Showing posts with label Sustainable Development Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainable Development Commission. Show all posts

Thursday, April 02, 2009

G20 won't bail out the eco-system

Whatever the communiqué issued by G20 leaders says today, it will not address the climate crisis. Rather it will present the shared thinking of governments desperate to get the global capitalist economy rolling again at any cost. 

Just what a disaster this would be is set out in a report published this week by the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), created to advise the government, but consistently ignored by it. 

Prosperity Without Growth moves within an inch of stating that capitalism itself is unsustainable – but then falls at the last hurdle! It rejects the idea that rogue individuals or incompetent regulators are responsible for the crisis, insisting that the economy “was undone by growth itself” and adds: 

“For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago... This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems.” 

The report boldly questions the thinking behind the idea of a “Green New Deal”, which has become fashionable as an allegedly sustainable way of getting the economy out of its crisis. After offering some faint praise for a “green stimulus”, the report scathing adds:  

“Nonetheless, the default assumption of even the ‘greenest’ Keynesian stimulus is to return the economy to a condition of continuing consumption growth. Since this condition is unsustainable, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in the longer term something more is needed. A different kind of macro-economic structure is essential for an ecologically-constrained world.” 

The questions that follow are what is this new “macro-economic structure” and how are we to achieve it? In his foreword, the report’s author Tim Jackson, economics commissioner of the Sustainable Development Commission, says a return to “business as usual” is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on “ecological destruction and persistent social injustice” is no foundation for a civilised society, he rightly insists.   

Yet the 12-point plan the SDC then puts forward for consideration by the world’s leaders could never be implemented within the present economic and financial framework. Because the problem we face is not simply about “growth”, but “growth in pursuit of profit”. And if capitalism were to somehow move outside of the pursuit of profit – it would no longer be capitalism. And you can’t see capitalism voting to put itself out of business anytime soon. Put that way, it’s inconceivable that the SDC’s admirable programme can be achieved without transforming the fundamentals, creating a sustainable not-for-profit economy based on co-ownership and co-operation. 

The report says that “questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries” but even if that is true, our ranks are growing. The vast majority of those on Saturday’s “Put People First” demonstration and yesterday’s anti-capitalist actions know only too well that the G20 leaders and the system they represent will never “put the planet first”. They can only ever “put profit first”. That’s why Obama and Brown constantly talk about the “need to restore growth”. 

“Nature doesn’t do bailouts” was one of the slogans of the climate camp, pitched yesterday outside the City of London Climate Exchange. And the Archbishop of Canterbury said last week that God would not be stepping in to halt climate change either. So then human society -  the conscious and most active part of nature – will have to do it, rescuing the planet’s eco-system and us at the same time.

Penny Cole
Environment editor

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Watchdog needs a new home

This is the story of the watchdog who barked in the night to warn its owner of impending danger – to no avail. Its master had gone deaf, the result of a long-term illness. As a consequence, disaster overtook one and all. The watchdog in this case was the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) and its master – you must have guessed by now – was the terminally-ill New Labour government.

In January 2006, the SDC was officially made the government’s “independent watchdog” and reports to the Prime Minister. Its role includes “scrutinising and reporting on government’s performance on sustainable development”. The SDC’s board of commissioners is chaired by the eminent environmentalist Jonathon Porritt.

This week, the SDC barked furiously about the government’s plans for expanding UK airports, especially at Heathrow – where there are fiercely opposed plans for a new runway – and at Stansted. A report by the SDC and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that the real costs and implications of the proposed growth were not properly understood. They concluded that so much fundamental data is disputed that an independent inquiry is needed to sort it out.

For example, Treasury analysis estimates future increases in economic activity through expanded aviation – but excludes any calculation of losses to the UK tourist industry through cheap flights abroad. The impact of aviation's greenhouse gas emissions is not fully understood either. Many experts also warn that improvements in technology cannot keep up with the increase in demand for flying.

Hugh Raven, SDC commissioner, said: "The SDC and IPPR held meetings with the government, the aviation industry, academics, NGOs and citizens' groups over a period of a year. While we expected to find areas of conflict, we were unprepared for the level of fundamental disagreement over the data underpinning the government's whole aviation strategy. Until some basic questions are answered, the UK cannot be in a position to make major decisions about the future of air travel. The government must live up to its commitment to listening to voters' concerns, and ensure we make the best possible decisions for everyone involved."

Seems sound advice to me, whichever way you look at. Here was a chance for the government to get off the hook via that traditional British method of holding another inquiry. John Stewart, who chairs the anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group Hacan Clear Skies, urged ministers to listen and to commission an independent study into the real impact of expansion on noise, air pollution and emissions. “Until that is done, it makes no sense at all to go ahead with this programme of aggressive expansion of aviation,” he insisted.

Hacan is planning a protest march and rally around Heathrow at the end of this month and, judging by the government’s official response, the mood will be justifiably angrier than ever. The government said it had “serious objections” to the report's findings. A statement from the Department for Transport (DfT) said it was "simply wrong to claim that there is a consensus that the evidence base is flawed". The government had conducted a “widespread debate over the last six years” and “deferring a decision in favour of a further three-year debate as this report suggests is not a serious option”.

So there you have it. The watchdog sounded the alarm but no one was listening. Clearly, its bark is worse than its bite. New Labour is adamant that the rules of the global market economy have to be obeyed. Airports must be expanded in order for the British economy to stay “competitive”, whatever the cost in environmental terms. The immediate response to that is to get down to Heathrow on May 31 to join the demonstration against a government that ought to be bought a one-way ticket to somewhere very far away.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor