The coronavirus pandemic has affected societies, governments and economies across the world. Due to the numerous restrictions put in place to deal with this health crisis, many businesses are struggling, and layoffs are unavoidable in some areas. These pandemic restrictions have led to a temporary decrease in carbon emissions which has unexpectedly caused some countries like Germany to reach their emission goals in 2020 [1]. Nevertheless, the reduction of emissions is just a snapshot and not a long-term trend, proved by countries like the UK that have seen a rapid increase in carbon emissions after the lockdown has been lifted [2]. Unfortunately, the drop in emissions caused by the pandemic will only result in a 0.01 °C decrease in temperatures – which is well within natural variability [3].

In the face of a global recession, governments used stimulus packages to support affected business sectors to maintain employment or create new jobs. Simultaneously, the pressing challenge of tackling climate is more relevant than ever with 2020 being among the hottest years ever recorded [4]. There was great demand from scientists to include environmental and climatic conditions in the stimulus packages seeing the pandemic as a green rebound chance. The considerable spending during the time of crisis will have long-term effects on the structure of economies.

In this brief report, green stimulus packages are explained and connections to the 2009 financial crisis, where a green rebound was under discussion already, are shown. Next, the current stimulus packages of the G20 countries – which account for roughly 75 % of global carbon emissions [5] – are analysed according to their greenness and effectiveness to mitigate climate change. In conclusion, we deliver recommendations which stimulus measures prove the highest chances for tackling both the coronavirus pandemic, the economic downturn caused hereby and climate change.

Financial Crisis Stimulus Packages 2009

During the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2008-09, carbon emissions reduced sharply, but already by 2010, emissions reached a record level [6]. This increase could be explained by the fiscal measures governments worldwide implemented to stimulate economies, which were rather designed to revive the existing economies than considering the environmental consequences.  Although the recession caused by COVID-19 differs from the GFC, as a broader range of sectors is currently affected, some lessons could be learned from the last efforts of recovery [7]. The knowledge gained over a decade ago should be used to design recovery packages with a green stimulus to prevent a negative environmental impact like the one in 2009. Especially as COVID-19 spending with more than USD12 trillion to date [7] outsizes the GFC measures, which comprised approximately USD3 trillion [8].

Analysing the green stimulus of GFC recovery packages, 17.1 % of G20 public spending was dedicated to the support of renewable energy, energy efficiency and pollution control [9]. Those measures mostly focused on reducing carbon emissions while nature and biodiversity have been particularly neglected. One crucial finding emerges regarding the timeframe of the measures. After the economy began recovering in 2010, there has been no green expenditure of comparable size in any country, which suggests that short term policies are not sufficient for structural transformation of economies.

Moreover, a comparison of the stimulus types implemented in different countries shows an advantage of targeted policies as supporting green R&D investment over spending on large-scale infrastructure projects. As the limited success of the GFC recovery packages reveals, public spending alone cannot build up a sustainable economy. For this reason, various authors highlight the importance of pricing carbon and environmental damages [9]. A more general lesson learnt from the GFC crisis is that proper policy design is necessary to prevent environmentally harmful rebound effects [10].

Current Stimulus Packages

The amount of money spent by G20 governments on stimulus packages until December 2020 varies widely. Figure 1 shows per capita fiscal stimulus spending and per capita CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, the GSI of those stimulus packages is displayed. Interestingly, most countries that spend little money on stimulus packages have a very low GSI index, indicating that sustainability and climate-friendly measures are not implemented. One reason could be that some of those countries still heavily depend on fossil energy sources like coal (China), natural gas (Russia) and crude oil (Saudi Arabia) and thus are not willing to engage in green recovery measures.

Moving Forward

Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, an 8% reduction of CO₂ occurred. This reduction puts us within the 7.6% of global yearly reduction that the UNFCCC says are required between 2020 and 2030 to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C – and achieve the Paris agreement [7]. Therefore, in the effort to mitigate anthropogenic climate change the fight against COVID-19 must be used as a turning point in the climate discussion [14]. As a result of the unprecedented year of 2020, we have seen that change is possible. This is our chance to move forward as the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has cast a light on many of the systemic issues long ignored while also showing some potential solution [15].

The effects of the pandemic are striking, in fact, global energy demand was estimated to decrease by 6% in 2020 which was not only seven times what was seen after the 2008-2009 economic crisis, but it was also the first major decrease seen since World War II (Figure 2) [14]. The pandemic effectively demonstrated that many of the “dirtier industries” and fossil fuels were not resilient in the pandemic, seeing large economic losses [14, 16]. As many experts argue, this weakening of the power of fossil fuels and changes in norm creates the perfect time to transition away for these industries [3, 14, 15, 16]. This change is enabled further by the USD 9 trillion pledged by governments to combat the economic situation – which on average accounted for 7% of a countries GDP [17]. Experts argue that if used effectively these packages can bring us out of the pandemic and minimize the effects of climate change at the same time [16]. This is the case because the stimuli have more lasting impacts than regular discretionary spending [14].

Seeing these recovery packages as a tool to fight anthropogenic climate change is essential because of their potential to lock us into a more sustainable renewable energy-based future rather than continue reinforcing the statuesque [18]. For packages to be effective at dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and being climate-friendly, the International Energy Agency put forward some recommendations [5]. It provided a sustainable recovery plan to implement in the next 3 years (2021-2023). If implemented the annual energy related GHG emissions would be 4.5 billion tones lower in 2023 making 2019 the peak of global emission and would put us on the path of reaching Paris targets while also creating 1.1% of economic growth globally each year while creating 9 million jobs. The areas they recommended to focus investments in were: increasing energy efficiency of buildings and manufacturing, fostering low carbon electricity and transportation, and innovation. Therefore, creating jobs, increases in economic growth and a better future are all compatible and not at odds.

Conclusion

Moving forward, we are essentially at a crossroads of what to do, we can pick one of several emission scenarios as seen in Figure 3. Where we can recover with green stimuli, fossil fuels, or have a 2-year blip due to COVID-19 restrictions and then a return to normal [5]. These scenarios have very different implications for the future of the planet. Since governments are already investing so heavily into their economies now is the perfect time to lock in a more resilient and sustainable future, one that creates new jobs and opportunities, rather than repeat the mistakes of the past. In effect, as we fight to “get back to normal” it is essential to ask what normal do we want?

References

[1] DW (2021). Deutschland übertrifft wegen Corona Klimaziel 2020. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/de/deutschland-%C3%BCbertrifft-wegen-corona-klimaziel-2020/a-56121979 (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[2] Harvey, F. (2020). Surprisingly rapid rebound in carbon emissions post-lockdown. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/11/carbon-emissions-in-surprisingly-rapid-surge-postlockdown (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[3] Forster, P. M., Forster, H. I., Evans, M. J., Gidden, M. J., Jones, C. D., Keller, C. A., … & Turnock, S. T. (2020). Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19. Nature Climate Change, 10(10), 913-919.

[4] Yulsman, T. (2020). Has 2020 Ended as the Warmest Year on Record?. Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/will-2020-end-as-the-warmest-year-on-record (last visited: 06.01.2021)

[5] Godinho, C. et al. (2020). The Climate Transparency Report 2020. Climate Transparency. https://www.climate-transparency.org/g20-climate-performance/the-climate-transparency-report-2020 (last visited: 05.01.2021)

 [6] Cassim, Z. et al. (2020). The $10 trillion rescue: How governments can deliver impact. McKinsey&Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/the-10-trillion-dollar-rescue-how-governments-can-deliver-impact# (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[7] Hepburn, C. et al. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36(S1).

[8] Robins, N. et al. (2009). A Climate for Recovery. The colour of stimulus goes green. HSBC Bank plc. https://www.globaldashboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/HSBC_Green_New_Deal.pdf (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[9] Barbier, E. B. (2020). Greening the Post-Pandemic Recovery in the G20. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76:685-703.

 [10] Agrawala, S., D. Dussaux and N. Monti (2020), “What policies for greening the crisis response and economic recovery?: Lessons learned from past green stimulus measures and implications for the COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 164, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c50f186f-en

[11] Vivid Economics (2020).  Greenness of Stimulus Index. An assessment of COVID-19 stimulus by G20 countries and other major economies in relation to climate action and biodiversity goals. https://www.vivideconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/201214-GSI-report_December-release.pdf (last visited: 17.01.2021)

[12] Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Solazzo, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J.G.J., Vignati, E., Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries – 2020 Report, EUR 30358 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-21515-8, doi:10.2760/143674, JRC121460.

[13] United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Populations Prospects 2019. Total Population – Both Sexes. https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ (last visited: 13.01.2021)

[14] Mukanjari, S., & Sterner, T. (2020). Charting a “green path” for recovery from COVID-19. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 825-853.

[15] Benach, J. (2020). We Must Take Advantage of This Pandemic to Make a Radical Social Change: The Coronavirus as a Global Health, Inequality, and Eco-Social Problem. International Journal of Health Services, 0020731420946594.

[16] IEA (2020), Renewables 2020, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020 (Last visited 11.01.2021)

[17] IEA (2020), Sustainable Recovery, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery(Last visited 13.01.2021)

[18] Jagers S.C., Harring, N., Lofgren, A. et al. 2020. On the preconditions for large-scale collective action. Journal of the Human Environment 49(2):1282-1296

[19] G20 (2021). https://www.g20.org/en/index.html (last visited: 17.01.2021)

The post How to Tackle Climate Change with Green COVID-19 Recovery Packages appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

The curriculum

This year’s AEMS summer school took place over three weeks through late July and August. Over this period of time, students learned not only the basics about financial systems but also about tools of change across different sectors. What are some realistic ways in which our current systems can shift to be more sustainable and how can we add our own power behind this push? We explored this question through interaction with speakers and other students, writing blog posts and the final group project, in which we all presented our own idea for a project of change.

In Vienna… Or anywhere!

In total, thirty-six students from seventeen countries took part in the course. While the digital format meant that many participants were not located in Vienna, it made the science school very accessible to students and lecturers across the world. Students, organizers and lecturers could maintain contact and easily ask or answer questions as they arose through the use of digital tools like Zoom, Discord and YouTube. Furthermore, even after the school has ended, the channels remain open.

My experience

I absolutely had concerns about completing a fully digital science school! I worried about missing out on the personal side of group cooperation and learning, which (as I am sure we all know by now) comes so much more naturally in a physical setting compared to online. I thought I would have trouble remaining engaged through a computer screen and might not absorb the material well or burn out. I will admit that these things did end up being, at times, a challenge. At the beginning, I did struggle with feeling awkward trying to connect with a bunch of total strangers over the internet. And yes, sometimes it did take extra work to focus myself on lessons through a screen. However, all those strangers and I were both invested and interested in exploring avenues toward a better future, and we all found common ground just like in a physical setting – and suddenly, we became true colleagues! It was a mentally strenuous few weeks, but with motivation (and well-placed computer breaks), we made it through to our final change projects. It was great to hear how different groups integrated the weeks’ knowledge to propose change projects about how to support climate-friendly mobility, how to maintain businesses within planetary boundaries, the role of community currency, food sovereignty and more!

In the end…

The organizers of the AEMS science school were able to provide academically rigorous instruction for students online without sacrificing the elements of collaboration and group discussion that can potentially pose a problem for digital learning formats. Ultimately, the course organizers as well as the students both agree that AEMS 2020 accomplished the overall aim of “spreading the ideas of change and showing alternatives to the current economic and monetary system” and support student learning “to achieve a socially just and environmentally sustainable future”!

The post Alternative Economic and Monetary Systems (AEMS) Summer School 2020 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

At the centre of her proposal is the doughnut, a simple visual tool expressing the safe space  of social and planetary boundaries. The empty space outside of the doughnut consists of a breach of nine planetary boundaries, while the empty space in the centre of the doughnut represents a breach of commonly accepted social foundations. Between social and planetary boundaries exists an ecologically safe and socially fair space in which humanity can experience true wellbeing, both now and into the future.

Recently, Kate Raworth, in tandem with Rethinking Economics – the international student movement for pluralism in economics education –launched a competition for the public to come up with the 8th way to think like a 21st century economist. The article below is the last of three entries submitted by Steven Myburgh, a student in the GCE program.

Use money creation for good: from hoarding the money for the private casino, to reclaiming the money for shared goals.

In the past, the injection of money into an economy has been linked to expansion of materials and energy systems, using natural ‘resources’ – this has been shown to be untenable on a number of fronts. Rather, should at least a portion of money creation be harnessed according to global social and environmental deficits, growth can instead be linked to growth of resource-use efficiency and (re-)growth of natural capital, instead of GDP growth per se.

For decades, neoliberalist entities have advanced their trifecta of deregulation, privatisation and liberalisation. One result was the 2008 financial crisis, with the reckless finance industry being bailed out by taxpayers everywhere. Many argue that such cycles are inevitable when private banks have no significant controls on being able to create money – with neither the reserve ratio (the portion of reserves banks should hold onto rather than lend out, should there be one) or asset liquidity requirements (dictating how quickly one can cash out an investment) mattering much. In addition, central banks either bail out distressed banks or assume their liabilities. This has allowed the financial industry to create convoluted and complex financial instruments with which to gamble, under a system of privatised profit and socialised debts.

When banks loan to the private sector, common good is largely an accident on the way to making a profit, which is a rather inefficient means of generating it – especially when, on longer time lines that nobody in business circles has any incentive to project, making a profit erodes this common good.

So how is greed in the finance sector reigned in? While monetary reform ideas abound, I believe an important strategy would be to probe to what extent the money creation process is fair. In other words, is the flow of newly-created money associated with rent seeking, or the ability to charge for something you yourself were charged substantially less for? Of course, there is a place for private banks, to recognise opportunities which the public sector is not equipped to, and in this way to take risks in spurring the development of new goods and services that stand to benefit the real economy. Any limits placed on them should therefore be contained at the level before finance becomes speculatory. While ideally, regulation should control this, the reality is that the finance industry use their resources to nudge politicians in many countries in the direction of deregulation.

Public banking and grant-making organisations

Many advocate that alongside private banks, or even instead of them, public interest banks, grant-making organisations and government programs should be utilising new money created by central banks in our economies. Instead of loans given out on the basis of sufficient confidence in seeing their return with interest, they say, we should empower actors that can democratically loan and allocate it according to social and environmental criteria. Where there is limited possibility of generating a financial return, grant-making organisations and spending on government social and environmental programs fill the gap.

This is a broadening of the concept of sovereign money creation, where the government receives this new money to pump into public benefit programs. These public entities have vastly differing mandates to private banks. For example, they can have as aim to pursue profit in natural capital terms. When a public interest bank is assessing a potential project, they can assess it in terms of return on investment, but also in terms of how much carbon it stands to sequester, how much water it will retain, how much habitat it will create and so on. In the farther reaches of creative thinking, the value of certain financial instruments could be backed by levels of natural capital, such as the conservation status of endemic species and intactness of ecosystems.

Similarly, a public interest bank could aim for human wellbeing, as expressed by a number of metrics: genuine progress indicator; those related to the SDGs; and  those expressed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There stands to be much synergy between environmental projects and social outcomes, for example, livelihoods in the eco-tourism sector, and forests that capture rainwater and protect downstream communities from flooding.

One such example of a public interest bank might be a green bank, or a bank that has as its model to lend for green retrofitting of existing businesses: to generate their own solar and wind power, to ensure their operations are energy and material efficient, and re-use their own waste in a circular manner. It need not only be businesses: a household may want to install water-efficient showerheads, solar thermal geysers, insulate their homes, and generate their own compost, but be deterred by steep interest rates offered by conventional consumption loans.

We know where we need to pour money into, in order to enter into the safe space of the doughnut. The latest International Energy Agency report has stated that to align with key climate goals, a renewable energy revolution would cost $1.7 trillion per year by 2050, with savings of 6 trillion annually from reduced pollution costs, better health and lower environmental damage. In 2014, the UN estimated the financing gap to realise the SDGs at $2.5 trillion per year in developing countries. The Institute for Global Prosperity at University College London has published the UK’s first report on Universal Basic Services, calculating that in order to provide citizens with free housing, food, transport and IT, the country would require £42 billion annually.

By allowing money to work toward social and environmental goals, we add genuine value, as opposed to value that may one day vanish, come the first continental megadrought or the rise of an authoritarian government in response to climate change induced migration. Ultimately, sovereign money creation for the common good would positively affect private banking as well. Prioritising investor confidence in profit-making above all else is not a tenable approach to building an economy – it has come at too great a cost, and proved unable to tackle inequality or protect the planet. If money is power, we need to take it back.

The post The 8th Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist – Part 3 of 3 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

At the centre of her proposal is the doughnut, a simple visual tool expressing the safe space  of social and planetary boundaries. The empty space outside of the doughnut consists of a breach of nine planetary boundaries, while the empty space in the centre of the doughnut represents a breach of commonly accepted social foundations. Between social and planetary boundaries exists an ecologically safe and socially fair space in which humanity can experience true wellbeing, both now and into the future.

Recently, Kate Raworth, in tandem with Rethinking Economics – the international student movement for pluralism in economics education –launched a competition for the public to come up with the 8th way to think like a 21st century economist. The article below is the second of three entries submitted by Steven Myburgh, a student in the GCE program.

Internalise the cost of ‘externalities’: from nature as dead-or-alive resource to full-cost accounting.

Traditional economic accounting breaks nature down into its component raw materials, to be fed into the economic system to create an output. In doing so, it ignores how bio-geo-chemical cycles interact with living organisms and abiotic elements to produce natural capital, and indeed how their integrity allows for an economic system to occur in the first place. Thus, this eighth way to think is related to the second: the embedded economy is a subset of the whole earth system, and not the other way around.

When inputs are combined and outputs produced, waste, pollution and depletion of natural capital most often result. Waste might be that which enters landfill (it represents inefficiency and squandered resources), pollution might be nitrogen fertiliser runoff that causes harmful algal blooms in downstream waterways, and depletion of natural capital might be soil erosion. These are termed externalities, and as such are largely not accounted for in our economic systems. While environmental management ensures the worst of certain types of pollution are ameliorated or prevented, it could be argued that the definition of pollution is far too narrow, for example not considering combined effects (synergism) of chemicals and metals in the environment. Similarly, waste is associated with materials that are not highly valued in the marketplace, even though, outside of short-term economic cycles, their future scarcity looms large in many instances. Lastly, depletion of natural capital is in some cases effectively irreversible or causes irreversible damage, at least in timescales that matter to humans and their progeny. One such case of damage is the extinction of species that call many of these ‘natural resources’ home – one may think of palm oil, the tropical rainforests in Sumatra, Indonesia and the critically endangered Orangutan.

I propose that the eight way to think should be to internalise the full spectrum of economic ‘externalities’ into our economic accounting systems, through the use of full-cost accounting and associated regulations. We do not have to start from scratch, there are a number of existing initiatives. Perhaps the most advanced, in terms of its adoption by national economic systems, is the United Nations initiative SEEA, or the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, which attempts to accurately model the interrelationship between the environment and economies, as environmental stocks change in relation to socio-economic status.

A closely related concept is that of Ecosystem Services, which are defined as the direct and indirect contributions of nature to human wellbeing, and include the provision of direct goods (such as food), the regulation of systems we rely on (such as the climate system), protection from natural hazards, and many more aside. These methodologies combine biophysical assessments with economic measurements and calculations, and increasingly methods from the humanities and social sciences – and provide the potential to inform policymakers of the value of nature alive, functioning and intact, rather than dead, disassembled and liquidated.

While these ideas contain much promise, they remain largely voluntary. To be effective, they would operate within national and international legislation that was effective at stemming the loss of biodiversity and mitigating climate change.

Three zones of human activity

The doughnut speaks to the following 21st century aim: meeting the needs of all within the means of the planet. I believe to comprehend how we do this, it is useful to conceptualise three zones of human activity. Firstly, we have the zone of liberty, where our liberties are defined by their not impinging on the liberties of others. Here, we may follow the religion, marry the person, speak the language of our choosing. And as long as an activity or action was in the zone of liberty, we could practice the livelihood we wanted. Now, I skip to the third, which is the outer shell of the doughnut, and represents the natural bounds we must stay in. An example may be keeping intact a certain percentage of each ecosystem type, and ensuring that there is sufficient connectivity between core protected areas for migration. Here, ecologists and other natural scientists are vital in delineating the red lines that will preserve nature, including both biodiversity and biogeochemical systems that maintain nature. These red lines will give humanity a strong basis with which to preserve our natural capital, preventing its depletion.

The second zone, then, is the zone of adaptive management between the first zone of liberty and the third no-go zone, and relates to economic processes that do cause damage or use limited resources, though damage that can be ameliorated, and use related to a renewable resource. If non-renewable resources are concerned, use should be at a rate relevant to the rate at which technology is developing to reduce or eliminate their use.  In the case of damage being caused, as an example, should the building of a hospital be planned in an area that has a particular rare flower growing on it, a comparable parcel of land that can act as habitat for that same flower should be restored. This zone relates to flexible market mechanisms, such as cap and trade. Thus, full-cost accounting relates to the first zone – to make certain what we practice is true liberty – and the second zone – to manage our production processes in light of where the boundary of the red lines lie, and to quantify the cost and qualify the nature of repair related to the temporary damage or use.

It may be apparent that the eight way of thinking, on its surface, focuses on nature. More holistic and accurate accounting measures, taken in the context of legislation that reflects these zones of human activity, could work on the inside shell of the doughnut as well. There is overwhelming evidence that  protected ecosystems, restoration of ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation and sustainable agriculture, stand to secure peoples wellbeing, including their economic livelihoods. The logic of this is elegantly simple: natural capital produces high returns if it is not liquidated.

Once we can account for the cost of invasive species that spread as a result of the forestry industry, for the amount of soil erosion that industrial agricultural practices cause, for the financial cost associated with every extra gigaton of carbon dioxide equivalent we emit, we can then draw those red lines (some of which would be dynamic over time). And those red lines equate with green jobs: jobs to fell the invasive species, jobs to work on the organic and sustainable farms that require more hands than conventional operations, jobs to erect and maintain solar power installations and wind turbines.

The post The 8th Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist – Part 2 of 3 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

At the center of her proposal is the doughnut, a simple visual tool expressing the safe space  of social and planetary boundaries. The empty space outside of the doughnut consists of a breach of nine planetary boundaries, while the empty space in the center of the doughnut represents a breach of commonly accepted social foundations. Between social and planetary boundaries exists an ecologically safe and socially fair space in which humanity can experience true well-being, both now and into the future.

Recently, Kate Raworth, in tandem with Rethinking Economics – the international student movement for pluralism in economics education –launched a competition for the public to come up with the 8th way to think like a 21st century economist. The article below is the first of three entries submitted by Steven Myburgh, a student in the GCE program.

Use law to shape the doughnut: from hollow economic promises to a strengthening of  economic, social and cultural rights.

Economics does not happen in a vacuum, it is shaped by the policy derived from laws that pertain to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as from international trade laws – to mention two of the most significant legal areas, and the two  that I will argue we should relate to economics. The economics profession has long claimed to be value-neutral, but the reality is that economic ‘logic’ is used to justify policies that have ramifications in every realm of life, including in the delivery (or lack thereof) of rights of all kinds. 

As an example, many economists have long held that allowing the rich to get richer would result in benefits trickling down to everyone else, until an IMF study rubbished this theory in 2015. Though it can be obscured through biophysical and socio-cultural layers of complexity, economic policy breaches many of our current social and environmental laws and protections. This is seen, as just one devastating example, in the premature deaths of millions around the world annually, due to fossil fuel-caused pollution. Issues such as these beg the question: what will the mechanisms be, to drive a shift for humanity to enter the sweet spot, the doughnut? 

Since the Paris agreement’s adoption in 2015, and despite their voicing public support for its goals, the fossil fuel majors have borrowed $1.9 trillion from 33 global banks: used overwhelmingly to expand fossil fuel infrastructure. We know we can’t rely on those who profit under a legal system that lets them off the hook, to bring the change we need. As this example shows, whatever the mechanism for entering the doughnut, it would only be realised on the multilateral level – if nations agreed to a floor of standards, to curtail a race to the bottom where a country loses out in investment and employment terms if they do not competitively ‘cut red tape’. 

I argue that there is existing international legal architecture and a set of institutions that needs to be updated, strengthened and streamlined for the 21st century. The realisation of the full spectrum of what should be current and future human and nature rights is vital, in order for us to enter the safe space of the doughnut as a trading, interconnected global society. 

Economic, social and cultural rights 

While civil and political rights are relatively well established (albeit in decline in some regions), economic, social and cultural rights have some way to go – sadly, the United States stands alone as the only major developed country not to have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, even while some countries and regions have used the treaty to inform their own relevant legislation over the past five decades.

Economic, social and cultural rights are the basic conditions required for people to lead free and dignified lives, and indeed include many of the doughnut indicators, such as access to education, housing, food (and water), social security, energy and health services. They are important because they give expression to the reality that our species is reciprocating and interdependent by nature. Law recognises that such rights may not be immediately fulfilled, but requires states to work toward the fulfillment of these rights. Thus, economic, social and cultural rights provide a strong driver for governments to experiment, perhaps through the introduction of increasingly popular ideas such as Universal Basic Services and Full Employment programs. These ideas are especially valid in light of the fourth industrial revolution and the need for a just transition for communities dependent on old forms of energy generation. 

Trade law and other initiatives

Trade intimately influences the setting of social and environmental standards, through a proliferation of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Many commentators suggest that international trade law, as regulated by the World Trade Organisation, should align with global environmental treaties, in concert with these treaties themselves becoming legally binding and thus acquiring the associated enforcement teeth. A body of academics suggest this would be an opportunity to tackle the fragmentation (and thus limited effectiveness) of  global environmental governance. A majority of nations having the requisite suite of harmonised rights in place, would ensure that a reasonable standard is set for international trade, where every mining company, every agricultural sector and every forestry corporation would be held to the same labor, environmental, and prior and informed consent standards that each one of their competitors is, no matter in which country they do business.

In addition to a push by civil society to secure the next frontier of rights – economic, social and cultural – there are a handful of legal efforts that stand to have positive implications for our present and future societies, including our economic systems. Ecocide law advocates for a legal duty held by governments to protect citizens from dangerous industrial practices, such as the emissions of greenhouse gases by fossil fuel majors. The Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, now being refined by a UN Intergovernmental Working Group, was the result of a global campaign to end the impunity of the strongest of economic multinational and transnational actors in developing countries. The Rights of Nature movement advocates for the granting of inalienable rights to nature, by uprooting the legal classification of nature as ‘property’,  and granting it the legal right to ‘exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles’, in the light of anthropogenic threats. While some progressive constitutions, such as South Africa’s, recognise the right to a healthy and clean environment, this is still based on an anthropocentric view with limited interpretation and effectiveness, even in terms of human well-being. Its corollary, an effort by some to strip corporations of their status as legal persons, exposing actual people to responsibilities and implications concerning the effect of their decisions on people and planet. In addition, these efforts are also intimately tied to the idea of the rights of future generations, or the unborn: in order to persist on this planet, future generations will require for the planet to be livable.

The post The 8th Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist – Part 1 of 3 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.