or strengthen the divestment movement, depending on whether the court will allow students to be considered "those with special interests" and if the tort claim is also allowed. It could be argued that because the necessity defense was allowed to prevent the even bigger harm of coal contributing to climate change, then investing in coal and other fossil fuels should be argued to be an abnormally dangerous activity.
Could the social precedent help bring actual precedent to the divestment lawsuit?
Depending on how the divestment lawsuit is decided it could spur a rise in activism and lawsuits against investment groups. Is this the start of a judicial shift in decisions when it comes to climate change? This kind of seems like the writing on the wall, that there is hope to finally start holding the fossil fuel industry accountable.
Word Count: 513
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Role of the (Bought) Media: Function vs Purpose
The role of the news media is to construct the reality of events to the public, rather educate the public on what is going on in society in order to stay informed citizens. This allows citizens to be aware of events and understand what is going on in the country, how society is being ran, and be up on the current political debates in order to carry out the civic duty of partaking in our democracy.
But the reality is that the news media has a conflict of interest. Their purpose should be to carry out that role, by having their function be to provide coverage of the news in an unbiased and balanced way. But because the news media is now privately owned and is incorporated, they now function to make a profit. Since they raise revenue by their ratings and through advertising, they are largely influenced by industry, making their purpose whatever appeases their financial backing.
In The Battle for the Control of Reality, Ross Gelbspan explains how the oil and coal industries have spent millions waging a propaganda campaign through the media and through politicians to downplay the threat of climate change. This is through lobbyists and through funding climate skeptics.
This is part of the "money-media election complex" of vested interests pay the right people to keep up the image of their industry and keep the right policies in play. The media and officials are pretty much bought through help getting votes and ratings.
That is why FoxNews' policy of 'fair and balanced' coverage is a false balance. Instead of giving a proportionate amount of coverage to what is truthfully being debated, they give equal air time to both sides of the argument on climate change. By giving 98% of the scientific community that believes in and supports the science that proves climate change the same amount of coverage as the opposing 2% of the scientific community that are climate skeptics, they are promoting the fossil fuel industry's propaganda and confusing the public.
Now I understand that the facts about climate change is very depressing and nobody wants to end a discussion on TV on such a grim note, but it's only going to stay this grim if the new media doesn't inform the public and allow for a proper debate in our democracy.
Our country might want to follow other countries' example by having their news be publicly owned and funded. Our news media could even learn something from the FICTIONAL newstation in HBO's 'Newsroom', where they decide to actually covers the news despite the effect it has on their ratings. They choose this because they chose to change their purpose from making a profit to bringing integrity and truth back to the news.
Word Count: 459
Bypassing Congressional Action: Obama's Climate Pact
Mike Tidwell makes a strong argument, in The Global Warming Reader, that legal change is needed in order to push our country towards progressive change, giving the civil rights movement as an example of how a grassroots movement worked in sync with President Lyndon B. Johnson's efforts resulting in Congress passing new laws.
He also went on to argue that most people today want carbon emission reductions to be mandated through laws, but that Congress isn't budging, so the people must call their government to action alongside leadership from President Obama.
This semester I've learned a lot about just exactly how ridiculous Congress acts and why, they don't want to work across party lines and compromise. There's even a 'Gang of 6' among Republicans in government that have the sole goal of working to oppose anything Obama suggests. The polarization among our political parties and the corruption involved from our 'pay-to-play' system has made passing any environmental or climate change regulation basically impossible.
That's why if businesses through Transition movements and other community grassroots groups ban together to just voluntarily make changes in the economy and business on their own, without any need for laws to pass through Congress, then that could be promising. It would bypass a major kink in our system by not requiring bi-partisan politics or for citizens to vote.
The other end that Tidwell brought up, leadership from Obama to pressure Congress... This is what made me so nervous about the November elections.
I though it was interesting Tidwell uses Johnson as an example because President Lyndon B. Johnson had outline six principles on how to successfully pass legislation. Obama seemed to follow those same principles with healthcare reform, and was able to sign the Affordable Care Act into law. This had me concerned that Obama might have used up a lot of his good graces on healthcare reform, leaving climate change on a back burner. Now that Democrats lost the majority, I was afraid that Obama would try to get some other issues resolved by conceding on environmental concerns. My initial thought after the election was 'there goes the climate".
Instead, Obama is being anything BUT a lame duck through the end of his term. He met with China and was able to make a Climate Pact (I've also seen it be called the Obama's Climate Accord), an agreement with China to partner closely on plans to fight climate change. This is HUGE, because now oppositions to climate change regulation in Congress won't be able to use the argument that the US shouldn't take any action if China and India aren't doing anything. (Which is a childish argument to begin with if you ask me.)
I hope I'm right by thinking that Obama isn't caring about playing nice anymore since he can't run for the next term, and has decided to JUST GO FOR IT. It has been pretty cool to watch a 'lame duck' take charge on immigration, net neutrality, and this Climate Pact. I hope that when he is out of office these efforts to make a difference won't have been in vain.
Word Count: 520
He also went on to argue that most people today want carbon emission reductions to be mandated through laws, but that Congress isn't budging, so the people must call their government to action alongside leadership from President Obama.
This semester I've learned a lot about just exactly how ridiculous Congress acts and why, they don't want to work across party lines and compromise. There's even a 'Gang of 6' among Republicans in government that have the sole goal of working to oppose anything Obama suggests. The polarization among our political parties and the corruption involved from our 'pay-to-play' system has made passing any environmental or climate change regulation basically impossible.
That's why if businesses through Transition movements and other community grassroots groups ban together to just voluntarily make changes in the economy and business on their own, without any need for laws to pass through Congress, then that could be promising. It would bypass a major kink in our system by not requiring bi-partisan politics or for citizens to vote.
The other end that Tidwell brought up, leadership from Obama to pressure Congress... This is what made me so nervous about the November elections.
I though it was interesting Tidwell uses Johnson as an example because President Lyndon B. Johnson had outline six principles on how to successfully pass legislation. Obama seemed to follow those same principles with healthcare reform, and was able to sign the Affordable Care Act into law. This had me concerned that Obama might have used up a lot of his good graces on healthcare reform, leaving climate change on a back burner. Now that Democrats lost the majority, I was afraid that Obama would try to get some other issues resolved by conceding on environmental concerns. My initial thought after the election was 'there goes the climate".
Instead, Obama is being anything BUT a lame duck through the end of his term. He met with China and was able to make a Climate Pact (I've also seen it be called the Obama's Climate Accord), an agreement with China to partner closely on plans to fight climate change. This is HUGE, because now oppositions to climate change regulation in Congress won't be able to use the argument that the US shouldn't take any action if China and India aren't doing anything. (Which is a childish argument to begin with if you ask me.)
I hope I'm right by thinking that Obama isn't caring about playing nice anymore since he can't run for the next term, and has decided to JUST GO FOR IT. It has been pretty cool to watch a 'lame duck' take charge on immigration, net neutrality, and this Climate Pact. I hope that when he is out of office these efforts to make a difference won't have been in vain.
Word Count: 520
Strategies for Business to Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
There are a multitude of ways a business can reduce their carbon footprint. You probably won't find it surprising that I suggest looking at the business as a system to get an understanding of how energy is incorporated. That means a breakdown of elements, interconnections, function, and purpose as well as looking for feedback loops.
Businesses could decide to source their materials and services, such as landscapers, linen services, etc., locally for a number of reasons, like they know the other businesses personally or they are choosing to support the local economy. Another reason would be that it would reduce the amount of energy needed to transport the goods and services they purchase by reducing the distance of the sources. With food this distance has become known as 'food miles', but it applies to other goods and services as well.
I would think that all businesses could do a Life-Cycle Analysis of their product and even the processes by which they provide their services. Life-Cycle Analysis, or LCA, is the analyzing of each step and process into making a product or providing a service to note energy use, efficiency, materials use, pollution creation, and effect (if any) on social issues that the product or service requires. Take a restaurant for instance. The LCA of providing a meal would mean noting the kind of food being used and how it was produced, the amount of miles driven to get the food delivered to the restaurant, the means by which the food is prepped, stored, cooked, and disposed of, etc. A LCA can be varied in how it's carried out, usually depending on what the business wants to be held accountable and how stringent they are willing to make their standards. Like would they include whether or not the servers at the restaurant are well paid in the LCA of providing the meal?
Then there's the actual physical grounds and buildings that make the business and how they are being managed. Developing a better sealed building envelope is a great way to cut down on the amount of energy needed to control the indoor environment. If the business has a lot of land, then how it is managed and with what materials matters. For example, most fertilizers are fossil-fuel based, adding to the business's carbon footprint.
There's a ton more information out there to advice business on how to become more energy efficient and to reduce their carbon footprint. However, unless the business has made their mission statement to do so, which means backing from the owners and managers, then trying to input these changes in a business is usually a hard sell. It has been the tendency of business to want to gain good PR for their efforts, which means a "sexy" installation of solar panels or something else that would serve as a constant reminder of the business's goodwill. It can be hard convincing higher ups and implementing these changes because to most business you still make money buy selling, not by saving. Then those projects, which promote sustainability and reduce carbon footprint, usually take a longer time for a Return On Investment, or ROI, to make the project worthwhile.
That is why the most effective strategy for a business to reduce their carbon footprint if they really want to, is to change their purpose or mission statement and then make sure the interconnections within their business is aligned to achieve it.
Word Count: 572
Businesses could decide to source their materials and services, such as landscapers, linen services, etc., locally for a number of reasons, like they know the other businesses personally or they are choosing to support the local economy. Another reason would be that it would reduce the amount of energy needed to transport the goods and services they purchase by reducing the distance of the sources. With food this distance has become known as 'food miles', but it applies to other goods and services as well.
I would think that all businesses could do a Life-Cycle Analysis of their product and even the processes by which they provide their services. Life-Cycle Analysis, or LCA, is the analyzing of each step and process into making a product or providing a service to note energy use, efficiency, materials use, pollution creation, and effect (if any) on social issues that the product or service requires. Take a restaurant for instance. The LCA of providing a meal would mean noting the kind of food being used and how it was produced, the amount of miles driven to get the food delivered to the restaurant, the means by which the food is prepped, stored, cooked, and disposed of, etc. A LCA can be varied in how it's carried out, usually depending on what the business wants to be held accountable and how stringent they are willing to make their standards. Like would they include whether or not the servers at the restaurant are well paid in the LCA of providing the meal?
Then there's the actual physical grounds and buildings that make the business and how they are being managed. Developing a better sealed building envelope is a great way to cut down on the amount of energy needed to control the indoor environment. If the business has a lot of land, then how it is managed and with what materials matters. For example, most fertilizers are fossil-fuel based, adding to the business's carbon footprint.
There's a ton more information out there to advice business on how to become more energy efficient and to reduce their carbon footprint. However, unless the business has made their mission statement to do so, which means backing from the owners and managers, then trying to input these changes in a business is usually a hard sell. It has been the tendency of business to want to gain good PR for their efforts, which means a "sexy" installation of solar panels or something else that would serve as a constant reminder of the business's goodwill. It can be hard convincing higher ups and implementing these changes because to most business you still make money buy selling, not by saving. Then those projects, which promote sustainability and reduce carbon footprint, usually take a longer time for a Return On Investment, or ROI, to make the project worthwhile.
That is why the most effective strategy for a business to reduce their carbon footprint if they really want to, is to change their purpose or mission statement and then make sure the interconnections within their business is aligned to achieve it.
Word Count: 572
Importance of Systems Analysis Regarding Energy
Some tend to think of our energy industry in a vacuum, they think we're reliant on fossil fuels until an alternative energy is made viable enough (through technical supply means), and that's it. But there's a lot more to it than that.
When thinking in terms of systems, it requires you to look at all the elements in the system and then the interconnections between those elements, as well as the overall purpose and function of the system.
Elements include not just the demand and need for energy, but also matters of supply, consumers and their needs, the suppliers, the nations that are rich in oil and their rights, the right to a clean environment, government subsidies, politics, investment, research, development, policy, economic viability, public education, government agencies such as the EPA, lobbyists, pollution, efficiency, and so on.
Interconnections include how energy is produced, how oil is extracted, who is funding the research like corporate funded climate science, who is investing their money where, who owns the conventional media that educates the pubic on energy issues and politics, etc. These help you to understand what obstacles are in the way of shifting our energy industry off of fossil fuels such as the pay to play system in our government, the money-media election complex, the newsmedia being privately owned, an education gap regarding how our own culture and how our society is ran, etc. Systems analysis opens you up to that information.
Then there's the function and the purpose of a system, which aren't necessarily the same things. Function is in regards to the reason for the system in the first place and is usually the non-human element. Purpose is more of the mission statement of the system, add an extra human element. The function of the energy industry, simply put, is to supply the country with energy in order for society to function, like transporting people and goods, heating homes, supplying energy for manufacturing and production of goods, etc. I and many others could argue that the oil industry which supplies the large majority of our energy has their own purpose to make a profit without taking much else into consideration. The function of an energy industry is completely different than the purpose the oil industry has chosen.
Taking a systems thinking approach allows you to get a fuller understanding of the situation regarding our energy industry. It allows you to understand that even though there are alternative answers to supplying and running our energy industry, such as with renewable energy and a decentralized infrastructure and supply, progress isn't being made for other reasons. This is usually the case with answered problems, which our energy industry is. The issues regarding our energy industry are mostly answered problems because we have the technology and the means to shift our energy industry off of fossil fuels. The purposes of the sub-systems within our energy industry, such as our politics, economy, and overall consumer culture and 'limitless' economic views, are not aligned with the overall purpose of transitioning off of fossil fuels in order to decrease the effects of climate change.
If more people, voting citizens, political leaders, economists, etc. understood, discussed, and acted on this, we'd be making far more progress.
Word Count: 497
When thinking in terms of systems, it requires you to look at all the elements in the system and then the interconnections between those elements, as well as the overall purpose and function of the system.
Elements include not just the demand and need for energy, but also matters of supply, consumers and their needs, the suppliers, the nations that are rich in oil and their rights, the right to a clean environment, government subsidies, politics, investment, research, development, policy, economic viability, public education, government agencies such as the EPA, lobbyists, pollution, efficiency, and so on.
Interconnections include how energy is produced, how oil is extracted, who is funding the research like corporate funded climate science, who is investing their money where, who owns the conventional media that educates the pubic on energy issues and politics, etc. These help you to understand what obstacles are in the way of shifting our energy industry off of fossil fuels such as the pay to play system in our government, the money-media election complex, the newsmedia being privately owned, an education gap regarding how our own culture and how our society is ran, etc. Systems analysis opens you up to that information.
Then there's the function and the purpose of a system, which aren't necessarily the same things. Function is in regards to the reason for the system in the first place and is usually the non-human element. Purpose is more of the mission statement of the system, add an extra human element. The function of the energy industry, simply put, is to supply the country with energy in order for society to function, like transporting people and goods, heating homes, supplying energy for manufacturing and production of goods, etc. I and many others could argue that the oil industry which supplies the large majority of our energy has their own purpose to make a profit without taking much else into consideration. The function of an energy industry is completely different than the purpose the oil industry has chosen.
Taking a systems thinking approach allows you to get a fuller understanding of the situation regarding our energy industry. It allows you to understand that even though there are alternative answers to supplying and running our energy industry, such as with renewable energy and a decentralized infrastructure and supply, progress isn't being made for other reasons. This is usually the case with answered problems, which our energy industry is. The issues regarding our energy industry are mostly answered problems because we have the technology and the means to shift our energy industry off of fossil fuels. The purposes of the sub-systems within our energy industry, such as our politics, economy, and overall consumer culture and 'limitless' economic views, are not aligned with the overall purpose of transitioning off of fossil fuels in order to decrease the effects of climate change.
If more people, voting citizens, political leaders, economists, etc. understood, discussed, and acted on this, we'd be making far more progress.
Word Count: 497
Friday, October 3, 2014
Population Growth - One Topic Not Debated Enough
Actually, it started the other way around. Before this immense population growth were conditions such as the agricultural and industrial revolution that enabled society to grow in numbers. Now society seems to be on an overshoot and collapse pattern, where we are growing too fast so that the planet's ability to provide necessary resources isn't keeping up with us. Can't really blame the environment for this, we're also destroying the planet's ecosystem services while growing in numbers, which just doesn't seem fair. (MAJOR sarcasm if you hadn't noticed, the human species is utterly stupid because we are destroying the environment that keeps us alive.)
Anyway, with climate change on the rise, so are many conversations and initiatives surrounding how we can change our economic, political, and social systems, including our energy industry, to solve humanity's resource and climate crisis. What has been largely left out is the discussion of population control. Paul Ehrlich, author of "Population Bomb" and the IPAT equation that attempts to measure the influence of the human population on the environment, gave a lecture called "Distress Signals from Earth" on Alternative Radio, WAMC 90.3FM, that aired on April 8, 2014. In this lecture he stated that he wanted to hit the high points that he feels aren't normally emphasized enough or even part of the conversation. Included in those points was that one of the drivers of the basic problem of climate change are overpopulation and overconsumption. His response to solutions that include just working on consumption and not the issue of overpopulation is that it's "absolute bullshit", it won't work unless you tackle both.
This debate isn't happening enough, and when it is brought up, you are looked at as though you are a radical or extremist. While at the People's Climate March I saw only one group of about 3 people holding a sign that mentioned to need for population control. I looked on and thought how great it was, while I could hear muffled comments from people around me thinking they were a bit over the top or crazy. That reaction needs to change.
As a society we need to get passed the notion that procreation is always a good thing, and we need seriously start discussing the push for more family planning education, how that affects our environment and climate change, and a push to make resources available everywhere to reduce fertility. There are cascading and immediate benefits that result from family planning and giving women the economic and cultural power to make and carry out decisions about their fertility, including increased health for the women and their children, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions, more educational and employment opportunities, and enhanced social and economic status. Some countries have enforced population control, like China with their 'one child' policy, leading to an economic boom. (Although, because of their culture, male children were preferred over females, resulting in a current shortage of women in their population.)
Looking through my Facebook feed I found a short video that I thought was going to raise awareness to population issues because it was titled "Why bring a child into this world?" I was absolutely shocked and quite angry after watching this video because Unilever, a major corporation that sells products largely targeting children, was pushing a message that innovation and technology have been improving the quality of life for children in the world and that you shouldn't worry so much, go ahead and have a child. Some of these 'improvements' included how more food than ever is being produced, new technology to provide clean drinking water is invented all the time, simple everyday products of the future will be able to prevent more diseases, and "our children will have greater chances of meeting their great-grandchildren than we ever did." The whole of my education in sustainability tells me that none of these are likely to be true at all! And it skirts around the real issues, because while we may be producing enough food to feed the world, people around the world are still dying of starvation because of corruption and greed in our economic and political systems. I went to comment on the post saying exactly that, and found that someone right before me already had, which was a small piece of relief to see that people are aware of reality.
Personally, I don't want to have my own child because, along with other reasons, I don't want to bring another child into this world when the future of our society is so uncertain. Adoption is, dare I say it, almost THE ethical and moral way to go. Why bring more children into this chaotic world when there are so many already here that aren't being taken care of?
When you consider the almost CERTAIN result of climate change that we'll see, that the temperature will rise making the sea levels rise resulting in millions of environmental refugees moving inland crowding available space even more, it seems crazy NOT to be discussing population control.
Word Count:931
Sources:
- Paul Ehrlich. "Distress Signals from Earth". Alternative Radio, WAMC 90.3FM. April 8, 2014.
- Butler, T. (2012). The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delsuion of Endless Growth. (T. Butler, D. Lerch, & G. Wuerthner, Eds.) (p. 364). Canada: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Post Carbon Institute, Watershed Media.
- Why bring a child into this world? - A film by Unilever. (Nov 19, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL-207QGzN0
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Economics & Our Resulting Culture
In the US the government and politicians look to the economy to judge the wealth and prosperity of society; how the society is doing. To measure this economists and other professionals look at economic growth and largely use the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If GDP is on the rise, and rising at an increasing rate, then to them this means society is in success. In reality this isn't the case. Instead this ideology ignores the quality of life while encouraging limitless use of energy and resources no matter the cost to the environment.
This largely ties in to what the American Dream used to be earlier on in society and what it has become today. When this country was founded the American Dream meant being able to take care of yourself and provide for your family in order to live a happy life. The American Dream also has ideologies attached such as being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, being independent, and no matter who you are if you work hard enough you will be a success. That 'American Dream' has somehow morphed into meaning that being successful means being cut-throat and becoming wealthy and rich, to have a lot of money. To achieve this people and businesses become focused and caught up in the corporate business model, where you cut costs and increase profit in almost any way possible. People have gotten so caught up in this rat race to make more money, that even when they do manage to become wealthy they have lost sight of the real goal, which is to improve the quality of life and to be happy. The irony of it all is that the corporate and economic model that's resulted is what is standing in the way of people being able to achieve the American Dream.
This largely ties in to what the American Dream used to be earlier on in society and what it has become today. When this country was founded the American Dream meant being able to take care of yourself and provide for your family in order to live a happy life. The American Dream also has ideologies attached such as being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, being independent, and no matter who you are if you work hard enough you will be a success. That 'American Dream' has somehow morphed into meaning that being successful means being cut-throat and becoming wealthy and rich, to have a lot of money. To achieve this people and businesses become focused and caught up in the corporate business model, where you cut costs and increase profit in almost any way possible. People have gotten so caught up in this rat race to make more money, that even when they do manage to become wealthy they have lost sight of the real goal, which is to improve the quality of life and to be happy. The irony of it all is that the corporate and economic model that's resulted is what is standing in the way of people being able to achieve the American Dream.
This has encroached on all parts of our society and how we live. Even how we treat our elderly. Think about it, in this country when our parents and grandparents get older and become slow or confused, our society treats them as though they are no longer valuable. They make mistakes, move slow, they become a problem for business and stand in the way of increasing profits. So what does our society do? We put our elderly and disabled in nursing homes and rehab centers. We push them out of ours homes and do not acknowledge their wisdom, experience, or how they are still an asset to our society. Other countries around the world would be appalled at the idea. They take care of their aging family and understand they have valuable wisdom... Not to mention, they are family.
I feel as though our society takes more risks than are necessary as well, and one reason is that we expect to be independent. I had a conversation recently with a good friend who's struggling financially with the idea of going back to college, working, and being able to pay bills at the same time. Her boyfriend wants to support her financially in this, but she felt guilty and disappointed in herself. I had to explain to her that this is what family and loved ones are for. I had to bring to her attention that if we had grown up in another country that we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. She should let her loved ones fulfill their own needs, including helping her out. Instead she wanted to take out more loans and go into serious debt, taking more risk on her financial future.
The idea of economic leveling or even having higher taxes in order to take care of the people in your country and stand in solidarity is common in other countries, such as Norway, Denmark, and even some tribal countries in Africa. The idea is to redistribute the wealth from the super wealthy to those who need it more, either directly or through taxes and social services. This works in cultures that understand what it means to be truly rich. There's a quote by Andrew Carnegie, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced." It means that it's shameful to amass wealth without giving back to your community and people. In African tribes, if you don't partake in economic leveling, you're severely punished or even shunned. In the US, tax is a dirty word that people detest. The American society seems to have forgotten what being taxed means and what the benefits are. Without tax, and regulation, the industries and 1% get away with most of the wealth creating a wealth gap, not to mention that they get away with destroying our environment. If our culture and American Dream were different, then perhaps our societal and even global issues wouldn't be as hard to overcome.
Going back to GDP and the common thought today that economic growth equals a happy society... this assumes that society and economy exist in a limitless world. If we look to economic growth as the standard to measure how society is doing, then we want to see that GDP is forever increasing, but that's neither logical nor possible. We live in a world with limits; there exists the enormous need for us to shift our values and economy so we acknowledges those limits.
I imagine an economic shift where the goal isn't endless growth and increasing wealth, but the optimizing of the quality of life for everyone. With that shift comes the acknowledgment of limits to our environment and the transition to a more sustainable culture.
I challenge everyone to start with a blank slate and think of a culture and economic system that is sustainable. Then, how to get there?
Word Count: 945
I imagine an economic shift where the goal isn't endless growth and increasing wealth, but the optimizing of the quality of life for everyone. With that shift comes the acknowledgment of limits to our environment and the transition to a more sustainable culture.
I challenge everyone to start with a blank slate and think of a culture and economic system that is sustainable. Then, how to get there?
Word Count: 945
Sources:
- On the American Dream:
- Barlett, D. L., & Steele, J. B. (2012). The Betrayal of the American Dream (p. 289). PublicAffairs.
- On economic growth, limits, need to shift economy:
- Butler, T. (2012). The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth. (T. Butler, D. Lerch, & G. Wuerthner, Eds.) (p. 364). Canada: Foundation for Deep Ecology, Post Carbon Institute, Watershed Media.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)