The natural variations of this will probably be overloaded by 2030. But until then this will give a false sense of security to those not looking, and weight to those who perceive the financial cost of change as too high.
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/no-more-hiatus-human-emission-to-completely-overwhelm-nature-by-2030/
It is really shocking to read some US comments on various online articles as to the depth of denial of the problem. Yet, there must be millions who do see the problem. The challenge is to mobilize them. 76% of Democrats and only 41% of Republicans said that they believed global warming was already happening (2008).
While it would seem that education helps in bringing awareness, that is not always the case;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change
So democracy will not function against the carbon economy until the affects are being indisputably felt by the majority. Then the scramble will begin. At that point, even a complete halt to emissions means we will be looking down a 40 year barrel unless there is global scale soil remediation followed by massive hemp and bamboo plantations and human waste recycling into the soil.
It doesn't have to be that way. The 1% cannot control the 99% through economic means, if the 99% do not participate. Gandhi demonstrated that profoundly. However, it is not enough to say boycott Shell, Exxon, Walmart ... (insert name here). People would simply shop at another supplier, quite possibly owned by the same people through a complex set of companies.
No doubt there is a benefit to the boycott when the perpetrator can be identified. However, in this case, they cannot. It is the collective that is has delivered to us this mess. We need a complete alternative economic society. An alternate economic environment would allow a number of important functions.
- Security for its members,
- a recycling of wealth
- the ability to influence the actions and behaviour of other economic players
- A community of shared religious expression
- Political power
- Significant reduction in energy usage
While that sounds far-fetched it actually isn't. There have been many cultures that have insulated themselves from other neighboring economic environments, and thrived. The key to economic viability is insulation, not isolation. Insulation, that is living apart, but trading with, other communities.
The key to setting up a robust institution is to provide a basic necessity. Quality food must be high on the list, and of course it is;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies
Wine, breweries, hotels and restaurants are strongly represented on the list. After the 1600s we start to see more farms as serfdom falls away;
http://www.griequity.com/resources/industryandissues/familybusiness/oldestinworld.html
As more and more low grade, and sometimes poisonous, food finds its way into the logistics chains there will be a growing demand for quality. There will be a swing towards sustainable food and natural medicines. If an alternate connected economic community was established it would be viable, in the sense of making money in the present paradigm, but it would also be self-sustaining. Self-sustaining requires a recycling back into the system. By having the communities connected, then a priority is given to internally procuring services and products. All members benefit.
Trade goods that are in desperate need. But maintain enough space so that to be attacked would require a co-ordinated movement across a distance. Isolated enough so that constant pilfering is minimized.
A good example is Israel, they have existed for some 5000 years in one form or another. (Please, this is not a critique of their internal policies, this is about an economic community system that has functioned.) There is a number of aspects to traditional Israeli Kibbutz economics, but the one that interested me was the tithing into the temples. That flow of money was paid back into the community through wages and the purchase of goods. They had a strictly controlled closed loop. Though I should state the Levites profited handsomely from the tithing, but at the same time they constructed temples and provided for the poor.
Congregations in modern churches are impoverished. Currently they support an edifice that provides community, and religious expression, but little of practical value. By the expression "practical value" I am of course referring to putting food on the table. That is a generalization and there would be churches that do wonderful things for their community. In history, it was the churches that established schools and hospitals. It seems though that the focus has changed to providing more of a concert for worship. For many, church has become a pop concert.
Imagine a system whereby tithing is used to support community food gardens and infrastructure. Yes, it is a form of taxation but the result is community, security for the aged, religious expression, food on the table and potentially the ability to sell goods (particularly food) into the wider community at farmers markets. This is a somewhat simplistic view. Not everyone is suited to agriculture, some have great skills required in the larger economy. The larger economy needs services. So the community can also act as an personnel agency. Therein lies the potential.
As an agency, the community receives profit, that profit is fed back into the community. In this case the tax is implicit. As an agricultural entity, the profit received is fed back into the system. Even if multiple communities buy and sell between them the profit is recycled within the same system.
Logistics is fundamental as a service. Agriculture and logistics go hand in hand. The loss of logistic chains must never happen. Communities cannot trade together if there is no method of transport. This is a huge topic, but unless it is dealt with the logistics chains will break. I know that they are only one of the huge issues that face us, but without them, any other problem solutions will not hold up over time in a hostile environment. For more on logistics see this post.
No society system is without its flaws. The danger usually is in the management. A couple of approaches can avoid a number of pitfalls. Policy may be built through a wiki so that all parties can have an equal voice. The other, is that management should be voted for. However, not all voters are equal. In the crisis we currently face, scientists should have a greater weight to their vote than the general population. Common democracy does not provide for that. However, there is a common method on the Internet that would allow for weighting of votes. That method is based on reputation or rating.
A reputation of 1 gives one vote, a reputation of 5 gives 5 votes. By being involved and giving good suggestions on policy, a member could increase their reputation and consequently their voting power.
A matter at the heart of the ethos of management, is the issue of private property. The concept of private property is ridiculous. Do we collectively own the Earth or not? If management no longer holds private property within the community, their choices would be much more focused on the needs of the community rather than the individual. So it would seem that private property within a community should not be allowed. Certainly an area that needs a lot of careful consideration.
With individuals now collectively owning the community, the danger exists in over population. If such a community was established and successfully functioning it would be a magnet for people. Hard times are coming, but the survival of the community would be paramount. It would be necessary to perfectly balance the community environment to how many people it could sustain. Larger communities would be better split into other communities than run the risk of a catastrophic failure in a system affecting a large number of people.
The community acting as a entity could help other members migrate from areas that have become too hostile.
Economically the community could not compete with the multi-nationals on the open agricultural market. The prices from the multi-nationals do not reflect the environmental damage they inflict. But the community wouldn't have to compete with them. Goods can be used internally, traded between communities or sold at farmers markets. Here is where the potential for influence comes in. Technology and skill sharing, agriculture and logistics would make the communities, to varying degrees, self-sufficient.
Given enough communities acting in collaboration, the collective buying power would be much better than that of the individual.
Therefore, the larger community would have the ability to influence corporations through its buying, or selling power.
Given enough people, the larger community would have the ability to influence politicians through its voting power.
It could be a force for change.
That scenario leaves the following;
- Fight for change in the existing political system
- Build resilience in our homes and communities for what is coming
- Work out ways to make carbon sequestering mechanisms like Bamboo or industrial Hemp products attractive to the general public beyond the fringe. Thereby making them financially viable.
- Build logistic systems that are vastly more energy efficient than what is available today.
There is a more detailed business plan with functioning systems, but it is not prudent to post it online. I would be happy to share it with others that might be interested.
The comments are moderated so include your email address and I will delete the comment after I have sent you a link to view it in Google Docs.
No comments:
Post a Comment