TOUR OF SHELLS 2006 PRINCIPAL VOICES EXPLORATION OF 2006
conducted with media partners CNN, Time & Fortune and hosed in Delhi, London. San Francisco & Sydney
As usual Solar is portrayed as if its many moons away
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/alternative.energy.html
However it is admitted that something is wrong:
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/introduction.html
there are increasing fears that this human-dominated phase of the Earth's long history is not sustainable. A trawl through statistics compiled by the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP, can make for depressing reading.
Species are becoming extinct at a speed around 100 times faster than would happen naturally.
Stern's HM Treasury Report http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/economics.html
is "warmin g could bring 1930s havoc"
James Lovelock is Quoted as saying:
when you model the earth as it it is a responding system, the one thing that comes out is: it is quite prone to make sudden jumps from one state to another
There are juicy contributions from:
ashok khosla http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/ashok-khosla-white-paper.html
wingari maathai http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/wangari.maathai.white.paper.html
David Hales http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/david.hales.white.paper.html
Khosla, Ashok says:
very large part of the negative spin-offs of technology arise from the preference built up over the past century for grand engineering projects: activities that are large-scale, centralized, capital-intensive and that also happen to be energy-guzzling and highly waste generating. Examples of such projects are the massive dams, power plants, transport systems, mining concessions, chemical-intensive and energy consuming farms that increasingly form the backbone of the global economy. By focusing on raising the productivity of labor at the expense of land, water and energy productivity, these types of projects generally end up with many associated costs such as unemployment, pollution and accelerated resource depletion. Highly subsidized transportation systems and other price distortions make it profitable for companies and convenient for their customers to do things that are not good for the current or future health of society - or of the ecosystem on which it vitally depends.
The economic theories on which our present systems of production, distribution and consumption rest, just do not work. Unfortunately, the assumptions underlying neo-classical economics - and the machineries of the modern marketplace that they naturally lead to - are not sufficiently solid to support the common platforms of human values on which societies must stand to benefit collectively and equitably. Growth, they have claimed, must come first, even if the cost is distributive injustice and human misery. Efficiency over equity. The rich before the poor. Machines above people. Wealth even at the expense of nature.
But the global economy, which is based on these assumptions, is in a mess. No fine-tuning of the neo-classical doctrines, no more of the same medicines - that, after all, are causing the problems in the first place - can get us out of it. When the social, environmental and natural resource costs of the past century's experiments with "modernization" are all counted, it will become obvious that the current form of "development" is not sustainable. The widespread social and economic ills of today are just the early symptoms of a terminal disease that human society seems inexorably headed for. Such a fate can be avoided, not by a change of dosage, or even a change of the medication, but by a fundamental change to an altogether different system of social (and economic) medicine, one that is based on prevention rather than cure.
David Hales says:
The most intractable challenges of the 21st century will be driven by human impact on the natural systems of the planet which determine the character and quality of our lives.
Over the course of this century, human society will become more sustainable, but not necessarily more desirable. We have the opportunity to choose a future that is sustainable and just, as opposed to one of conflict, inequity and scarcity.
The challenges we face are fundamentally different from those that our dominant institutions and policy processes evolved to address.
They are complex, with uncertainties at every level of analysis. They are insidious, difficult to detect or understand in early stages, yet capable of massive impacts in apparently short periods of time. They will be expensive to address, even in the early stages when the costs of mitigation or avoidance will be most difficult to justify economically and politically.
Our policy-making institutions are strategically inept, designed to allocate benefits, not scarcity, fragmented in responsibility and authority, and dominated by narrow interests, the influence of which reflects the past, not the future.
Moreover, they embody the implicit assumption that we can ignore the world's natural systems and growing inequities of human quality of life with impunity.
Sustainable policies must be firmly grounded in the realization that humans are inextricably embedded in nature.
As every farmer knows, there are limits on our behavior and consequences for exceeding these. While the purpose of government remains to enable the wellbeing of citizens, there are principles which must assume new prominence if that goal is to be attained. Simply put, we must behave prudently, empower the market, and accept responsibilities for our actions and inactions.
Of these, prudence is the first among equals. We must regard the future as a new form of "global commons." It belongs to all equally; it is not the province of any nation, or of special interests which happen to be dominant today.
As Edmund Burke argued, the present is but an inheritance from the past that belongs -- morally and legally -- to future generations as much as to the present. Governance must base policies in the "precautionary principle," as found in various forms in international soft law, in broad form in the domestic legislation of many countries, and enshrined in common sense -- look before you leap.
A fair, transparent and global market, free of protectionism, where all costs of products and services -- including environmental impacts which are transgenerational -- are included in prices, is a necessary tool for the transition to sustainability.
Governments should set clear performance goals and standards, and refrain from practices that artificially choose winners and losers.
A modest first step is for governments to refuse to subsidize the costs of waste and risk management. Nuclear power, for example, is unlikely to compete effectively with renewable energy if the costs of environmental impacts or risk management are included in the price of energy to the consumer.
Public policy must also demand and enforce a culture of responsibility. The right to private property, the drive for private profit, and the sovereignty of the state do not justify ecologically destructive behavior, and legal systems must protect all interests.
Wangari Maathai says:
Our environment is fragile and the Earth's resources are limited. We must learn to manage these resources responsibly, accountably and share them more equitably.
This will only be possible if we govern ourselves in a political space that is democratic and respects human rights, the law and the diversity of cultures, traditions and perspectives. In such a world, where dialogue is encouraged, many conflicts can be pre-empted.
Among the many human activities that degrade the environment are deforestation and the clearing of shrubs and other vegetation from the land, both of which exacerbate the process of desertification. Other harmful behavior includes creation of pollution and waste, often driven by the "single use products" such as thin plastics and paper.
Initiatives to mitigate this environmental degradation must come from governments, the private sector and individuals. To encourage and support such efforts, it is essential to raise awareness, so a critical mass of people within government bodies, corporations and among citizens understand what is at stake and are motivated to take action.
In this respect, it is critically important to have strong citizens' movements -- a civil society -- that are able to take action and demand a clean environment from all the other actors.
--------------------------------------------------------
Delhi urban crisis transcript and videos at http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/debates/delhi/transcript.html
corporate collaboration transcript and videos are here
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/debates/london/transcript.html
in which James Smith, chairman of Shell UK, participated
conducted with media partners CNN, Time & Fortune and hosed in Delhi, London. San Francisco & Sydney
As usual Solar is portrayed as if its many moons away
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/alternative.energy.html
However it is admitted that something is wrong:
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/introduction.html
there are increasing fears that this human-dominated phase of the Earth's long history is not sustainable. A trawl through statistics compiled by the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP, can make for depressing reading.
Species are becoming extinct at a speed around 100 times faster than would happen naturally.
Stern's HM Treasury Report http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/economics.html
is "warmin g could bring 1930s havoc"
James Lovelock is Quoted as saying:
when you model the earth as it it is a responding system, the one thing that comes out is: it is quite prone to make sudden jumps from one state to another
There are juicy contributions from:
ashok khosla http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/ashok-khosla-white-paper.html
wingari maathai http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/wangari.maathai.white.paper.html
David Hales http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/environment/david.hales.white.paper.html
Khosla, Ashok says:
very large part of the negative spin-offs of technology arise from the preference built up over the past century for grand engineering projects: activities that are large-scale, centralized, capital-intensive and that also happen to be energy-guzzling and highly waste generating. Examples of such projects are the massive dams, power plants, transport systems, mining concessions, chemical-intensive and energy consuming farms that increasingly form the backbone of the global economy. By focusing on raising the productivity of labor at the expense of land, water and energy productivity, these types of projects generally end up with many associated costs such as unemployment, pollution and accelerated resource depletion. Highly subsidized transportation systems and other price distortions make it profitable for companies and convenient for their customers to do things that are not good for the current or future health of society - or of the ecosystem on which it vitally depends.
The economic theories on which our present systems of production, distribution and consumption rest, just do not work. Unfortunately, the assumptions underlying neo-classical economics - and the machineries of the modern marketplace that they naturally lead to - are not sufficiently solid to support the common platforms of human values on which societies must stand to benefit collectively and equitably. Growth, they have claimed, must come first, even if the cost is distributive injustice and human misery. Efficiency over equity. The rich before the poor. Machines above people. Wealth even at the expense of nature.
But the global economy, which is based on these assumptions, is in a mess. No fine-tuning of the neo-classical doctrines, no more of the same medicines - that, after all, are causing the problems in the first place - can get us out of it. When the social, environmental and natural resource costs of the past century's experiments with "modernization" are all counted, it will become obvious that the current form of "development" is not sustainable. The widespread social and economic ills of today are just the early symptoms of a terminal disease that human society seems inexorably headed for. Such a fate can be avoided, not by a change of dosage, or even a change of the medication, but by a fundamental change to an altogether different system of social (and economic) medicine, one that is based on prevention rather than cure.
David Hales says:
The most intractable challenges of the 21st century will be driven by human impact on the natural systems of the planet which determine the character and quality of our lives.
Over the course of this century, human society will become more sustainable, but not necessarily more desirable. We have the opportunity to choose a future that is sustainable and just, as opposed to one of conflict, inequity and scarcity.
The challenges we face are fundamentally different from those that our dominant institutions and policy processes evolved to address.
They are complex, with uncertainties at every level of analysis. They are insidious, difficult to detect or understand in early stages, yet capable of massive impacts in apparently short periods of time. They will be expensive to address, even in the early stages when the costs of mitigation or avoidance will be most difficult to justify economically and politically.
Our policy-making institutions are strategically inept, designed to allocate benefits, not scarcity, fragmented in responsibility and authority, and dominated by narrow interests, the influence of which reflects the past, not the future.
Moreover, they embody the implicit assumption that we can ignore the world's natural systems and growing inequities of human quality of life with impunity.
Sustainable policies must be firmly grounded in the realization that humans are inextricably embedded in nature.
As every farmer knows, there are limits on our behavior and consequences for exceeding these. While the purpose of government remains to enable the wellbeing of citizens, there are principles which must assume new prominence if that goal is to be attained. Simply put, we must behave prudently, empower the market, and accept responsibilities for our actions and inactions.
Of these, prudence is the first among equals. We must regard the future as a new form of "global commons." It belongs to all equally; it is not the province of any nation, or of special interests which happen to be dominant today.
As Edmund Burke argued, the present is but an inheritance from the past that belongs -- morally and legally -- to future generations as much as to the present. Governance must base policies in the "precautionary principle," as found in various forms in international soft law, in broad form in the domestic legislation of many countries, and enshrined in common sense -- look before you leap.
A fair, transparent and global market, free of protectionism, where all costs of products and services -- including environmental impacts which are transgenerational -- are included in prices, is a necessary tool for the transition to sustainability.
Governments should set clear performance goals and standards, and refrain from practices that artificially choose winners and losers.
A modest first step is for governments to refuse to subsidize the costs of waste and risk management. Nuclear power, for example, is unlikely to compete effectively with renewable energy if the costs of environmental impacts or risk management are included in the price of energy to the consumer.
Public policy must also demand and enforce a culture of responsibility. The right to private property, the drive for private profit, and the sovereignty of the state do not justify ecologically destructive behavior, and legal systems must protect all interests.
Wangari Maathai says:
Our environment is fragile and the Earth's resources are limited. We must learn to manage these resources responsibly, accountably and share them more equitably.
This will only be possible if we govern ourselves in a political space that is democratic and respects human rights, the law and the diversity of cultures, traditions and perspectives. In such a world, where dialogue is encouraged, many conflicts can be pre-empted.
Among the many human activities that degrade the environment are deforestation and the clearing of shrubs and other vegetation from the land, both of which exacerbate the process of desertification. Other harmful behavior includes creation of pollution and waste, often driven by the "single use products" such as thin plastics and paper.
Initiatives to mitigate this environmental degradation must come from governments, the private sector and individuals. To encourage and support such efforts, it is essential to raise awareness, so a critical mass of people within government bodies, corporations and among citizens understand what is at stake and are motivated to take action.
In this respect, it is critically important to have strong citizens' movements -- a civil society -- that are able to take action and demand a clean environment from all the other actors.
--------------------------------------------------------
Delhi urban crisis transcript and videos at http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/debates/delhi/transcript.html
corporate collaboration transcript and videos are here
http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/debates/london/transcript.html
in which James Smith, chairman of Shell UK, participated
posted by Anonymous at 9:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home