Heinberg on Life Beyond Growth

Reposted in full from Transition Culture, 10 March 2010

'What if the economy doesn’t recover? (From Post Carbon Institute)

In 2008 the U.S. economy tripped down a steep, rocky slope. Employment levels plummeted; so did purchases of autos and other consumer goods. Property values crashed; foreclosure and bankruptcy rates bled. For states, counties, cities, and towns; for manufacturers, retailers, and middle- and low-income families, the consequences were—and continue to be—catastrophic. Other nations were soon caught up in the undertow.

In late 2009 and early 2010, the economy showed some signs of renewed vigor.

Understandably, everyone wants it to get “back to normal.” But here’s a disturbing thought: What if that is not possible? What if the goalposts have been moved, the rules rewritten, the game changed? What if the decades-long era of economic growth based on ever-increasing rates of resource extraction, manufacturing, and consumption is over, finished, and done? What if the economic conditions that all of us grew up expecting to continue practically forever were merely a blip on history’s timeline?

It’s an uncomfortable idea, but one that cannot be ignored: The “normal” late-20th century economy of seemingly endless growth actually emerged from an aberrant set of conditions that cannot be perpetuated.

That “normal” is gone. One way or another, a “new normal” will emerge to replace it. Can we build a different, more sustainable economy to replace the one now in tatters?

Let’s be clear: I believe we are in for some very hard times. The transitional period on our way toward a post-growth, equilibrium economy will prove to be the most challenging time any of us has ever lived through. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we can survive this collective journey, and that if we make sound choices as families and communities, life can actually be better for us in the decades ahead than it was during the heady days of seemingly endless economic expansion.

In this essay, I would like to share my conclusions on this subject and the process by which I arrived at them. It’s a bit of a long story, so please bear with me. First, the conclusions.

Four Propositions

The following summary statements are fundamental both to grasping our current situation and managing our way toward a desirable future:

We have reached the end of economic growth as we have known it. The “growth” we are talking about consists of the expansion of the overall size of the economy (with more people being served and more money changing hands) and of the quantities of energy and material goods flowing through it. The economic crisis that began in 2008 was both foreseeable and inevitable, and that it marks a permanent, fundamental break from past decades—a period in which economists adopted the unrealistic view that perpetual economic growth is necessary and also possible to achieve. As we will see, there are fundamental constraints to ongoing economic expansion, and the world is beginning to encounter those constraints. This is not to say the U.S. or the world will never see another quarter or year of growth relative to the previous year. Rather, the point is that when the bumps are averaged out, the general trend-line of the economy (measured in terms of production and consumption of real goods) will be level or downward rather than upward from now on.

The basic factors that will inevitably shape whatever replaces the growth economy are knowable. To survive and thrive for long, societies have to operate within the planet’s budget of sustainably extractable resources. This means that even if we don’t know exactly what a desirable post-growth economy and lifestyle will look like, we know enough to begin working toward them.

It is possible for economies to persist for centuries or millennia with no or minimal growth. That is how most economies operated until recent times. If billions of people through countless generations lived without economic growth, we can do so as well—now and far into the future. The end of growth does not mean the end of the world.

Life in a non-growing economy can be fulfilling, interesting, and secure. The absence of growth does not imply a lack of change or improvement. Within a non-growing or equilibrium economy there can still be a continuous development of practical skills, artistic expression, and technology. In fact, some historians and social scientists argue that life in an equilibrium economy can be superior to life in a fast-growing economy: while growth creates opportunities for some, it also typically intensifies competition—there are big winners and big losers, and (as in most boom towns) the quality of relations within the community can suffer as a result. Within a non-growing economy it is possible to maximize benefits and reduce factors leading to decay, but doing so will require pursuing appropriate goals: instead of more, we must strive for better; rather than promoting increased economic activity for its own sake, we must emphasize whatever increases quality of life without stoking consumption. One way to do this is to reinvent and redefine growth itself.

The transition to a no-growth economy (or one in which growth is defined in a fundamentally different way) is inevitable, but it will go much better if we plan for it rather than simply watching in dismay as institutions we have come to rely upon fail, and then try to improvise a survival strategy in their absence.

In effect, we have to create a desirable “new normal” that fits the constraints imposed by depleting natural resources. Maintaining the “old normal” is not an option; if we do not find new goals for ourselves and plan our transition from a growth-based economy to a healthy equilibrium economy, we will by default create a much less desirable “new normal” whose emergence we are already beginning to see in the forms of persistent high unemployment, a widening gap between rich and poor, and ever more frequent and worsening financial and environmental crises—all of which translate to profound distress for individuals, families, and communities.

‘Limits to Growth’ The journey that led to my formulating these propositions began in 1972, when a book called Limits to Growth was making headlines. This relatively compact volume, which went on to become the best-selling environmental book of all time, provoked the first Great Wake-up Call of my adult life, changing the course of everything I have thought and done ever since.

Let me explain why Limits to Growth impacted me so deeply.

That book, which reported on the first attempts to use computers to model the likely interactions between trends in resources, consumption, and population, was also the first major scientific study to question the assumption that economic growth can and will continue more or less uninterrupted into the foreseeable future.

The idea was heretical at the time—and still is: during the past few decades, growth has become virtually the sole index of national economic well-being. When the economy grows, jobs appear, investments yield high returns, and everyone is happy. When the economy stops growing, financial bloodletting ensues. And so predictably a book saying that growth cannot and will not continue beyond a certain point proved profoundly upsetting in some quarters, and soon Limits to Growth was prominently “debunked” by public relations efforts organized by pro-growth business interests. In reality, this “debunking” merely amounted to taking a few numbers in the book completely out of context, citing them as “predictions” (which they explicitly were not), and then claiming that these predictions had failed. The ruse was quickly exposed, but rebuttals often don’t gain nearly as much publicity as accusations, and so today millions of people mistakenly believe that the book was long ago discredited. In fact, the original Limits to Growth scenarios have held up quite well*.

In principle, the argument for eventual limits to growth is a slam-dunk. If any quantity grows steadily by a certain fixed percentage per year, this implies that it will double in size every so-many years; the higher the percentage growth rate, the quicker the doubling. A rough method of figuring doubling times is known as the rule of 70: dividing the percentage growth rate into 70 gives the approximate time required for the initial quantity to double. If a quantity is growing at 1 percent per year, it will double in 70 years; at 2 percent per year growth, it will double in 35 years; at 5 percent growth, it will double in only 14 years, and so on. If you want to be more precise, you can use the Y^x button on your calculator, but the rule of 70 works fine for most purposes.

Here’s a real-world example: Over the past two centuries, human population has grown at rates ranging from less than one percent to more than two percent per year. In 1800, world population stood at about one billion; by 1930 it had doubled to two billion. Only 30 years later (in 1960) it had doubled again to four billion; currently we are on track to achieve a third doubling, to eight billion humans, around 2025. No one seriously expects human population to continue growing for centuries into the future. But imagine if it did—at just 1.3 percent per year (its growth rate in the year 2000). By the year 2780 there would be 148 trillion humans on Earth—one person for each square meter of land on the planet’s surface.

It won’t happen, of course.

In nature, growth always slams up against non-negotiable constraints sooner or later. If a species finds that its food source has expanded, its numbers will increase to take advantage of those surplus calories—but then its food source will become depleted as more mouths consume it, and its predators will likewise become more numerous (more tasty meals for them!). Population “blooms” (that is, periods of rapid growth) are always followed by crashes and die-offs. Always.

Here’s another real-world example. In recent years China’s economy has been growing at eight percent or more per year; that means it is more than doubling in size every ten years. Indeed, China consumes more than twice as much coal as it did a decade ago—the same with iron ore and oil. The nation now has four times as many highways as it did, and almost five times as many cars. How long can this go on? How many more doublings can occur before China has used up its key resources—or has simply decided that enough is enough and has stopped growing?

It makes sense that economies should follow rules analogous to those that govern biological systems. Plants and animals tend to grow quickly when they are young, but then they reach a more or less stable mature size. In organisms, growth rates are largely controlled by genes. In economies, growth seems tied to factors such as the availability of resources—chiefly energy resources (”food” for the industrial system). During the 20th century, cheap and abundant fossil fuels enabled rapid economic expansion; at some point, therefore, fossil fuel depletion could put a brake on growth. It is also possible that industrial wastes could accumulate to the point that the biological systems that underpin economic activity (such as forests, crops, and human bodies) begin to fail.

But economists generally don’t see things this way. That’s probably because most current economic theories were formulated during an anomalous historical period of sustained growth. Economists are merely generalizing from their experience: they can point to decades of steady growth in the recent past, and so they simply project that experience into the future. Moreover, they have ways to explain why modern market economies are immune to the kinds of limits that constrain natural systems; the two main ones concern substitution and efficiency.

If a useful resource becomes scarce, its price will rise, and this creates an incentive for users of the resource to find a substitute. For example, if oil gets expensive enough, energy companies might start making liquid fuels from coal. Or they might develop other energy sources undreamed of today. Economists theorize that this process of substitution can go on forever. It’s part of the magic of the free market.

Increasing efficiency means doing more with less. In the U.S., the number of inflation-adjusted dollars generated in the economy for every unit of energy consumed has increased steadily over recent decades (the amount of energy, in British Thermal Units, required to produce a dollar of GDP has been dropping steadily, from close to 20,000 BTU per dollar in 1949 to 8,500 BTU in 2008). That’s one kind of economic efficiency. Another has to do with locating the cheapest sources of materials, and the places where workers will be most productive and work for the lowest wages. As we increase efficiency, we use less—of either resources or money—to do more. That enables more growth.

Finding substitutes for depleting resources and upping efficiency are undeniably effective adaptive strategies of market economies. Nevertheless, the question remains open as to how long these strategies can continue to work in the real world—which is governed less by economic theories than by the laws of physics. In the real world, some things don’t have substitutes, or the substitutes are too expensive, or don’t work as well, or can’t be produced fast enough. And efficiency follows a law of diminishing returns: the first gains in efficiency are usually cheap, but every further incremental gain tends to cost more, until further gains become prohibitively expensive.

Unlike economists, most physical scientists recognize that growth within any functioning, bounded system has to stop sometime.

But this discussion has very real implications, because the economy is not just an abstract concept; it is what determines whether we live in luxury or poverty; whether we eat or starve. If economic growth ends, everyone will be impacted, and it will take society years to adapt to this new condition. Therefore it is important to be able to forecast whether that moment is close or distant in time.

Hence the Limits to Growth study. The authors fed in data for world population growth, consumption trends, and the abundance of various important resources, ran their computer program, and concluded that the end of growth would probably arrive between 2010 and 2050. Industrial output and food production would then fall, leading to a decline in population. (By the way, the Limits to Growth scenario study has been re-run repeatedly in the years since the original publication, using more sophisticated software and updated input data. The results were similar. See Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.)

My Personal Story of Waking Up to Limits

That’s why Limits to Growth meant so much to me when I encountered it at age 21. I realized that the world in which I had been born, raised, and educated was headed toward what is politely known as a “historical discontinuity,” but more colloquially termed “collapse,” “a cliff,” or “a brick wall.” Millions of young people today are having the same experience as they learn about climate change. Welcome to the club.

At the time, I had been trying to make my way as a young musician. My father had been a chemistry and physics teacher, but I had gravitated toward the arts: after being trained as a classical violinist, I had taught myself also to play electric guitar.

As I absorbed the implications of Limits to Growth, I realized that there were more important things than band rehearsals and gigs to attend to, so I mostly left the music business (though I continue to be an avid amateur violinist) and began looking for ways to help shift society toward a more sustainable path. I became a freelance writer-editor and started pursuing projects I thought might lead me toward a better understanding of global trends and of how our species might avert an overwhelming economic and environmental disaster.

It was clear that society would need to undertake fundamental changes. But what were those changes, exactly? I thought the best way to find out would be to form an intentional community as a kind of social laboratory in which to explore alternatives in energy, food production, and lifestyles. I ended up spending most of the next 20 years living in three communities—one in Toronto that I helped establish, and others in Colorado and southern California that had already been going for some time before I joined. Intentional communities (sometimes also known as communes, with many now thriving under the banner of “eco-villages”) are a fascinating social phenomenon, and hundreds still flourish worldwide.

By the early 1990s, I was eager to reconnect with mainstream society and bring what I had learned to a wider audience. My wife, Janet Barocco, and I had met in an intentional community in southern California; together we moved to a suburban home in Santa Rosa. By the latter years of the decade I was teaching in a college program on sustainability that I had helped initiate and design, while also continuing to make my way as a freelance environmental writer.

It was at this point, in 1998, that I heard a second Great Wake-up Call.

Peak Oil

It came in the form of an article in Scientific American by veteran petroleum geologists Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère (both of whom had overseen exploration and production in major oil companies), explaining why world oil extraction would reach a maximum around 2010 and begin its permanent decline thereafter. I quickly realized that Peak Oil would likely be the first non-negotiable global limit to growth. The hazy forecast that industrial society would hit a wall sometime in the 21st century was suddenly focused to a painful specificity. Growth had acquired a hard expiration date.

Of course, oil does not pose our only societal limit, or even the most important one in the bigger scheme of things: climate, water, and topsoil are clearly more crucial in the long run. But the peaking of world oil production could potentially bring modern industrial civilization to its knees, while also undercutting coordinated efforts to deal with all sorts of other problems.

Up to this point I had little interest in the subject of oil, or energy generally. However, as I re-read the Scientific American article, I realized the pivotal role petroleum plays in the modern world—in transportation, agriculture, and the chemicals and materials industries. I began spending hours each day studying energy history and oil production statistics. I soon realized that the Industrial Revolution was really the Fossil Fuel Revolution, and that our modern food system is based on cheap fossil energy. Further, the entire phenomenon of continuous economic growth—including the development of the financial institutions that facilitate growth, such as fractional reserve banking and the marketing of derivatives—is ultimately based on ever-increasing supplies of cheap energy. Growth requires more manufacturing, more trade, and more transport, and those all in turn require more energy. This means that if energy supplies can’t expand and energy therefore becomes significantly more expensive, economic growth will falter and the financial system built on expectations of perpetual growth will fail, possibly in a rather spectacular way.

As early as 1998, Campbell, Laherrère, and others were discussing a Peak Oil impact scenario that went like this. Sometime around the year 2010, they theorized, stagnant or falling oil supplies would lead to soaring and more volatile petroleum prices, which would precipitate a global economic crash. This rapid economic contraction would in turn lead to sharply curtailed energy demand, so oil prices would then fall; but as soon as the economy regained strength, demand for oil would recover, prices would again soar, and the economy would relapse. This cycle would continue, with each recovery phase being shorter and weaker, and each crash deeper and harder, until the economy was in ruins. Meanwhile, volatile oil prices would frustrate investments in energy alternatives: one year, oil would be so expensive that almost any other energy source would look cheap by comparison; the next year, the price of oil would have fallen so far that energy users would be flocking back to it, with investments in other energy sources looking foolish. Investment capital would be in short supply in any case because the banks would be insolvent due to the crash, and governments would be broke due to declining tax revenues. Meanwhile, international competition for dwindling oil supplies might lead to wars between petroleum importing nations, between importers and exporters, and between rival factions within exporting nations.

Naturally, I also examined the arguments against the likelihood of a near-term peak in global oil production. What if Campbell and Laherrère were simply wrong? There are those who claim that new technologies for crude oil extraction will increase the amount of oil that can be obtained from each well drilled, and that there are nearly endless reserves of alternative hydrocarbon resources (principally tar sands and oil shale) whose development will seamlessly replace conventional oil, thus delaying the inevitable peak for decades. There are also those who say that Peak Oil won’t be much of a problem even if it happens soon, because the market will find substitutes as quickly as needed—whether electric cars, hydrogen, or liquid fuel made from coal.

I found all of these arguments weak: the new oil extraction technologies won’t come into wide use for several years, and will be applicable mostly to newly developed fields (of which there are fewer and fewer each year as exploration efforts continue to show mostly disappointing results), not to the old super-giant oilfields that produce the great bulk of oil that we use today. Tar sands and oil shale will be slow to extract; indeed, in the case of oil shale, we may never derive liquid fuels in any substantial quantity due to the enormous costs of processing this very low-grade material. And substitutes like electric cars, liquids from coal, and hydrogen will take a very long time to develop and will in most cases be much more costly than the equivalent elements of our current system of petroleum fuels and internal combustion engines.

I continued to study the world energy situation for the next few years. And, with every passing year, events appeared to be supporting the Peak Oil thesis and undercutting the views of the oil optimists. Oil prices were trending upward—and for entirely foreseeable reasons: discoveries of new oilfields were continuing to peter out, with most new fields being much more difficult and expensive to develop than ones found in previous years. More oil-producing countries were seeing their extraction rates peaking and beginning to decline despite efforts to maintain production growth using high-tech, expensive secondary and tertiary extraction methods like the injection of water, nitrogen, or CO2 to force more oil out of the ground. Production decline rates in the world’s old, super-giant oilfields, which are responsible for the lion’s share of the global petroleum supply, were accelerating. Production of liquid fuels from tar sands was expanding only slowly, while the development of oil shale remained a hollow promise for the distant future.

I corresponded with and met the authors of the Scientific American article, and interviewed other petroleum geologists and engineers. One expert after another offered further reasons for concluding that the thesis of “The End of Cheap Oil” was correct, that there were no ready substitutes for crude oil, and that the consequences of a near-term global oil production peak would be profound.

Given the almost complete absence of mainstream media coverage of the subject, I spent several months assessing whether I should step into the breach and write a book on Peak Oil. The fact that I had no background in the oil industry or in any relevant academic field weighed against doing so. Yet the need was clearly overwhelming, so I decided to try. I spent 2001 and 2002 writing The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, which was published the following year and went on to sell over 50,000 copies with translations in six languages. I began receiving lecture invitations, and, over the next few years, gave over 300 talks to a wide variety of audiences in a dozen countries. More books followed: PowerDown: Options and Actions for a Post Carbon World (2004); The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse (2006); Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines (2007); and Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis (2009).

I was determined to sound a warning not just to the general public, but especially to politicians and appointed government officials. Members of a burgeoning informal global network of Peak Oil activists arranged for me speak to hundreds of national, state, and local politicians and appointed officials in the U.S., to about a hundred members of the European Parliament, and to national Parliamentarians in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.

From Scary Theory to Scarier Reality

Then in 2008, the Peak Oil scenario became all too real. Global oil production had been stagnant since 2005 and petroleum prices had been soaring upward. In July, 2008, the per-barrel price shot up nearly to $150—half again higher (in inflation-adjusted terms) than the price spikes of the 1970s that had triggered the worst recession since World War II. By summer 2008, the auto industry, the trucking industry, international shipping, agriculture, and the airlines were all reeling.

But what happened next riveted the world’s attention to such a degree that the oil price spike was all but forgotten: in September 2008, the global financial system nearly collapsed. The reasons for this sudden, gripping crisis apparently had to do with housing bubbles, lack of proper regulation of the banking industry, and the over-use of bizarre financial products that almost nobody understood. However, there are reasons for concluding that the oil price spike was a much more important contributor to this economic meltdown than is generally discussed (see www.energybulletin.net/node/49798).

In the aftermath of that global financial near-death experience, both the Peak Oil impact scenario proposed a decade earlier and the Limits to Growth standard-run scenario of 1972 seemed to be confirmed with uncanny and frightening accuracy. Global trade was falling. The world’s largest auto companies were on life support. The U.S. airline industry had shrunk by almost a third. Food riots were erupting in poor nations around the world. Lingering wars in Iraq (the nation with the world’s second-largest crude oil reserves) and Afghanistan (the site of disputed oil and gas pipeline projects) continued to bleed the coffers of the world’s foremost oil-importing nation.

Meanwhile, the debate about what to do to rein in global climate change exemplified the political inertia that had kept the world on track for calamity since the early ’70s. It had by now become obvious to nearly every person of modest education and intellect that the world has two urgent, incontrovertible reasons to rapidly end its reliance on fossil fuels: the twin threats of climate catastrophe and impending constraints to fuel supplies (with most of the remaining oil reserves located in just a few countries). Yet at the Copenhagen climate conference in December, 2009, the priorities of the most fuel-dependent nations were clear: carbon emissions should be cut, and fossil fuel dependency reduced, but only if doing so does not threaten economic growth.

The cruel irony, obvious to my Peak Oil-aware colleagues but apparently not to the delegates at Copenhagen, was that the decades-long era of rapid economic growth based on increased fossil-fueled production and consumption is over anyway. The world’s last chance to collectively, cooperatively negotiate a turn away from the precipice was being squandered for the sake of a goal that was no longer achievable.

I could take no satisfaction from these confirmations of the Limits to Growth and Peak Oil scenarios; being able to say “I told you so” hardly made up for the shock of knowing that our last opportunities to change direction had been missed and that the train of industrial civilization was now not merely still chugging toward a broken bridge, but was actually starting to plummet into the gorge below. We had succeeded somewhat in helping increase public awareness of an issue: due to the efforts of thousands of scientists, writers, and activists, “peak oil” had become a recognizable term in public discourse. But we had failed to budge government policy in more than very minor ways (I had, for example, assisted the City Council-appointed Peak Oil Task Force of Oakland, California, which produced a sensible report on which, so far, little action has been taken).

The world has entered a new era. The project of awakening and warning policy makers and the general public was worthy of the investment of all the effort we could muster. In fact, it would have been negligent of the Limits to Growth authors, Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrère, and thousands of climate and environmental scientists and activists (myself included) not to give it our best shot. But it is now too late to avert a collapse of the existing system. The collapse has begun.

It is time for a different strategy.

By saying this, I am not suggesting that we should all simply give up and accept an inevitable, awful fate. Even though the collapse of the world’s financial and industrial systems has started, effort now at minimizing further dire consequences is essential. Collapse does not mean extinction. A new way of life will almost certainly emerge from the wreckage of the fossil-fueled growth era. It is up to those of us who have some understanding of what is happening, and why, to help design that new way of life so that it will be sustainable, equitable, and fulfilling for all concerned. We all need practical strategies and tools to weather the collapse and to build the foundation of whatever is to come after.

Journey to a New Economy

The propositions described above, and my personal journey, are the starting points for a search that can be summarized in a single question: What are the guideposts toward a livable, inviting post-growth society?

This search has in many instances entailed a literal, geographic journey. During the past few years, as I traveled the lecture circuit, I met thousands of people who had already concluded on their own that the global stage was being set for an economic crash of epic proportions. They had passed through the psychological stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. They were thinking creatively, building new lives, and experimenting with a wide range of strategies for meeting basic human needs while using much less of just about everything.

Some of these folks, like me, had been thinking along these lines for a long time—since the 1970s. Many were much younger, though, had learned about Peak Oil or climate change just within the past few years, and had recently decided to devote their lives to building a post-hydrocarbon world. Some were clearly members of what was known in the 1970s as the “counterculture.” Others were mainstream citizens—investment bankers, real estate sellers, high school teachers, small business owners, corporate middle managers—who had chanced upon information that awakened them forcibly from their routines. Many of these folks lived in large cities, but others in small towns or on farms; some were rich, some poor (a few by choice); some were devout, others agnostic or atheist; some were working alone on survivalist projects, while others were building community organizations; some saw the transition as a business opportunity while others were working through non-profit organizations. Here are just three examples that stand out.

In 2005, while on a lecture tour in Ireland, I met a young college teacher named Rob Hopkins who believed that life could be better without fossil fuels. He had led his students in developing an “Energy Descent Action Plan” for their town, and believed he had the seed for something larger and more significant. He soon moved back to his native England to earn his Ph.D., and designed his thesis project around helping the village of Totnes begin a cooperative, phased process of transitioning away from its dependence on fossil fuels. This project in turn led to the start of a series of Transition Initiatives in villages, towns, and neighborhoods throughout the U.K. In 2007, a version of Rob’s written Ph.D. thesis was published as a book (The Transition Handbook) that quickly began inspiring others to take up this strategy. Today there are hundreds of Transition Initiatives at various stages of development in a dozen countries (including over 50 in the U.S.).

While in Montana for a speaking engagement at the University of Montana in Helena in spring 2009, some local Peak Oil activists drove me to the town of Ronan and introduced me to Billie Lee, who had helped start Mission Mountain Food Enterprise Center. The Center is housed in a fairly small, non-descript building and features medium-scale food processing equipment that local small food producers can rent at reasonable rates. This enables small farmers to produce value-added products (everything from canned soups to herbal tea bags) that are profitable and are price-competitive with those made by industrial food companies located hundreds or thousands of miles from Ronan. Local food has become an obsession for the sustainability-minded during the past few years, and local food systems will be a necessary pillar of post-growth economies. Yet aspiring small-scale farmers often have a hard time getting started because they cannot afford the equipment to enable them to produce profitable value-added products. Here in the tiny hamlet of Ronan was an ingenious solution to the problem, and one that deserves to be replicated in every agricultural county in the nation.

On a trip to New England in 2007, I met Lynn Benander, a community energy activist and entrepreneur who had started a project called Co-op Power to bring renewable energy to low-income and multi-ethnic communities throughout the Northeast. Typically, renewable energy projects cost more to get going than conventional coal or gas power projects, and so they tend to be found in wealthier communities and regions. Conversely, the most polluting energy projects tend to be sited in or near poor neighborhoods or regions. Co-op Power aims to change that imbalance of power—in a way that any community can copy. A typical project: You help four people put up a solar hot water system and everyone comes to help you put up yours; you save 40 to 50 percent off your total system price, get to know your neighbors, and learn how your system works. Co-op Power had also pioneered a cooperative financing method that cuts through the usual roadblocks to renewable energy projects in poorer neighborhoods by leveraging member equity.

Individually, these initiatives and projects may seem to be on too small a scale to make much of a difference. But multiplied by thousands, with examples in nearly every community, they represent a quiet yet powerful movement.

Few of these efforts have gained national media attention. Most media commentators who address economic issues are focused on the prospects—positive or negative—of the existing growth-based economy. These projects don’t seem all that important within that framework of thinking. But in the new context of the no-growth economy, they may mean the difference between ruinous poverty and happy sufficiency.

The trends are already in evidence: as the financial crisis worsens, more people are planting gardens, and seed companies are working hard to keep up with the demand. More young people are taking up farming now than in any recent decade. In 2008, more bicycles were sold in the U.S. than automobiles (not good news for the struggling car companies, but great news for the climate). And since the crisis started, Americans have been spending much less on non-essentials—repairing and re-using rather than replacing and adding.

Many economists assume these trends are short-term and that Americans will return to consumerism as economic crisis shifts into recovery. But if there is no “recovery” in the usual sense, then these trends will only grow.

This is what the early adopters are assuming. They believe that the nation and the world have turned a corner. They understand something the media either ignore or deny. They’re betting on a future of local food systems, not global agribusiness; of community credit co-ops rather than too-big-to-fail Wall Street megabanks; of small-scale renewable energy projects, not a world-spanning system of fossil-fuel extraction, trade, and consumption. A future in which we do for ourselves, share, and cooperate.

They’re embarking on a life after growth.

* * *

The realization that growth is at an end raises many questions. Will the financial impact be inflationary or deflationary? Will some nations fare better than others, leading to protectionist trade wars? Will the “down-sizing” of social and economic complexity lead also to a substantial die-off of the human species? How quickly will all of this happen?

There simply are no hard and fast answers to such questions. The financial, energy, food, transport, and political systems on which we rely are complex, so it is almost impossible to reliably model their response to a shock such as a resource limits-imposed end to economic growth. The only reasonable response, it seems to me, is to act as if survival is possible, and to build resilience throughout society as quickly as can be, acting locally wherever there are individuals or groups with the understanding and wherewithal. We must assume that a satisfactory, sustainable way of life is achievable in the absence of fossil fuels and conventional economic growth, and go about building it. This will be the focus of my work from now on—and it is likely to be the work of the next few generations as well. Call it Transition, call it cultural survival and renewal, call it what you will, it is the only game in town for the foreseeable future.

* A recent study by Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) concluded, “[Our] analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of [the Limits to Growth] business-as-usual scenario….”'

Our Society Needs Some Serious Cultural Engineering

Reposted in full from The Ecologist, 10 March 2010

'The editor of the influential Worldwatch 'State of the World' report on the best ways to transform cultures from consumerism to sustainability

Matilda Lee: Humans are social animals competing for status, which, in our consumer society, is displayed largely through the things on which we spend our money. How can we ever sate our appetite for status without these things?

Erik Assadourian: Culture defines what gives one status. In our consumer culture, status is equated with stuff. In some cultures, it is not a status symbol to keep buying new stuff, but to take care of the stuff we already have. Changing status symbols will not happen without serious cultural engineering. This may be uncomfortable for some, but cultural engineering has been happening for consumer interests for the last century or more.

For example, in order to spread the car the automobile industry had to 'normalise' the idea that roads are for cars and not people. It did this not only through advertising and marketing, but also by working with schools to get children to sign petitions not to play in the streets. In some cities, they bought up trolley systems and dismantled them to destroy the competition. The environmental community, if it really expects to create a sustainable society, needs to start using these same tactics more effectively, rather than just fighting at a political advocacy level.

ML: Western consumerism has become an almost unstoppable force around the globe. Just as many in China and India are starting to lead lives closer to the average American,
environmentalists are saying they mustn't. Doesn't this smack of unfairness?

EA: First of all, this assumes that people strive to be consumers just because it is a better life. Chinese individuals and families aren't taking on these consumer trends because they are better, but because there is a huge effort to market these ideas as better. It's a manipulative process to get people to be consumers. This isn't about developing countries not following in our mistaken footprints, but the fact Western countries have to willingly let go of our consumer culture. Consumer interests have a high level of regulatory capture. The answer to me becomes that those individuals who already understand what is looming ahead of us need to take an active role in transforming cultures.

ML: As regards economic growth, what do you make of the idea of 'good growth' as opposed to 'bad growth', or do you believe that 'no growth' economics is the answer?

EA: It depends on the country and the community, but a country like the US should have in its agenda not 'good growth' or 'no growth' but literally to 'de-grow'. The de-growth movement recognises that we are far beyond our ecological capacity. The world could maintain only 1.4 billion Americans. There are already 300 million of us, so we have to get to a fraction of our current consumption levels. Certain markets and businesses will still grow as they replace less sustainable businesses. Shortening work hours is essential - the New Economics Foundation put a number on it: 21 hours. Shorter working hours would ensure a better distribution of income and more time for families and communities to live sustainably. With more time you can cook, walk and bike more. While more people could afford the basics, discretionary income would be reduced, so fewer people could afford to fly to the Caribbean or buy a second car.

ML: To what extent does our relationship with nature need to change to bring about the needed culture shift? Do you think it is sufficient for us to have a basic ecological understanding, or do we need to love and respect nature in order to live in harmony with it?

EA: This is a running debate. The environmentalist in me wants to say that it has to do with love and respect of nature. But ultimately, it doesn't have to be either/or. If we truly understood our dependence on the planet in order to survive and thrive, even if we didn't have an internalised mythological relationship with it, I think we would be OK.

ML: Science and technology - from carbon capture and storage, GM, nuclear, geo-engineering, in-vitro meat - is bringing solutions to many ecological crises without the need to change our consumption patterns. What's your view on our ability, through science and technology, to invent our way out of global crises?

EA: If you listed a different set of technologies, I would have given you a different answer. Technology is an essential tool that we will use. But the technologies that are most valuable in my mind are things like Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland's 'Living Machine', a biological sewage treatment system, which is now used by a town of 500,000. It has developed to the point where they are even treating the things we don't know what to do with, like estrogens. The technology of our future, if we truly understood our dependence on the earth, would probably be more biological, not this artificial gene manipulation where we are assuming that climate change is the problem. In reality, it is just a symptom of a culture that is maladapted to life on a finite planet.

ML: You point to the need to change the stories we tell as a society. Millions of people have seen the film Avatar. Do you think people walk away with a greater awareness of, or connection to, the planet? What else is need to bring about sudden shifts in behavioural patterns?

EA: Advertising is basically fertiliser to stimulate consumption. Even a failed advertising campaign that doesn't end up selling more of a product ramps up the broader background noise to consume. Watching Avatar won't lead to a sudden shift but will help build up a background of stories with ecological messages. Avatar has a very powerful story, similar to the documentary Crude, but seen by millions more people.

ML: When it comes to changing culture, lot of ideas you discuss are essentially intangibles. Traditional campaigning is quite different, relying on changing specific policies or reducing a given pollutant. How are campaigners meant to measure the success of attempts at culture change?

EA: Our current system is dependent on foundation grants that expect us to measure success in quantitative terms. This is not a campaign, but a deeper cultural shift. We may need a different set of indicators to track change. A lot of people engaged in cultivating a culture of sustainability probably don't see themselves in cultural change terms. Those working on making school meals more sustainable, local and healthy aren't trying to change culture, but they are having a major impact on our understanding of where food comes from. There needs to be some lee-way for those working at the deeper level of supporting cultural change agents.

ML: Could you give a few of the most promising examples of culture change in the US and abroad?

EA: The Roman school food system, where 67 per cent of the city's school food is organic and 26 per cent is local, is inspiring just by virtue of how far they've got. In the US, the non-profit organisation B Labs has already certified 190 corporations as B Corporations, redesigning corporate charters with a social mission. Governments have a valuable tool in 'choice editing', which essentially cuts out unnecessarily damaging products and provides more sustainable choices in order to redirect norms. We often talk about changing people's values in order to change their behaviour. But actually if you change people's behaviours their values change in accordance.'

Getting Started in Balcony Farming

Reposted in full from The Ecologist, 9 March 2010

'Strapped for garden space needn't mean being strapped for home-grown veg, as an experienced London balcony gardener reveals

When it comes to making the most of what you've got for a vegetable garden, Callum Saunders is something of an expert. He'd have to be, having technically no garden to speak of. Unless you count the tiny balcony of his first-floor London flat, that is.

Like many city-dwellers who are strapped for space, being footloose and garden-free hasn't stopped Callum planting vegetables. It's amazing how little space they need to grow, and even the smallest flats will have windowsill space for the odd pot of salad plants or container of cress.

With all of us more concerned to know about where our food comes from, to save money or simply to experience the simple joy of planting seeds and watching them grow, the rise of the balcony farmer is one of the more encouraging signs that city life needn't mean being disconnected from the natural world - indeed, ploughing rural furrows in the concrete heart of the city can do nothing but good in terms of refocusing attitudes towards the environment.

'I started getting into gardening when I moved into my flat in Hackney a year and a half ago, but have only really been growing vegetables since April this year,' says Callum, whose only previous horticultural experience was helping his mum out in the garden back in his native Lewes, East Sussex. 'I first had the idea when I was putting a few plants on the balcony - I suddenly thought, ‘I wonder if I can actually grow a few things in pots?' The rest is history.'

Eager to share his experiences of this unique experiment with other green-fingered urbanites, the 27-year-old copywriter started the London Vegetable Garden blog, allowing visitors to check on the progress of his veg, pick up some tips and learn from his mistakes - that leaf-mildewed butternut squash plant tucked away in the far corner of his balcony, for example: too small for its pot? Better left to tumble rather than trained up a cane? Callum says he wants the blog to be as real and as accurate an account of his progress as possible, which means documenting the things that don't work as well as those that do.

The blog itself is thriving: during the summer it was getting 2,500 hits a month. Callum is also the man behind the London Gardeners' Network, which has about 120 members at the moment, with more joining all the time to upload pictures of their balcony farms, chat to each other, swap notes and ask questions in the forum. The internet offers a wealth of information, as well as keeping you in touch with others who are taking the plunge.

The Royal Horticultural Society says enquiries about vegetable-growing have doubled in the past few years, and sales of seed are up 40 per cent. Its Grow Your Own campaign will focus on container growing next year, which should hopefully see numbers increase even further. As an indication of the opportunity presented by even small amounts of outside space, the National Trust launched a campaign earlier this year to persuade inhabitants of the UK's five million flats to ditch the daffodils and grow something worthwhile in their windowsills. It calculates there are 600 acres of prime vegetable-growing land sitting unused outside the nation's windows.

'You don't need an allotment or garden to grow your own food, we've got the equivalent of 344 football pitches' worth of growing space right on our windowsills,' says Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust. 'Growing "window food" is an easy way to ensure your vegetables are local and bursting with flavour without breaking the bank; and when it's pouring with rain there's no need to brave the weather - you simply open the window and pick what you need.'

While Callum stresses he's in no way self-sufficient - there is a limit to the amount of food that can be grown on a 9ft x 2ft balcony, after all - it's the having a go that matters. A process of trial and error will eventually see a host of vegetables perfectly adapted to the space he has available, to the changing seasons and the weather conditions on his balcony.

'At the moment, with the wintery conditions, I simply have a few things ticking over slowly: a few dwarf carrots, some rocket lettuce, a few spring onions, a couple of beetroots, and I have harvested a few radishes this week. Back in the summer it was much more productive because of all the heat and light - in July and August I had a good crop of tomatoes that kept me going for a long time. If you have the space, be adventurous!'

You don't need a lot of space to get started, says Callum, but it depends on what you want to do. The easiest vegetables to grow are salad leaves and herbs, which only require a shallow box on a bright windowsill - rocket produces quick results. Annual time-tested favourites that produce great results in balcony pots include radishes, runner beans - if they have room enough to climb these hardy vegetables are great to grow in the summer - and tomatoes, which grow strong and quickly become sturdy once they have taken hold.

In terms of expense, developing your farm can cost as much or as little as you want. Use what you have lying around, or what family, friends or Freegle can donate. Balcony farming does not rely on huge budgets; its make-do ethic applies as much to expense as to outside space. For every expensive and complex balcony-farming kit in the shops there are a hundred cheaper ways to grow.

Ice cream tubs with holes drilled in the bottom and filled with compost make the ideal windowsill lettuce beds. Green onions, parsley and herbs can survive in smaller pots, while buckets and even large plastic bottles with their tops cut off can also be used, but will need drainage holes to prevent waterlogging your seeds; rocks at the bottom will help water drain out properly.
Most supermarkets sell cheap compost grow-bags, which contain extra nutrients for young plants. Keeping worms can cut costs even further, as these wriggly workers create homemade compost out of kitchen scraps.

Placing your plants in the right area is vital. Most will fare well in sunny spots, but some prefer shade - like lettuce, onions, parsley and radishes - so check your seed packet for instructions.
Make sure you re-pot your vegetable plants when they need it: once or twice if you're growing from seed; some will need a pot of their own if their roots aren't to become cramped. Avoid getting leaves wet to avoid the spread of disease.

'It's important to stay committed to your plants,' says Callum. 'Especially during the summer, you need to commit at least 10 minutes a day to making sure they're watered, re-potted and looked-after - Londoners, like lots of city-dwellers, lead busy lifestyles, and it's easy to put things off for a day or two, but care and attention are crucial if growing vegetables from seed, especially for the first few weeks.

But that needn't take the fun out of it, Callum says. 'Don't be put off thinking that it's too hard - a bit of TLC and attention will ensure you get something out of gardening. Remain patient and enjoy it!''

Robin Hood Tax - Be Part of the World's Greatest Bank Job!

...effective rebranding of the long-proposed, but uninspiringly monikered Tobin Tax, using an existing cultural reference, Robin Hood. In a nutshell, the idea of the Tobin Tax is to apply a tiny tax on certain financial transations ie. it would harvest a small amount of money sloshing around the world in the casino of the global economy and invest it back into people and planet [from which the wealth was derived].

Update from Oxfam's Robin Hood Tax campaign website

'A 10-metre high projection on the Bank of England kick-started the campaign. But it really began in earnest when Richard Curtis and Bill Nighy appeared on breakfast TV to show support and promote their video.

Out and about from Sherwood Forest

Merry folk have been sounding horns loudly around the country and on the web, making sure that everyone hears about the Robin Hood Tax.

We now have 130,000 Facebook fans and 64,000 people have voted in favour of the tax on our website. 32,000 of you have signed up for e-mail updates and we have almost 3,000 followers on Twitter. The only small number so far is the 0.05% we think banks should contribute to make the world a better place.

With events in Cardiff, and video letters sent from campaigners in David Cameron’s constituency, Witney, and Gordon Brown’s home turf Kirkcaldy, our supporters have been busy making merry. In the US Jonathan Mann made this brilliant music video about the tax.

Since launch, the media has been buzzing with news of goings-on in Sherwood. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and 350 other economists publicly supported our campaign. The campaign has already launched in Germany. France, Australia and the US are bracing themselves to be invaded by the (wo)men in tights.

Robin rides into Parliament

Thousands of people emailed their MPs and inspired an unprecedented number to attend a special briefing event at the House of Commons.

So far, nearly 1 in 5 Members of Parliament has expressed support for the tax. Welsh secretary Peter Hain was the first Cabinet Minister to lend public support. Conservative parliamentary candidate René Kinzett also showed support for Robin, as well as Labour MPs Jamie Reed and Andy Reed and Green Party Leader Caroline Lucas.We need support in Westminster for the Robin Hood tax to happen, so ask your MP to sign up to support it.

Mites in your tights? Itching to do more?

Go for it! If you have:

1 Minute: Spread the word about the Robin Hood Tax - forward this email to your friends.

5 minutes: Ask your MP to support the Robin Hood Tax by signing the early day motion in Parliament.

A bit more time: Watch our event from the Royal Society of Arts. On 9th March Economist Jeffrey Sachs, Richard Curtis and a discussion panel talked about the tax and took questions from the floor and via the Internet. The whole event can be seen on the The RSA website

For other events around the country visit our Facebook page.

Thanks for all you're doing from Robin and the team.

YOU'RE PART OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST BANK JOB

A tiny tax of 0.05% from international bankers' transactions could generate hundreds of billions of pounds every year to stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK and help fight global poverty and climate change. And it shouldn't cost the public a penny.

Turning a crisis for the banks into an opportunity for the world
http://www.robinhoodtax.org.uk/

The New Politics of Time

new economics foundation = good dot joiners!

Event being held in the UK 23 March 2010, from nef website

'A new report from nef (the new economics foundation), 21 hours, proposes that a ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.

The report will be discussed at this special parliamentary event, organised by the New Political Economy Network, nef (the new economics foundation) and Compass, in association with The Guardian, Renewal and Soundings.

Speakers include:Andrew Simms, Policy Director, nefHeather Wakefield, National Secretary for Local Government, UnisonKatherine Rake, Chief Executive, Family and Parenting Institute

Chaired by David Lammy MP, Minister of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills'

Arctic Seed Vault Sets Record, Over 500,000 Samples

Reposted in full from Planet Ark News, 12 March 2010

'A "doomsday" vault storing crop seeds in an Arctic deep freeze is surpassing 500,000 samples to become the most diverse collection of food seeds in history, managers said on Thursday.

Set up on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard two years ago, the vault aims to store seeds of all food crops deep beneath permafrost to withstand threats ranging from a cataclysmic nuclear war to a mundane power cut.

"New seeds...are taking us over the milestone of half a million samples," Cary Fowler, head of the Global Crop Diversity Trust which runs the vault with the Norwegian government and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center in Sweden, told Reuters.

A statement said thousands of new arrivals this week made the vault "the most diverse assemblage of crop diversity ever amassed anywhere in the world." It overtakes the diversity in a US national gene bank in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Among arrivals were a bean from South America that may have strong resistance to diseases, a strawberry from Russia's remote Kuril Islands in the Pacific and samples of soybeans from the United States.

Only about 150 crops are grown widely around the world but all come in a wide range of varieties - potatoes, for instance, come in an array of sizes and colors.

The $10 million facility opened in 2008 with 268,000 varieties of seeds from more than 100 countries.

The three vault rooms will be able to house 4.5 million samples, or 2 billion seeds since samples usually comprise many seeds, such as of rice, maize, wheat, cowpea or barley.

Blasted out of icy rock 1,000 km (600 miles) from the North Pole, the air-locked vaults would stay frozen for 200 years even in the worst-case scenario of global warming and if mechanical refrigeration were to fail, designers say.

Fowler said the vault was becoming more important after a U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen in December failed to agree a binding treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the collection could help in work to develop new crops that may contain traits able to withstand rising temperatures, floods or droughts that may be caused by rising temperatures in the 21st century.'

Good Foundations - Being Well Through Building Well

Reposted in full from the nef newsletter, March 2010

'The Centre for Well-being at nef recently launched the findings of its Building Well-being project at the Building Centre, London, to an audience of planners, architects, engineers and developers.

Funded by the Happold Trust, the research focuses on how we can incorporate a broader definition of value that properly takes into account the drivers of people’s well-being into the way we plan, design and develop our neighbourhoods.

A new report, Good Foundations, proposes that our measure of success should be neighbourhoods that promote two key outcomes:

• place Happiness: the personal, social and economic well-being of inhabitants
• place Sustainability: which arises from minimising the environmental impact throughout both the construction process and lifetime of a building or place.

The aim of Good Foundations is to stimulate the beginnings of a cultural shift in the built environment sector. Recognition in the sector of the interdependence of well-being and sustainability is critical, not least because the built environment influences all of us when it comes to the choices and decisions we make on a day-to-day basis.

From nef website:

'This report offers new insights into the connection between people’s well-being – how people experience their lives – and the built environment which surrounds them, and to consider how better account could be given to these linkages through policy development and professional practice. More particularly, it considers why a focus on what ought to be shared outcomes – creating places and spaces where people can enjoy a good life now and in the future – is often abandoned in the face of pursuing short-term financial returns on investment.

This report is targeted at those involved in the day-to-day creation of urban neighbourhoods and places – master planners, designers, developers, architects, engineers – as well as at local authorities and their partners who play a strategic leadership role with regard to setting the vision and frameworks which guide local action. Our approach has been to use research findings exploring the links between the built environment, regeneration and renewal activity, and people’s well-being, to inform practical suggestions for approaching development projects in a different way. The aim has not been to provide definitive solutions, but to stimulate new thinking and open up debate.'

2010 International E-waste Design Competition - $US 20,000 Prizemoney

From University of Illinois

'Online registration at: www.ewaste.edu/registration

Electronic Waste, or “E-Waste,” generated by computers, TVs, cameras, printers, and cell phones, is a growing global issue. Through the International E-Waste Design Competition, participants will explore solutions to this problem at the local level and beyond.

The spirit of this competition is to prompt the industrialized world to dialogue about product designs for environmentally responsible green computing and entertainment.

The goals of this competition are to learn about ways to re-use E-Waste for new and productive means, explore your own ideas for how to address E-Waste problems and contribute to the body of knowledge that advances the practice of environmentally responsible product design for current and future computing technology products.

We invite you to create a broad range of design concepts and innovations for technology products that demonstrate fresh approaches and responsible solutions for green computing technologies. Engineering, design, sustainability, or business knowledge will be helpful but not required for success in this competition.'

The Great Turning - David Korten

'To have the democracy we thought we had, we must take democracy to where it has never been'.

Sustainability: David Korten articulates the whole thing - not part of it, all of it, including all the not-so-easy topics to raise.

And ESPECIALLY 'The Story' about two thirds of the way through, which Korten identifies as the biggest barrier to change.

Listen to the audio recording of talk given at Dunstan Foundation Lecture, University of Adelaide, 15 July 2008

'Dr David C Korten is the author of The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. His Previous Books include the international best-seller When Corporations Rule the World; and the Post-Coroporate World: Life after Capitalism.

Korten is co-founder and board chair of the Positive Futures Network, which publishes YES! A Journal of Positive Futures; founder and president of the People-Centered Development Forum; a founding associate of the International Forum on Globalization; a board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE); and a member of the Social Ventures Network, and the Club of Rome.

He holds MBA and PhD degrees from Standford Business School, has thirty years experience as a development professional in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and has serviced as a Harvard Business School professor, a captain in the US Air Force, a Ford Foundation Project Specialist, and a regional adviser to the US Agency for International Development.'

Following Questions - note his comparison to the power of conversation and the challenging of the story in kickstarting feminism

Horizon: 2009-2010: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

BBC 2 Series, Parts 1-6

When Goods Get Traded, Who Pays For The CO2?

'... which country is responsible for the carbon emitted in global trade? The buyer or the seller?'

Indeed - who is buying all of China's products?

This is why Ecological Footprint is important, it corrects for trade!

Living Planet Report 2008, see p29

Reposted in full from TIME, 9 March 2010

'Popularly, China is a villain in climate change. Many people who attended last year's chaotic UN climate-change talks in Copenhagen — especially those who belonged to the US delegation — singled out China as the main reason the summit nearly collapsed. Chinese diplomats fought hard against any form of emissions regulation, even though their country is now the world's No. 1 national carbon emitter, and will emit far more carbon in the future than any other. In Washington, opponents of carbon cap-and-trade also point to China, which is unlikely to take on a carbon cap of its own, and wonder why the US should have to restrain its emissions. (See pictures of Beijing trying to improve its air quality.)

But a new study published in the March 8 edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that the carbon equation isn't as straightforward as we might think.

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Stanford University synthesized carbon emissions and trade patterns and found that more than one-third of CO₂ emissions related to the consumption of goods and services in developed countries are actually emitted outside their national borders. Rich nations are essentially outsourcing some of their carbon emissions to developing nations through global trade — by importing goods and services from abroad — thereby shrinking their carbon footprints while inflating those of major exporting nations like China. "It's surprising just how much this effect is driven by the US and China," says Steven Davis, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution and the lead author of the PNAS paper. "It is significant." (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)

How significant? Davis and his co-author Ken Caldeira estimate that 23% of global CO₂ emissions — about 6.2 billion metric tons — are traded internationally, usually going from carbon-intensive developing nations like China to the comparatively less carbon intensive West. In a few rich nations, such as France, Sweden and Britain, more than 30% of consumption-based emissions could be traced to origins abroad; if those emissions were tallied on the other side of the balance sheet, it would add more than four tons of CO₂ per person in several European nations.

The effect in the US is less extreme because the country exports more than Western Europe and because the US economy has a higher carbon intensity — but it made a difference. Imports accounted for 10.8% of US carbon emissions, enough to add an additional 2.4 metric tons of CO₂ per person. China, of course, fell into the opposite camp: 22.5% of the carbon emitted in China is actually exported to other countries, reducing its per capita carbon footprint from 3.9 tons to 3 tons. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

Climate-change critics like Republican Senator James Inhofe may rail against China, but the PNAS paper shows that while Beijing may be leading the world in carbon emissions, that output is in large part due to the fact that it is using energy to make clothes, cars and toys for the rest of us. It also demonstrates that Europe — whose per capita carbon footprint is less than half that of the US — essentially imports some of its green virtue from abroad by outsourcing its carbon emissions. "It does shrink the gap somewhat between the US and Europe," says Davis.

But the real implications of the new paper could come in international climate policy. The UN system is built around the idea of capping carbon emissions from individual nations. But which country is responsible for the carbon emitted in global trade? The buyer or the seller? The study demonstrates that carbon leakage — emissions moving from relatively green countries like France or Germany to more carbon-intensive ones like Russia or China — is already occurring.

The question is whether the leakage will accelerate if, for instance, developed nations institute tough carbon caps and drive out carbon-intensive industries, which will set up in uncapped developing nations — as cap-and-trade opponents allege. Or has any leakage that will occur already occurred? If industry hasn't already been outsourced from developed nations due to their higher labor costs and other disadvantages, a carbon cap may not make a difference. "The study definitely cuts both ways," says Davis. (See TIME's special report on the environment.)

What's clear is that for all the blame being put on major developing countries for failing to take on carbon regulations, climate change is still chiefly the responsibility of rich nations. We emitted most of the man-made CO₂ currently warming the planet, and even today, thanks to trade, we are still responsible for the majority of new carbon emissions.

As Davis and Caldeira write, "Consumption-based accounting of emissions provides grounding for ethical arguments that the most developed countries — as the primary beneficiaries of emissions and with greater ability to pay — should lead the global mitigation effort." That's hard to argue with.'

The Well-Travelled Taco - 19 Ingredients That Logged 64,000 Miles

[click image to enlarge]

Fascinating project which mapped the 'tacoshed'...perhaps a frequent flyer scheme should be set up for fast food!?

Reposted in full from GreenBiz, 3 March 2010

'The local food movement is nothing new, of course, and in fact is growing in leaps and bounds in recent months, as evidenced by "local food" announcements from major players including Frito-Lay, Safeway and, yes, Walmart.

These announcements, and many others like them, tend to focus on the raw materials of food - the fruits and vegetables you get in the produce aisles or at the farmer's market.But a new project at the California College of the Arts takes a much more holistic view of local food, tracking the miles traveled by every ingredient in that humble but utterly delicious meal, the taco.

Over at Good Magazine's website, Twilight Greenaway writes:

"Look closely enough at anything and you can start to see the sum of its parts. Even, for instance, a single taco, which, when examined recently by a group of architecture students, became a window into the complexities of globalization. The assignment was part of URBANlab, a program of The California College of the Arts that took place under the guidance of landscape architect David Fletcher and members of the art and design studio Rebar.

The goal was to map the local "tacoshed," which, much like a watershed, establishes the geographical boundaries of a taco's origins—the source of everything from the corn in the tortilla to the tomatoes in the salsa.

By thoroughly understanding what it takes to make a taco, the class hoped to become "better able to propose and design a speculative model of a holistic and sustainable urban future." The final product is a surprisingly useful microcosm of the industrial food system and its "richly complex network of systems, flows, and ecologies." According to the class findings, within a single taco, the ingredients had traveled a total of 64,000 miles, or just over two and a half times the circumference of the earth."

The tacoshed project found some surprising results, and some less surprising. The taco, chosen for being "the absolute most economical option possible," contained some truly local ingredients, including the salt and the cheese. Other ingredients had longer legs, including avocados from Chile and rice from Thailand.'

Arctic Melt To Cost Up To $24 Trillion By 2050

...glug, glug, glug!

Sound of the economy going down the gurgler big time if we don't start getting serious about this!

Reposted in full from Planet Ark, 5 March 2010

'Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $2.4 trillion to $24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a report released on Friday.

"Everybody around the world is going to bear these costs," said Eban Goodstein, a resource economist at Bard College in New York state who co-authored the report, called "Arctic Treasure, Global Assets Melting Away."

He said the report, reviewed by more than a dozen scientists and economists and funded by the Pew Environment Group, an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts, provides a first attempt to monetize the cost of the loss of one of the world's great weather makers.

"The Arctic is the planet's air conditioner and it's starting to break down," he said.
The loss of Arctic Sea ice and snow cover is already costing the world about $61 billion to $371 billion annually from costs associated with heat waves, flooding and other factors, the report said.

The losses could grow as a warmer Arctic unlocks vast stores of methane in the permafrost. The gas has about 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.

Melting of Arctic sea ice is already triggering a feedback of more warming as dark water revealed by the receding ice absorbs more of the sun's energy, he said. That could lead to more melting of glaciers on land and raise global sea levels.

While much of Europe and the United States has suffered heavy snowstorms and unusually low temperatures this winter, evidence has built that the Arctic is at risk from warming.
Greenhouse gases generated by tailpipes and smokestacks have pushed Arctic temperatures in the last decade to the highest levels in at least 2,000 years, reversing a natural cooling trend, an international team of researchers reported in the journal Science in September.

Arctic emissions of methane have jumped 30 percent in recent years, scientists said last month.
Thin ice over the Arctic Sea this winter could mean a powerful ice-melt next summer, a top U.S. climate scientist said this week.

And early findings from a major research project in Canada involving more than 370 scientists from 27 countries showed on Friday that climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice.

Goodstein's study did not look at worst-case scenarios Arctic melting could have, such as warmer temperatures that trigger massive releases of crystallized methane formations in Arctic soils and ocean beds known as methane hydrates. It also did not look at sea ice erosion troubling people in the Arctic.'

Old-Growth Logging Will Lock in Community Conflict, Financial Losses and Environmental Damage

...meanwhile in our own backyard...

Natural assets are the basis of all value chains, including the economic ones that flow from them - time to get into the 21st century!

Reposted in full from EcoVoice, March 2010

'An advertising campaign and report launched by forest industry representative group FIAT shows that the Tasmanian logging industry is behind the times and out-of-touch with the realities of the marketplace, according to the Wilderness Society.

"The native forest logging industry is in crisis with logging contractors wanting out, Gunns in a profit free-fall and overseas customers rejecting our woodchips, yet the industry continues to bulldoze ahead with this kind of destructive logging," said Vica Bayley, spokesperson for the Wilderness Society.

Markets, international certification schemes and the community have moved on and no longer accept products that come from the destruction of high-conservation value native forests, including old-growth forests, and this report and advertising campaign does nothing to bring the industry into the twenty-first century.

"Politicians have for too long supported a native-forest logging industry which is a lose-lose outcome for Tasmania. We are losing our forests, our clean clever brand, and timber industry jobs - and it's costing the state millions of dollars.

"This campaign is being run by FIAT, a group with vested interests in old-growth logging, and seeks to lock in political support for an outdated industry which is desperately in need of restructure.

"The Wilderness Society supports the logging of some native forests for high-value low-volume specialty and craft timbers. However, a urgent restructure is needed to protect Tasmania's ancient forests and move industrial timber production into the extensive plantation estate.

"FIAT claims that conservationists want to see all native-forest logging ended, but we recognise that logging for high-value craft timber is crucial for a vibrant Tasmanian economy.

We don't, however, believe the continued destruction of native forests for low-value uses such as woodchips has a place in twenty-first century Tasmania.

"FIAT needs to get with the times and embrace the wave of change pushing the industry in the direction of reform. FIAT and the old-style politicians need to stop working against market and community forces and work towards positive outcomes for the community, industry and environment," said Mr Bayley.'

Majority of Australians Say Government Responsible for Stopping Illegal Logging Imports

Reposted in full from EcoVoice, March 2010

'An overwhelming majority (92%) of Australians think the government has a responsibility to ensure illegal timber is not sold in this country, according to a recent Newspoll survey commissioned by Greenpeace with the support of leading timber retailer Bunnings.

The nationally representative survey also revealed that:

* an overwhelming majority would be willing to pay more for imported timber products if they have been sourced from a legally certified provider.

* only 6% currently find it easy to determine the difference between legal and illegal timber.

These results follow last week's release of a government-commissioned report that recommended against a ban on illegal timber imports in Australia, something they promised to implement as part of their election platform in 2007.

"This poll should leave the government with no doubt as to what needs to be done,' says Greenpeace Forests Campaigner Reece Turner. "It is disturbing that voluntary measures are being considered to address this issue, given the broad support from major players within the timber industry and from leading environment groups for the promised ban."

The government needs to listen to the concerns of consumers, support industry leaders, and help protect the world's forests by ensuring that illegal timber does not enter this country. Leading retailers and importers have demonstrated foresight by investing in legal certification of the timber products they trade in.

"Bunnings is supportive of the government introducing effective measures to prevent illegal timber imports. We've worked very earnestly for the past decade in an ongoing effort to eliminate illegally logged timber from our supply chain and offer our customers sustainable solutions," Bunnings Managing Director, John Gillam said.

Australia imports $840 million worth of illegally logged timber each year and the rate of illegal logging in our region is among the highest in the world. This means Australian consumers are unwittingly buying timber products that come from illegal logging operations in neighbouring countries like Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.

Illegal logging is linked to human rights abuse, irreversible biodiversity loss and devastating deforestation. Deforestation is responsible for about a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.
When people go to the store to buy timber, they should have the confidence that any products they purchase have not come from illegal logging.

Tell the government to stay strong on illegal logging imports, listen to Australians and support the timber industry. Write a letter and Say No to Bad Wood.'

Can We Design Cities for Happiness?

Reposted in full from Shareable, 3 March 2010

'Happiness itself is a commons to which everyone should have equal access.

That’s the view of Enrique Peñalosa, who is not a starry-eyed idealist given to abstract theorizing. He’s actually a politician, who served as mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, for three years, and now travels the world spreading a message about how to improve quality-of-life for everyone living in today’s cities.

Peñalosa’s ideas stand as a beacon of hope for cities of the developing world, which even with their poverty and immense problems will absorb much of the world’s population growth over the next half-century. Based on his experiences in Bogotá, Peñalosa believes it’s a mistake to give up on these cities as good places to live.

“If we in the Third World measure our success or failure as a society in terms of income, we would have to classify ourselves as losers until the end of time,” declares Peñalosa. “So with our limited resources, we have to invent other ways to measure success. This might mean that all kids have access to sports facilities, libraries, parks, schools, nurseries.”

Peñalosa uses phrases like “quality of life” or “social justice” rather than “commons-based society” to describe his agenda of offering poor people first-rate government services and pleasant public places, yet it is hard to think of anyone who has done more to reinvigorate the commons in his or her own community.

Transforming Bogotá

In three years (1998-2001) as mayor of Colombia’s capital city of 7 million, Peñalosa’s Administration accomplished the following:

• Led a team that created the TransMilenio, a bus rapid transit system (BRT), which now carries a half-million passengers daily on special bus lanes that offer most of the advantages of a subway at a fraction of the cost.

• Built 52 new schools, refurbished 150 others and increased student enrollment by 34 percent.

• Established or improved 1200 parks and playgrounds throughout the city.

• Built three central and 10 neighborhood libraries.

• Built 100 nurseries for children under five.

• Improved life in the slums by providing water service to 100 percent of Bogotá households.

• Bought undeveloped land on the outskirts of the city to prevent real estate speculation and ensured that it will be developed as affordable housing with electrical, sewage, and telephone service as well as space reserved for parks, schools, and greenways.

• Established 300 kilometers of separated bikeways, the largest network in the developing world.

• Created the world’s longest pedestrian street, 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) crossing much of the city as well as a 45- kilometer (28 miles) greenway along a path that had been originally slated for an eight-lane highway.

• Reduced traffic by almost 40 percent by implementing a system where motorists must leave cars at home during rush hour two days a week. He also raised parking fees and local gas taxes, with half of the proceeds going to fund the new bus transit system.

• Inaugurated an annual car-free day, where everyone from CEOs to janitors commuted to work in some way other than a private automobile.

• Planted 100,000 trees.

Quality of Life = Common Wealth

All together, these accomplishments boosted the common good in a city characterized by vast disparities of wealth. Peñalosa is passionate in articulating a vision that a city belongs to all its citizens.

David Burwell—a strategic analyst with Project for Public Spaces who has long experience working on environmental, transportation, and community issues—calls Peñalosa, “One of the great public servants of our time. He views cities as being planned for a purpose—to create human well-being. He’s got a great sense of what a leader should do—to promote human happiness.”

Bogota is now held up as an international model for sustainable innovation, even for cities in the developing world. Peñalosa of course, didn’t do this alone. Antanas Mockus, who both preceded and succeeded him as mayor, and Gil Peñalosa, Enrique’s brother, who served as parks commissioner under Mockus, are among the many who deserve credit. Bogota mayors are limited to one consecutive three-year term. Peñalosa ran again for mayor in 2008, losing according to some observers because a leftist opponent also embraced a commons-style agenda, including the promise of a new subway system.

Enrique Peñalosa has become an international star of sorts among green urban designers, so I assumed he was trained as a city planner and inspired by long involvement in the environmental movement. But the truth is that he arrived at these ideas from a completely different direction. “My focus has always been social—how you can help the most people for the greater public good.”

Growing up in the 1960s, when revolutionary fervor swept South America, Peñalosa became an ardent socialist at a young age, advocating income redistribution as the solution to social ills. He studied economics and history at Duke University in the United States, which he attended on a soccer scholarship, and later moved to Paris to earn a doctoral degree in management and public administration. Paris was a marvelous education in the possibilities of urban living, and he returned home with aspirations of bringing European-style city comforts to the working class of Bogotá. Several years working as a business manager moderated his ideological views but not, he hastens to tell me, his quest for social justice.

Thinking about Equality in New Ways

“We live in the post-communism period, in which many have assumed equality as a social goal is obsolete,” he explains. “Although income equality as a concept does not jibe with market economy, we can seek to achieve quality-of-life equality.”

Quality of life is not just a phrase to Peñalosa. He is firmly dedicated to giving everyone in a city more opportunity for recreation, education, transportation and the chance to take pleasure in their surroundings. That explains his emphasis on parks, mass transit, childcare facilities, bikeways, schools, libraries and other forms of the commons that enhance people’s lives. And that focus on serving the disadvantaged extends to public space—which he explains is where poor people who do not have backyards, vacation homes and private clubs tend to hang out.

Peñalosa is proud of how his administration tamed the automobile in Bogota in order to meet the needs of those who do not own cars. Nearly all cities around the globe accommodate motorists at the expense of everyone else, turning the streets—a commons that once was used by everyone, including pedestrians and kids at play—into the exclusive domain of motorists. In the developing world, where only a select portion of people own motor vehicles, this is particularly unfair and detrimental to a sense of community.

The streets were reclaimed for people through policies that used both carrots and sticks. As expected, the sticks—driving bans during rush hour and enforcement of long-ignored laws prohibiting cars on the sidewalks—drew howls of outrage from a small but powerful group of people, who had always treated sidewalks as their own personal parking lot.

“I was almost impeached by the car-owning upper classes,” Peñalosa recalls, “but it was popular with everyone else.”

However, the carrots were embraced by almost everyone. The pedestrian streets, greenways and bike trails he created are well used on weekdays by commuters and on evenings and weekends by recreational bikers and walkers out enjoying the Latin custom of a paseo—an evening stroll.

Streets for People, Not Just Cars

Another hit is the Ciclovía, in which as many as 2 million people (30 percent of the city’s population) take over 120 kilometers of major streets between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. every Sunday, for bike rides, strolls and public events. This weekly event began in 1976 but was expanded by Peñalosa. It now has spread to numerous Colombian cities as well as San Francisco; Quito, Ecuador; El Paso, Texas; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and is being explored for Chicago, New York, Portland and Melbourne, Australia.

Peñalosa’s proudest achievement is TransMilenio, the bus rapid transit (BRT) system that enables buses to zoom on special lanes that make mass transit faster and more convenient than driving. There are now eight TransMilenio routes criss-crossing Bogotá. The BRT idea was pioneered in Curitiba, Brazil, in the 1970s but Bogotá’s success shows it can work in a larger city.

Oscar Edmundo Diaz, senior program director for the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), who was Peñalosa’s chief mayoral aide, proudly notes that even wealthy people who own cars are now enthusiastic users of the BRT. “You don’t want to build a transit system just for the poor,” he counsels. “Otherwise it will be stigmatized, and even poor people will look down on it. If everyone uses it, it will help the poor more.”

Wowed by the success of TransMilenio, six other Colombian cities are developing their own systems. Peñalosa and Diaz have been very influential in spreading the idea throughout the world. In 2004, Jakarta, Indonesia, inaugurated TransJakarta, a Bogotá-inspired BRT system that now features six lines with three more under construction. Dozens of other cities around the globe have BRT projects under construction or up-and-running, including Hong Kong; Mexico City, Mexico; Johannesburg, South Africa; Taipei, Taiwan; Quito, Ecuador; and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. The idea is now spreading to cities in developed countries including, Sydney, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, and even the city known for decades as the world center of automotive glory, Los Angeles.

It’s not that Peñalosa hates cars. It’s that he loves lively places where people of all backgrounds gather to enjoy themselves—public commons that barely exist in cities where cars rule the streets. These sorts of places are even more important in poor cities than in wealthy ones, he says, because poor people have nowhere else to go.

Urban Sustainability Goes Global

Peñalosa has been taking this message throughout the world in lecture tours sponsored by the World Bank and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), a New York-based group promoting sustainable transportation in the developing world.

“You cannot overestimate the impact Peñalosa has had, on a personal level, in 10 or 12 countries,” notes Walter Hook, director of ITDP. “He takes these ideas, which can be rather dry, and speaks emotionally about the ways they affect people’s lives. He has the ability to change how people think about cities. He’s a revolution that way.”

“Economics, urban planning, ecology are only the means. Happiness is the goal,” Peñalosa says, summing up his work. “We have a word in Spanish, ganas, which means a burning desire. I have ganas about public life.”

“The least a democratic society should do,” he continues, “is to offer people wonderful public spaces. Public spaces are not a frivolity. They are just as important as hospitals and schools. They create a sense of belonging. This creates a different type of society—a society where people of all income levels meet in public space is a more integrated, socially healthier one.”'