Sustainability - Where do we start?

Sustainability - what is it?

Sustainability is a much maligned word “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Well that’s a tad harsh but the word has been dragged through the mud from the early days of “sustainable development” to the “four pillars” namely enviornment, economy, social and cultural.

Reductionism rules!

You could argue that we have a sustainable society already because we are still here…6 billion of us. That’s not a bad effort considering we started off with just two .

But when we look back at our history we see clearly the duality of our existence: misery, bloodshed, violence and despicable acts; and amazing creation, beauty, love and art. It;s hard to argue that much has changed in the last 10,000 years at least.

So where to? Can we ever become whole or will we always be engaged in a battle between the dark and light forces in our amazing universe.

I believe sustainability as a metaframework not an end in itself. It allows us to ask ourselves “what kind of society do we wish to live in?’…..if we can define that then all the other stuff will follow. The problem we have know is we start with the reduced view whether it is the environment or social issues or economic growth.

Then when it all ends in conflict we wonder why.

So where do start? Well there’s the ten commandments magna carta, uk bill of rights moving along to more modern frameworks such as the US constitution and one i quite like is the UN Declaration of Human Rights which came into being on 10 December 1948.

This was ratified by all then 58 member states which was no mean feat. The committee which prepared the initial text was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt herself. You can view it here

Article 25 and 26 are of particular interest being on the issue of education and well being.

It’s well worth a read.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US consitution notes:

Congress has the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof”……….it doesnt say banks have that power mind you.

Coming back the the topic at hand: how do we craft a society that sustains itself without the externalisation of environmental, social, cultural and economic costs.

- Eliminating poverty (Article 25 of the UNDHR).
- Compulsory free education to 16 for all (Article 26 of the UNDHR).
- Life, Liberty and Security of Person (Article 3 of the UNDHR)
- Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (US Declaration of Independence)

I could go on.

What is it that we want? We dont want our prisons overflowing with societal detritus. We therefore must ensure at all costs all children we bring into this world are well looked after with resources to ensure that is the case. Decent fresh food not the fossil fuel sugar laden processed rubbish churned out my the corporatised supermarkets. No wonder so many children are going round the bend…we’re poisoning them.

Safe, secure and healthy homes are vital for our children. Well resourced educational facilities are next on the list alongside decent parks and safe public spaces. Ripping poverty and its bedfellows out of our society has to start now with major expenditure….the kind normally reserved for invading other nations and killing machines.

If anyone argues “show me the money”…well it’s right there in front of you. There always has been and continues to be a huge transfer of wealth from the state to the private financial sector. It’s fact: in the UK the sum has been estimated at GBP20-40bln a year. In the US i imagine it will be a more significant sum.

Underlying all this is the question of who owns the money supply, where does the power lie.

If we dont have an idea of what we’re aiming for we will most certainly miss the target. We know we already have as levels of happiness and well being have been static for decades (sorry GDP is not going to help).

If we focus on building strong roots then sustainability will come. Right now no amount of fiddling will help. As the Declaration of Independence noted,

“whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter it or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness”.

Investing in our children

There have been some interesting stories out in the last week which have made me realise we need to change our focus a little. The Unicef report showed children in New Zealand getting a raw deal, suffering violent and deprived lives. This is a ridiculous state of affairs especially in a country with strong growth over the last 10 years and 9 years of a Labour government. The report is available here

At the same time there has been a great deal of fuss over the ethical dimensions of the NZ Cullen Fund, which pours $2bln a year of taxpayers money into the investment market to help pay for some of the increasing pension liabilities. The fund is already some $12bln in size. See below for more details

http://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/

This is great long term investment but wait a second…..why don’t we start investing some of that money in our children. The payoff will be way bigger than the global stock markets which are prone to wild swings in an era of abundant credit. Here is a letter i wrote to the local paper

Dear Sir,

Events of the last week have shown New Zealand to be a society under severe pressure. The complete failure of the supposedly free state education system to lead young people out into the world as individuals able to make a contribution to society reflects poorly on the current Labour administration. Many parents already under financial pressure are required to increase contributions to school costs which have serious impact on the home budget. As a society we should be proud that we strive to offer education free to all our children knowing full well that investing in the future of our children is the best investment we can make. If we continue to fail in this we will pay a heavy price in the future and one which will dwarf the cost now of reducing class sizes, boosting teacher numbers, training and pay, and providing quality pre-school care to all our under fives. And yes investing in post-natal parenting classes would certainly help. No wonder many of your columnists are simply in a state of sad resignation. To see the government invest $2bln a year in the Cullen Fund to meet some future demand from an ageing population when that money should be spent now on our children is enough to drive anyone to despair. If the government does not deal with this situation right now it may as well start preparing for a vastly increased prison population and a country in social and economic disarray.

$2bln a year into better schools and better housing for children? free schooling as it should be….we are going to need all the skilled workers we can get in the future so we better start focusing in that now.

The Cullen Fund has always been a project based on ego and trying to keep up with the Aussies and their $1trln fund. All that does is drive asset prices to unrealistic levels and we know what eventually happens there.

Like charity, investment should start at home..

Do incentives work?

Research from the UK into people’s “green” behaviour demonstrates that people respond poorly to price signals and very rarely make the changes required without strong arm tactics. Recent fuel surcharges on air travel have made little difference to people’s travel plans. As our recent experiences with credit show us, people are always happy to go into debt to have what they want right now. Ecological credit is no different.

We must stop offering unlimited ecological credit if we really want to cap greenhouse gas emissions at any chosen level. Like our money supply it is currently in an acceleration phase upwards with little or no control.

Time to Limit Fossil Fuel Production

Climate Control: Managing Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions

It’s time to face the fact that climate change can only be dealt with at the global level in a similar manner to ozone depletion.

I issued the following press release today. Read the full paper at the above link.

Should we limit fossil fuel production
Monday, 5 February 2007, 11:56 am

Press Release: Sustento Should We Limit Fossil Fuel Production?NZ economist proposes global fossil fuel production quotas to stem greenhouse gas emissions.

Christchurch-based policy institute Sustento says governments must set up a global quota system urgently to control fossil fuel production.

Institute director, Raf Manji says the Sustento Framework is based on the reality that climate change is a global problem and needs to be dealt with at the global level.

“Currently efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been devolved to the national level where policy has been limited to improving energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. This approach has not yielded major results and other policy proposals such as carbon based taxes have not found favour with either politicians or their voters.

“As the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report demonstrates this policy impasse needs immediate attention,” he urges.

The Sustento Framework calls for action at the production rather than consumption level. The Framework combines a global carbon inventory with an agreed limit to global greenhouse gas emissions, and from that produces an annual production quota for fossil fuels.

“This guarantees that agreed targets will be met - unlike current consumption reduction approaches which simply hope that this will happen,” he says.

Mr Manji is aware that critics of this approach argue that producers will not like the idea of quotas but, he counters, this approach was very successful in dealing with ozone depletion via the Montreal Protocol where producers rather than consumers were targeted.

Quotas also currently operate within OPEC and informally within the IEA, which represents non-OPEC producers. In July 2006 the G8+5 met for the first time to consider climate change issues. This group alone controls 76% of global coal production, 57% of natural gas and 38% of crude oil production. G20, which is an enlarged version of the G8+5, controls 94% of coal, 73% of gas and 59% of crude oil.

“If the problem of climate change is to be taken seriously by the major nations of the world then it is likely that forums such as the G8+5 will be the place where concrete action will be possible,” he says.

In 1977 the Brandt Commission proposed an international strategy on energy.

“If we are to limit growth in greenhouse gas emissions now is the time to implement such a proposal,” concludes Mr Manji .

ENDS