Herewith a first draft on political considerations, which is very much
open for comment, correction, additions etc
Best wishes to all for a Happy Christmas and a productive New Year.
John Ranken
WG1 The Big Transnational Questions - Political Implications
NB Action is needed at all levels from Local to Global - proceeding in
parallel wherever changes can be made.
1. Concept of a Steady State Economy. The case is made clearly by Herman
Daley and Dietz & O’Neill. Also by 1960’s “Limits to Growth” Report etc
But climate change etc is telling us that before reaching a steady
state, our carbon footprint needs to be drastically reduced to a tenth
or twentieth of its present size. Because we need to consume less
(Stephen Emmott “10 Billion”), and because of the close correlation
between our current Planetary Crisis and Economic Growth, the growth of
Financial and Manufactured Capital being at the expense of Natural
Capital. (Porritt - Capitalism as if the World Matters), economic growth
also needs to be reduced by a similar factor of 10-20.
Our Global Economic System exacerbates the problem. It needs to be
replaced by smaller scale local bioregional economies (Molly Scott Cato
- The Bioregional Economy), and withdrawal from the growth oriented
global system, eg transitionally by a shorter working week for everyone
employed in the high-carbon//high growth system (Coote & Franklin, NeF,
Time on our side - a shorter working week).
The politics of maintaining and extending the global system are well
organised, and not easily open to public scrutiny or democratic control.
The media is generally complicit in promoting the myths of perpetual
progress and higher standards of living. Denial is widespread and well
orchestrated, as seen at successive UN Climate Change conferences in
Copenhagen & Stockholm(Observer and Guardian reports).
Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine documents how the neo-liberal
pro-growth doctrine of the Chicago School of Economics has been promoted
in the wake of worldwide crises including Asian tsunamis, China, Iraq,
Argentina, and closer to home in our own and the EU’s financial crises.
How to achieve a Steady State Economy? “Upstream” measures are more
effective than “Downstream” = Turning the Off switch at the oil well,
rather than reducing CO2 emissions (Oliver Tickell “Kyoto 2”). Cuts and
rationing of oil, gas & coal production would automatically result in
lower CO2 emissions by users. Politically, fossil fuel lobbyists have
been adept at negotiating downstream emission reductions in the Kyoto
Protocols which takes the pressure off the suppliers of fossil fuels.
Tradable permits are also a market mechanism which contribute to
business as usual, rather than “keeping the oil in the ground”. In
parallel with the fossil fuel corporations cutting back fossil fuel
production and use - we all, from individuals to businesses, govts etc need wealth reduction plans led by the banks and institutions of the
City, Wall St etc.
Achieving the framework of international law which is needed is
difficult (see OU module Environmental Policies in an International
Context), though there are some success stories. CFCs were banned to
reduce the ozone layer problem; fishing quotas have helped to preserve
fish stocks, although there are anomalies and difficulties in monitoring
the quotas; there has been some progress towards CO2 emission reduction
targets, but nowhere near what is needed, and national policies and
targets continue to be undermined. Growth remains the prime
consideration in global economic policy, with scant recognition of the
interconnection with environmental and social degradation.
The UN is the major political agency for implementing frameworks for
international policies, but its work is often undermined by the more
powerful groupings of the WTO, G8, US dominated “international
community”, and the “unseen hand” of market forces, which do not operate
within the constraints of natural limits and social responsibility.
Individual countries have an important part to play in resisting the
pressures of the global growth economy. Ecuador held out against the
efforts of US multinational corporations to exploit its resources, but
failed to get the support it asked for from other countries in doing so
(New Internationalist 2013). In setting higher environmental standards,
the EU has helped its member states to adopt more rigorous policies than
they would otherwise have done.
There are additional/alternative models for helping to bring about the
changes needed :
a) Pressure Groups eg TOES, Millenium Debt Campaign which achieved some
success in relieving third world debt, and led to the New Economic
Foundation’s work in addressing the rich world’s debt and alternative
economic models. FoE, Greenpeace, Transition Towns and similar
action-oriented groups are developing alternative models as well as
protesting and engaging on the international stage. Christians take part
in these activities as well as groups such as Christian Aid, Christian
Carbon Group (?) etc
b) Protest and Direct Action (going back to Jesus and the temple
moneychangers) eg Greenpeace’s Arctic 30 now being released from Russian
jails; fringe groups at Seattle, Copenhagen, Warsaw etc; instant action
via IT and social media etc.
c) Action by individuals as employees, shareholders, pensioners,
customers with regard to the global corporations and organisations in
which they have a stake.
d) Sustained learning and action learning (See-Judge-Act), in both
formal and informal settings, to further public understanding and
pressure for political change. Much is being done through publications,
adult education and local groups. Churches and faith groups with their
traditions of simple living and resistance to riches have a special part
to play. Globally The World Council of Churches can strengthen its role
as catalyst and promoter of appropriate action.
John Ranken, December 2013