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.

It has something of David against Goliath when a normal person wins a case against such an influential and big company like Monsanto. Johnson’s lawsuit is the first to go to trial alleging that Roundup – and its ingredient glyphosate – can cause cancer. The question whether glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, is carcinogenic caused a lot of discussion over the last years. Some agencies and scientific institutions such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and inspecting authorities of the EU concluded that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. On the other hand, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic”. The discussion on this topic is very heated, emotional and there are a lot of different studies, some indicating carcinogenic effects, others give evidence for the contrary. What is not communicated in many cases is that it is not glyphosate which is thought to cause harm but the constellation of it with other ingredients in the weedkiller Roundup: There are not enough studies on the long-term consequences of the interaction between these substances.

Johnson, the cancer-ill groundskeeper, used to spray Roundup up to 30 times a year in his job. “I never would have sprayed that product on school grounds or around people if I knew it would cause the harm”, he says. Monsanto has been sued to pay the damages because there was no warning on the packaging indicating the substance could cause cancer. Doctors say Johnson will probably not live past 2020 due to his cancer. He has three children and his wife is currently working in two jobs in order to support the family. “After all, I’ve learnt about Roundup and glyphosate, I am glad to help in a case way bigger than me. Hopefully, this thing will start to get the attention that it needs”, Johnson says after the verdict.

Monsanto’s Roundup is a weedkiller used for GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In the past, there have been various cases in which the company and its products have been causing discussions, for example when it became public that several Indian farmers committed suicide due to being indebted after using Monsanto’s crops and herbicides.

The case Johnson vs. Monsanto is not only important in a human-rights based view, but environmental consequences can be drawn from it as well. Until the day of the verdict, Monsanto didn’t have a lot to be concerned about. Of course, there were protests and warnings from environmentalists and scientists, but they never got too serious. Dewayne Johnson didn’t follow this scheme: His case shows that things might have changed, that big companies can not just do what they want anymore, walking literally over dead bodies to pursue their own profit-oriented interests. The verdict against Monsanto might now have opened a new era of debate and shown how important science is. Science was also one of the arguments Johnson’s lawyers used. They argued that Monsanto has “fought science” for years and targeted scientists who warned about possible health risks. The attorneys also got hands on internal emails from Monsanto executives showing that they constantly ignored experts’ warnings, sought favourable scientific results and acted as ghost-writers in research encouraging the further usage of Roundup.

The result of this lawsuit might have disastrous consequences for Monsanto – and thereby also for the German company Bayer who bought the US-group Monsanto last year for about 63 billion Dollar. After the verdict against Monsanto became public on 11th August 2018, Bayer’s stock price dropped dramatically, reaching its lowest value in five years. And there might be more to it: Across the US, more than 5000 similar cases targeting glyphosate and Monsanto are waiting for a verdict.

Maybe this verdict from a jury in California will change the way companies are dealing with people and the environment. Glyphosate is proven not only to destroy weeds but also harm the surrounding plants and having negative effects on biodiversity. Therefore, even though this lawsuit is per se  not connected to environmental issues, it still might be beneficial for nature and biodiversity in the end. Apparently, as it is so often in life, everything seems to be connected.

The post Glyphosate: Monsanto has to pay millions for damage appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Organised by CARE International (Sven Harmeling), Center for International Environmental Law – CIEL (Sebastian Duyck), Women’s Environment and Development Organization – WEDO (Bridget Burns)

The Guaranteeing Rights & Gender Equality side event, organized by CARE International, invited a panel of four speakers to debate about human rights as well as gender implications and action strategies for including these priorities within the achievement of Paris goals.

The first to introduce her perspective on the issue was Noelene Nabuliron from Fiji. She saw potential in relying on increasing transparency and accountability to track progress towards equity. Communications, as an essential part for reporting on indices of transformation, were proposed by her.

“With all these strategies, the process would also have to placed in the wider context of a country’s culture and tradition, to understand deviations among nations.”
– Noelene Nabuliron from Fiji

She rounded off her speech by highlighting current problems, such as work of women that is not accounted for, the underlying systemic injustice, and the excessive and extractive production and consumption as major causes of inequality. She concluded with: “Nothing about us, without us.”

Her speech was followed by that of Sebastian Duych from the Center for International Environmental Law, who shifted the focus to the human rights legal perspective. The preamble of the Paris Agreement, he pointed out, can be seen as a very inspiring underlying message. Therefore, he pleaded to ensure that the spirit of the preamble should serve to influence all enforcement mechanisms when discussed during the negotiations and not just the technicalities.

Duych likewise urged states to inform about their status quo on equity at the community level. As a concluding remark, he stressed that only with an advancement of obligations toward including concrete measures to ensure human rights could real progress be expected.

After him, Bridget Burns from the Women’s Environment and Development Organization took the microphone and elaborated on the status of gender and the Paris Agreement. She proposed that gender should not only include women, but also all other sexes. With that she also stressed the recession of development in engagement of women in delegations and the disparity between policy and practice.

Five main claims were brought forward by Burns:
1. Gender responsive climate policy
2. More sex and gender disaggregated data and analysis
3. Meet goal of gender balance
4. 100% gender-responsive climate finance
5. Financing the gender action plan.

She underpinned her speech with the statement : “No gender equality on a dead planet.”

Lastly, “CARE International” closed off the session with a perspective on agriculture and women’s roles, which is not treated with adequate recognition at present. Land ownership and extreme events are striking the most vulnerable the hardest.

All in all, the side event was very helpful in filtering concrete actions and procedures out of the Paris Agreement. Besides the will to do something about inequalities in the world, all speakers demanded increasing action and a shift in focus on concrete plans. The “Gender Action Plan” can only be a first step in the right direction.

The post COP23: “Nothing about us, without us” – Guaranteeing rights & gender equality appeared first on Global Change Ecology.