Sat 17 Jan 2009
A Precedent for the Next Hundred Years
Posted by admin under On the economy
[7] Comments
Brian Czech
President, Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
The First Hundred Days: A Precedent for the Next Hundred Years
The first thing Greens would do in office is continue leveling with Americans and resonating with their common sense. We would clarify for all that the Wall Street obsession with economic growth – increasing production and consumption of goods and services – threatens to break our collective back, and has already caused extensive damage. Instead of more and more of the “stuff” of growth, we need high-quality economic development. We need an economy that meets all citizens’ needs and provides financial security and health for our communities, kids, and grandkids. We need an economy that nurtures rather than plunders our environment. We need a steady state economy, and we would start working toward it on day one.
After an unprecedented effort to gather input from citizens, communities, and businesses, our ecological economists and other experts would begin the task of prioritizing policies to make the transition to a steady state economy. We would not make drastic changes overnight, but take a gradual approach to revamp the economy. The first hundred days would be a start, and the end result would be an economy of sustainable size, fair distribution of wealth, and efficient allocation of resources.
We would reform the economy by incrementally shifting tax, monetary, and trade policies. The purpose of the shift would be to harness America’s entrepreneurial spirit and institutional creativity for the enrichment of the whole society. We would deploy ecological taxes on pollution, resource extraction, and use of natural capital. We would begin to increase the reserve requirements of banks to transfer control of the money supply from private bankers to the elected government. We would replace outdated measures of economic output with measures of true economic progress. Above all else, we would protect the environment, reminding citizens that the environment is the base of the grandkids’ economy. With a Green Party Administration, a hundred days will help for a hundred years.
7 Responses to “ A Precedent for the Next Hundred Years ”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
[…] Steady State Economy […]
-
[…] of the Steady State EconomyThe First Hundred Days: A Precedent for the Next Hundred Yearshttp://www.gp.org/first100/?p=12Morgen D’Arc, Co-Founder, Co-Spokesperson and Former Co-Chair, National Women’s […]
-
[…] and policies you believe in – regardless of whether or not you think they have a chance of winning. Smaller parties and independents will never be elected if we continue to be part of the system – change happens at […]
A great start! I would love to see a collaboration to get this further into some exemplary details to fill in the vision. Perhaps a phased plan (first month, second month etc.) taking folks through the steps to get to a green future….?
For the U.S. Green Party’s climate change mitigation measures to be achievable, the First 100 Days: Energy and Environmental Policy: Summary of major recommendations must include the imperative in the public policy to stabilize global CO2 levels at 350 PPM. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists on July 4, 2008 said only seven years remained for stabilizing emissions of global-warming gases at a level widely considered safe. Shifting to a 100% renewable energy (net-zero energy) economy looms and must now be realized within six and one-half years.
—-
from: Coal Reserves May Not be as Abundant as Previously Thought
“Many climate scientists now say that global CO2 levels should stabilize at 350 PPM to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Current levels are now around 380 PPM.
Phasing it out vs. using it up
Even if there is far less coal than previously thought, it’s foolhardy to think we could just “use it up” and everything will be alright. Pushker Kharecha, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies sums it up well: “Coal emissions really need to be phased out proactively — we can’t just wait for them to run out — by the year 2030. There is more than enough coal to keep CO2 well above 350 ppm well beyond this century.”
EIA report shows decline in coal production
The annual long-term forecast recently issued from the Energy Information Agency projects 46 gigawatts of coal-generated power by 2030, down from 104 gigawatts from last year’s forecast. This year utility companies have cancelled construction on 13 coal-fired plants.
Certainly coal will remain a dominant player for power generation for years to come, but with rising concern about global warming and anticipation of federal emissions targets spurred by president-elect Obama’s call for an 80% reduction in emissions over 1990 levels by 2050, it won’t much matter if Rutledge’s numbers are right or not. Any way you look at it, burning coal is an unsustainable energy policy.”
—-
from: The Open Atmospheric Science Journal Volume 2 (2008)
ISSN: 1874-282
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
pp.217-231 (15) Authors: James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos
doi: 10.2174/1874282300802010217
Abstract:
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ～3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ～6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.
—
from: Revised Theory Suggests Carbon Dioxide Levels Already in Danger Zone
While they (the authors) note the task of moving toward an era beyond fossil fuels is Herculean, the authors conclude that it is feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II and that “the greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.”
“There is a bright side to this conclusion” said lead author James Hansen of Columbia University, “Following a path that leads to a lower CO2 amount, we can alleviate a number of problems that had begun to seem inevitable, such as increased storm intensities, expanded desertification, loss of coral reefs, and loss of mountain glaciers that supply fresh water to hundreds of millions of people.”
Brian Czech’s comments are in line with the thought-provoking words of David Korten in a recent “Democracy Now” interview – “the whole concept of economic growth is flawed in terms of how we measure it, because in fact what economic growth really measures is the cost of producing whatever level of human well-being, health and well-being, we have achieved. So, in an economy that works, we would start assessing economic performance against indicators of the health of our children, of our families, of our communities, the health of our natural systems, and we would look at GDP as a measure of the cost of that attainment, so we would be trying to minimize GDP rather than maximize it, as we organize economies that are really about—they’re about building community.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/26/david_korten_agenda_for_a_new
These ideas need to be spread far and wide.
The statement is more about improving society than sustainability. Lots of people have ideas about how to improve life, but few talk about how to sustain the aspects of quality of life we hold dear. It is difficult to imagine how quality of life can be improved if population reaches 9.2 billion by 2050 as projected, yet this is seldom, if ever, factored in when technological advances are discussed. The statement calls for “improving the environment”. This has been part of the conventional wisdom for at least three decades and many worthy campaigns have been waged and won, yet the environment has grown dramatically worse. That may be due to people becoming harder on the environment, but it is also due in large part to the increased number of people. If we really care about the future, we should begin each effort to ameliorate the environment by asking how much of the problem is attributable to the increasing size of individual footprints and how much to the increasing number of footprints.
I suggest adding to your list of cited publications: Tom Horton, “US must cure its addiction to growth to save environment, economy” Bay Journal, January 2009