In my experience, the greatest driver for taking care of the resources we have and not abusing or overusing them, is the idea that you've got to take care of yourself. For example...
When I was at WWF a gentleman from WWF-Peru spoke about transforming forestry policy. Previously any logger who wanted to log 1000 ha (or 100...it's been a while) or less applied for a plot of land and got one year to log it. This policy led to large logging companies exploiting resource-poor loggers in such a way as the large companies would provide equipment, and take most of the profit, if the smaller loggers applied for the land. The resulting cycle was rampant deforestation - take all you can in the time alloted.
WWF staff worked to change the law so that small loggers could apply for larger plots of land and longer time periods. They helped teach best practices for sustainable logging and the small loggers organized a co-op which provided needed resources and even health insurance. As a result, the industry is now far less destructive and one of the co-op members had the first baby in their family to be born in a hospital.
Because the co-op members knew they would have to sustain themselves from a single plot of land for many years, they changed their practices from overconsumption to sustainable consumption.
This guy was sick of paying to dispose his waste. So, now he uses it to create his own energy. In my ideal world, this happened because the onion farmer had to pay the true cost of all the processes involved in his business. As money is a measure of resources, it was cheaper, and therefore less resource consumptive, to recycle his own waste for energy.
Here are my specific ideas on how to encourage self-sufficiency:
No more subsidies!! Stop making logging/cattle raising, etc cheaper than it really is. Pay the real cost of growing trees and cows and people will value the products more and waste less. This can be expanded to seriously reducing the size of the federal government. The USDA is mostly a large farm subsidy. The meat explosion/tenderizing experiment wasted lots of money, time and C4 with no usable results. If the beef industry found this to be a useful, profitable tool, they would have done the work themselves. Turns out you can tenderize meat with C4, but it is far too expensive, and therefore resource consumptive, to be practical.
Encourage returns to town-square style businesses. More walking. Less strip malls. Buy your meat from the mom and pop butcher who got his meat from a local small-scale farm. I want to know where my meat came from. I want to drive by the farm and keep an eye on how they run things. I want to talk with them at the town festivals. I love that this is a consumer-driven initiative. I think it is hindered due to federal subsidies that favor interstate trucking. Reigning in the feds and returning power to local or state governments will be a huge help here. States are already returning to protectionist policies in the current economy. Indiana roads built by Indiana companies. Returning power to local entities and encouraging states to be more self-sufficient and take care of themselves has other benefits, including populations decreasing in unsustainable areas that rely on importing basic resources (Vegas).
Finally - Shorter work-weeks, longer vacations. Let's decrease the standard work week to 30 hours and increase standard vacations to 6 weeks a year. This will decrease our production capabilities - less work means less consumption of resources for both industry and workers. We'll get our GDP in line with lots of lovely places to live. We'll decrease our purchases of disposable crap. We'll have fewer closets, fewer TVs, fewer cell phones. Even though production would likely decrease, there will still be things to be done, which means 3 people working 40 hour weeks becomes 4 people working 30 hour weeks. Additionally, we'll have time to do more things that increase individual self-sufficiency - gardening, canning, cooking our own food rather than relying on microwaves. We'll repair broken items instead of quickly buying new - mend socks, resole shoes, fix up cool old lights from Goodwill.
What do you think?
David Korten's Keynote Presentation Now Online
15 years ago
I say if you want a 30hr work week whats stoppin ya? Go for it!
ReplyDeleteI think everyone agrees subsidies are bad but what do we do about foreign manufacturers who don't have to pay the "true cost" of their environmental damage to undercut our local producers and sell us 2 billion items covered in lead paint?
Does paying the true cost and returning to mom and pop retailing mean anti-globalization? I think it does. So no more subsidies = a lot of import tax?
Import taxes are not a good answer. If your economic system and values are compatible with buying cheap crap at Wal-mart that is dependent upon cheap labor coordinated by oppressive regimes than so be it. If you are trying to make a buck "fairly" while competing with that, you will lose, unless you can differentiate and add value (real or perceived) to your product or move your production to take advantage of cheaper resources. Imposing taxes and subsidies does not help any of the underlying situations because you always will have a doppleganger in some other part of the world that will unthinkingly benefit from the cheaper transformation of resources and any import taxes that get imposed will likely show improper favoritism towards certain groups or segments of the economy. We already have globalization - can't get rid of it until we run out of cheap oil in a few years. In the mean time, we should open the trade to make it as free as possible.
ReplyDeleteManufacturers do need to be held accountable for externalities. The accountability should be to civil justice systems. We should not participate in or allow systems to propagate that shield people from accountability by stacking the rules of a justice system in favor of money or power. This is bad in the US, much worse in our major trading partners overseas. No one cares though. Civic engagement is pathetic, the government can do whatever it pleases and favor whomever they want. Bread and circus is on sale at Wal-mart and as long as that continues, why should people care?
Cynicism and apathy won't fix it. Neither will relying on a non-existent civil justice system in another country.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what is improper about favoritism towards certain segments of the economy who actually pay the true cost of the critical externalities that will allow us to have a future, but opening the trade market as much as possible until we run out of cheap fuel is like throwing gas on the fire so we can rebuild from scratch again as soon as possible, no?
You're absolutely right - cynicism and apathy won't fix it, what cynicism and apathy are fantastic at doing is allowing injustice to exist and become prolifigate. Pile it up for a hundred years until the only way to "solve" our apathy induced problems is through a command and control system of government.
ReplyDeleteThat is one response and I understand the logic behind it, but it is one I disagree with very strongly and believe will can not be successful. Running out of cheap fuel means chinese flipflops and finger puzzles cost more to produce and ship, re-incentivizes having your manufacturing base integrated with your consumer base and reverses the trends of the past years. It's already happening - balance returning to the force. It took a long time to get to the mess we are in right now, we should have some patience in fixing things, not try to impose instant legislation or mandates to counteract hundreds of years worth of consequences of the worst behavior and apathy of millions or billions of people. We won't need to favor anyone to get our manufacturing back at all, just let nature (geology and the free market) run it's course. The end of oil will force anti-globalization. This will have a profound effect on accountability for externalities as supply chains will be much more visible to the consumers. No longer out of sight, out of mind.
Would you dispute that >95% of the world (including our leadership) does not really have any clue as to what level of consumption is sustainable or why? The Chinese and Detroit autoworkers would probably have very different answers and import taxes or subsidies in our systems as we know them might work for one and punish the other - is that their fault? By helping one, we punish another - who are we really trying to punish, or doesn't that matter? I don't see how we can legislate or tax this to a successful conclusion. If we allow trade, we should allow it fairly and treat our partners with equal respect.
If we care about our future, it is our responsibility to educate and spread the word to help people understand the issues surrounding sustainability and learn to help themselves and adjust before it is too late. It is the only path I see to a happy future. The alternative (if we really are part of an unsustainable system) might be a Malthusian disaster.
Excellent points - I have difficulty seeing faults in them. I am very curious, though, does anyone else who reads this blog have an opinion on the OP?
ReplyDeleteChris - good questions. Knowing absolutely nothing about how the systems work, I don't really have a problem with protectionist economic policies. However, I would prefer if it were consumer decisions fueled by patriotism and a desire to leave a planet for the future.
ReplyDeleteWhat was going on in the early 90s with "Buy American and American's work" and Saturn tooting their own horns for exporting cars to Japan?
Also - a 30 hour work week is definitely in my 5 year plan.
Thinking about this just now, teachers are the only ones who get away with a 30hr work week and still have benefits. Why is that? I am guessing because they have the most powerful union left in the US.
ReplyDelete