Is It Any Wonder?

There are constant moans and grumbles about the behaviour of individuals in modern western society.  Drugs, violence, theft; all symptoms (apparently) of a society in decline.  We can blame the individuals in each case, but are we really doing anything to curb the underlying causes?

Is it any wonder?
That: children bully others at school,
When: politicians yell at and verbally abuse each other in parliaments.

Is it any wonder?
That: women are the primary victims of domestic abuse and violence,
When: men make and tolerate sexist comments and jokes.

Is it any wonder?
That: people on little or no income steal,
When: transnational corporations avoid tax through spurious loopholes.

Is it any wonder?
That: young men readily resort to violence,
When: the nations of the world regularly go to war.

Is it any wonder?
That: young people take drugs,
When: the liquor and tobacco industries are two of the world’s largest industries.

Is it any wonder?
That: people end up in debt,
When: the advertising industry is constantly bombarding us with messages to buy, buy, buy.

Is it any wonder?
That: rates of anxiety, depression and suicide are on the increase,
When: so much of the entertainment media idolises celebrities, status and self-glorification.

Yes, it can be easy to look at the behaviour of individuals and place the blame for their behaviour upon them. But, every individual is located within a wider environment.  If we don’t take that environment into account then we will often end up just putting sticking plaster on the problem.

We can offer drug rehabilitation programmes, anger management courses, jail sentences or financial counselling.  But, if we just send people back into the same environment can we really expect any real long-term or inter-generational change?

This is one of the major challenges for community development.  How do we change social conditions rather than trying to change the behaviours of individuals?  The first thing for a community development worker to do is to be able to see the bigger picture.  A community development worker must be able to look outside the square, and challenge the cultural and social mores and values that are the cause of many of the behaviours that individual display.

As a society we are quick to condemn the young person on ice, quick to condemn the bully at school, quick to condemn the father stealing to provide for his family.

Before doing so, perhaps we should be asking:

Is it any wonder?

Development Does Not Mean Growth

There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about development, sustainability, sustainable development and growth.  Some of it may simply be a lack of clear definition and some of it may be deliberate obfuscation.

Much of the confusion stems from a poor description or understanding of the word development itself.  The root of the word is Old French: de-envelop.  That is, peeling back, getting to the core.  Quite the opposite of how the word is commonly thought of; to add to or increase.

Growth on the other hand, very clearly implies adding on, extending, becoming bigger, more more and yet even more.

Clearly, the world is finite and continual growth is not possible.  Development, however, is and should be, possible.  We desperately need to discover the core of what it means to be human on a finite planet that we share with 7 billion other humans. 

To be human and to live good, healthy, fulfilling lives there are some fundamental (core) needs that must be satisfied: fresh, clean water and sanitation, food, security, adequate housing, income, health, education, energy supply etc.  For some of us these are satisfied, but for many millions and billions of humanity there is clearly need for development.

For example, over 900 million people do not have adequate food supplies, yet 1/3rd or more of all food produced never reaches an human stomach.  One in five of us live on less than $1.25 per day and 51.2 million people are forcibly displaced because of persecution, conflict, other forms of violence or human rights violations.  It is estimated that nearly one in three people do not have regular access to essential health care.

So, for much of the world there is an urgent need for development.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the rich nations are hell-bent on growth – specifically, economic growth.  Consider these quotes from Western leaders (from the US, Germany and Australia):

“The most important thing that the United States can do for the world economy is to grow, because we continue to be the world’s largest market and a huge engine for all other countries to grow.” – Barack Obama 

“We need a growth-oriented, sound fiscal policy, we need investments by the state…” – Angela Merkel 

“As always, stronger economic growth is the key to addressing almost every global problem.” – Tony Abbot

That growth is not sustainable.

The term sustainable development has entered the jargon over the past decade or two.¹  What does the term mean?  One model that attempts to illuminate it has been conceived by Kate Raworth, writing for Oxfam.² 

The Doughnut

Fig 1 (Oxfam)

Raworth likens her model (Fig 1) to a doughnut, with social foundational needs forming the inside circle of the doughnut and an environmental ceiling forming the outside circle.  Between the two (the core of the doughnut) is the “safe and just space for humanity.”  Getting to that space and maintaining ourselves within it is the goal of sustainable development. 

“Moving into this space demands far greater equity – within and between countries – in the use of natural resources, and far greater efficiency in transforming those resources to meet human needs.”

Raworth has identified eleven dimensions to the social foundation and nine dimensions to the environmental ceiling.  Furthermore, Raworth has quantified how well we are doing against each of these dimensions (except the three social dimensions of jobs, voice and resilience, and the two environmental dimensions of atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution). 

How are we doing?  Not very well.  How equitable and efficient are we?  Not good. (Figs 2 & 3)



Fig 2 (Oxfam)

We have exceeded the ceiling for biodiversity loss, climate change and the nitrogen cycle and are dangerously close to the ceiling for the phosphorous cycle and ocean acidification.


Fig 3 (Oxfam)

In terms of the social foundation, we have not yet met any of the “developmental” needs for any of them,  We are getting close on education, food, water use and electricity.  We still have challenges in the areas of social equity, health, sanitation, and the employment gap between men and women.  We have an enormous challenge in terms of representation by women in national parliaments – the gap stands at 77%.

Is the doughnut useful?  Yes, it is.  If only because it provides us with a conceptual framework within which to understand sustainable development and guide policy making that provides the social foundations, yet does not crack the environmental ceiling.

Clearly, we have some work to do.

1.  Indeed, as far back as 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.”
2. Kate Raworth, “A Safe and Just Space for Humanity,” Oxfam Discussion Paper, February 2012

5 Environmental Equations We Should Know

To some of us equations help to model the world.  To others of us they can open up new perspectives.  And then there are those of us who just can’t stand equations – too much reminder of “maths” at school perhaps.

But mathematics and it’s associated equations are everywhere, and environmental science or the science of climate change are no different.  Here are five such equations that any environmental or climate activist should know about.

1.  I = PAT

Perhaps one of the simplest and also contentious equations is this one formulated in the 1970s by Paul Ehrlich, Barry Commoner and John Holdren.  In this equation I stands for impact of humans on the planet, P for the human population, A for affluence, or consumption rate per person, and T for technology, or resource intensity.

PAT has been expressed as P x A x T, i.e a simple multiplication effect.  However, this is too simplistic.  The equation should perhaps be better written as I = f(P,A,T).  That is, human impact is a function of the combinatory effects of Population, Affluence and Technology.

However you understand the equation, what it does tell us is that all three components of the equation must be considered if we are to reduce our impact on the earth.  There are indications that the world population level may begin to flatten out in the second half of this century.  There are also some exciting looking technological breakthroughs on the horizon, allowing for greater efficiencies.  Greater efficiencies mean a reduction in the impact due to technology.  Many climate change activists promote these technologies and put faith in them to stall off climate catastrophe.

However, the one component of I=PAT that is often overlooked or possibly shunned is that of affluence, or our consumption rates.  Affluence is highly variable around the globe, with those of us in the western, rich nations consuming at a rate considerably greater than those in developing nations.¹  Those of us in these rich countries who are concerned about climate change and our impact upon the earth must take a long hard look at our consumption.

2.  F = P x G/P x E/G x F/E

This equation is known as the Kaya Identity and is a special case of the I=PAT equation in that it considers human impact upon the climate.  In this equation:

• F is global CO₂ emissions from human sources
• P is global population growth
• G is world GDP, and
• E is global energy consumption.

Developed by Japanese economist Yoichi Kaya the equation is used extensively by the IPCC² for the projection of it’s emissions scenarios.  Breaking down each term into population growth, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP, and carbon emissions per unit of energy used has proven to make the calculation of global emissions easier.

3.  Private Car Emissions per year

Transportation world-wide makes up about 14% of global carbon emissions.  Here is an equation that allows individuals to calculate the tonnes of carbon dioxide that their private car emits per year.
CO₂ emissions (tonnes) = k x e/100 x 0.00237, where

• k is the number of kilometres driven per year,
• e is the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, measured by the number of litres per 100 km.
• 0.00237 is how many tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted by burning one litre of fuel.

So, for example, suppose you travel 20,000 km in a year and your car has an efficiency of 9 lt per 100 km, then the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide you would emit that year would be:  20,000 x 9/100 x 0.00237 = 4.3 tonnes.

4. EDD = WB/WEF x 365

This simple looking equation is used to calculate the Ecological Debt Day (EDD), otherwise known as Earth Overshoot Day.  Ecological Debt Day is the day on which it is calculated that we humans have expended as much of the earth’s resources as the earth is capable of restoring in that year. 

Last year (2014), this day was calculated as being on August 19. In other words, from 20 August onward for the rest of that year we were living beyond our means.  It is akin to having our annual salary and expending every last dollar and cent of it by August 19.  Thereafter, we must beg or take out a loan against the future.  A bank may be prepared to do that but it is extremely doubtful that the earth can continue to do so.

In the equation above EDD is calculated by dividing WB (World Biodiversity: the amount of natural resources the earth produces in a year) by WEF (World Ecological Footprint: the amount that we humans consume per year) and multiplying that figure by 365 (days in the year).

There are a number of sites on the Internet that give data for world ecological footprint, the footprint of specific countries and even calculators allowing you to discover your personal ecological footprint.

5.  1 = 1

This is the simplest, yet possibly the most important of the five equations.  It simply says one equals one.  One does not mean two or three, but one.  That is the most basic equation we need.  We have one planet.  We live on one planet.  We are part of one planet.  We depend upon one planet. 

We do not have two planets.  We don’t even have one and a half planets, yet that is how many we are presently using on a global scale.  We are consuming one and a half planets worth of resources each year.  And, some of us are consuming at an even higher rate. 

This equation brings us back to reality.  One Earth.  The other equations may tell us how much we have overshot, what factors we need to consider and even how much we personally contribute, but this equation says it simply: ONE means ONE.

1.  North America and Western Europe has 12% of the world’s population, yet accounts for 60% of private consumptive spending.  Meanwhile the 1/3rd of the world’s population living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa account for just 3.2% (source: Worldwatch Institute)
2. IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Crime and Punishment (Book Review)

This is not Dostoevsky’s psychological masterpiece, but it does offer some psychological insights.  The subtitle alludes to this: “Offenders and Victims in a Broken Justice System.”  Russell Marks’ book is an unequivocal indictment of the current criminal justice system, with the author suggesting four problems with that system:

1. It punishes on the basis that offenders make “bad choices” rather than tackling the structures that induce those choices.
2. The system claims “equality” yet some communities (notably indigenous peoples) are not treated equally.
3. Punishment often does more harm than good, and increases the risk of re-offending.
4. Victims are mostly excluded from the process, making it difficult for them to move on.

Although Marks¹ writes from an Australian perspective, he draws on research and experience in other culturally similar countries – primarily the US, UK and New Zealand.  The four problems he identifies are no less in these and many other nations that employ a similar adversarial, retributive approach to criminal justice.

Rather than presenting these issues as simply of philosophical interest, Marks presents a strong case for attending to them seriously and transparently.  Each problem is meticulously exposed, so much so that by the end of the book the reader is left wondering whether the current criminal justice system is in need of thorough revision, if not abandoning.

Underlying the four problems is a more fundamental problem; the system does not employ a problem-solving approach. 

“Prison doesn’t solve the problem (we) expect it to solve; it doesn’t rehabilitate,” he says, rather “it augments any existing problem for the offender and for society.”

Nor does it solve problems for victims. where they are often excluded from the process…

“… except as witnesses… (which keeps) victims effectively trapped in the ‘angry moment’.”

Unfortunately, says Marks, most victims rights associations only exacerbate this entrapment by focussing on rage an anger; again, failing to take a problem-solving approach.

Then there is the cost.  Prison is not cheap.  In Australia it costs over $100,000 to incarcerate an adult and almost a quarter of a million dollars for a young person in a youth detention centre.  Thus, attests Marks, prison is a massively expensive mistake.

Alternatives and Innovations

But, there are alternatives and Marks outlines a number of them, including; restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, Koori courts (in Australia), and justice reinvestment.  Many of these innovations have been used for the last couple of decades and they work. 

 “(They) reduce rates of offending (and reoffending), …reduce the alienation felt by many offenders and victims, (and) save the state money over both the short and long terms.” 

So, asks Marks, “why aren’t governments…embracing these ideas?” 

Marks claims that as a society we still have an “appetite for ‘law and order’ policies – lock them up and throw away the key.”

Until we relinquish that retributive, punishment mindset we will not move to a more effective, cheaper and fairer model of justice.  This book is an excellent addition to making that shift.  It is relatively short (less than 200 pages), written in everyday language and easy to read.  It should be read by anyone concerned about our justice systems.

1. Russell Marks is a former criminal defence lawyer and an academic with La Trobe University, Sydney, Australia.

Earth Moments

We’ve had Earth Hour, just a few weeks ago.  Earth Day is coming up on April 23rd.  Earth Day has been an annual event for even longer than Earth Hour – the first Earth Day having been held in 1970.  It is celebrated in almost 200 countries and by over one billion people.

So, since 1970, that’s 45 Earth Days and 9 Earth Hours – approximately one-eighth of an Earth Year.  Have we learnt anything?  Have we changed anything?  Lets see:

• In 1970 we we needed one Earth-sized planet to be sustainable.  In 2015, we need 1.7 Earth-sized planets.
• Worldwide emissions of CO₂ in 1970 were 15.6 billion tonnes.  In 2013 35.3 billion tonnes were emitted.
• 45 million barrels of oil per day were consumed in 1970, by 2012 this had doubled to 90 million barrels per day.
• Obesity rates have doubled or even tripled in industrialised countries since 1970.

On the other hand, since 1970:’

• Movements such as Transition Towns, the Slow Movement and permaculture have all begun.
• Global investment in renewable energy technologies reached almost $260 billion in 2011, up from less than $50 billion in 2004.
• Worldwide campaigns are now possible via information technology (e.g. the divestment campaign).

Moments to Reflect

Thus, there are signs that things are getting worse and also signs that things have a chance to improve.  However, it will only be when we begin to recognise Earth Moments that we might begin to see a real change taking place.  On Earth Day we can think of the earth for a day and undertake some action for the earth.  Even during Earth Hour we can switch off the lights and consider replacing the bulbs with energy-efficient bulbs or moving towards a renewable source of electricity generation.

An Earth Moment though obliges us to consider the earth now: right here and now, not in some ideal, possible, hopeful future, but right NOW.

Many of the world’s sages and spiritual leaders have been reminding us, also since 1970, that it is our unwillingness to be mindful of the present that compels us towards actions that are damaging for the earth.  In a consumer society that is focused on the next bigger, brighter or better thing, finding time to consider the impact upon the earth becomes less and less.  We don’t have the time; we have to catch the bus in order to get to work on time, so that we can get more money to pay for the luxuries and trivialities that we think will make our lives satisfying.

A moment is defined as “a brief, indefinite, period of time.”  When we slow down and pay attention to our moment, we begin to understand and recognise the connections between all things, we start to appreciate that I and you are not separate but rather, intimately connected.  We begin also to realise that we are not disconnected from the earth, that we are the earth and the earth is us.  Thich Nhat Hanh put it this way:

“You carry mother Earth within you.  She is not outside of you.  She is not just your environment.”

In becoming mindful of each Earth Moment we become mindful too, of the connections between the way in which we treat the planet and each other.  We understand that acting to save the planet is no different to that of acting to save a child from child abuse or from acting to put a stop to the use of violence to resolve conflict.  Nor, for that matter, is it any different to acting to take care of ourselves, and to heal ourselves.

Yes, let us celebrate Earth Day, let us switch off the lights for Earth Hour, but let us primarily be mindful of each and every Earth Moment.

Social Change Crossword

Something a little different this week.  A puzzle that focuses on social justice, community development and sustainability.  Not every clue will exactly fit these themes, but the majority do.  Enjoy.

ACROSS.
5. Western psychology posits this as one of the components of the mind. (2)
7 & 3 Down.  Measure of human pressure upon the Earth.  (10, 9)
9. Site of largest oil spill in US history.  ____ of Mexico. (4)
11. International environmental organisation. (10)
13. German Green Party politician.  Presently Vice president of the Bundestag.  Claudia ____ (4)
15.  A renewable energy source.  (5)
16.  International Association for Community Development (abbrev) (1,1,1,1)
20.  Verbal expression that is clear and fluent.  (10)
22.  Type of community (economically) that many community development workers work with and for.  (4)
24. “If you want others to be happy, practice ___________.  If you want to be happy, practice _________.” – Dalai Lama quote. (10)
25 & 4 Down.  __  ___ Campesina.  International Peasant’s Movement.  (2, 3)

DOWN
1. Max _____, a founder of sociology.  (5)
2.  The planet gets ______ because of global warming. (6)
3. See 6 Across
4. See 22 Across
6. Sign language is important to this community. (4)
8. According to the Buddha, this is one of the three poisons. (5)
10. Sortition is a way of selecting decision makers by this means. (3)
11.  Coefficient (or ratio) of inequality. (4)
12. Tolstoy, Thoreau, Orwell, Le Guin and Tolkien are all famous authors, each also identified as an _________. (9)
14. David ____, 18th century philosopher of logical positivism. (4)
17. A non-government business allied to Fair Trade movement (abbrev) (1,1,1)
18. ____ Fo, Italian actor-playwright known for his political plays and his use of improvisation, (4)
19. A facilitator hopes to ______ discussion from group members. (6)
21. Transition _____. International movement to build resilience at local level. (5)
22.  What a political analyst might use to gauge public opinion. (4)
23. International Paralympic Committee (abbrev). (1,1,1)

The answers to this crossword will be posted here in a months time.  If you would like to check your answers before then, please make a comment (including your email address) or send me an email. (brucemeder (at) gmail.com)

Don’t Study Economics

If you want to be compassionate and trusting, don’t study economics.  At least that is the conclusion ¹ of Robert Frank – an economist himself.

Frank has looked at the patterns of giving to charity, personal gain, and the acceptance of greed and concern for fairness amongst economics professors and students in the US, Germany and Switzerland.  What he found is disturbing:

• Economics professors in the US were more than twice as likely to give nothing to charity than were professors in other fields,
• Economics students in Germany were more likely than other students to recommend a corrupt tradesperson when they had been paid to do so.
• Economics majors and students were more likely than their peers to rate “greed” as “generally good,” “correct,” and “moral.”
• Economics students were significantly less likely than other students to understand the concept of fairness.

Why should this be?  Is it that the teaching of economics inculcates such ideas and values?  Or is it that there is a predisposition by students with such ideas and values towards the study of economics?  There is evidence for both of these questions to be answered in the affirmative.

No matter whether the students are inculcated or predisposed the phenomenon is troubling.

Adam Smith and Charles Darwin

Well over 200 years ago Adam Smith (the so-called “father of economics”) wrote that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but by their regard for their own interest.”  In other words, according to this foundational economic theory, we are all selfish at heart and look out for our own best interests ahead of others.  Smith’s theory was that by doing so the good of all would be provided for.

One hundred years later Smith was followed by the theories of Charles Darwin which seemed to be suggesting a similar theme: the “survival of the fittest.” 
 
Darwin, at least (I’m uncertain of Smith) was misquoted and mis-interpreted.  Darwin, for instance, was troubled by², and pondered, the role of altruism in evolution and came to the conclusion that altruistic humans would not be successful at passing on their genetic material.

George Price

However, another 100 years later, George Price showed, conclusively, that Darwin’s conclusion was in error.³  Price showed that evolution is, in fact, reliant upon altruistic people and that groups in which altruism is prevalent tend to prevail over groups in which selfishness is prevalent.

What does this mean for the study of economics?  Much of western economics is still premised on Smith’s self-interest model.  Could this be because the model acts in the same way as a self-fulfilling prophesy – a perpetual cycle of fallacy?

A Model to be Challenged

If students of economics are inclined towards greed, corruption, and unfairness, then they are more likely to find that their cohort will share those values and cannot but help but perpetuate Smith’s self-interest claim.  If, on the other hand, economics students are taught the self-interest model of Smith, then it is understandable that they will incorporate the values of greed, unfairness and non-compassion within their own moral framework.

This suggests that Smith’s basic theory has little chance of being challenged from within the economics profession.

But, challenge it we must.  Since the 1980s the notion of self-interest has not just been a feature of the prevailing economic theory – it has become the predominant idea and possibly even the goal of economic activity.

Self-interest has led to gross inequalities between and within nations, a disregard for the carrying capacity of the earth, financial crises, and a rapid increase in CO₂ emissions.

And, it is all based on a flawed theory.

1. Adam Grant, Does Studying Economics Breed Greed? Psychology Today, 2013.
2. Darwin founded a Friendly Society in Downe (England) that looked after the welfare of impoverished agricultural workers. Cited in Stefan Klein, Survival of the Nicest, Scribe, Melbourne, London, 2014, p 17.
3. Klein, p 138