Integrated development
Integrated development to end poverty
A plan to integrate global best practices into a program that is ultimately self-financing and can be deployed everywhere, to solve all of the problems of poverty, including education, health, economic opportunity, community, spiritual development, human rights, and peace.
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Nov 03, 2008
Updated: Mar 30, 2009
Membership: Open To Apply
Semi-Private
Systemic Economic Instruments for Energy, Climate and Global Security (global paradigm change)
Resource Info Edit
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Network [Add] · [List] · [Visualize]
 |
About [Edit]
This work was published by the Nato Science for Peace and Security Programme in May 2008 following an Advanced Research Workshop in Naples in 2007. In essence it's about how to reverse major global problems instead of trying (and generally failing over decades) just to reduce them.
Abstract: Energy security, climate stability, sustainable development, economic growth and national security are codependent goals; either all will be achieved or none. This global security goal-set will remain elusive with prevailing ‘patchwork’ policy-making. Irreversible failure with one or more of the goals may be avoidable with a non-reductionist approach to global complexity, using systems thinking and systemic interventions at leverage points, of which two are proposed.
(1). Weapons spending can be deducted from Gross Domestic Product to define a ‘Gross Peaceful Product’ with which nations could align goals for growth and security.
(2). Other global security goals can be approached by a preventive insurance scheme. Significant producers would pay an obligatory premium on all products (including fuels) according to the risk that they become waste in the air, land or water. Premiums would be invested in the capacity of nature, industry and society to reduce that risk. This market-based ‘precycling insurance’ would make many prescriptive instruments redundant. In particular, emissions capping debates need no longer delay international climate agreements.
To see the work click on the 'files and photos' tab above then on the links for the paper and slides. Please see also the new work for NATO Seven Policy Switches for Global Security which includes more leverage points (now called policy switches).
Comments (1 - 3 of 3)
|
|
|
Can't seem to view the whole paper, so I'll ask and comment on the abstract above:
|
|
Thank you for sharing this work James.
|
Oops! Have now re-added both the paper and slides which hopefully will help with your concerns. Definitions are standard, though the approach is not. None of these goals can be met singly, only in combination. None of them can be met as previously sought, only by globally changing paradigms/rejigging whole systems.
The approach to creating this change is not standard. Instead of just trying to directly control the 'offending' variables we look at the incentives that run across the whole system. Weapons spending for example hasn't responded to efforts to agree direct reductions because the incentives that drive it haven't been changed. The most powerful of these is the economic incentives. GPP would reverse the current incentive for governments to spend more on weapons and to allow their security strategies to be so conflict-dependent. So yes, weapons spending would reduce, and all the effort and resources that went into them would be profitably occupied sorting out the many problems that otherwise become conflicts. Economic growth, peace-making and national security would be aligned as they always should have been.
Licensing to pollute is actually the current system, where systematic contributions to worsening problems are incentivised by regulatory approval and markets that ignore externalities. The current system is set up to make 'doing bad' an inevitable piece of almost everyone's daily life and there is no significant mechanism for preventing bads. Precycling insurance is market-based so it wipes out bads by making them unprofitable and uneconomic, rather than by decree. Of course there is nothing to stop this working together with clever regulation that sets boundaries for what's acceptable or further incentives to go faster. By turning markets into a mechanism for resolving problems rather than causing them, precycling insurance offers you a route to 'preventing bads' at a rate exceeding the expectations of anyone accustomed to bads historically not really being managed at all.
Please take a peek at the paper and if your concerns aren't entirely satisfied then just come back to me - thanks Bowo!