Copenhagen, Change and Money For Muck

In an attempt to put aside political bickering, division and the merits of various schemes and policies relating to GHG emissions reduction while briefly touching on the feeble rhetoric rising on a current of hot air out of the carbon neutral ashes of Copenhagen. I write with the intent of simplifying what sustainability is all about and why it proves to be so difficult to grasp, particularly in terms of a global agreement on GHG emissions reductions.

Firstly, from the World Commission on Environment and Development,the most widely accepted definition of sustainability is:

“Forms of progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs“

The key word here is progress. The qualifier, without compromise. Progress or change is the real issue here and is the factor making the adoption of any fair, binding and actionable agreement so illusive.

Changing anything is hard. It can be uncomfortable, challenging, frightening, emotionally revealing and sometimes surprisingly easy. Considering how hard it is to change oneself I realise that changing entire societies is a monumental task. As humans, most of us are inherently lazy and it is a lot easier to just keep doing what we do rather than change even if what we do isn’t in our best interest collectively.

The other monumental hurdle is, of course, the economic factor. Living within a system that is almost entirely dictated by the desire to and the fear of not generating more money every reporting period, our governments and corporations, the power brokers of the modern capitalist world, are reluctant to encourage change. It’s not because they don’t believe it will be good for the human race nor because they fail to realise that such change will distribute energy generation, clean air, natural resources and wealth more equitably. It is in fact this last point that stifles change at every corner.

While democracy is all about providing each and every individual with freedom and equality, capitalism, which many people consider an essential part of any democratic society, actually minimises access to the means of survival for so many global citizens. Capitalism concentrates wealth, which in turn concentrates power resulting in less people having more and more people having less of the stuff that we now all need to survive, money.

In an ideal world environmental and social resources would be protected by constitution, an important part of any democracy. What has happened is that historically the environment and social equity has not had any individual rights assigned to it nor has it had any economic costs attached.

With emissions trading, carbon tax or whatever you want to call it, the basic premise is to put an economic cost on atmospheric environmental degradation which up until recently has been considered a cost external to business. This is a market-based mechanism and is one of the many tools that can be used to minimise environmental degradation. The concept is that by putting a price on poor treatment of the environment and society organisations are encouraged to change their methods of production and distribution to lessen the impacts.

Those that don’t will have to pay more to produce what they sell and those that do will in theory generate greater profits, as they won’t have to pay the additional costs. Whether applied to GHG emissions, usage of resources or the production of toxic by products it can be a very effective mechanism and can be broadly referred to as extended producer responsibility or EPR. Here is where the problem becomes apparent though.

Within our democratic societies there are massive systems set up to deliver the energy we require to continue producing and distributing the goods and services that capitalism thrives on. These systems encompass huge infrastructure, jobs and research as well as create whole industries focussed on servicing the systems. These systems deliver energy and modern day goods and services at a huge cost to the environment and society through GHG emissions, toxic by products and over usage of resources. Putting a cost on all of these things will upset the capitalist structure so much that many believe it would fall over completely were we to do so.

Governments and corporations have invested so much in these systems that have helped our societies attain the standards of living we currently enjoy, that to place them in jeopardy, many believe is tantamount to suicide. Political, economic and societal suicide. By introducing the changes slowly, and offering financial assistance to the big polluting companies that stand to suffer the highest costs, the capitalist system will be OK. By minimising (or should I say compromising) the change required of the heavy polluters and by using mechanisms within the system that has been largely responsible for the problems we are trying to solve we can somehow expect monumental change to occur? That doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

Back to the idea of progress or change. A measure of effectiveness of any policy aimed at promoting sustainability is its ability to deliver change. If nothing changes then it stands to reason that nothing has changed. We are scared of change; needless to say change is also a natural part of evolution, forcibly applied, nonetheless without compromise. If we don’t change then we can’t really grow.

Regardless of what schemes, systems or policies we put in place, sustainability will only ever become a reality if drastic changes occur, without compromise. This will involve the failure of some of our systems, it has to, but unless we accept change we stand to lose a majority of the systems that provide life for us. There are so many influences and pressures on the leaders of our democracies and our capitalist demi gods that it seems leaders and most citizens are only willing to accept the need to implement change if the change associated with it is minimised, or better still avoided. This, I believe is the conundrum of modern society and why the Copenhagen convention of parties was never going to amount to anything remotely radical.

If we are to apportion blame to anyone or anything it is ourselves individually and collectively as human beings that need to ask the questions regarding our own evolution and our own future, that is the future of our dearly beloved children. For now, like all our leaders and demi gods, I will leave the population issue for another time or better still pretend it doesn’t exist.

Author: Richard A Nicol
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Credit card currency-exchange fees