Following on from my previous piece I have just viewed a couple of interesting videos projecting how the web may develop in the future courtesy of Richard MacManus.

Whilst there is a certain amount of PR spin and product placement going on here they are both worth a look at if you have a spare 15 minutes. As i noted previously it is reminiscent of the 1920s and the media battle that took place from there on. Same stuff, different technology?

You can catch them here

I wrote this article for a business paper here in NZ about 3 years ago. I don’t think alot has changed really though the issue of Food Miles and Carbon Pricing has reared its head. Pricing the ecosystem is an emotive subject but i believe we must recognise its value in monetary terms in order to enable true economic comparisons to be made.

We know in our hearts that we need to consume less and make better. We don’t do it because we are time constrained as we slave away in our jobs to pay off huge mortgages, large rents and all the bills we have incurred in our consumption binge. If we really knew the true cost of our goods and services we may change our behaviour with increased speed.

And yet see the seething anger when petrol prices go up……we may be in position to control and destroy the planet but it may well do that to us first. Anyway this may or may not resonate. See what you think:

March 2004.

‘Greens take us back to the Dark Ages’ screams the Business Round Table. ‘Business doesn’t care about anything apart from money’ whines the Green Party. Sound familiar? This is generally what passes for debate between the official representatives of the economy and the environment. It is reminiscent of a long running stand off between a teenager and parent. Will the environment and business ever resolve their disagreements live together in sustainable harmony?
To answer this question we need to explore how the economy and the environment interact. The word economics is derived from the Greek ‘Oikonomos’ meaning household steward or home economist in modern diction. In ancient times, the household was the central functioning unit of any economy and most economic activity took place within that framework. Now the household is a place where we live and sleep but rarely do we produce anything that is identified as part of the economy, reflected by GDP. Business is now the place where most economic activity takes place and it is now the steward of the environment.
Our technological capabilities have also moved on giving us DVD recorders, microwaves, mobile phones and other similar gadgets but they are still all built from materials taken from the same source as thousands of years ago. As, John Muir, the founder of the modern ecology movement, said “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything in the universe”. In simple terms, the economy is simply a subset of the environment, and economics a framework for understanding our transactions with the environment. They are one and the same, not distinct and separate entities as often portrayed in the media.
We have become expert in transforming natures’ goods into new products to satisfy our ever increasing desire for material consumption. At the same time, the waste products from manufacturing, some 90% of actual inputs, are becoming harder to absorb and process. Whilst nature provides obvious goods in the form of wood, minerals and fossil fuels, little attention is paid to the crucial services it provides in acting as a both a source and a sink for economic activity. These services include waste processing, climate regulation, water supply and regulation, soil formation, nutrient cycling, food production, erosion control, pollination and even recreation and cultural values.
The value of these services has been largely ignored by the mainstream economics profession rather like the value of unpaid labour in the economy. A mother who goes out to work and hires a nanny to look after her children suddenly finds out the monetary value of her work in the household. Previously no value was attributed to looking after children but as soon as someone is employed formally then the value is recognized. Of course anyone who has children knows too well the value of unpaid labour in the home.

Whist ecosystem services have always had value they have never been recognized in monetary terms and therefore incorporated into the economic framework. In 1997, a study, led by Robert Costanza at the University of Maryland, attempted to value global ecosystem services. The findings estimated very conservatively the value of ecosystem services to be in the region of 2-3 times global GNP. In 2000, a study into the external costs of UK agriculture by Jules Pretty at the University of Essex, showed a value of ₤2.3bln, based on actual financial costs incurred. This equated to ₤208 per hectare of arable and permanent pasture. Again this was a conservative estimate of all agriculture related externalities.
What these and other studies have shown is that there is a real and attributable value to these services previously taken for granted. If any business has any doubt about the relevance of these costs, they should have another look at their insurance bill. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest re-insurance companies, puts the annual global costs of climate change at US$300bln by 2050. Even the Pentagon, a normally conservative institution, is recognizing the potential security issues of serious environmental changes. One thing Greens need to recognize from their side is that without security, law and order, the issue of environmental damage is likely to be an irrelevance.
Actually incorporating external costs at the company level has proved difficult. However Trucost Plc, a London based but Christchurch born company has designed an external cost calculator and an environmental rating system, which incorporates the externalized costs of any organization into their actual accounts. Initially there was strong resistance from some in the environmental movement, concerned about placing a value on nature. However, now there is an understanding that if you don’t value something then it will be treated as if it has no value. It is an unashamedly anthropocentric view to place a monetary value on nature but one which in the long run will lead to a more sustainable economy. Mainstream economics needs to acknowledge the importance of externalities and not spend so much time pouring over inflation statistics. Economics is fundamental to how society organizes itself and surprisingly can be fun and understood by anyone, as demonstrated by Diane Coyle in her recent book, “Sex, Drugs and Economics”, which succinctly analyses everyday activities in simple language.

Whilst the economics profession needs to wake up, the environmentalists must also acknowledge that expecting society to make a wholesale change of consumption habits without strong financial incentives is naïve. The only way to make them change their current ‘unsustainable’ consumption patterns is for goods and services to properly reflect the externalized costs that make them unsustainable in the first place. The true sustainable business is one which internalizes all its costs, instead of passing them to the taxpayer to pick up at some future date. Therefore, in order to create a sustainable economy, we must recognize the value of the environment in real terms. Then maybe business and the greens can redirect their energies to work out smarter and cheaper ways of living well and enjoying life.

Professor Peter Brown from McGill University in Canada is here in New Zealand speaking about our dysfunctional economic system.

He’s not wrong there. He was speaking on Radio NZ but the interview never really got going. He had enough time to talk about the incoherent nature of our economic system, how GDP measures income and consumption but not well being and how triple bottom line accounting was a waste of time. Agreed!

What we need is a better connection between our biophysical system and our economic frameworks like Trucost for example.

We also need to ask ourselves some basic questions such as

- what is our economy for? speculation or sustenance.

- what size should it be? as big as possible or big enough.

Simple questions but rarely asked. The mantra of economic growth at all costs is intellectually flimsy. Its lazy thinking……..the assumption that GDP growth is all that matters is quite clearly false.

What about crime, illness, pollution? What about the increasing gap between rich and poor.

As individuals we search for coherence but as a global economy we struggle to find that because there are no tools to do so. So perhaps by becoming more coherent ourselves we will aid and enable a global coherence.

As the Mahatma said “Be the change you wish to see”.

Let’s keep asking questions of our system.

I finally got round to seeing the Last King of Scotland yesterday. I thought it was a great film not just because of its portrayal of Idi Amin but also the feckless young Scottish doctor who arrived in Uganda hoping to help out, make a difference and have a bit of adventure (preferably sexual).

As Amin prepares him to meet his maker he makes some interesting points to the young man. He tells him in no uncertain terms that Africa is not a game or a place to come a play the altruist…it’s real….and reality is often brutal and bloody. His death was the first real thing the young doctor would experience in his life. As it happens he got away and we are left feeling that the message got through.

Of course the film is fictional though based on the book of the same name which drew on various people and factual events to create the character of Dr Carrigan. Complete with stereotypical English diplomatic spooks, menacing local enforcers and locals with big hearts but no hope, the film almost falls over but for the fact that it’s a fair representation of life in Uganda at that time.

It’s interesting for me also becuase in recent weeks i have met 2 people from Uganda in different contexts both who struck me as being very hopeful about life, passionate about making a difference but also aware that potentially similar problems may be lurking around the corner.

So that brings me to the point of this blog…….is Robert Mugabe the last King of Africa? Watching Zimbabwe implode is not very pleasant even for the dispassionate observer. The similarities with Uganda are there though not as obvious as one might think. Certainly the paranoia is setting in, the violence is on the increase and the general population is now suffering from food and medical shortages, inflation, unemployment.

Mugabe has already used up his fall guy card - the British - with white landowners having been given short shrift over the past decade. So the only people left to get stuck into are his own…..surely he doesn’t have much time left?

The nature of the dictator as a sociopath is well documented. Intransigence and unwillingless to listen are other unwelcome attributes. But is this just an African problem? I don’t think so. Look at Iraq, Serbia even Northern Ireland. Ian Paisley finally agreed with Sinn Fein yesterday as they sat down next to each other…..apparently “never, never, never, never” doesn’t always mean never.

And who is running Russia right now? Surely Putin is only a few steps away from a fully paid up authoritarian….he’s just doing well economically so can afford to be beneficient at the moment.

That could change.

Many old timers weep tears for their beloved Rhodesia but how can a country be prosperous based on the subjugation of others and the expropriation of resources? All around the world we are seeing a slow unwinding of the colonial and imperialist adventures of the last 500 years. Freedom, self determination and removal of the yolk of centralised and external authority is the story of the day. For Africa, stuck in the whirlpool of historical tribal and ethnic conflict, post colonialisation changes, grinding debt and the arms/resource trade, times are difficult.

The best thing the international community could do is to eliminate historical debts and aid at the same time under a guarantee that funds would go towards schools, hospitals and basic infrastructure.

Other than that people have to sort out their own problems in their own backyard. Human nature will no doubt continue to interfere with any positive outcomes but everywhere there are people with hope and the will to make things work.

As they say in New Zealand, she’s a hard road ahead.

debt, zimbabwe, poverty, conflict, mugabe, political institutions, un declaration of human rights, sustainability, new zealand, education, violence, politics, money, africa, uganda, future, Uncategorized

A few weeks ago in New Zealand we celebrated the 20th Anniversary of our Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment. This is an office of Parliament and therefore independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner reports to the Speaker of The House and the officers of the Parliament Committee.

This is an incredibly important position. Government is hamstrung at the best of times by short term considerations such as re-election and the constant sniping from the lobby brigade. The Commissioner on the other hand can afford to take a long term view and can criticise the government freely and ultimately acts as a guardian for the environment.

The only other country to have such a position is not a country but a province of Canada. Ontario passed an Environmental Bill of Rights back in 1994 which was a very forward thinking piece of legislation and this is monitored by the Environmental Commissioner of the Environment.

Canadians and New Zealanders both live in spaces of outstanding natural beauty and wonder. And yes we rely on the land for our food, energy and shelter but we are also aware that it cannot be pillaged without due thought for the consequences.

These officers provide a balance to the me-now culture that dominates courtesy of a society drunk on credit and the growth imperative that follows. Whilst i am not a great fan of bureaucrats Parliament (or similar legislature) is the representation of the people and the common good and more countries could use this type of model.

In Europe there are several Sustainable Development Commissions. Their job is to be an independent voice also and often are appointed by the Prime Minister with a mandate to be objective and critical. Of course their powers are limited to an advisory role whereas an officer of Parliament carries more weight.

Democracy is in a fragile state these days. We don’t respect our politicians, the election process is more and more about money and people feel disenfranchised. Officers of Parliament can bring more respect as they work on behalf of the people and the institution that represents them.

It’s time to rescue our political institutions before they become completely corporatised. Let them take the long view without interference and let’s leave short term-ism to the business sector.