A WiserScotland
Towards creating a Regional communication platform for all Scottish based WiserEarth members, their groups, organizations and events. All areas of focus included.
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Jul 02, 2009
Updated: Mar 11, 2010
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Seven Policy Switches for Global Security
Resource Info Edit
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Network [Add] · [List] · [Visualize]
About [Edit]
Paper and slides presented to a NATO Science meeting. "Together the switches define a practical strategy for global security, for a serious attempt at revival of co-operation, ecosystems and prosperity." Your ratings, comments and criticisms are very welcome! A short web address for this page is http://tiny.cc/7switches
To see the work please click on the 'files and photos' tab above, then the file name then download. See also these discussion wikis about switch 2 Curiosity-led learning, switch 3 Precycling insurance and the possibility of continuing growth, switch 4 How to give peace a chance with Gross Peaceful Product (GPP) and the earlier work for nato, which has more detail about switches 3 and 4, Systemic Economic Instruments for Energy, Climate and Global Security (global paradigm change).
Seven Policy Switches for Global Security (in press)
NATO Advanced Research Workshop. Split, Croatia 17th-19th June 2009
James Greyson security AT blindspot.org.uk
Abstract: Everyone desires a secure life. Yet the security of more and more regions is undermined by unreliable and unequal availability of basics such as energy, water, food, natural resources, funds, co-operation, trust and hope for the future. Shocks such as the credit crunch, infectious diseases, climate instability and ecological collapses are converging towards a ‘planet crunch’ where security would become a fond memory. Traditional policy-making, that manages problems separately and incrementally, offers only the illusion of protection against impending unaffordable and irreversible shocks affecting all people. Future security anywhere requires all facets of security everywhere. This ‘global security’ ambition can be sought with a new era of policy-making that encompasses the indivisibility, scale and urgency of all planet crunch issues. This paper offers a selection of seven simple ‘policy switches’ (or ‘leverage points’ in complex systems). Each policy switch offers an expanded vision of people’s role on Earth and a whole-system change to implement it. Together the switches define a practical strategy for global security, for a serious attempt at revival of co-operation, ecosystems and prosperity.
The proposed policy switches are:
1. The strategy of aiming to reduce problems can be switched to reversing them with ‘positive development’. Less bad is not good enough.
2. Education can inspire a culture of joined-up thinking and engagement by switching from predetermined to curiosity-led learning.
3. Economic growth can be switched from consuming the basis for further growth to building it by correcting markets with ‘precycling insurance’.
4. Rapid global disarmament can be launched by switching from Gross Domestic Product to ‘Gross Peaceful Product’, that omits weapons-related transactions.
5. Exploitive commodification of the Earth’s surface can be switched to guardianship by international treaty that interprets ownership in terms of responsibility to future generations.
6. Surplus accumulations of financial wealth, which would be wiped out by the planet crunch, can be switched by the wealthy into investments that secure all forms of wealth.
7. Global financial stability can be regained by switching money creation from the private sector to central public authorities and local currencies.
Comments (1 - 20 of 68)
|
|
|
Michael, that's recycling insurance. See 4.4 of the paper:
Precycling insurance is an extension of the EU WEEE Directive’s ‘recycling insurance’ (European Union, 2002) from just recycling to all forms of preventing all products becoming waste in any ecosystem.
The proposed revised Directive keeps the same option of recycling insurance. (The opportunity of extending to precycling insurance was ignored.) See Article 128 about half way down this long page:
Member States shall ensure that each producer provides a guarantee when placing a product on the market showing that the management of all WEEE will be financed and that producers clearly mark their products in accordance with Article 151(2). This guarantee shall ensure that the operations referred to in paragraph 1 relating to this product will be financed. The guarantee may take the form of participation by the producer in appropriate schemes for the financing of the management of WEEE, a recycling insurance or a blocked bank account.
I believe the Directive gives regulatory responsibility to nation states and financial responsibility to producers. It's not implemented consistently and 2/3 of electronics is still dumped in a variety of exotic and dangerous ways.
Fred, I can't guess what 'democratic nomodracy' might be but you might like to outline it in a new wiserearth resource or wikipage as a way to invite discussion? You're talking about important issues that need more ideas and discussion. Best of luck! |
|
I don't know if anyone has made this comment in the string (I don't see any way to search for text in the comments), but there is an existing "precycling insurance" program already in place in the EU.
It is known as Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment.
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) aims to minimize the impacts of electrical and electronic equipment on the environment during their life times and when they become waste. It applies to a huge spectrum of products. It encourages and sets criteria for the collection, treatment, recycling and recovery of waste electrical and electronic equipment. It makes producers responsible for financing most of these activities (producer responsibility). Private householders are to be able to return WEEE without charge. Provisions of WEEE started coming into effect from 13 August 2005.
All producers or importers of listed categories of equipment pay a fee to the national government the equipment is entering. This revenue is then applied by an agency of that government to various local contractors who take care of collecting and recycling of the materials. The fees do not apply specifically to the new items, (as one can't predict when that item will reach the end of it's useful life) but do apply to everything hitting the "waste stream", including items whose manufacturer is no longer in business. |
|
Fighting poverty is a matter of obligation not charity. All the states should take sick people from Haiti for nursery, proportional to their GNP (Gross National Product). The fact that 50% of the earth´s work needing are starving, says to our common sense and to our consciousness, that our society is primitive and barbaric. We talk about democracy, but this situation is absolutely not global democracy. Read more about direct democratic nomodracy (the rule of e-law) ! www.fredblomson.spaces.live.com, fred.blomson@hotmail.com
|
|
|
This kind of non-invasive transparency is a brilliant tool. The extreme differentials in many companies reveals their extreme disconnection with their task of creating value. Sometimes, as with bankers' bonuses, it reveals systemic corruption:
|
|
In terms of distribution of wealth one tool could be a requirement for auditors to report the differential in salaries between top earners and bottom earners and possibly others in between. At one time I believe that Mondragon for all of its companies limited the differential between the top salary to the bottom wage to no more than 11 times. If the salary differentials were more apparent investors might not as readily invest in companies that had very large differentials.
|
|
|
No worries Bowo.
I'm not sure why the word security should be abandoned to an obsolete association with 'us vs them'. Security in definition and use is about protection against various kinds of dangers; hence food security, climate security, financial security etc. The paper begins "Security in the modern world means far more than military security and radical new non-combative solutions are needed to cope with new security challenges." The whole of section 1 provides support for those involved in 'national security' (and everyone else) to realign their understanding of 'security' with today's full range of challenges.
NATO are struggling to reinvent themselves and are already embracing more progressive language as quoted in 5.2, "...our prevailing security paradigm has shifted. And the new paradigm can be summed up in just one word: engagement. We need to address the issues where they emerge, before they end up on your and my doorstep...” Imagine how much hope for the future would be generated if bodies like NATO found themselves with the tools to implement this new security paradigm?
|
|
James,
Apologies for the belated reply. Thanks for the explanation.
1. I'm understanding better how precycling insurance works, but still have some questions which I posted on your wikipage on this.
2. Got it! Economic growth in a truly circular economy could then be ecologically ok. Guess the remaining work would be to justify/improve/replete the other components of that growth? (e.g. your GPP as a substitute for GDP). Or maybe devising more indicators to measure real progress (as opposed to just 'economic' progress). Genuine Progress Indicator and the Happy Planet Index comes to mind.
3. Understanding better how a switch from GDP to GPP, or the use of both will provide an incentive at best, and a different lens at seeing economic growth at the very least. Would be great if this could become a real leverage point to move away from militarism to nonviolence.
4. International law on/redefining ownership. I suppose, since ownership is codified as guardianship by law, violation would yield penalties then? Got it. Do you know who is / has been working on this? I suppose what's commonly referred to as "land trust" would be a good example of removing/replacing nature commodification? Would a national law like Ecuador's codification of Rights of Nature be a step in the right direction too in your proposal?.
5. Thanks for the explanation. Interested to hear how government can incentivise "transformative philanthrophy". I guess civil society at large has been encouraging that for a long while. Would a law mandating "maximum, personal financial wealth" be of use, desirable, or possible at all?
6. Thanks for the tip off about North Dakota. Interesting case to keep in mind. Will keep learning about money.
As for 'global security', it's not the 'global' part that worries me, but the 'security' part, as it sounds like a word that's precisely based on fear of others, i.e. coming from an "us vs. them" perspective. Someone/something is threatening our security... "threat from them vs. our security".
I personally would prefer something like "global well-being". 'well-being' seems to cover a broader base of meaning, and is more positive in tone. But that's just me, and not NATO :)
Thanks again for your explanation. Really helps. Though I'm still putting several question marks around "economic growth", your explanation/proposal seems to have successfully dismantled one of them :)
Now, if you can write another wiki envisioning how a "circular economy" would look like, and how our life in it would be, that'd be wonderful!
Thanks! ~Bowo |
|
|
Thanks JC. Have made a wikipage for your question about Curiosity-led learning This can be implemented at individual, institution, national and international scales. The more the better. The underlying debate, which is rarely addressed openly, is to reassure governments about giving up most centralised control over the process of learning and a little control over what is learnt. Education is perhaps the primary means for training their populations to accept what they are told so governments should be asking themselves whether that tactic has become outdated and counterproductive? Policies of educational centralisation stunt society's capacities for joined-up thinking, problem solving and participative engagement. This is evident in the avalanche of herd-behaviour collapsing situations (eg credit crunch, climate instability) that come from everyone playing their part and no-one taking care of the whole system.
I have a video of my presentation, needs reframing before posting since the camera was centred wrongly. Other presentations by others were on different topics, not covered here. The workshop link http://www.fesb.hr/NATO-ARW200... seems to work. Did you mean some other link? |
|
This all sounds good.
How would we develop "curiousity-led learning?"
Also, did anyone videotape or transcribe the presentations? This is essential to spreading information!
Further, the links to the conference organizers didn't work for me. How to fix this?
Otherwise, good, good, good. |
|
|
Yes, more discussion is needed. I don't know if wiserearth does panel discussions; certainly plenty of organisations do. I'm enjoying what wiserearth do already, which is well suited to reaching those interested, providing time enough for people to research and reflect as they go. I can't predict who might ask me to talk next but if I could choose then
|
|
The Great Transition team would probably be a strong ally. Maybe WiserEarth would be interested in hosting a series of Panel Discussions that would engage thought leaders in dialoging on Economic Incentives, leverage points, and other important Sustainability themes? These talks could be web-casted and recorded for free downloads. The Speaker's networks would bring many groups together to deepen the process of a shared vision and values. It may even be possible to have the audience break out into small group discussion after the talk and come back with some questions for the panel? This could produce a powerful learning tool to explain the concepts and challenges of creating a Circular Economy, and the principles of Natural Capitalism.
|
|
|
Hi Michel, have started a wikipage about precycling insurance and growth. Does that help? Thanks for looking into this - the taxes/caps debate is too narrow and people should expect that a new kind of economy might need new economic tools. Precycling insurance is growth-friendly but the possibility of actually getting reliable growth in future depends on:
The role of the environmental movement will probably be key. Can our thinking on growth move on or will we stay stuck avoiding economic questions ("I'm no expert") or blindly opposing growth of any kind ("growth is the problem not the solution").
|
|
|
Hi Drake. The seven policy switches work was peer reviewed in May 2010 by an international gathering of professors (who generously included me) where we all presented and critiqued each other's research over a 3 day 'advanced research workshop' in Split, Croatia. The work will be published in the Nato Science Programme as an academic paper in a book of proceedings and available to everyone interested to be debated and developed. Nato is very preoccupied and there is no guarantee that anyone employed by them will even read it. The UN is similarly preoccupied with agendas given them by their national government sponsors and my various attempts to engage have not yet sparked a dialogue. You may enjoy my 'detective thriller' article (see page 5, 6) handed out by the UN to an international meeting of government folk in July 2008.
Good idea to offer the seven switches at a major conference. I last contacted Lester Brown's Institute in September with a link to my recent work but I understand that they are busy and not always able to respond. I'd guess most conferences will try to muster their speakers more like 6 months ahead. Anyhow it's good to talk and the seven switches seem to add power to Brown's big picture. Leverage points are pretty essential when you want to change the big picture and circular economics is a missing link between much that Plan B proposes. Taxes are the oldest but not the most promising of economic tools. Much to discuss. Brown and his team are very welcome here and in our systems group.
|
|
I wonder if someone could, for republication in the P2P Foundation blog, explain precycling insurance and other similarly 'growth-friendly' measures that could usher in a better form of capitalism? Bot supportive and critical commentary is welcome,
see http://blog.p2pfoundation.net (and perhaps you are familiar with our governance and commons areas of our wiki at p2pfoundation.net, just add Category:Governance or Category:Commons to see the sections)
Michel Bauwens |
|
|
James it is so cool you get to present these ideas to NATO and the UN, do you think we could find away to let more people in North America learn about Pre-Cycling Insurance? Is there a process where new economic ideas can be peer reviewed and debated and developed so that it becomes very practical and clear how to implement Pre-cycling Insurance? Could you talk with Lester Brown and JIm Garrison about sharing the idea at the World Forum Climate 2020 Conference in Washington DC this February? They are trying to develop a viable Pathway to Sustainability and will organize a global 10 year collective effort that is focused on sharing 'best practices' and learning solutions. Lester Brown will speak at the conference and it would be great if you could relate Pre-cycling to his ideas around Shifting Taxes and Subsides (Plan B, p. 244), because both are attempting to create economic instruments to change the incentives that are driving our economic system.
|
|
|
Thanks for taking a look Bowo. Does this help?
Yes the phrase 'global security' is in use by nato and I also like its broadness. Global security neatly dissolves the illusions of us vs them, us vs nature, us vs markets etc. |
|
|
Hi John, 'cutting waste would be cutting waste' when people share an understanding of what, where and when - the boundaries of whatever system is being discussed. Without that and a shared understanding of 'waste' we get the shambles that is waste management today. And climate management and... For a summation of precycling insurance it's probably best to look at what I've written rather than looking through the lens of other approaches such as eco-footprints. Precycling insurance is a way to switch quickly to a wholly circular economy. It embeds nature's no-waste organising principle as an organising principle for markets. It works with resource flows so affecting products directly and services indirectly (via their dependence upon wasteful products). The 'downward pressure' would be on waste and on all problems linked to waste (pollution, toxics, climate instability, ecological losses, consumerism, inequalities, food security...) You're wondering if the downward pressure might be limited by the antics of today's linear waste-dependent economy such as conspicuous consumption. Perhaps you've noticed the way that conventional tools such as taxes and tradable permits can perversely lock-in unsustainability. This where we can see the difference between attempting paradigm change (from linear to circular) and paradigm control (trying to set limits). If we're talking about paradigm change rather than control then we're not talking about markets as usual nor consumerism as usual. Rampant markets and consumerism have been around for so long that we need to take care not to imagine them as fixed. We need not worry what markets can bear. Markets can bear (and stimulate) change far beyond current expectations. We should worry about what people can bear and how to create radical change using markets that provide for people's needs. I expect this could happen incredibly fast and without any imagined constraint to do with consumerism, fashion or prestige - which are all generated by markets that don't account for externalities. If we agree on the need for systemic solutions then hopefully we can avoid thinking ourselves into linear causal traps. If the throw-away society was caused by innate human values then I would understand an urge to 'awaken people' by awareness raising about the real costs. Alternatively we can trust that people have suitable innate values and that the dodgy conditioned behaviours will respond to a 'system' that takes care of the real costs? Values and economics may be seen as a loop rather than just linear cause and effect. You worry that politicians will give in to lobbying by powerful industries that profit from a disposable world. It's a risk. Yet it is only corrupt politicians who personally benefit from particularly dirty businesses that are lost to the public good. Most politicians just want to keep their job, which relies on looking good and on economic growth. As explained in the paper, linear economic growth is coming to an end and any reliable future growth will follow a switch to circular economics. So implementing precycling insurance might not need society to adopt new vales. Maybe just a discussion that reaches political ears? |
|
wen i first signd in at wiser earth , i thought it'd be cover'd in threads abt metanoia;?) maybe they js all end up here) |
|
Metanoia - is want I was wanting to illustrate. Not Religion, but a mental-emotional-spiritual turning "switching" of the worlds leads engendered by the crisis beginning to become very painful. I know if they can't feel it yet, maybe they are not really alive (spiritually)? |
I don't know much about philosophy so would appreciate any advice on this feedback received today. Did anyone else read the paper without finding anything to further the idea of global security?
Your paper is highly philosophical, meaning that your nice list of ideas are not fleshed out in a format that says anything about how they could be furthered through a scientific approach. What are the research questions, and what are the proposed methods to respond to those questions?