As self-appointed Planetary CFO, one of my first tasks is to start to get my head round what should be in the World Balance Sheet. Here are some initial ideas. The overall idea is that we should record the commitment to provide sufficiently for the basic needs of a total global population of x billion. This is similar in some ways to pension trusts that hold financial assets sufficient to provide for the pension entitlements of its pensioners. In the World Balance Sheet, the assets need to be maintained in a way that provides for the basic needs of the populace of people, while at the same time doing it in a way that enables the people to live sustainably alongside a sufficiently large and biodiverse population of non-human species, while also recognising limits in other natural, chemical and geological systems of systems that represent One Planet Living in perpetuity.
0 Comments
Most of the text here is inspired by a blog post by Solitaire Townsend at Futerra.
I have just appointed myself Planetary CFO, currently an unpaid role. More details in my nutshell ideas. I hope to post news of my actions and views in further blog posts over the coming months. A friend recommended this film. In about 40 minutes, it gives a wonderfully positive message about how we can all be part of the change to a sustainable future.
Find it on Youtube here. I attended a gathering of the Oxfordshire Green Construction Network earlier this week in Bicester. The network's strapline is "Building a Greener Tomorrow - Today" and it does what it says on the tin. It's a network of members who are local businesses in Oxfordshire who all have an interest in the building sector and who want to see more sustainable building design and construction practices. More information will be made available on a website coming soon.
Some details of the gathering can be found via this link (opens in new window) I've just been to "Sustainability Live! 2013" conference at the NEC in Birmingham, UK. I asked a DECC spokesman what work had been done to arrive at a prospective carbon price of £30 per tonne by 2030 (as reflected in the UK Energy Bill and Electricity Market Reform), and what the impacts would be if the price needed to be £100, or £200, or £1,000 in order to meet our climate change targets. The answer he gave (which didn't cover the second part of the question) was that DECC don't know what the right price is. Their stance is, in effect, "let the market decide, both domestically and internationally/globally". Perhaps another frog in hot water? (see footnote below) This illustrates what I believe to be one of the major risks humanity faces when it comes to sustainability. The techologies, the new or alternative economics and the ideas about social adjustments exist that could solve many of the sustainability problems around energy, water, food and so on, globally and forever. The barriers to their widespread use are largely political and economic in an international context where we face the ultimate Trajedy of the Commons. What I'd like to see is a world where these Commons are managed sustainably by global government (or by agreement between all significant resource-using nations) AND the sustainably usable products of these commons are shared equitably (but this does not mean equally) between the peoples around the world (geographically and demographically) so that poverty, starvation and other related suffering become a thing of the past. We have the knowledge to be able to do all these things, but we currently lack the political will and international agreement to do them. The likely unsustainable crash into planetary limits is, for humanity, no less significant a threat than that of global nuclear war, but it is perhaps an even more dangerous threat because it is more insidious and difficult to identify for the man in the street caught up in the middle of it. Many, many people are like the proverbial frog sitting in a pan of water - many are going to sit there (either denying the scale of the problems or unaware of their impact) until the water boils and it's too late to jump out (or to put the fire out). Footnote As a scientific footnote on the apochryphal "boiling frog" story - there seem to be conflicting reports on whether or not a frog would actually jump out of a slowly heating pan. However, it serves as a good metaphor for the real , observed effect of lack of responses to a slowly worsening situation. Perhaps, for the scientifically robust among you, you might prefer a version of boiling frog metaphor combined with the age-old saying "out of the frying pan, into the fire" ... Sustainability professionals are often criticised for being negative, forecasting disaster and failing to come up with a convincing set of proposals for how to make things better at scale. I have come across a project that addresses this criticism - the Venus Project. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. I'm reminded of the movie version of the classic HG Wells story called "The Time Machine" - where mankind appears to have reached a utopian state at some future date, only for the time traveller to discover that they are being controlled and farmed by a sinister sub-species of man living in a dark, underground underworld. I was glad to see that some of the toys our five-year-old foster child unwrapped this Christmas were tied down with small biodegradable paper ties rather than the wire ones that have been the standard for many years. Unfortunately, there was still a lot of other packaging (lots of plastic). However, even there, quite a lot of it is recyclable and the county where we live has recently started providing separate 240-litre wheelie bins just for recyclables, so all this packaging is going to go for recycling. Much better than previous years.
This report, to which I contributed, has been published and can be read without needing to download, on the Steady State Manchester website here. In a nutshell, it provides a vision (and practical ideas) for building an alternative future economy that is more sustainable than the one we currently operate. The main thrust is to challenge the notion that perpetual economic growth is both possible and desirable. The main constructive suggestion is to re-envision a future economy where growth (in aggregate) is neither desirable nor necessary in order to achieve a fair, balanced and sustainable future for subsequent generations.
At the weekend, while disposing of something at the local household recycling centre, I found a substantial metal garden fork. the only problem with it was a slightly bent tine - an easy thing to fix. Unfortunately, when I asked a member of staff if I could take it away with me, he said something to the effect of "sorry, but no, mate - too much paperwork - and don't even think about taking it when nobody's looking, 'cos it's all covered by CCTV". So, a garden fork that would have seen many years' use on the smallholding has had to go (prematurely) for melting down. What a waste! How many more useful items are being recycled instead of reused, I wonder. I know that it's far better to recycle things into new products than to use 'virgin' materials in manufacturing, but it's also far better to reuse items than to recycle them - and the earlier in their life cycle this reuse happens the better. I've calmed myself down by finding the picture above, which is a view across nearby fields one recent misty morning. |
About the BloggerI'm David Calver - an Accountant with a passion for sustainability. Categories
All
Archives
February 2016
|