http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/oct/15/climate-change-economic-
growth-capitalism

  Climate change v capitalism: the feast is almost over

  Jerry Mander

  guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 October 2010 14.01 BST

  Six weeks from now, in Cancun, Mexico, the world's nations will gather
  under the auspices of the United Nations (the UNFCCC) to again discuss
  how to alleviate climate change. They'll try to pick up the broken
  pieces from last December in Copenhagen, where we witnessed tortured
  dances by government leaders trying to avoid the realities of our time,
  and the profound conundrums we face as a society. They accomplished
  nothing, and may reprise that performance in Cancun.

  Take the case of President Obama. He generally signals a serious desire
  to address climate issues, but, like the leaders of all the developed
  industrial nations, has been caught in a terrible dilemma. He tries to
  argue for lower emissions limits, both globally and in the US. But he
  is simultaneously desperate to revive rapid economic growth and
  stimulate a sluggish industrial economy hampered by rising costs of
  energy, rapidly diminishing resources and venal bankers.

  So, while Obama talked climate change in Copenhagen, he pushed for
  accelerated growth and consumption, emphasising such climate-deadly
  industries as private automobile production, new road construction,
  nuclear power generation, and continued coal extraction (including
  horrendous "mountain top removal") while extolling an entirely
  theoretical "clean coal". He was also for expanding manufacture of
  heavy industrial equipment, and for more export-oriented industrial
  agriculture, as well as "new housing starts", increased oil drilling in
  deepwater zones - such as BP's - and for deadly tar sands development,
  all in hopes of growth, profit and jobs.

  Watching his performance from a distance, we really don't know if he
  understands the contradictions in this pattern, how one goal cancels
  the other, or if he has simply made a "safer" political choice. If so,
  it's safer only in the very short run, as the entire economic system,
  and possibly industrial-consumer society itself, face intrinsic
  systemic problems, which may not be solvable. Trying to save an old
  economic model that is near collapse, he may sacrifice the opportunity
  to mitigate climate change and save the world.

  Does Obama know this? If so, wouldn't it be "safer" politically to tell
  the truth about it? Some enlightened political leadership would be
  really helpful right now. But for the moment, the main point is this:
  in a choice between addressing the stresses of the planet and
  addressing the stresses of corporate capitalism, President Obama
  chooses the latter, while undermining the former.

  Let's be fair. Obama is not alone. The leaders of nearly all
  governments of the world - and their opposition leaders - exhibited
  similar internal conflict and timidity in Copenhagen. Even those with
  true desire to cut carbon felt that their priority was to also
  stimulate economic growth for their own industries, at all costs.
  Without growth, big businesses die, and so do national economies, and
  jobs. The whole system is threatened. That's really all anyone talks
  about now.

  Whether it's the political left or right, Obama, or Cameron, or
  Sarkozy, or Putin, or Wen, or Harper or Miliband or Gingrich or Palin,
  or any political candidate for any office, they're all talking about
  the necessity to stimulate growth. The media does, too, whether it's
  the Guardian or the Murdoch press, the Financial Times or the New York
  Times. They all agree on the one thing: growth, growth, growth. That's
  the lifeblood of the system. Everyone is hunting the magic elixir to
  revive rapid growth. How to build and sell more cars? How to increase
  industrial production, from computers to heavy equipment to industrial
  agriculture? How to increase exports?

  But there's a missing link in the discussion, ignored by nearly
  everyone in the mainstream debate: nature. They speak about our economy
  as if it were a separate entity, its own ever-expanding universe,
  unconnected to any realities outside itself, not embodied within a
  larger system from which, actually, it emerged and can't escape. Nature
  cannot be left out of the discussion. It may be the most important
  detail of the entire conversation. Leaving it out of consideration is,
  well, suicidal. Here's the point: never-ending growth on a small planet
  with finite resources is a profound impossibility. It's an absurdity. A
  fantasy. It's time to wake up.

  The missing link

  Look around you. The clothes you are wearing, the chair you are sitting
  in, the implements on the stove, the stove, the floor and walls of your
  room, its carpet, the lights and the switches, the electrical lines in
  the walls, your mobile phone, the road outside, the car you drive and
  all its tyres, wires, metals, glass, fabrics, batteries; airplanes,
  skyscrapers, tanks, missiles, computers ... were all once minerals and
  metals dug up from the earth, then shipped around the world,
  transformed, assembled, shipped again to a store near you, and sold. Or
  else they were living beings: trees, plants, animals, fibres, corals
  that had their own independent existence. Even "synthetics" began as
  natural elements. Is your shirt made of polyester? Polyester is
  plastic. Plastic is oil. Oil used to be dinosaurs, trees, plants. All
  of it is nature. The entire material economy began as part of the
  earth, buried in the ground, or it grew from it, or it was alive before
  we transformed it. But it's disappearing fast.

  The whole situation is something new for capitalism, a shock. For two
  centuries it's been like a closely guarded secret that the entire
  economic system we live in, and assumed was forever, is actually part
  of another larger system, but with only so many resources and dump
  sites. But the secret is out. We are eating up the materials that
  sustain us, and the feast is almost over.

  During the great heydays of capitalism - the last two centuries of
  spectacular development and growth - we lived in what the great
  ecological economist Herman Daly called a "full world" of resources. We
  thought they were unlimited, some kind of permanent gift to the human
  race from God, so we could display our stewardship, or something. But
  it's not a "full world" any more. Somebody should tell our leaders.

  In addition to those climate impacts, we now face rapidly diminishing
  supplies of cheap oil and other fossil fuels. They call it "peak oil".
  This is catastrophic for our system. Cheap fossil fuels were the
  primary engine that grew our society over the last two centuries.
  That's soon over, and there is no combination of sustainable
  alternative replacements capable of maintaining industrial society at
  nearly its present level.

  Perhaps ultimately even more important is the global scarcity of fresh
  water. The World Bank already predicts the next world war will be over
  water. Healthy topsoils are also seriously diminished, as are
  agricultural lands, converted to other uses, and global food supplies,
  which are ever more expensive. So are forests and their hundreds of
  crucial byproducts, as well as biodiversity of every kind, life in the
  oceans, coral reefs, and key minerals, including coltan (for your
  mobile phone), lithium, phosphorous, lead, zinc, tin, copper, gold, and
  hundreds of others. Following two centuries of voracious exploitation
  of every mineral, metal and biological resource, we will soon be facing
  what Daly calls an "empty world".

  Watch for the big announcement: THE PARTY IS OVER. Without ever-
  expanding resources, ever-expanding production and consumption, our
  economic growth model becomes a relic, instantly obsolete. But so far,
  no one in leadership roles (with one or two exceptions, as we will see)
  is admitting to that. If they know it, they're too scared to say so.

  Deal killers

  No individual or group of countries was to blame for the failures of
  Copenhagen last year. A lot of people accused China of dragging its
  feet, seeking advantage. Others blamed the G77 poorest countries for
  demanding partial compensation for prior resource thefts from colonial
  days, and for having suffered most of the pollution fallout from the
  over-consuming rich. Many blamed the richest countries for hanging on
  to their deadly indulgences and ill-gotten favours. I shared that view.
  Yet the true deal-killer was ultimately the commitment of nearly all
  countries to exponential growth everywhere, while simultaneously faking
  their commitment to emissions cuts. That was the impossible burden of
  Copenhagen, and the real dead end, and we just might see it all
  replayed in Cancun next month.

  Nowhere among the assembled nations (with the lonely exceptions of
  Bolivia and Ecuador) has there been national emphasis on "conservation"
  - that is, advocating less production and less consumption of energy
  and materials, less global export shipping, "powering down". Less
  globalisation and more localisation. More emphasis on regional self-
  sufficiency, especially in food and energy production and the need for
  a democratic post-capitalist model, free of a growth imperative, that
  could live within the carrying capacity of the planet and its
  atmosphere, while seeking greater equity. Such moves would require
  economic transformations that few corporate powers, bankers, heads of
  state can accept.

  So, we are left with a profound dilemma: do we serve the short-term
  interests of profits and growth? Or do we face reality and serve long-
  term planetary survival? How to solve one problem without exacerbating
  the other? So far, the decisions have favoured the corporate side, as
  usual. But circumstances may change that.

  The rights of nature

  Six months after Copenhagen, in April 2010, President Evo Morales of
  Bolivia convened a meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, gathering some
  30,000 of the protesters whose viewpoints had been ignored at the UN
  climate summit. Morales found significant support from other South
  American countries, many of whom are part of the G77, in attempting to
  redefine strategies to deal with climate change. One of those
  countries, Ecuador, had for several years been arguing in favour of
  such concepts as "the inherent rights of nature", which was recently
  added to Ecuador's national constitution amid great fanfare. It also
  promoted an idea by which poor countries would leave their oil
  resources in the ground, in exchange for compensation from rich
  countries. The rich countries declined; they would rather have the oil.

  Meanwhile, Morales, the only head of state from an indigenous heritage,
  made his position clear, first in Copenhagen, and then in Cochabamba:
  "We have a stark choice between capitalism and survival," he said. "The
  countries of the world have failed in their obligations . Either
  capitalism lives or Mother Earth lives."

  Morales proposed three ideas: 1) nature should be granted rights that
  protect ecosystems from annihilation, under a Universal Declaration of
  Mother Earth Rights, with enforcement powers; 2) poor countries should
  receive compensation for crises they face but had little part in
  creating, as per the G77 position; and 3) there should be a continuing
  "world referendum on climate change", open to all people. Further
  meetings are ongoing.

  Morales also denounced systemic dependency on economic growth and
  overconsumption as being inherently harmful to the earth, and he
  advocated for the economic practices of indigenous peoples. He pointed
  out that more than 50% of surviving global biodiversity, including
  forests, is found on indigenous lands. This is not accidental, he
  argued, but consistent with most indigenous peoples' worldviews over
  millennia, accepting non-hierarchical, non-exploitative relationships
  with nature.

  Morales's comments received little coverage in mainstream media, except
  for one lengthy interview on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, on the
  Pacifica Network in the US. During the discussion, Goodman asked about
  lithium mining activities in Bolivia. (Lithium is a crucial ingredient
  for modern batteries, and Bolivia has the world's largest reserves.)
  Those mines, run by Japanese multinational corporations, were subject
  to protests by indigenous groups during the Cochabamba summit. Morales
  admitted that he himself is not entirely free from the same conundrums
  that face other leaders. Bolivia, among the poorest, most exploited
  nations, desperately needs export cash, Morales said, though he bemoans
  that need. He committed to studying long-term effects from these mines,
  and how "to regenerate healthy lands". He also said Bolivia will now
  demand at least 60% ownership in all such mining operations.

  The interview offered few hints as to how Bolivia might balance
  industrial extraction with protections for nature. Does Morales have
  new economic structures in mind? How would he provide jobs? Would
  Bolivia become a mixed economy, accepting corporate participation when
  desirable, but within a state-controlled framework, like China? Or does
  he really advocate an eventual return to indigenous economic models? If
  so, does that imply no modern economic development on any meaningful
  scale? Beginning to answer such questions was the stated mandate of the
  Cochabamba process. We'll see how it proceeds and if it can influence
  Cancun, or other meetings.

  But the conclusion is clear. From here on, no one gets off easy.
  Everyone's in the same boat, caught in the same systemic conflict. The
  conundrums apply as much to Morales as to Cameron and Obama. Growth is
  over, and they need a real, clear vision of a way forward. That's true
  for all of us. Surely it's time to agree that the first step is to
  start drawing curtains on an obsolete, out-of-date system that could
  kill us all, and to shape a new one. Which brings us to the good news.

  Steady state

  Already there are many hundreds of groups, from every continent, at
  work defining the ingredients of an alternative economic system, one
  that can live within the carrying capacity of the planet. I don't have
  room to describe their work here, and it varies depending on political
  orientation. But, a few points.

  The universal quest is to define systems that that can deliver economic
  sufficiency and equity, permanently, while remaining within the
  carrying capacities of the planet. Most accept that systemic economic
  growth will soon be over, though growth is encouraged in specific
  timely activities - for example, certain renewable energy forms, local
  agriculture practice, sustainable building and the arts. Other
  ingredients of a new economy that some groups advocate include:

  . Adoption of an international "oil depletion protocol" for an orderly,
  equitable decline of fossil-fuel use and a transition to less total
  energy use; a commonly used term for this is "powering down" - that is,
  aiming at minimum energy for sufficiency and equity.

  . Universal emphasis on conservation and efficiency in all activities.

  . Introduction of "steady state" (no-growth) economic models. Extensive
  research on global, regional and local carrying capacities.

  . Emphasis on localisation not globalisation (thus reducing negative
  impacts of global transport). Local production for local consumption,
  especially in crucial areas such as food, housing and energy.
  Restrictions on the conversion of food-growing lands. Emphasis on the
  revitalisation of sustainable local agriculture systems. On national
  levels, revival of the "import substitution" model; an emphasis on
  local production for essential needs, rather than trade. Greater
  regulation and less movement of capital across borders.

  . Less long-distance shipping, not more.

  . Development of local participatory democracies. Various kinds have
  been proposed. Many favour the concept of "subsidiarity". Political
  power moves to the lowest practical level. (Climate change requires
  international agreement; economic and political rule-making should be
  local.)

  . Ban privatisation of the "natural commons" - water, forests, genetic
  structures, medicinal plants, and so on - as well as such public
  commons as education, health, security, and (some say) media.

  . Legal confirmation for the inherent rights of nature, with a coda and
  enforcement standards. Universal application of the UN Declaration on
  the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Return of indigenous lands
  expropriated for mining and oil development.

  . End legal "personhood" for corporations; introduction of "site here
  to sell here" policies; establishment of local boards of directors
  including significant labour and environmental representation, among
  other local stakeholders. Encouragement of community-owned and worker-
  owned enterprises.

  . Introduction of new standards of economic measurement. Elimination of
  GDP as a measurement of societal success, substituting alternative
  measurements for human wellbeing and the wellbeing of the natural
  world. These include such community values as health, education and
  happiness, rather than wealth accumulation, and full protections for
  global biodiversity.

  . Advocating for standards of "sufficiency" rather than wealth
  accumulation.

  . Development of a formal process for the transfer of green technology,
  and some degree of surplus wealth, from wealthy countries to poor ones,
  given a planetary framework of reduced economic possibilities. Return
  of traditional agricultural lands, expropriated during colonial days
  and during more recent neoliberal globalisation.

  That is the tiniest sample of what thousands of people are now
  discussing in various forums, including Cochabamba, World Social Forums
  and many others. For more information, I suggest internet searches of
  some of the following: Post Carbon Institute, Transition Towns
  movement, Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, New
  Economics Institute, Global Footprint Network, Ecosocialist
  International Network, New Economy Working Group, ETC Group, The Story
  of Stuff, 350.org, left or green biocentrism, Dark Mountain Project,
  Indigenous Environmental Network, Tebtebba foundation, Food and Water
  Watch, Navdanya, Third World Network, International Center for
  Technology Assessment, Global Alliance for Rights of Nature, Rainforest
  Action Network, Institute for Policy Studies, International Forum on
  Globalization. These will doubtless lead to dozens of others.

  . Jerry Mander is the founder of the San Francisco-based International
  Forum on Globalization. His books include Four Arguments for the
  Elimination of Television, In the Absence of the Sacred, and The Case
  Against the Global Economy (with Edward Goldsmith) and Alternatives to
  Globalization (with John Cavanagh)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp