threegenerationsleft

human activity and the destruction of the planet


Leave a comment

An obsession with GDP and economic growth is acting to worsen climate change

An obsession with GDP and economic growth is acting to worsen climate change.

A number of progressive economists have been pointing out the facts relating to this statement for the last few years.  Yet, political leaders across the world still seem to be deaf to their words and obsessed with a need to find ways to fuel economic growth through a market economy and promoting austerity, and then praise themselves for doing it, even though their austerity measures affect the poorest in society and damage the environment.  It is part of an adherence to a competitive world, in which one’s own country must come out on top.  This blinkered approach encourages the manufacturing industry, much of which uses fossil fuels, and trading across the globe, in order to balance the difference between imports and exports – what is termed ” a balanced economy”.  I deal with the issue in Chapter 7 of my book, which can be found elsewhere on this website.

fioramonti

In the UK, this approach was perhaps pioneered by Margaret Thatcher and her crony in the US, Ronald Reagan.  But it was later picked up with enthusiasm by Tony Blair and developed further, until it became an obsession with economists.  According to George Monbiot, they are using the wrong mathematics and this approach is both outdated and harmful to the environment. See:

George Monbiot (2015) Guardian 24th November 2015.  “Consume more, conserve more: Sorry but we just can’t do both.”

A number of progressive economists have been saying a similar thing for a number of years.  Perhaps the late Richard Douthwaite was the first to say this in his book “The Growth Illusion” (1999) but there have been others too:  Molly Scott Cato MEP (“Green Economics”), Kate Raworth (Doughnut Economics and also “Old economics is based on false ‘laws of physics’ – new economics can save us” Guardian 6th April 2017), Ian Fletcher (“Free Trade Doesn’t Work”), Paul Krugman  (“How did economists get it so wrong?” in the New York Times), Pat Conaty and the New Economics Foundation among others (full details of each in my references section on this website).

The current UK Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell MP, also wrote a booklet about this in June 2007, whilst a member of Tony Blair’s “market economy party”.  It is entitled “Another World is Possible” and shows amazing foresight about the consequences of market economy politics, which we are living with now. He was courageous to write this, at a time when Blair was pursuing another path.

AWIP

“Another World is Possible”  (2007) is published by the Labour representation Committee, PO Box 2378, London E5 9QU.  ISBN 978-0-9555771-0-9.

This excellent booklet includes a section entitled “A Planet Plundered for Profit” in which McDonnell states that “we cannot tackle climate change unless we address the system which has caused it…….the wasteful consumption of the wealthier nations has brought environmental impacts, which…. disproportionately affect the poorest countries….The UK has a wealth of natural resources that lend themselves to renewable energy production which, once set up, are low cost to run and cause no pollution… a programme of investment in renewable would not only create thousands of jobs in engineering and manufacturing sectors that have declined in recent years….”

According to Kate Raworth in her Guardian article, “Things are not going well in the world’s richest economies. Most OECD countries are facing their highest levels of income inequality in 30 years, while generating ecological footprints of a size that would require four, five or six planet Earths if every country were to follow suit. These economies have, in essence, become divisive and degenerative by default. Mainstream economic theory long promised that the solution starts with growth – but why does that theory seem so ill-equipped to deal with the social and ecological fallout of its own prescriptions?”

In May 2017, Lorenzo Fioramonti*, Professor of Political Economy, University of Pretoria, wrote an article for The Conversation, republished in Quartz. He opens: “GDP as a measure of growth fails to account for damages caused to the environment by industrial activity”. In his new book “Wellbeing Economy: Success in a World Without Growth” he points out that the “growth first” rule has dominated the world since the early 20th century. No other ideology has ever been so powerful: the obsession with growth even cut through both capitalist and socialist societies”.  He asks the question, “What exactly is growth” and further expounds the idea that it is not a silver bullet to success.  Further details of this concept in his book are summarised in:

https://britain2020.wordpress.com/2017/07/04/fioramonti-growth-is-dying-as-the-silver-bullet-for-success-this-may-be-good-thing/

Kate Raworth has also circulated her latest blog, which contains a video, which tries to explain the issue in easily understandable terms, using puppets.  She hopes that this will be used in secondary schools and in teaching economics undergraduates that the GDP/growth model does not work:

Economic Man vs. Humanity: a puppet rap battle

by Kate Raworth

An economist, a songwriter, and a puppet-maker walked into a recording studio. What do you think came out?. . . An economics puppet rap battle, of course.

One of the most dangerous stories at the heart of 20th century economics is the depiction of humanity as rational economic man. In my book Doughnut Economics I decided he needed a portrait so I drew him, standing alone, with money in his hand, ego in his heart, a calculator in his head and nature at his feet. He hates work, he loves luxury and he knows the price of everything.

Now here’s the most fascinating (and unnerving) thing I discovered while researching the history and influence of this character. The more that economics students learn about him – from Year 1 to Year 2 to Year 3 of their studies – the more they say they value traits such as self-interest and competition over traits such as altruism and collaboration.

The implication? Who we tell ourselves we are shapes who we become.

Over the past year I have been contacted by many economics teachers around the world – especially those in secondary schools – who want to encourage their students to critique this text-book model and offer them a far more nuanced understanding of human behaviour.

So that got me thinking…

I teamed up with the brilliant puppet designer Emma Powell and the ingenious musician Simon Panrucker and, with funding from the Network for Social Change (big thanks, folks!), we created this video – Economic Man vs Humanity: a puppet rap battle.

We’d love to see it in use in classrooms, conferences, reading groups, community groups, and shared widely on social media, on web platforms, on teaching resource sites.

If you are a teacher, please do use it to start a debate in your classroom (the video ends with a question for that very reason). Download the complete lyrics of the rap, and if your students want to dive further into the back story and future possibilities of Rational Economic Man, then I recommend Chapter 3 of Doughnut Economics, which was the basis for the whole project.

If you are a student, please do share the video with your fellow future economists, get your teacher involved, and help kick off a much-needed discussion.

And if you host a web discussion, a new economics resource site, a community network, or a teachers’ forum, you are very welcome to feature the film on your site – we’d love to hear what you do with it.

So sit back and enjoy the Puppet Rap Battle – sing along, pass it on, and let’s say farewell to Rational Economic Man. Today’s students know that it’s time to create a better portrait of who we are for 21st century economics.”

Kate Raworth | 5 September 2018 at 10:14 | URL: https://wp.me/p3sUHn-Bb

 

And yet, despite all of these highly knowledgeable progressive economists writing at length about it, the old way of seeking “growth, growth and more growth” still persists. The present conservative government in the UK has used this maxim extensively over the last 10 years, and even used it as a hammer to batter the opposition with – that they are weak on the economy – a deceitful myth that a gullible public unwittingly believed, when voting at the ballot box – until June 2017, that is.  And the present Chancellor constantly brings statistical data to parliament, in an attempt to show that their economic austerity policies are working.  What he does not say is that they are contributing to climate change, as well as making many marginalised people much worse off.  Indeed, they seem to have abandoned any pretence of working towards attaining the targets set by the Paris Agreement in 2015.  George Monbiot has slated their 25-year environment plan, as “A Grand Plan to do Nothing”. See: http://www.monbiot.com

This last year, we have seen some of the extreme consequences of climate change:

  • excessive heatwaves this summer;
  • a prolonged unusual freeze-up last winter;
  • last year having the most violent and numerous hurricanes;
  • island nations losing some of their territory due to sea level rise;
  • the last few years, global temperatures being the hottest ever on record.

Some of these issues have been described in more detail in other recent blogs on this website.

Just recently, I have read an article by Alan Cottey, a member of Scientists for Global Responsibility: “Environment change, economy change and reducing conflict at source”, just published in AI & Society, where he sets out alternatives.  Here is an extract from the Abstract:

At a time when fossil fuel burning, nationalism, ethnic and religious intolerance, and other retrograde steps are being promoted, the prospects for world peace and environmental systems stability may appear dim. Exactly because of this is it the more important to continue to examine the sources of conflict. A major obstacle to general progress is the currently dominant economic practice and theory, which is here called the economy-as-usual, or economics-as-usual, as appropriate. A special obstacle to constructive change is the language in which economic matters are usually discussed. This language is narrow, conservative, technical and often obscure. The rapid changes in the environment (physical and living) are largely kept in a separate compartment. If, however, the partition is removed, economics-as-usual, with its dependence on growth and its widening inequality, is seen to be unsustainable. Radical economic change, for better or worse, is to be expected. Such change is here called economy change. The change could be for the better if it involved an expansion of the concept of economics itself, along the lines of oikonomia, a modern revival of a classical Greek term for management or household. In such an expanded view, not everything of economic value can be measured. It is argued that economics-as-usual is the source of much strife. Some features are indicated of a less conflictual economy—more just, cooperative and peaceful. These features include a dignified life available to all people as of right, the word ‘wealth’ being reconnected with weal, well and well-being, and ‘work’ being understood as including all useful activity.”

The whole article can be found at:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-018-0816-x


I think that many of us have stood on the sidelines of this issue for long enough now.  It is time for the progressive economists I have named above, and those cited in Cottey’s article, to come together, in formulating together a new economic theory, with a clear structure, that takes care of the environment, does not increase the gap between rich and poor, and which reduces conflict and competition between nations.  They have written separately for too long.  Now, we are looking for a new partnership, a new structure – a really new economics, based on compassion and equality, not austerity, which will also work towards reducing the damaging effects of climate change.


Leave a comment

The Economy

CHAPTER 7

The economy sometimes seems like a mysterious thing to ordinary people – something that is hard to understand – but there is nothing mysterious about it really.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the state of a country in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money”.  So, in everyday language it is how we, as a country, make use of available money, to ensure that everybody has enough to live on. In a way, it is about balancing the books on a national scale.  It is about money.

fig59

Fig. 59

I have been able to discover five different types of economy. Before the industrial revolution, local communities in the UK lived largely in farming cultures and the economic system was structured around this. But this changed significantly as the industrial revolution gained momentum.  An agrarian economic system has also been called A Traditional Economy, and some countries which did not become industrialised, still use this type of economic system.  Other countries, which followed Britain in becoming industrialised, developed economies based on trading links and, like the UK, developed A Market Economy, which is largely regulated by demand and supply.  For some, a market economy is another way of describing Capitalism. Some countries have a mixture of traditional and market economies, called A Mixed Economy.  Yet other parts of the world have government control of their economies and this has been termed A Command Economy or totalitarianism; this would include countries like North Korea.

A recent article by Pat Conaty describes a Collaborative Economy for the Common Good70.  He suggests that co-operatives and social enterprises are bringing a new dimension to national economies and have been more successful in delivering growth than market economies (in Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada etc.). Some call it community economic development whilst others call it a social economy.  From this has developed a Solidarity Economy, which seeks to secure systemic change by organising small business and self-employed networks, bringing them into a collaborative economy movement.  Such an economy is gaining strength across Europe, as it is based on serving the welfare of people and planet.

The relationship between trade and economies

In chapter 4, I discussed trading systems and how market economies first developed. One suggestion mooted there was that each country, instead of getting involved in complex and comprehensive international trading, should seek to be self-sufficient, only importing goods that they cannot produce themselves.  However, I am pragmatic enough to realise that this is not going to happen overnight, as there are too many vested interests in the business world.  So in this chapter, I will be looking at other measures that could be introduced, by modifying a market economy to a different (and new) form of economy, which helps to reduce the escalation of carbon emissions.

An uncontrolled market economy

But first, I want to look at the reality of what happens in an uncontrolled market economy. One way of doing this is to look at the measures introduced in the UK by the Conservative government since 2010, which wholeheartedly supports a market economy.  These measures are set within the context of a belief that encouraging big business is the only means of making a country wealthy.  Thus, the government introduced measures that enhanced the opportunities of the business world to make money: cutting taxes for the richest 4% and for corporations, whilst reducing the amount spent on benefits for the disabled and for the poorest in society.  The measures were introduced in the name of so-called austerity which, the government argued, is necessary for reducing the deficit in the balance of payments.  In practical terms, the outcome of this is that the government is giving away to the richest people in Britain more money than they are saving by reducing benefits for the disabled and the poorest in society. This does not make sense in a civilised society, as it will lead to further divisions and discontent in society, with the poorest becoming ever more militant.

fig60

Fig.60   used by permission

And big business, empowered by the extra money they have been given, use it to continue manufacturing and selling those products which add to emissions of carbon products and other pollutants.  This enhances the rate at which climate change is escalating.  So, in addition to being in the ever-speeding Industrial Revolution (IR) Continuum, our present government is encouraging businesses to feed that continuum, so that it runs ever more quickly out of control, producing ever more carbon emissions in the process.

A sensible economy in today’s circumstances needs to reduce carbon emissions, encourage businesses which produce goods and services which reduce carbon emissions and maintain its benefits systems for the poorest and most disadvantaged.

A market economy provides unfettered freedom for businesses to carry out their activities, with little government control and little expectation that they will show responsibility for those less well off than themselves, or any responsibility for restricting climate change.  And the UK is not alone in encouraging this. It happens in most of the industrialised countries of the world, which are in vigorous competition with each other.  Businesses like this freedom of course, to make as much money as they can, but this should not be at the expense of the planet, nor of the poorest in our society.

David Cameron swept to power in the UK in 2010, saying that his would be the “greenest government ever”. Jonathon Porritt, in his article: “The Coalition Government 2010-2015; The Greenest Government Ever: By no stretch of the imagination”61 has demonstrated that, in fact, carbon emissions increased during that term of office (2010-15). This has been reinforced by an article by Michael Le Page in the New Scientist, entitled “Ungreen and not-so-pleasant land”62. Le Page provides statistics that show that the UK is not on track to meet its climate goals (agreed in Kyoto Summit 1997) and that, rather than increasing its efforts to do this, the government has blocked a series of green measures, thus leading the country even further off course.  Perhaps the most contentious is the proposed axing of feed-in-tariffs (FITs), which were available to people investing in solar panels for their domestic electricity needs.  Because of these changes the UK has now slipped from 8th to 11th in the RECAI table73. (Renewable energy country attractiveness, published by www.ey.com).

Rewarding the rich is not the only way of creating wealth for a country.  A recent article by Donald Braben, also in The New Scientist74, stated that it can be demonstrated that innovation is more likely to produce growth than existing market economy methods.  His thesis is based on the history of scientific discoveries which, indeed, started off the industrial revolution in the first place. He has shown that some of the biggest scientific discoveries in our history led to the greatest growth in the economy. If this is true then, rather than funding big business, we should be funding research into new innovatory discoveries, such as carbon-free steel.  I would add a rider to this, that the innovation encouraged in this way should also be about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

People who like to make money, in any part of the world, appear to have a mind-set that it is their right to do so without hindrance.  Many have no conscience about the impact of their money-making on others and have little compassion for those who are the victims of their acquisitiveness, whether they are those in poverty, members of the animal kingdom or, indeed, the whole planet (see also in Chapter 4 – Paul Tudor Jones II).

Table 4:  RECAI List of renewable energy country attractiveness (first 15 countries in the list) as at Sept 2015.  (See: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/RECAI-45-September-15-LR/$FILE/RECAI_45_Sept_15_LR.pdf)

_________________________________________________________________ 

table4

_________________________________________________________________

Tax evasion (mainly by the rich) is a major source of lost funds for the economy (£5 billion a year), yet it is often the people who need to claim benefits who are castigated for playing the system.  A recent article by James Bloodworth in The Independent75 showed that four times more money is lost to the economy by tax evasion than by benefit fraud, though the difference may be even greater than this if incompetence within the DWP is taken into consideration (www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-time-to-bust-some-myths-about-benefit-fraud-and-tax-evasion). He described this as a double standard, with one rule for the rich and another for the poor

fig61

                                                                     Fig.61                                                                                           with permission from David Baldinger

In the last few years in Britain a number of scandals have been uncovered, all related to this same acquisitiveness: MPs claiming expenses they were not eligible for, bankers and chief executives getting bonuses, even when they have failed in the job; companies and individuals avoiding the payment of taxes, by using offshore business accounts – and so on. All of these are linked to the same acquisitiveness that fuels a market economy.  And the general public in this country have had enough of this.  They want to see some honesty – in politicians and in big business – and to see signs of the responsibility referred to above.

A recent scandal has been leaked about the super-rich hiding away their fortunes in tax havens, with details of the names of some of the people who are doing this.  As a result, the Prime Minister of Iceland has had to resign and this may be followed by other resignations.  Yet, we knew 6 years ago, in a study reported by Heather Stewart in the Guardian76, that a staggering 21 trillion dollars has been lost to the global economy through tax revenues, as it has been stashed away in tax havens.

 

fig62

Fig.62

Yet it is encouraging that, recently, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney77, made some warning statements in a dinner speech, that the impact climate change could trigger a new financial crisis and derail the economy, as it currently stands.  He based this analysis on the effects climate change has had in Britain on the insurance industry.  Since the 1980s, the number of weather-related events, such as storms and floods, has tripled and the cost to insurers has increased from £6.5 billion to £33 billion, mainly to cover the cost of damaged property and of disrupted trade. He warned that, once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.

What he identified is that much of the current financial investment is in companies which will be affected by climate change, such as energy suppliers, insurance companies, and oil suppliers etc., whose share prices will fall as climate change begins to bite. If these companies then fail, due to the pressures on them, the value of all kinds of investments, such as pensions and savings, could be affected.  In the case of energy companies, if they do not convert to sustainable forms of energy, the pressure to reduce carbon emissions will also make them vulnerable to a reduction in the value of their shares. Oil companies and other polluting industries may be besieged by increasing numbers of claims upon them for compensation. This is already happening for Volkswagen, through their deception about carbon emissions from their diesel cars; and is likely to happen to ExxonMobil, who actively deceived the public about the reality of climate change over many years.  The US coal giant, Peabody Energy, has already filed for bankruptcy.

If a financial crisis does occur and affects pensions, for example, the consequent loss of value (and potential income to pensioners) will come at a time when unprecedented numbers of people in the population reach pensionable age.  The financial future of many thousands of people could thus be bleak.

This winter, there has been another catastrophic flooding event in the north of England, damaging many people’s homes and putting even more pressure on the insurance industry, as well as causing £1.5 billion worth of damage to bridges, roads and other infrastructure.

Also, a recent investigation has shown that, of 20 zones earmarked by the UK government for the building of new homes, five were hit with alerts and warnings during these recent floods and storms.

fig63

                                                                          Fig.63                                                                                                                                       Flooding in Appleby, Cumbria

fig64

                          Fig.64    The destruction of Pooley Bridge, Cumbria by flooding

From: www.bbc.co.uk

There is growing evidence that population growth and, more significantly, economic growth are the most important drivers in the increase in CO₂ emissions. Since 1970, emissions of CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed to about 78% of the total GHG emission increase78.

Professor Justin Lewis, in an article to The Independent79 about a growing right-leaning bias in the BBC, argues that there is now a growing body of evidence suggesting that a model of permanent economic growth is of dwindling benefit to wealthy countries such as the UK. He cites research which shows that GDP growth is no longer linked to improvements in health or happiness, is environmentally unsustainable and stretches commodity choice far beyond the time we have available to us as consumers. He concludes that there is a serious debate about whether wealthy consumer economies should still rely on growth to generate prosperity.

Thus, there is an urgent need for the development of a new economic system.  Just as the industrial revolution became the trigger for a change from agrarian economies to a market economy, there needs to be a development of a new economic system that is triggered by climate change.  I do feel that the balance of the economy can be, and should be, adjusted to allow for the crisis that is heading our way.  We can no longer continue to run the economy as if nothing is happening, with businesses maximising their short-term profit, with no heed for the wider damage that their activities are doing.  It is not “Business as Usual”. Those who currently make vast profits from a market economy, and who promote it as the only way forward, need to take stock and change their attitudes and behaviour.  Our planet can no longer sustain the robbing of its resources, and the contamination of its atmosphere, in the name of progress (see chapter 3).

fig65

Fig.65

Richard Douthwaite, in his book entitled “The Growth Illusion: How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the many and endangered the planet6,80, states that economic growth does not have the benefits that many (mainly economists) claim for it. He demonstrates that, if the rate of growth is fast enough, there may be increased business profits and extra jobs but little improvements in the lives of ordinary people.  Douthwaite goes on to say that the benefits for businesses come at the cost of lower wages and reduced job security.  He also comments that achieving growth through the global system exposes each of us personally, and the countries to which we belong, to much higher levels of financial and environmental risk than did the more nation-state-based economies of earlier generations.  A full quotation from Douthwaite is given at the end of this chapter (5).

Both Douthwaite6 and Fletcher81 (in “Free Trade Doesn’t Work”, 2010) are of the opinion that economists have got things badly wrong, most of their theories being based on inappropriate mathematical equations.  This thesis is further developed by Paul Krugman in the New York Times82 in an article entitled, “How did Economists get it so Wrong?”

George Monbiot also addresses the issue of the mathematics being wrong in his article to The Guardian82 and on his website. The article suggests that the calculations have given a false sense of reduction in the use of the earth’s resources because they have failed to include goods purchased from abroad in the equation.  Indeed, if you look at the UK alone, where carbon dioxide emissions apparently fell by 194 million tonnes between 2002 and 2012 (using the wrong calculations), the real figure cancels this out and gives in fact an increase in emissions, related to the commissioning and importing of goods.

The New Economics Foundation (NEF)83 has done much work on alternative, more sustainable, economic systems. They are the UK’s leading think tank on promoting social, economic and environmental justice. Their aim is to transform the economy, so that it works for people and the planet. However, one learns that they have received a large government grant to develop their work.  Let us hope that they remain objective and are not influenced in their thinking by right-wing pressures.

They state on their website that:

A strong national economy needs a flourishing network of local economies. These are shown to give resilience in times of crisis, but are consistently undermined by the sprawl of supermarkets and other chains – the kind of businesses that are most likely to up and leave in times of trouble. We should be ensuring that money stays in local communities rather than leaking out to distant head offices, and encouraging a range of diverse high streets rather than clone towns.”

 On Bankers and Banking, they state:

A dysfunctional financial sector led us to the brink of disaster in 2008, and yet bank reforms aren’t going far enough to tackle the root causes of the economic crisis. Our four big banks remain too big to fail, and continue to engage in the risky and unproductive activities that caused the crash. We need to establish a more stable, sustainable and socially useful banking system.

 Jeremy Corbyn, in an article to The Times84, stated that Britain must empower citizen suppliers and direct private investment into green technology. He believes that our weakened public services will not be able to cope with the consequences of drastic weather events, such as the floods in Cumbria (2015) and Somerset (2013-4). He states that we need carbon budgeting to be the centrepiece of trade and commerce, taking the planet back to sustainable levels of CO₂ emissions.  Environmental politics must include people working in today’s economy and decisions by government must not take us backwards but must instead invest in the huge opportunities that the low-carbon sector offers.

Colin Tudge presented a paper entitled “Economic Renaissance: Holistic Economics for the 21st century”85 to a think tank at the Schumacher college in 2007.  The think tank explored what the key components are of an economic system which would successfully achieve poverty elimination, climate sustainability and human fulfilment.  What kind of economy do we need to protect ecosystems and people’s livelihoods at the same time?

Professor Richard Murphy and Colin Hines wrote a report for discussion at the Paris 2015 Summit86, which provides solutions for how new green measures might be funded.  The suggestion is that some of the funds already allocated for Quantitative Easing to keep the financial system afloat by the European Central Bank (€7 trillion of new money being printed), should be allocated in the form of Climate QE to save the planet – a figure of €10 million a month is suggested.  This could be used in the form of climate change bonds from the European Investment Bank.  These funds could then be directed to climate change programmes in Europe and in developing countries.

fig66

Fig.66  European currency

 

Other economists have suggested a different form of Quantitative Easing87.

Some countries have introduced a carbon tax and, in some cases, this has been successful in lowering carbon emissions88. Sweden has been particularly successful, first introducing a carbon tax in 1991. Their economy has grown by 50% since that time89 and their emissions of greenhouse gases have declined and been decoupled from economic growth. The OECD report89, which looks in detail at a number of pollution factors showed that Sweden has cleaner air than most other countries in the world (OECD Environmental Performance Reviews Sweden 2014).

The experience of Australia has been different90.  They introduced a carbon tax in 2012, whilst led by Prime Minister Julia Gillard under a coalition with the Greens.  This act was extremely unpopular and was repealed two years later by Prime Minister Tony Abbot.  Full details of how they implemented the carbon tax can be found in Wikipedia.  The chart in figure 69 shows the carbon emissions falling during the carbon tax period (2012-14) and then increasing again after it was repealed90.  The decision to repeal the tax has led to Australia slipping from 10th to 13th in the RECAI list (see Table 4).

 fig67

 Fig.67  Carbon emissions in Australia before and after the carbon tax was repealed

A report from Climate News Network91 indicates that Brazil, whose president Dilma Rousseff is at risk of being impeached, will dismantle their environmental protection laws after the impeachment, in defiance of commitments made in the Paris Agreement. It would appear that the leaders in the impeachment process are businessmen who would benefit from these laws being repealed.  Here is yet another female leader, who introduced environmental safeguards, being undermined by big business.  Brazil has just suffered the worst environmental disaster in its history:  the bursting of a dam of toxic mud last year in Minas Gerais state.  All animal and plant life was destroyed by this disaster, which is said to be the worst since Chernobyl.

Fergus Green, a Policy Analyst and Research Advisor to Professor Stern, recently published a paper, which gave evidence that a nation can develop and implement green policies, without damaging the economy92. The paper was issued to encourage discussion on the issues.

Professor Nicholas Stern has written a paper for Nature93 in which he says that current economic models tend to underestimate seriously both the potential impacts of dangerous climate change and the wider benefits of a transition to low-carbon growth. He thinks that there is an urgent need for a new generation of models that give a more accurate picture and suggests that researchers across a range of disciplines (economics, engineering, science) work together to help those developing policy.

Other ideas have been to develop a system whereby the worst polluters have to foot the bill for cleaning up the damage they have wreaked on the planet.

Another group, linked to Feasta, have come up with a suggestion of capping the use of fossil fuels globally by introducing a global taxation system94.  CapGlobalCarbon (CGC) aims to ensure that the aggregate global emissions from fossil fuels steadily decrease to zero. This would be achieved by a progressively tightening cap on fossil fuel extraction.  Revenues from the extraction permits would be used to benefit the lowest consumers of fossil fuels. Such compensation could substantially alleviate poverty and reduce global inequality. By steadily and predictably reducing the global dependence on fossil fuels the process would also hasten a smooth transition to a zero-carbon economy.

Yet, despite all these well-argued documents and postings, in the UK at least, our present Government in the UK is rushing headlong into yet another era of austerity measures, based on the old economics, promoting growth and rewarding big business at the expense of the environment and the poorest in our society.  And part of their strategy in taking this forward is to reduce spending on, and support for, green initiatives, aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

I am not an economist so I don’t feel qualified to come up with a new system; there are others much better qualified than me to do this.  All I have done here is to demonstrate how everything in this world is interconnected: ecosystems, the stratosphere, the industrial revolution and its continuum, population explosion, trading systems, weaponry and war, the rise of big business and bankers and the failed economics which they promote.  This interconnectedness means that, if any one of these goes wrong or out of balance, then this will bring down all the others in a domino effect.  Denial of this effect has only made things worse, with so much more to do to reverse the destruction.

It is interesting that the word economy has a similar root (eco) to the word ecosystem or ecology. I am told that eco comes from the Greek oikos, meaning ‘house’ or ‘household’.  I have shown in this book how ecosystems and the economy are inter-connected but what is needed is a new form of economy – or a new discipline – that appraises the needs of both through this inter-connectedness.  Perhaps we should call it ecosystomics – a new form of the economy that provides for the human race, without damaging the ecosystems of the world.

Although I am not an economist, I feel I must put together some pointers (or suggestions) for those who do have the ability to construct such a system, making the changes necessary to have a balanced green economy.  Shall I call it Economy 6?  My readers may wish to add to it. It is my first venture into the new discipline of ecosytomics.

Suggestions for Economy 6

Some measures which might move us towards a new, balanced, green economy:

  • For the introduction of greater incentive schemes to encourage businesses to develop, use and market greener technologies and to penalise those who don’t. Examples of this could include: using and developing renewable forms of energy; phasing out motor vehicles which use petrol or diesel and introducing those that run on easily-accessible clean energy;
  • Investing in research institutions which have the ability to develop innovative solutions to today’s climate-change problems;
  • Introducing legislation to reduce the use of the motor car, such as restricting the number of cars owned by each household, unless they run on clean energy;
  • Phasing out coal-fired power generation and ending fossil fuel subsidies;
  • Introducing a carbon tax on those companies who continue to use fossil fuels;
  • Rebalancing the economy, so that the rich are not rewarded for irresponsible behaviour that adds to the carbon load;
  • Setting targets, for meaningful reductions in carbon emissions by an early date, as suggested by Desmond Tutu in his petition (chapter 1) and ensuring that the calculations for this are correct;
  • Phasing out nuclear power and nuclear weapons worldwide and re-channelling the money saved into the incentive-schemes and investments mentioned above;
  • Proper funding of those institutions regulating the tax system, so that tax evasion and avoidance is properly penalised;
  • Shifting the tax system to penalise those activities which need to be discouraged, such as greenhouse gas emissions and the accumulation of wealth;
  • Banning certain household appliances and gadgets, which are not necessary and only add to the carbon load;
  • Establishing a new institution, which will monitor the use of fossil fuels by companies and promote, and provide support for, the use of greener forms of energy;
  • Encourage less air travel, by raising awareness about the damage this is doing to the planet and encouraging airlines to invest instead in technologies that do not damage the planet;
  • Work globally with other partners to reduce deforestation;
  • Re-balancing international trading systems, so that goods and animals are not transported unnecessarily across continents and seas, adding to the carbon load;
  • Encouraging countries worldwide to be self-sufficient in terms of goods and resources, so that goods are not imported which can be produced internally;
  • Re-think and re-balance entirely transnational trading systems;
  • Work globally to find a better means of international co-operation in working jointly to reduce and reverse that damage that is currently being done to the planet;
  • Encourage partnerships between local government and local cooperatives and social enterprises;
  • Encouraging the setting up of local groups (3G groups), where individuals can meet together to share what they are doing to reduce their carbon emissions and to encourage each other to keep going with it, even if the majority of others are still in denial (3G stands for three generations – the amount of time we have left).

Some of the ideas above are already being worked on, and others are not about changing the economic system but about reducing carbon emissions, but I hope these are a starting point for others to add to, if we are really serious about taking meaningful anti-climate-change measures before it is too late.

Green Economy is not a new expression.  It has been promoted by other groups, including the European Environment Agency, who produced the diagram in Fig.68:

fig68

Their definition of a Green Economy is one that generates increasing prosperity while maintaining the natural systems that sustain us95.

Their website goes on to say that:

  1. Historically, the trend has not been towards green growth. On the contrary, economic expansion has imposed ever greater demands on natural systems — both in terms of the amount of resources that we extract or harvest, and the volume of emissions and waste that we expect the environment to absorb and neutralise.
  2. As is increasingly understood, this cannot continue indefinitely: the environment has natural limits in terms of how much it can provide and absorb.

There is also a body called “The Green Economy Coalition”, which is a global network of organisations committed to accelerating a transition to a new green inclusive economy96. They believe the crisis we are in is profound and that piecemeal policy change is not good enough. They want to see deep-rooted transformation and the courage to forge a new economic vision.

Their vision is to develop an economy that provides a better quality of life for all, within the ecological limits of the planet. They are working on five action areas to make that vision a reality:

  • Managing our natural systems – people and economies depend on nature for everything; until now our economies have not reflected that dependency;
  • Investing in people – evidence shows that more equitable access to our natural resources benefits both people and planet; where communities have secure tenure and a say in decisions there are better outcomes for the environment as well as for the local economy;
  • Greening high impact sectors – these sectors include food, housing and transport and their embedded energy needs – accounting for 63% of the global ecological footprint;
  • Influencing financial flows – capital markets are dominated by large banks but smaller, values-based banks, which base their decisions on the needs of the people and the environment, have proved to outperform traditional mainstream banks on all indicators, including financial ones;
  • Measuring what matters – economic metrics, such as GDP and quarterly reports, tell us nothing about the resilience of an economy or business; some investors are asking for new metrics. Governments in Canada, Botswana and India are already working on this.

And just recently, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has invited 120-odd nations to join a new International Agency for Solar Policy and Application97, aimed at helping poorer countries in the tropics develop solar power.  India is investing $30 million to set up a headquarters and aims to raise a further $400 million.  Modi has also written an article in The Economist (Gathering steam: The World in 2016, p70)98, which outlines the basic precepts of India’s economy, to include incentivising afforestation, setting ambitious targets for renewable energy, faster and more inclusive growth and eliminating poverty.

It is encouraging to know that many people across the globe are already looking to develop new economies that no longer threaten the sustainability of the planet.  The agreement signed at the COP21 talks at the PARIS Summit also takes us in the right direction, even though fossil fuels are not mentioned in the wording of this agreement. The detail of this agreement will be discussed in chapter 8.

fig69

Fig.71

From: http://www.propostalavoro.com with permission

I have come to the end of describing the interconnected factors which have worked together to bring about a situation where the future of this planet is at risk.  Many other people, apart from me, have realised this and are working in various ways to raise awareness and to lobby for change.  However, I feel that far too many people, all over the world, do not understand the urgency of the situation and have not really curtailed their activities as a result.  This is why I have written this book and tried to keep it simple.

The following chapters will look at how we may work towards global co-operation in a united effort to bring about a sustainable future. The final chapter looks at why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, there has been so much lethargy about doing something about it.


Table 5:  Quotation from the Introduction to Richard Douthwaite’s book:                    

“The Growth Illusion” Green Books, 1999

“A decade ago, few of us had any doubt about what growth was for. It was to lift people out of poverty and enable them to have a better quality of life. Political parties dressed these
expectations up in different ways: the left would talk about growth leading to higher wages, improved social welfare, better hospitals, a lower pupil-teacher ratio and so on, while
the right would stress greater profits and a wider range of choice.

But now much of the old confidence about the results of the growth process has evaporated…the only benefits many of us expect from economic growth are increased business profits and – if the rate of growth is fast enough – extra jobs……..
So why, since we know the benefits of growth have… hefty price tags attached, is it still considered so important to achieve it? One reason is that firms are constantly trying to lower their costs by introducing labour-saving technologies. Naturally these technologies cost jobs, so every year, unless the total amount of activity in the economy increases by about 3 per cent, unemployment will rise. As far as jobs are concerned therefore, national economies have to grow pretty quickly just to stand still.

The second reason our countries need growth is that between 15 and 20 per cent of their workforces are employed at any time on investment projects designed to expand their economies in the coming years. If growth fails one year, firms that invested but couldn’t increase their sales in the flat
market will find themselves with surplus capacity. This will cause them to cut any further nvestment plans they might have, throwing the people who would have built their new 
factories, offices and shopping centres out of work. And since these newly unemployed people will obviously have less to spend, further jobs will be lost in other sectors of the economy. Consumer spending will fall even more, causing more job losses. In short, a downward spiral could develop
leading to a serious depression. The possibility of this happening terrifies every government in the world to such an extent that they are prepared to do almost anything to ensure that growth carries on regardless of its social or environmental consequences……

In 1998, I conducted an Internet survey for almost 700 participants from over 50 countries. I had expected that it would take most of the seminar to reach some sort of agreement that, whatever growth might have achieved in the past, current growth was not benefiting ordinary people. Not
at all. It took a bare 24 hours, so most of the seminary was spent discussing how the economic system could be altered to remove its need to grow.”


 

 

 

 


Leave a comment

World Human Population: Past, Present and Future

CHAPTER 5

Up until the industrial revolution, the human population in the world had remained fairly static at around one billion people but, by 1930, it had doubled to 2 billion and had reached the third billion by 1959 (in less than 30 years), the fourth billion was reached another 15 years later (1974), and the fifth billion in only another 13 years (1987). According to the most recent United Nations estimates, the human population of the world is expected to reach 8 billion people by the spring of 2024. And 90% of world’s population now lives in cities.  A big change from the largely agricultural communities that existed before the industrial revolution.

Fig.43  The human population increase since the first century

Image result for world population graph since 0 ad

From http://www.google.com

Figure 43 shows the human population increase since the first century – an almost identical curve to that in Fig. 7 (Chapter 1), which shows the increase in carbon emissions over the last two centuries.  Thus, there would appear to be a very strong link between human population increases and the increase in carbon emissions, perhaps through the common connection they both have with the industrial revolution.

The population of the world is currently growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year, with the average annual population change currently estimated at around 80 million per year. The annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. Population statisticians expect the human population to begin to level off at about 11 billion people, which they think will be reached by the end of this century, mainly because family size is reducing.  In some Asian countries, for example Bangladesh, family size is now just over 2 children per family, having reduced from about 5.5 children per family 50 years ago; this is mainly as a result of better education about birth control and a demonstrated relationship between large family size, poverty and infant mortality.

The most populous country is China, followed by India, the USA and Indonesia.  The pie chart in Figure 47 shows the breakdown by country of those countries with over 100 million people.  The United Kingdom ranks 22nd in the world in terms of population size, with just over 62½ million people.  The smallest nation listed in Wikipedia is the Pitcairn Islands, with a population of just 48.

As long ago as 1798, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)52 warned that population increase might create problems, as his calculations showed that population size increases exponentially (as in the Fig.46 graph), whereas food production increases arithmetically. He thought there would come a time when we would no longer be able to feed ourselves. He predicted that there would be a halt in population increase, followed by a rapid reduction in the population of the world, caused by natural catastrophes, such as famine, disease and war.  He made a number of suggestions about what needed to be done to curb this population increase, such as “moral restraint”, with criminal punishments for those who had more children than they could support. Some of these ideas led to him losing credibility yet, 200+ years later, we can see that his theory has come to be true, surprising in a way, as he came up with his theory long before the human population began its phase of most rapid increase.  And it is interesting that some countries (eg China, Bangladesh) have used his ideas about limiting the number of children they have, though recently China has relaxed this policy because of a shortage of young people to work in their growth industries.

 

Image result for world human population countries over 100 million breakdown pie chart

Fig.44

World Population breakdown for countries with over 100 million people

(from Google Images)

 A recent article in The Guardian condoning China’s relaxation of its one-child policy53 has met with considerable correspondence, especially by population scientists, who are continuing to urge that it is highly important to do something to curb population increase. However, human rights organisations hold a different view on this issue. And economists urge to maintain the numbers of babies being born, in order to keep furure generations to work in the (fossil-fuel-burning) industries to keep the economy growing.  Population dynamics can therefore be contentious issue.

Studies of animal populations have shown that population size tends to increase exponentially (as in the Fig.48 graph) until a point is reached when some external factor causes a decline in the population.  With some carnivorous species, this shows a regular pattern which is very strongly related to the availability of prey.  However, as with food webs, the real situation is rather more complicated than this.

 

Fig.45: Population size – the relationship between predator (lion) and prey (gazelle)

From:  https://brothersdiamond.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-geometry-of-behavior/

 In other species, a maximum population size is reached, followed by a slight decline and then a levelling off.  During the 1960s, when human population was increasing at its fastest rate, there were great concerns about the future of the human race and whether the earth would be able to produce enough food to sustain all human life.   Some recent studies by Professor Hans Rosling54 and produced in video form (“Don’t Panic – the facts about population”) have suggested that family size is reducing in most of the world, though not yet in Africa, nor in the UK. His projections show that, by 2050, eighty per cent of the world’s population will live in Asia and Africa, as population size is beginning to decline in Europe and the Americas.

The huge increases in population are undoubtedly the reason why some countries are tampering with the genetic code of certain crops, to develop food crops that give better yields, are less affected by pests etc.  However, I believe that this is another example of human activity changing the face of the earth that we inhabit, without first checking what the long-term consequencies of this tampering might be.

Population increase is probably related to a number of factors: the discovery of antibiotics, which can have the effect of prolonging human life; vaccination programmes, which have eradicated or reduced the incidence of some of the most lethal diseases (eg smallpox); a higher standard of living since the industrial revolution.   There are all kinds of theories promoted by experts in population dynamics as to what point the human population will have reached its zenith and what will be the external factor which triggers a rapid decline in human numbers.  It could be anything: overcrowding, leading to wars; climate change, leading to deaths by increased incidences of weather disasters and poor crop yield; a lack of food; air pollution/ lack of oxygen; industrial accidents, especially connected with the nuclear industry; global warming, leading to deaths from heat exposure – some countries (eg India) are already showing record high temperatures and increased numbers of deaths associated with this; the appearance of new “super-bugs”, resistant to known antibiotics; a meteor strike; or something else, not imagined as yet. An article in the Open University’s “Open Minds” magazine55, entitled “Humanity’s Last Stand” proposed five of the greatest threats to the continued survival of the human race, according to OU experts, as being:

  • The appearance of super-bugs resistant to current antibiotics;
  • Nuclear war;
  • A takeover by robots;
  • A hotter planet;
  • A meteor strike.

At the moment, we can say that the increase in the world population is one untoward consequence of the industrial revolution and its continuum.  We can also say that the increase in the human population has led to increased human activity in those areas which are damaging to our planet. So, there is another interconnectedness here:  climate change/species loss connected to human activity, especially since the industrial revolution; increased human population also since the industrial revolution, also leading to species loss as humans take over new habitats.  But there are other factors also interconnected with these three factors. One of these is affluence.

Affluence and carbon emissions

Statistics promoted by Prof. Hans Rosling demonstrate a clear relationship between extreme poverty and population dynamics.  They also show that, whilst many people are starting to move out of poverty (as a consequence of the better lifestyles of all since the industrial revolution), there are some who cannot manage this without outside help, and these remain in extreme poverty (mainly in Africa and Asia).  His statistics show that the richest people in the world have the greatest use of carbon emitting fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), being responsible for 50% of all carbon emissions.  Indeed further analysis shows that 85% of carbon emissions come from the medium rich to the very rich.  The poorest people on earth, despite their numbers, only contribute towards 15% of carbon emissions.  So, this is another interconnectedness – whilst there might still be large numbers of people living in poverty, they cannot be blamed for the carbon emissions causing climate change. In fact, many of them have become the victims of it.

So, we can see that the increase in carbon emissions has been caused by the industrial revolution but that the exponential rise in the human population has resulted in more and more human activity, causing more and more carbon emissions. Because the human population has been rising exponentially, it has set off an accompanying exponential rise in carbon emissions, the rate of which has surprised many scientists.  It is only by looking at the the interconnections that we can come to these conclusions.

Fig.46  Logo for World Population Day 2016

Image result for world population day logo

However, there are many factors at work here. Just as the food chain is rarely a simple chain but more like a food web, so it is with carbon emissions.  Increased industrialisation – yes – but also increased numbers of people involved in more and more industrialisation.  Because it is more complicated than a simple cause and effect, it will take very sophisticated methods to reverse the trend, which will encroach on every area of life. Also, actions in some countries may not be relevent in other countries, so what is needed is a global response. Some of these issues are discussed by Paul and Ann Ehrlich in their book, “The Dominant Animal; Human Evolution and the Environment” (2008)56.

Poverty

Bill Gates, founder of the Microsoft corporation, and of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is an advisor to the Global Povery Project, which campaigns for the elimination of poverty. As part of the Global Citizen Initiative, a number of ambassadors have been appointed, of whom one is my son Ben, to raise awareness of the fact that poverty could be eliminated by 2030, with relatively small increases in aid budgets. GCI challenges some of the myths and beliefs that the world is getting worse and that extreme poverty cannot be solved.  It has been said that, for the cost of the Iraq war, we could have ended world hunger for 30 years.

However, the sadness is that, when people do lift themselves out of poverty, they then start adding to the total carbon emissions by buying themselves vehicles and household equipment and gadgets that they previously could not afford.  However, I do not think this is a reason not to help people out of poverty.  What we must do is educate people about the consequences of human activity and climate change so that they, with the rest of the world, will start to find new ways of living that do not place the planet at risk.

The Super Rich

Prof. Paul Rogers has published a paper for the Oxford Research Group6,57(Sep. 2012), entitled: “Chances for Peace in the Second Decade – What is going wrong and what we must do.” He identifies two root issues which bring about the likelihood of conflict and/or war.  They are: Socioeconomic divisions and environmental constraints (climate change), which he considers to be interrelated. In a section headed “Rich-Poor World”, he outlines how global economic growth has become more and more unbalanced, leading to the existence of a trans-global elite who own own about 85% of the world’s wealth (1.5 billion people out of a world population of 7 billion), with a super-elite of many thousands of multi-millionaires.  Because of the size of the elite, it acts as a self-contained global entity and persistently fails to recognise the endemic mal-distribution of world wealth and income.  Because of improved education and better communication, many marginalised groups are becoming aware of these divisions and injustices, leading to despair, resentment and anger.  All over the world new social movements are developing, to challenge the old order, leading to unrest, conflict and wars.

Another Professor, Andrew Sayer from Lancaster University, has released a book entitled, “Why we can’t afford the Rich”58, a book which won the 2015 Peter Townsend prize. He states in his book, “We cannot continue to provide the rich and super-rich with unearned income.  Their political power is a threat to democracy,  and their excessive consumption and dependence on never-ending growth are unsustainable.”

Oxfam has recently released figures59 that show that, by 2016, the combined wealth of the richest 1% of people will have overtaken that of the remaining 99% of people.  One in nine people in the world do not have enough to eat and more than a billion live on less than $1.25 a day.

Image result for oxfam statistics in a graph 1% v 99%

Fig.47

From: graph taken from statistics provided by Oxfam (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2015/01/richest-1-per-cent-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016)

99

Fig. 48

From: lukeflegg.wordpress.com

There are those who are of the belief that big business is entirely responsible for terrorist attacks.In my first book I argue that it was no coincidence that the 9/11 outrage was targeted at the World Trade Centre – an icon for big business.  In her documentary, “The Economics of Happiness”, Helena Norberg-Hodge60 sets out how the world is moving simultaneously in two directions: Government and big business continue to promote globalisation and the consolidation of corporate power, whilst the rest of the world are resisting those policies and working to forge a very different future, which involves re-building on a more human scale, with the localisation of economics being the goal.

Urbanisation

Concomitant with the increase in the world’s population, there has been an increasing trend in people moving to cities, in search of work, so that now 90% of the world’s peoples live in cities.  A good example of this trend occurred with my own family ancestors on my father’s side, who were originally farm labourers in Norfolk. During the mid-1800s, due to imports of vast quantities of American wheat, many British farms went out of business and my ancestors found themselves out of work.  My great great grandfather, John Jackson, and his large family, travelled north to Lincolnshire and then Yorkshire, finding work eventually in the coal mines and coke industry, thus contributing unwittingly to the whole industrialisation process. And a similar story can be told over much of the world, as factories have replaced farms and the IR Continuum spreads.

Industrialisation of Farming

But, there have also been trends to make farms become more like factories, with the introduction of battery farms for the raising of poultry and egg production, the keeping of pigs in restricted metal cages, whilst they give birth, and the transport of live animals across continents under inhumane conditions and without water, only to be slaughtered abroad in sometimes brutal practices.  There has been limited success in abolishing some of the most brutal of practices, by campaigning groups, but there is still a long way to go before animals are seen as related species sharing this world with us, rather than commodities to be sold and slaughtered for profit.

Farmers have also utilised more of their land, with the pressure to become more productive, so that hedgerows have disappeared and, with them, many of the bird species that nest there, along with small mammals61). However, legislation has been introduced to control this61.

Some of the inhumane consequencies of the industrialisation of farming

fig49

Fig.49:  Battery hens

 

Fig 50:  A sow being kept in a restrictive pen after giving birth.  

 

Image result for transport of sheep across oceans

Fig 51:  Sheep being shipped by ocean in very cramped inhumane conditions

Another of the situations predicted by Malthus was the development of “gluts” when farm production over-supplied with certain crops and foodstuffs.  In Europe there have been gluts of sugar, butter, wheat and now milk.  And at the time that I write, UK dairy farmers and going out of business because supermarkets are failing to pay a fair price for milk, because they can buy it more cheaply elsewhere.  The Fair Trade system was introduced a few years’ back, to help developing countries sell their goods at a fair price; this sytem also needs to be introduced for dairy farmers in the UK.

In some countries, people have stayed in rural areas and continued to till the land, but because of increased populations, there is less land available.  This has resulted in the felling of forests, in order to produce agricultural land.  And this itself has affected the climate, as these very same forests were the major “sinks” in which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was absorbed to produce oxygen, through the process of photosynthesis (chapter 1).  The loss of the forests has also led to the loss of many rare species , as their habitat is lost (chapter 1).

In some countries too, there has been a move to fell forests to grow illicit crops, which are more lucrative, thus fuelling the drugs cartels and parallel economies.

Values

One of the factors associated with a heterogenous world population is that people in different parts of the world grow up with different values and will seek to adhere to those values, wherever they live.  It is part of their cultural identity.  Thus, many in the UK adhere to a protestant work ethic, which may have been behind the industrial revolution.  Their value system also has much in common with Christian values of justice and fairness, even though many people no longer have a faith. In this country we also value education. This is, of course a generalisation, as many from the business world born out of the IR Continuum, do not adhere to the values of justice and fairness but instead see the acquisition of money as their main goal, perhaps because of ancestral links with the landowners of our feudal past.  They are not alone in this, as several of the other cultures settling in this country have different goals and values, mostly based on family and/or the acquisition of wealth.  This may be because they have come from poverty in their own countries, and want to send money to their relatives back home, or because they have come from a value system which admires those who have made a lot of money, rather than those who are well educated. Those coming from cultures which value the family (and father) above all else may find it difficult to adjust to a system based on the employer/employee relationship. In a multi-cultural society like ours, this can lead to conflicts, disaffection and a lack of awareness of the grave issues facing the world today.

Image result for multicultural britain

Fig 52: Multi-cultural Britain

The motivation to make money is a strong one and can also lead to a denial of the seriousness of climate change.

Many young people born in this country of parents who emigrated here from commonwealth countries, find themselves torn between two cultures:  the culture which their parents still value and the British culture.  They may feel they do not belong to either and this can lead to disaffection and the attractiveness of joining terrorist groups or criminal gangs, to which they feel they can belong.  It is a development with which we have not yet come to grips in the UK – and a similar situation exists in France, Belgium and Germany and other European countries. I worked in an inner city area of Birmingham for some years, trying to help the unemployed find work, most of them young, ethnic minority men.  It was very difficult as most potential employers just did not want them. I saw many becoming disaffected and angry and others turning to drugs and/or crime.  I do not find it surprising therefore that some young people have been radicalised and have joined terrorist groups.

I believe that it is differences in our value systems, way of life, mother tongue, clothing and appearance that lead to disharmony between ethnic groups and can, if we allow it, lead to racism.

Any strategy for the future needs to acknowledge that, whilst we all have in common our humanity, we may adhere to different value systems – and these need to be respected, if we are to move to greater co-operation and joint efforts to save the planet.

Migration issues

Some of the experts who have tried to predict the future of the human race, as a consequence of the multiple effects of population explosion, climate change and war, have foreseen that, in the future, there would be massive migration from Asian and African countries to Europe, Australasia and America.  As I write this, it would appear that this migration has already started, with thousands of refugees fleeing from the Middle East, Asia and Africa to Europe, at a rate with which the European countries cannot cope.  If the experts are right, this is only going to get worse, with more deaths from drowning in the Mediterrean Sea and more exploitation from ruthless traffickers who are keen to make money out of this human crisis.  It has already led to conflict and division between different European countries about how best to cope with the situation.  Some want to close their borders completely but this strategy is just as inhumane as the practices described earlier in treating farm animals as if they were factory commodities.  The wars in Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan have resulted in huge numbers of refugees, including pregnant women, the elderly and children, fleeing the violence in order to find a safe place to live and trekking hundreds of miles across countries to reach their preferred destination.

According to George Monbiot62, one of the likely catalysts for the 2011 uprising in Syria was a massive drought – the worst in the region in the instrumental record – that lasted from 2006 to 2010. It caused the emigration of one and a half million rural workers into Syrian cities, and generated furious resentment when Bashar al-Assad’s government failed to respond effectively. Climate models suggest that man-made global warming more than doubled the likelihood of a drought of this magnitude.

Wars in North African countries have also led to large numbers of people fleeing their countries, trying to cross the Mediterranean in flimsy boats, to get to Europe.  Thousands have drowned. Others have ended up in the Greek islands and Greece, already in dire economic circumstances, has had to cope with helping the refugees as best they can. Yet others, trying to get to Britain across the English Channel, are trapped in makeshift camps in Calais.

fig53

Fig.53:  Refugees trying to reach the safety of other countries

Communication

The computer age, and especially the development of the internet, has led to significant changes and advances in communication.  People are now in touch on a regular basis through social networks and email.  This has transformed the world, both for good and for bad.  Whilst the media still try to control the news and impose their own biases on the public, and have a modicum of success in this, people are also receiving information informally through other networks.  Thus, demonstrations can be organised very quickly and, in some instances, this has brought down governments, as in the Arab Spring and in Ukraine.  There is currently a world-wide disaffection with politicians, who are seen as corrupt and not trusted any more.  Unfortunately, bringing down a government, or a despotic leader, does not always lead to the changes people are seeking, as others come in to fill the vacuum, that are also unpopular and/or corrupt.  There is thus, at the moment, considerable unrest and instability throughout the world and it is difficult to predict where this will end.

It is also difficult to predict where the new-found ease of communication through the internet will take us.  Let’s hope that, ultimately it will be for the betterment of this planet, its peoples and its wildlife.

Image result for Facebook connections throught the world blue map

Facebook connections throughout the world in 2010 and 2013

Overcrowding

In some, well-publicised experiments with rats in the 1950’s, Calhoun found that when rats were kept in extremely crowded conditions, but with unlimited water and food and protection from predators, there were a number of changes in their behaviour.  Male rats in the most crowded pens became  violent  and aggressive,  “going berserk, attacking females, juveniles and less-active males.” There was also “sexual deviance.” The mortality rate among females was extremely high and there was a breakdown in maternal behaviour. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building nests and even began to attack their offspring, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the most crowded pens.  Parallels were drawn between these experiments with rats and whether the same could be said to be true for humans, in particular those who lived in cities (Calhoun, in the Scientific American 1962). There were a number of reviews and other experiments following this, which concluded that it was too much social interaction that caused the pathological behaviour, rather than the overcrowding. The studies have been reviewed Carla Garnett63.

A Civilised Society

At the beginning of this book, I included a list of factors important in a civilised society, put together at the turn of this century by Barbara Panvel and me (Table 2).  I believe that any developments that are made in the future to rescue the planet are carried out with this list in mind. Indeed, these characteristics may become even more important as we, as a global population, seek to find ways to co-operate more closely to save the planet.

Much of the unrest caused by better communication through the internet is because the main concerns of ordinary people are about corruption in leaders and unhealthy alliances between politicians and big business.  Some of the issues of importance to ordinary people are just not being taken on board by politicians and leaders, sometimes to their cost. Richard Douthwaite, in his book “The Growth Illusion” (1999)5,64 provides data from research that shows that most people when asked about what is important in the quality of life that they lead, come up with issues that are, in the main, not related to how much cash is available to them.  Things like:

  • The quantity of goods and services produced and consumed;
  • The quality of the environment they live in;
  • The fraction of their time available for leisure;
  • How fairly (or unfairly) available income is distributed;
  • How good or bad working conditions are;
  • How easy it is to get a job;
  • The safety of their future;
  • How healthy they are;
  • The level of cultural activity, the standard of education and ease of acces to it;
  • The quality of the housing available;
  • The chance to develop a satisfactory religious or spiritual life;
  • The strength of one’s family, home and community ties.

There is much in common between this list (from Douthwaite) and the list that Barbara and I produced (Table 2) of the characteristics of a civilised society. Also, a recent report published by the New Economics Foundation65 has used a shorter list to determine the UK’s success in economic terms, under the headings: good jobs, wellbeing, environment, fairness and health. A summary from that report and an extensive quote from Douthwaite are included with Chapter 7, on the economy.

Certainly in the UK, there seems to be an obsession among politicians about the economy and growth but little concern for issues in Douthwaite’s list, nor the effects of global warming and climate change, nor for people in poverty, nor for the many refugees fleeing their homes because of warfare there.  The anomally is that, for the UK at least, some of these wars people are fleeing from were caused by us messing in those very countries from which they are fleeing and actually making things worse for them. People fleeing from war-stricken countries do so in the hope that some of the things in the three lists may be available to them elsewhere.

Population increase and the future of the planet

At the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned that population scientists believe that the human population of the world will level off at 11 billion people at the turn of the century. Unfortunately, this is about the same time that climate scientists are saying we may be facing a mass extinction of species (three generations into the future), which will have a significant effect on the human population.  If we are going to do anything about all of these interrelated issues, it needs to be now – it will not wait until three generations’ time.  Something needs to be done to limit or reduce population increase.