Chicken Little Economics

Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney announced today that we will have “sluggish growth for the next few quarters”. It is insane that we are still promoting growth as the supposed solution to the “economic” crisis we are facing today. It is a complete neglect of the problems that underlie this “economic” crisis. Investment, purchasing, etc. are all social processes and psychological processes that must be understood too. What is causing all the “panic”? The markets dropping, loss of jobs, and reduction of available credit - all repeated endlessly in the media.

But why are we experiencing these things? Perhaps the massive increase in the price of oil and natural gas that set records in the last few years. And the realization of global problems like climate change, expected to cost the global economy trillions of dollars, according to the Stern report. Wars and terrorism have also tensed made relations, and brought lots of pain, suffering, and death. Modern telecommunications connection people and environments everywhere in s sort of emerging global conscience (Conscienca Plena in Portuguese).

Alan Greenspan has also just renounced free-market ideology to a Congressional committee. Is the world not on fire right now? It certainly seems that way by watching the news, and seeing it in people’s faces, in their disheartened cheers. Not to say that there is not still a strong society operating, but it is clear we are not reaching our full potential. Moreover, it is less and less clear that this industrial market economy can survive the problems its created, let alone solve them.

The emerging Green ideology, or the organic ideology that is not owned by any culture, group, or political party, is developing. The Global Green Network is an example of an international political movement with a developing ideology that is being documented and studied by Dr. Per Gharton of Sweden. A former Member of Parliament for 25 years and doctor of sociology, Gharton has analysed over 100 Green political programs and platforms from around the world in one essay. He also included several other Swedish Green thinkers in discussing a variety of issues within the ideology. Fourteen key principles arised from the analysis; that is to say, they were either explicitly mentioned or never countered by any platforms/programs. It is time to look at what an ecological ideology would look like; one that embraces the natural principles of cooperation, dynamic balance, and diversity.

Now that regulation is back in style; it is important that we think exactly what kind of regulation, what kind of economic policy, and what kind of principles we want to base our economic system on. The huge challenge, we are constantly told, is seeing the connection between “the environment” and “the economy”. The connection is clear looking at agriculture, mining, forestry, and other primary industries; but the idea that we can continue to grow and expand these activities has got to go. Moreoever, a reform of all these industries and the redesign of the way we deliver the services they provide, is necessary to not just limit damage, but to actively search for, find, and implement innovative, sustainable solutions.

Ecophysicist Fritjof Capra has provided ecological principles that Nature uses to organize itself. These eco-principles can inform human design processes to mimic ecosystems’ natural tendency to sustain and evolve themselves, individually and collectively through networks of systems.

Biomimicry is one of the most important and interesting areas of technological research and development. It is based on the idea that Nature knows best – that Nature has solved all or many of the problems we currently face as a society, in small and large scales. From the way we design fiber optic cables, to the way we create computers; there are many examples of biomimicry. The Biomimicry Network is a valuable resource for people interested in the topic; giving you a list of academic programs and courses in biomimicry. Janine Benyus, is another person that has really advanced this area of science & technology.

We must use the principles and ideas outlined above to develop a new ecological economics that will actually sustain humanity, rather than seek merely to exploit it and the planet we all depend on. Indigenous societies are those that have adapted to/from their environment. We must realize that all of humanity was once indigenous, and in a sense always will be. We must reconcile our relationship with the planet, or our economy will never be stable.

Andrew Basham

Thompson, Manitoba

From Manitoba Hydro to Manitoba Energy

RE: Political High Wire (WPG Free Press, April 6, 2008)

The complex web of political-bureaucratic-public relationships governing Manitoba Hydro is an interesting topic for discussion. The way that decisions are made is supposed to be democratic, but in reality it is far from transparent or accessible for citizens. It is no wonder that we do not debate the entire decision to spend between $11-$20 billion over the next 15 years on hydroelectric dams and transmission lines. This kind of expenditure (more than the entire Manitoba budget for 2008) warrants a more nuanced process, involving citizens envisioning the kinds of energy projects they want to spend this massive amount of borrowed money on.

These projects are not “clean energy”, and will not help us build a “green economy”, as the article and endless Hydro and Government propaganda suggests. Rather, it is $20 billion dollars that could be invested in a soft energy path, one which localizes and diversifies energy production, using a wide range of alternative technologies that exist today (solar panels, micro wind turbines, geothermal, straw-bale construction and renovation, etc). Part of the problem is that all of the major decisions have been made by Hydro’s engineers and executives, cheered on by both the NDP Government and PC Opposition. Why is it that citizens only get to debate the relatively meagre $400 million dollars (2% of the total estimated cost of all projects)? We should open up more decision-making of public boards and utilities to citizens, so that we can truly consider all alternative uses of public dollars.

A real Green and democratic economy would consist of thousands of small-scale producers of energy, food, housing, and even transportation systems. It would be designed to meet local needs year-round, in a non-polluting, socially just, and grassroots democratic way. Hydro dams and transmission lines still emit greenhouse gases, destroy forests, disrupt water flows and fish life-cycles. The only way it is to be considered “clean” is compared to coal power, which also does not need to be built, and shouldn’t be – anywhere. There is a huge potential for creating sustainable communities with proper public investment in them.

A shift in the ways we use energy, the ways we organize society, the methods of construction and renovation of homes and workplaces, all affect our relative level of energy use, our health, and our environment. Understanding how these issues are connected and how the broader policy direction of our governments affects them is critical to empowering citizens and making change. I am glad that this article exposes some of that and provides an overview of the history of Manitoba Hydro. I wish though that we would begin to discuss how the infrastructure of Manitoba uses energy and pollutes the environment and how we must change the structure and design of our society to protect us from any disruptions in the supplies of oil and natural gas, which will eventually be exhausted anyways, likely in my lifetime. Together we can write a new chapter in Hydro’s history, perhaps as “Manitoba Energy”: a re-constituted institution leading us down the soft energy path to a sustainable future. But only with a drastic change in thinking in the public and in our elected officials.

Leader's Debate (2008) Analysis - Trade & Globalization

I wonder what the Green Party of Canada's position is vis-a-vis globalization (which Google tells me is not a word!) and Free Trade.

In the Leaders' Debate the first question was about what the parties would do to "stabilize Canada's export-driven economy". Elizabeth May was the first to answer. Her answer puzzled me: She suggested that "we need to take steps to lower the dollar's value and shore up our export-driven industries...". She then suggested we need to do other "long-term" things to ensure sustainability, but those would come after our export shore-up. The first thing she said was she would "freeze" the take over of Canadian companies by foreigners, mentioning Inco, FalconBridge, and Hudson's Bay. "We need to protect our corporations". I agree we need to stop these take-overs, but Inco is not a sustainable company, it is a huge mining company polluting our water and raping the Earth. Why do we want to protect it? We should slow it down and dismantle these polluting industries.

Why is she suggesting we need to keep the dollar low to keep manufacturing and other exports humming along? Why was she not pointing out the fatal flaws in the whole export-oriented economic system? Why did she not make any argument for import-replacement and moving to a localized economy? No mention of the fact that export-driven economics is unsustainable because it depends on fossil-fuels and on delocalizing parts of ecosystems around the world in unnatural ways - draining our soils, forests, and other "resources" - leaving pollution and depletion in the wake. There is a better way - localized agriculture and economies, where local needs are met by local labour and local resources, where jobs and ecosystems are not disturbed, and where sustainable livelihoods, industries, and economies can be built.

To me it seems the GPC is trying to do two conflicting things: (1) appear "realistic", and (2) push for the huge changes needed to allow humanity to survive and perhaps even thrive on Earth into the long-term future.

To most Canadians, the idea that we should abondon our export-oriented trade system is ludicrous. "I'll lose my job!". But really, there are many jobs to be created in replacing the labour done in other countries by producing items locally that we currently import. This is import-replacement and is part of a strategy of localization. It is not unrealistic except in the context/framework of the current economic and political ideology that competition and growth are the only way to survive. They call it "competitiveness" but what it is is really trying to keep our position in an unsustainable system of global trade based on fossil fuel energy and exploitation of nature and people (natural and human "resources").

I am reminded of what the late Rudolph Bahro, author of "The Alternative" and a key player in the German Green Party, once wrote: “Every rejected proposal that contains the WHOLE message is worth a hundred times more than an accepted one which just sets about correcting the symptom without intervening in the suicidal logic of the overall process.” (Source: "Building the Green Movement, 1985).

The GPC and GPM and all Greens in the world cannot just go about tidying up globalization and military-industrialism, we must replace them with localization, peace, and ecological living. These are the only things that will save us. They cannot be relegated to the "long-term", they must be things acted on TODAY or their might not be a long-term.

All-in-all I think Elizabeth May did a great job representing a "balanced" Green Party in the debate. I just think it is important to analyze all these statements and think what they are doing to the overall message Canadians are getting. We cannot allow ourselves to drift into Liberal-NDP territory. We must take the industrial system head-on or we are no longer being Greens.

Why did she wear blue!!???

-Andrew Basham, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba

Towards a Basic Income

A Basic Income is a form of social security, the most important in a market society where people essentially need money to survive.

A Basic Income (which could be called a “Canada Income", or “Manitoba Income”) could be established first as a separate program, which would deliver ~$300/month to ALL Canadians, at the start, and increase over time to the highest sustainable level. This universal, non-taxable benefit would then be expanded over time to replace current targeted, means-tested programs (e.g., EI, GIS, Canadian Child Tax Benefit, etc.). Overall, this would result in an equalization of security across the board for people, and also would promote creativity, self-determination, an atmosphere of quality over quantity, and an economic basis for democracy.

For more information on financing, take a look at www.basicincome.com, where Sally Lerner has done calculations for a Canadian Basic Income. Also, a new Basic Income Earth Network - Canada Chapter, has just been founded.

According to Lerner et-al.[1], the Basic Income would approximately double the Government of Canada's current budget. It is not "revenue-neutral" at all, and that is not a problem in my view. What would happen? All the current charities that do food banks and such, getting tax receipts, would no longer be necessary. The currently voluntary donations that many corporations and individuals make to fund these charities would now be mandatory, and done through the tax system. This would be a step towards realizing human rights, and the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights[2], which binds all signatory nations, which includes Canada – who ratified it on May 19^th, 1976.[3]

www.basicincome.org has lots of good information on Basic Income.

---

[1] Lerner, S.; et-al. (1999) Basic Income: Economic Security for All Canadians.

[2] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1976). International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Available Online: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm Accessed: October 11, 2008.

[3] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008). Ratification Status: International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Available Online: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/3.htm Accessed: October 11, 2008.