Saturday, October 11, 2014

What Does a Sustainable Shopping List Look Like?









What Does a Sustainable Shopping List Look Like?

 

Americans are eating healthier—but we have a long way to go in terms of sustainability.





(Photo: Getty Images)
October 08, 2014

Sarah McColl has written for Yahoo Food, Bon Appetit, and other publications. She's based in Brooklyn.


The most recent Greendex survey, which measures the environmental impact of consumer behavior, turned its focus to food this year. India’s diet ranked the most sustainable, featuring the fewest imported foods, the highest amount of self-grown food, the lowest amount of beef and pork, and the most fruits and vegetables.

The scorecard for American eaters, however, was at best a mixed bag. More people in the U.S. are eating local and organic foods and say they’re going to consume less meat and bottled water. But we also eat the most processed and packaged foods and the fewest fruits and vegetables of the 18 countries ranked.
The federal government is catching on to this health-ward trend in diets, and the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is considering issuing sustainablility recommendations in its 2015 report, akin to those the Greendex survey looks at.]

The guidelines inform federal nutrition programs such as food stamps and WIC, the food aid program for women, infants, and children. “A dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based food and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting,” Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University nutrition professor who chairs the advisory panel’s subcommittee on food sustainability, said in a public meeting last month, “and is associated with lesser environmental impacts—energy, land, and water use—than the current average American diet.”

The Greendex survey suggests that we’re looking for ways to make our diets more sustainable. But for those of us who get confused at the grocery store, pitting one label against another, what would that look like?

With Plants, More Is More

“The best thing that people can do is simply to eat more vegetables,” said Barton Seaver, director of the Healthy and Sustainable Food Program at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Center for Health and the Global Environment.

“Before more nuanced categories such as organic/local are introduced to the decision process, we need to develop a culinary preference for meals that are mostly plant-based.” The best way to find inspiring vegetables is at—you guessed it—the farmers market. You’re eating fresh food from your local foodshed; there’s the opportunity to support biodiversity by buying the weird stuff, and you can chat with the purveyors to find out what, exactly, you should do with red mustard and salsify. The great thing about the farmers market being a culinary cliche? There’s a head-spinning array of cookbooks devoted to the subject.

It’s Not Just What You Buy—It’s What You Don’t

“Shopping is ground zero for wasting less food,” explained National Resource Defense Council staff scientist Dana Gunders. That’s easy to forget while you’re at the store and facing the multimillion-dollar marketing machine of big food, but the same economizing tactics your mom used can be as beneficial to the environment as to the household bottom line: Meal planning, making (and sticking to) a list, a healthy dose of realism about what you’ll have time to cook (you’re not gonna get to that tilapia in time, you’re just not), and properly storing food in the refrigerator can all reduce waste.

Buy Less Beef and Lamb




Throw out an extra hamburger and the water wasted is the equivalent of a 90-minute shower, Gunders explained. And while beef is considered public enemy number one, lamb actually has the largest carbon footprint of any food item—50 percent higher than even beef.

Buy More Beans, Legumes, and Organic Tofu

Sticking to a plant and vegetable-based diet one day a week (Meatless Mondays, anyone?) does far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than eating an entirely local diet, says Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity. Beans and legume crops don’t require nitrogen-based fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, and they benefit future crops too. They’re nitrogen fixers, which means they take inert gases from the environment and turn them into useful ammonium which enriches soil environments. And they’re cheap, and loaded with protein! Buying dried beans and lentils from the bulk bin area of a food co-op or grocery store helps reduce packaging waste too.

But You Don’t Want to Be a Vegetarian?

An improvement can be as simple as trading out two “least efficient” beef or lamb-based meals for a couple of “more efficient” ones with chicken, turkey, or fish. When you do buy beef, opt for grass-fed options.

Replace Your Frequent (and Worst) Offenders

Check your usual grocery list items on the Environmental Working Group’s carbon footprint list or most frequently cooked recipes on Eat Low Carbon. If you grab a five-pound sack of potatoes on each trip to the grocery store or are whipping up salmon en papillote once a week, upgrade to the most sustainable options available. For the potatoes, that could mean buying the organic bag at the store, or asking a few questions of local purveyors at the farmers market to find out their growing practices. For the salmon, opt for wild Alaskan.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Does The Future Of Humanity Lie In Space? (via Planetsave)









Does The Future Of Humanity Lie In Space?

 

 http://planetsave.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Space-Exploration.jpg

 

March 4th, 2014 by


World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, and Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, are united by a common belief. They are members of an influential group of scientists and visionaries who believe that the long-term future of the human race lies in space, and that we need to grow beyond the confines of our home planet in order to ensure our long-term survival. The logic behind this viewpoint is that sooner or later the Earth will inevitably endure another planetary catastrophe, such as the asteroid collision that lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. Failing that, they believe we have a pretty good chance of accomplishing our own extinction through mismanagement of the planet.

While these arguments are compelling, future space travel would require a number of major technological advances to be made. The fact is that we are uniquely adapted to living here on Earth. Our bodies have evolved to cope with the unique environmental conditions which exist here, and very likely only here, in the universe. It is unlikely that any potentially habitable planet we could find would have the same concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere, the same gravitational pull, the same seasonal patterns, or any one of the millions of other factors which we never think about, but which uniquely characterize our home planet. Although many of us now lead lives completely isolated from nature, our survival is still dependent on the physical processes which drive the Earth system.

The Earth is unique in our solar system in that it provides the conditions which enable complex life to flourish. While scientists hold out the possibility that microbial life could exist on Mars, or perhaps on Saturn’s moon Titan, it is highly unlikely that complex multi-cellular organisms will be found anywhere else in our solar system. Contrast this with the Earth, where life is everywhere. Even physically hostile regions such as Antarctica and the Sahara support life in surprisingly large concentrations. Space is a vacuum, in which astronauts are totally dependent on life support, and where the smallest problem can be life threatening. The distances are also unfathomable. For example, Proxima Centauri, the next-closest star after our sun, is more than four light years away.

Given the current state of our technology, it is unlikely we will be venturing far into space this coming century. However over this same time period we will face tremendous challenges here on Earth. For our species to survive into the 22nd century, we will need to find ways to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, solve a host of related environmental problems, and stabilize our population. This will need to happen within the lifetime of many people who are alive today. Achieving such a transformation requires that we turn away from unsustainable growth-based models of resource use, and transition to a steady-state economy.

Type I, II, and III civilizations

It is useful to look at where our current civilization stands in terms of theoretical models of planetary development. In 1964 the soviet astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev developed a method for classifying the level of development of theoretical planetary civilizations. The so-called Kardashev scale recognizes three levels of advanced civilization, which are classified according to their energy usage. Type I civilizations are able to harvest all the energy falling on the planet from their local sun. Type II civilizations are able to gather all the energy provided by the entire star, whereas Type III civilizations would be able to utilize the energy resources of their entire galaxy. As to where we fit into this model; the theoretical physicist Michio Kaku believes we are currently at a level of about 0.7 and are on the way to transitioning into a full level I civilization within the next 100 – 200 years, if we survive that long.

The Kardashev scale suggests that our energy requirements will continue to increase indefinitely as our civilization develops. However, as we saw above, the future of humanity depends on us being able to stabilize our numbers and live sustainably on the Earth. This implies that our energy consumption will inevitably reach a peak sometime in the next century, and flatten out thereafter. Planetary limits dictate that this must be so. Our civilization simply cannot advance fast enough to allow to us to perfect space travel before we run up against the limits imposed by nature.

The reason for the contradiction is that the Kardachev scale is based on the idea of exponential growth. It is exactly the same logic that current economic theory is based on, except that in this case energy usage is used as a proxy for the level of development of a civilization. However, it is inevitable that our current growth economy must ultimately transition into a steady-state economy if we are to survive in the long term. This does not imply that our society will stop developing, nor that we will be confined to Earth in the future; it simply means that the advance of our civilization will not require the consumption of exponentially increasing amounts of energy, as Kardashev suggested.

For many years now people have wondered whether we are alone in the universe. Researchers from the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) Institute have scanned the skies for signs of intelligent life and have so far seen no conclusive evidence of other civilizations. Two explanations are commonly suggested for this. The first is that we really are alone; that in all the countless billions of planetary systems within our galaxy, and in all the billions of galaxies, no other species has reached our level of development. The second explanation is that when civilizations reach a certain level of development, they inevitably end up destroying themselves.

There is however a third possibility, which is to assume that as civilizations advance they must inevitably bump up against the physical limits imposed by their home planet, as we ourselves are now doing. At this stage of their development it is highly unlikely that they will have perfected space travel. Therefore in order for their civilization to endure, they would have no choice but to learn to live sustainably within the limits imposed by the planet. With stable populations, and a well-managed planet, there would simply not be the pressure for such a civilization to continually expand, thereby consuming an ever-increasing supply of new resources.

Such civilizations would still face challenges. However over time it is likely they would develop any technology they would need to protect their home planet from external threats. They would very likely develop space travel, but its primary use would be for research purposes, rather than to drive an exponentially expanding wave of colonization through the galaxy. The idea of a hostile alien civilization strip-mining the resources of the galaxy is a science fiction staple. However it is a perception which is derived largely from the assumption that economies must continually grow and consume ever-more resources in order to survive. It therefore says more about the perceptions and biases of our times than it does about the development of civilizations.

If we consider the alternative hypothesis that any civilization destined to survive in the long term would have evolved to a steady-state economy long before they perfected space travel, then it is quite possible that there could be millions of such civilizations scattered through the universe, each quietly going about their own business. This is probably the best option for a long-term sustainable future for the human race. It is a future which most likely will include space travel, but not one in which space travel is a prerequisite for our survival.

Photo Credit: NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center via photopin (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license)
 
Keep up to date with all the most interesting green news on the planet by subscribing to our (free) Planetsave newsletter.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Why a New Constitution is Our Best Hope

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice


Why a New Constitution is Our Best Hope

Having the longest-lasting constitution that is the hardest to change is a negative, not a positive. Personally I advocate radical egalitarianism, democratic world government, and nuclear disarmament. The constitutional convention process that I propose maximizes democracy, and it will completely level the playing field by removing the influence of money. But what can people like me do if the American people under a new constitution desire laissez-faire capitalism, a flat tax, and a neo-conservative foreign policy? We can try a new approach in popularizing our preferences, but our plight will be less dismal than it is now because future constitutions will be easier to amend and easier to abolish.

In my ideal constitution, I would empower the 7 largest national political parties, create proportional representation in a unicameral national legislature, and abolish the US Senate and the Electoral College. I also would advocate single payer health insurance, with the government as the single payer, and a public banking system that abolishes the Federal Reserve. For some types of elections, I would recommend instant runoff voting.

Since I am still listing my personal preferences, I would change state governments as well: I would empower them from the bottom-up, from the neighborhood block club, to the precinct, township, county, and ultimately to the state legislative council that would make judicial and executive branch appointments, as the lower levels would also be able to do.

Regarding the public schools (as a retired teacher), I would let the residents, who live within the geographical districts of every elementary, middle, and high school, use public funds to develop their own educational philosophy and curriculum—with neither federal, state, county, nor township school superintendent, hierarchical control. This feature can bring back neighborhood togetherness and community solidarity, as neighbors get to know one another better and form common dreams.

But why is a new constitution needed? The world and the nation have changed since the constitution was written in 1787 and since the current government was first implemented with the presidency of George Washington in 1789. There have been 27 amendments to the constitution for repairs and updates from time to time, but an entirely new supreme civil document is now long overdue. Dialogue and careful consideration is needed with full participation from every citizen.

Some libertarians and original constitutionalists believe it was wrong to allow average citizens, rather than state legislators, to elect the US Senate (Amendment 17). Others oppose the income tax altogether or the unfair way that the wealthy and poor are now taxed (Amendment 16). Both conservatives and liberals would like to clarify the wording of the Second Amendment regarding the “right to bear arms” and whether the Federal Reserve, a private organization, should have been formed in 1913 when the constitution says that Congress shall “coin money, [and] regulate the power thereof” (Article I, Section 8).

Many people resent the fact that our supreme document makes reference to how slaves are counted (Article I, Section 2) and how slavery is to be allowed until 1808 (Article V). Article V tells how the constitution can be amended, and it is more difficult to amend than any other constitution on earth. Moreover, there is absolutely no place in the constitution that tells how it can be totally abolished, which Jefferson recommended doing with every new generation.
Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the ability to declare war, but current presidents start wars too freely. It would also seem that the National Security Administration (NSA), the Pentagon, the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and transnational corporations–the military-industrial complex–pretty much does whatever it wants in regards to foreign policy and domestic surveillance. “If voting could change anything [significantly], it would be abolished,” is one of my favorite quotes. John Perkins, author of the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman also expresses my sentiments: “We cannot have homeland security until the whole earth is our homeland.”

In a world that is changing fast, any new constitution must show how it can be amended and also abolished easily in a fair, orderly, and nonviolent way. To make it easier to amend and to abolish our current constitution — a constitutional amendment must be passed.

Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass when the issues are polarized. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which reduced the voting age to 18, was passed in a few months. But if a new Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal could show how a constitutional convention could be held that totally levels the playing field among Republicans, Democrats, and the 5 major political third parties, this idea could pick up momentum. Here is one way the proposal could be written:

Proposal for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to Revise Article V: How to Amend and to Abolish the Constitution More Easily


The United States government can be changed through new amendments added to the constitution. It can also be modified when Congress passes new federal laws or statutes. But to change the federal government completely by abolishing the constitution, there has to be a Constitutional Convention to rewrite a new constitution.

How to Add Amendments to the Current Constitution More Easily


To change or modify the federal government by merely adding amendments to the Constitution, the United States Congress (including both the House and the Senate) must pass any proposed amendment to the Constitution with at least a 67% majority in both Houses. The previous, additional ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures is no longer required.

Amendments can also be added to the constitution if 2/3 of the state legislatures approve them at a national convention that has one representative from each state.

How to Abolish the 226-Year Old Constitution


The Constitution is the supreme civil law of the land. A radically new constitution and government can be formed through a Constitutional Convention. It can be achieved in a fair, orderly, and nonviolent way. A new constitution would not need to throw out the best of the old. The American people have a right to choose whether they want a new constitution. Through their chosen representatives, an entirely new constitution can be made. For now on, the decision to create a new supreme document will be considered by the American people at every presidential election.

Every 4 years when Americans vote for a president, they can vote for or against having a Constitutional Convention. If 51% or more of the voters say yes, then 100 delegates, chosen through proportional representation, will be sent to the Constitutional Convention to create a new constitution. Then if 51% or more of the Constitutional Convention delegates approve any new document, the new government will be implemented 4 months later. This orderly process will take 23 months.

Here is how Proportional Representation can work in the selection of constitutional convention delegates: American voters will study and evaluate the platforms and constitutions of the 7 largest national, political parties. Each voter will choose one of 7 political parties that he or she most identifies with for this purpose only. Let us pretend that based on the latest national election, the 100 Constitutional Convention delegates will have these numbers or percentages: 20% Republican, 20% Democratic, 15% Libertarian, 15% Constitution Party, 15% Green Party, 10% Socialist, and 5% Communist.
A National Elections Committee, whose executive directors will represent the 7 largest national, political parties, will be established beforehand to guarantee impartial election officials. Local election administrators will be professionalized. The National Elections Committee may use a voter-verified, paper audit trail produced by standardized voting equipment, or it may decide to use paper ballots to prevent corruption. The National Elections Committee will also be responsible for counting and verifying the membership of national political parties.

The 23-Month Timeline for Creating the New Constitution and Implementing the New Government


If at presidential election time, the American people decide they want a Constitutional Convention, then they will have almost 5 months, from November through April, to officially register with a national political party for this purpose only. Websites such as www.politics1.com describe all the known national, political parties. Then during the month of May, no switches can be made as the official count is reported by the National Elections Committee.
Any national, political party that represents at least 1% or more of the nation’s eligible voters will participate in national public speeches and debates, held from June through August. The political parties will also share their party platforms and their own proposed constitutions in writing.

Then from September through December, the representative political parties will be narrowed down to the top 7 political parties only, as determined 4 months earlier in May, and these 7 parties will share their party platforms and proposed constitutions in writing, and they will engage in public speeches and debates.

Then during the second week of January, voters will choose just one of the top 7 national, political parties to identify with, if they want their vote to count.
Let us pretend for pedagogical purposes that the 100 delegates from the top 7 national, political parties will be comprised of the following numbers at the Constitutional Convention: Republican Party, 20; Democratic Party, 20; Libertarian Party, 15; Green Party, 15; Constitution Party, 15; Socialist Party, 10; and Communist Party, 5.

On March 1, the Constitutional Convention delegates will meet at the Capitol building in Washington D.C. The delegates will work from March through May to create a new constitution that 51% or more of the delegates approve. Each party will choose one of its delegates to be the potential chairman. The 100 delegates as a group will then choose one delegate to be the chairman of the Convention using Instant Runoff Voting with 7 candidates (one from each party) on the slate.

If the delegates agree on a new constitution with a 51% majority before the 3 months elapse, they must use the remaining days to hear dissenting voices in the constant effort to revise their document through consensus decision-making in order to get an even higher percentage of approval. If only 50% or less of the delegates approves the new constitution after working on it for 3 months, then the proposed document becomes void, and the current constitution remains official.

However, if the new constitution is approved with a 51% majority or higher by the end of May, then the Constitutional Convention delegates will determine the specifics as to when and how the new government, based on the new constitution, will be implemented in a safe, orderly, and smooth way on October 1.

Summary of 23-Month Timeline for Creating the new Constitution and Implementing the New Government

November thru April—Each American voter chooses a national political party
Month of May–Official count of voters in each political party is reported by the National Election Committee

June thru August—Public speeches, forums, and written responses from all parties that captured at least 1% of the vote

September thru December—Speeches, debates, and written responses from the top 7 political parties only

Second week of January—Each American voter chooses just one of the top 7 national political parties to identify with for this purpose only

March thru May—The 3-month duration of the Constitutional Convention
October 1—The new government under the new constitution will be implemented

(End of 23-Month Timeline and Timeline Summary)

The spoken and written words of the delegates must be publicized, and citizens will be allowed to voice their own opinions in the process.

The US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court will not have the right to control a Constitutional Convention. They can, however, express their opinions and recommendations in the process.

(End of this Twenty-Eighth Amendment Proposal)


If the above Twenty-Eighth Amendment proposal is passed, many citizens on the political Right and the Left who have felt helpless, hopeless, and alienated about making any significant political changes, will, maybe for the first time, become animated by citizenship and politics. If a new constitution can be simplified, shortened, modernized, easily amended, and easily abolished—a lot more people will feel empowered about making political changes that matter.
Roger Copple is a retired teacher living in the Bradenton/Sarasota area of Florida. Read other articles by Roger.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

‘Holy Shit’ : An Excrement Expert’s Manure Manifesto





An Excrement Expert’s Manure Manifesto: Gene Logsdon’s ‘Holy Shit’

Manure is not waste product — it’s a valuable resource that’s vital to our food production. 

 
By Colleen Vanderlinden

February/March 2011






Most Americans tend to avoid thinking about manure. Gene Logsdon wants to change that attitude, and he’s written a manure manifesto that will make even the most excrement-averse reader more appreciative of this valuable end-product of digestion.

In his new book Holy Shit: Managing Manure to Save Mankind, veteran homesteader Logsdon gives us a crash course in manure management. He starts with a discussion about the benefits

of manure and how ineffectively we deal with most of it, and includes chapter-by-chapter discussions of various livestock manures and their value as fertilizer — you’ll be surprised by how much there is to learn!

Did you know pigs can be trained to “go” in one location, and they can assist in turning the manure to aerate it and help break it down? Or that a sheep’s digestive system is so efficient that weed seeds are destroyed in the process? Be it cow manure, horse manure, pet manure or yes, even humanure, Logsdon lays out how to make use of this natural resource more efficiently. After all, he half-jokingly predicts, manure will be “the hottest commodity on the Chicago Board of Trade one of these days.”

The take-home message is this: Manure is a valuable resource, not a waste product. And it’s time we start demanding that it’s treated as such. He argues that we should not be trying to get rid of manure — we should be harvesting it, doing our best to maintain its nutritive value, and using it wisely on our farms and gardens. “It is, in fact, not possible to have the kind of garden farm society that is now developing without comprehensive knowledge about managing manure,” Logsdon writes.

Holy Shit takes the reader on an entertaining journey through the world of manure. Logsdon’s trademark humor and unabashed criticism of factory farming add to the book’s value and make it a fun as well as informative read. Read an excerpt from Holy Shit, and order a copy of your own.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Who’s Building the Do-It-Ourselves Economy?

yes!

Who’s Building the Do-It-Ourselves Economy?

Corporations aren’t hiring, and Washington is gridlocked. Here’s how we take charge of our own livelihoods.

by ,

van-gelder.jpg


Corbyn Hightower was doing everything right. She worked long hours selling natural skin care products, flying between cities to meet customers, staying in posh hotels. She pulled down a salary that provided her family of five with a comfortable home in a planned community, a Honda SUV, health insurance, and regular shopping trips for the best natural foods, clothes, shoes, and toys.

Then the recession hit. Her commissions dried up, and the layoff soon followed. Life for Corbyn, her stay-at-home husband, and three children changed quickly.

First the family moved to a low-rent house down the street from a homeless shelter. They dropped cable TV, Wi-Fi, gym membership, and most of the shopping. Giving up health insurance was the most difficult step—it seemed to Corbyn that she was failing to provide for her young daughters. Giving up the car was nearly as difficult.

As our economy goes through tectonic shifts, this sort of adaptation is becoming the new normal. Security for our families will increasingly depend on rebuilding our local and regional economies and on our own adaptability and skills at working together. At the same time, we need government to work on behalf of struggling families and to make the investments that create jobs now and opportunities for coming generations. That will require popular movements of ordinary people, willing to push back against powerful moneyed interests.

Hightower family photo by Lane Hartwell

Corbyn Hightower and her husband, Larry, created a way of life that combines frugality, creativity, community exchange, and enough paid work to make ends meet.

Photo by Lane Hartwell for YES! Magazine.

Where Are the Jobs?

How did we get to an economy in which millions are struggling?

Officially, the “Great Recession” ended in the second quarter of 2009. For some people, the recovery is well under way. Corporate profits are at or above pre-recession levels, and the CEOs of the 200 biggest corporations averaged over $10 million in compensation in 2010—a 23 percent increase over 2009.

But for most Americans, there’s no recovery, and some are confronting homelessness and hunger. Twenty-five million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work. Forty-five percent of unemployed people have been without a job for more than 27 weeks, the highest percentage since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping track in 1948. There’s a growing army of “99ers,” people who have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks and have exhausted all unemployment benefits.

Fifty-three percent of Americans say jobs and the economy are the most important issues facing the country; just 7 percent say the deficit is the most important. Yet budget cuts and austerity have replaced job creation in the national dialogue.

American workers have become expendable to many of the corporations that run the economy; NAFTA and other trade laws opened the floodgates of outsourcing to low-wage countries. Many of the jobs that can’t be outsourced are being eliminated, or hours, pay, and benefits are being cut.

As corporations amass greater power, wealth, and influence, they successfully lobby for tax breaks and federal subsidies and set the national policy agenda. As long as the giveaways continue, along with massive military spending, governments have to cut education, public services, and infrastructure investments—and the jobs that go with these public benefits.

Real Solutions

Leaders in both parties tell us growth is what’s needed, but the evidence suggests growth alone won’t help most Americans. GDP has grown steadily and is now back to pre-recession levels.

But since the official end of the recession, virtually all of the new income—92 percent as of the first quarter of 2011—has gone to corporate profits, according to a May report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. None of the increased GDP has gone to boost wages and salaries.

More importantly, since World War II, growth has been built on cheap energy—particularly petroleum—and low-cost dumping of the effluents of a wasteful global economy. Now the easy-to-pump oil is nearly used up, and the cost of extracting petroleum is rising. At the same time, we’ve used up the Earth’s capacity to absorb climate-changing gases and other forms of pollution. Changes in the delicate balance of atmospheric gases are already disrupting the climate, and extreme weather events are happening with increasing frequency. Growth has failed to yield prosperity, and the planet cannot bear more of it.

So how do we create an economy that provides dignified livelihoods to all who are willing to work, without undermining the natural systems we, and our children, rely on?

A real solution requires a vision that is both humble in terms of the material wealth we can expect and ambitious about the fairness, mutual support, and quality of life we can build.

Here is a three-part plan for building real prosperity in an age of limits:

1. Local Economies, Local Ecosystems

The corporate economy has failed to offer economic security to most Americans and has undermined the environment and the living standards of people around the world. Strong local and regional economies are the way to a sustainable and resilient recovery. Small businesses actually create more jobs and innovation than big corporations. And entrepreneurs with long-term stakes in their local environment and economy have both the means and the motivation to protect them. There are many simple ways individuals and communities can support the transition to local economies.

Buy local. By buying goods and services locally and regionally, we keep money circulating in the Main Street economy, where new jobs are most likely to be created. Shop at a big box store, and the money goes to corporate headquarters almost immediately. Buy local food and your money stays home. We can also generate energy locally. Farmers are earning extra income by installing windmills. In Cleveland, a university and the city government are contracting to buy the electricity generated by solar panels a worker-owned co-op installs on their buildings (see page 26). Investment in weatherization immediately creates local jobs while reducing energy payments that leave the community. State and local governments, too, can strengthen their economies, and ultimately their tax bases, by buying as locally as possible. Substitute local for “imported,” and you create local jobs built on the solid foundation of local demand.

Bank local, too. Capital is the life-blood of enterprise. When banks are located in the community, they come to know local businesses and what sorts of loans are likely to work. When banks hold the loans, rather than sell them, they have an incentive to make wise loans. Credit unions, community-rooted banks, and state banks (see page 46) invest in the local economy, instead of siphoning off our bank deposits to use for global speculation.

Start with strengths. Under the old economic development strategy, communities compete with each other for jobs by offering corporations ever greater tax breaks and concessions on health and safety regulations and union rights. This race-to-the-bottom strategy may yield occasional wins, but it’s a long-term loser. A more successful strategy is to build economies from the grassroots up, starting with existing assets. For some communities, their primary asset might be a vibrant local arts scene (see page 29). For others, it’s a natural resource, like forests or farmland. Or it might be a hospital, university, high-tech enterprise, or other “anchor institution” that isn’t going away (see page 26).

Start by finding ways to turn these assets into sustainable livelihoods. An unused building could provide a place for start-up farmers to try vertical farming, for example. Then look for ways to link these core enterprises to local customers, vendors, a skilled labor pool, and so on.

Use wasted resources. Instead of demolishing and landfilling obsolete buildings, local entrepreneurs are creating jobs by disassembling them and selling components. Other common wastes: used clothes and books and repairable appliances. Unharvested fruit trees. Church kitchens that sit empty most of the week but could be health department certified for food processing start-ups. Methane from landfills, which could heat homes instead of the climate. Front yards that could be farmed. Each wasted resource could be transfomed into a job.

Jobs Myth #2 resized
Lies, Damned Lies,
and Economics

Busting 3 big myths
about jobs today.

Do it cooperatively. Well-paid workers are a community asset, and even more so when they own their workplaces. Cooperative work arrangements are available not just to well-educated entrepreneurs. Home health care workers, house cleaners, grocery store clerks, and laundry workers have all become worker-owners of successful cooperatives. These workers tend to spend their paychecks, and with a steady family income they are more able to contribute to the well-being of their community. And, since they share in the profits of their enterprise, they develop a nest egg they can use for buying a home, educating their children, and helping relatives through difficult times.

Allow communities to control their resources. Community-controlled forests are more likely to be sustainably managed than corporate-controlled ones; sustainable agriculture is more labor-intensive but less polluting. Sustainable and fair practices create jobs that last while boosting local resilience.

Keep ownership human. When owners are workers, customers, or the community at large, an enterprise can operate in accordance with multiple values, such as human well-being, the good of future generations, and ecological health. Corporate owners are constrained by law to put profits first.

2. Redefining Middle-Class

Building the local and regional economy will create real prosperity and keep the benefits circulating among ordinary people. But we are approaching the end of an era of cheap energy and seemingly limitless growth. To live within our means, we’ll need to produce and consume less stuff. That may mean less paid work available, at least in some sectors of the economy, so it makes sense to share those jobs and work fewer hours.

Many Americans work too much and are starved for downtime. A shorter workweek could benefit them while opening new jobs for the unemployed. Productivity increases when workers aren’t overstretched. Profits now going to the wealthiest could be distributed to workers so they could afford to work fewer hours and have more time for the rest of life.

Working less also means we have more time to do things for ourselves.

After Corbyn Hightower lost her corporate position, her husband started working at a low-wage job. The family saves money by fixing things that break and making things themselves. Corbyn is refurbishing an old dollhouse with her preschoolers. They spend hours together on this creative project.

Community exchanges transform the Hightowers’ experience from a lonely and scary adventure into a way of life Corbyn has come to appreciate. She shares the harvest from her pear, apple, and orange trees with her neighbors and gives some fruit to a nearby homeless shelter. Her neighbors share with her their apricots, lemons, peaches, plums, blackberries, and cherries.
Learning new DIY skills and building relationships with friends and neighbors builds greater self-reliance and offers opportunities to develop multiple facets of ourselves.

And frequent exchanges among neighbors help reweave a community fabric that has been badly frayed by overstressed lives. Once you get the tools to repair your bicycle, you can fix other people’s bikes or teach them how. When you’re canning jam, it’s easy to make some extra for gifts and exchanges.

All this means we can live with less money, so we can afford to spend less time at a job, which also becomes less central as a source of identity. And these rich networks and practical skills enhance our resilience as we face an uncertain future.

3. A Movement to Rebuild the Dream

We are still a wealthy country. We could use our tax dollars to put Americans to work replacing obsolete energy, water, transportation, and waste systems with infrastructure that can serve us in the resource-constrained times ahead.

We could invest in universal health coverage, which offers people the security to risk launching new businesses and helps make shorter workweeks more feasible. We could fully fund education and job training.

We could save money by cutting the bloated military budget, oversized prison populations, and the drug war. And we’d have the money if everyone—including the wealthiest Americans and large corporations—paid taxes at the rates they paid during the Clinton administration.

To get these sorts of changes, we need the American government to work for all of us, not just for corporations.

Powerful moneyed interests won’t willingly give back the power that has allowed them to acquire most of America’s wealth. We need strong people’s movements to get government to work for ordinary Americans. That’s the way American workers won the 8-hour day, women secured the right to vote, and African Americans ended segregation.

Enlightened politicians may cooperate with these movements, but few will lead them. We the people—through unions, community associations, advocacy groups, and local political groups—will have to set our own agenda and insist that government respond. The Movement to Rebuild the American Dream (see page 48), which is bringing together groups ranging from MoveOn.org to AFSCME, offers a promising path toward that end.

The Do-It-Ourselves Economy

Corbyn’s family has not had it easy since they slipped into poverty. They sold their SUV to cover rent and other necessities, and Corbyn blogs about the challenges of biking in the rain and in the blistering heat of the Sacramento area. But she also celebrates getting in shape, saving money, and the discoveries she and her children make when they travel at a slower pace.
Her 12-year-old tells Corbyn she loves her life. Who wouldn’t want chickens in the backyard, long bike rides with the family, and picking apples to take to the homeless shelter?

Corbyn Hightower photo by Lane Hartwell
Living Right
on the "Wrong" Side of Town:

When Corbyn Hightower's financial world fell apart, a ragtag community came together to show how a lively neighborhood grows new livelihoods.

Corbyn has come to appreciate special moments: “Yesterday we feasted on the first truly awesome strawberries of this spring, red all the way through, without the slightly-too-tart tang of previous early-season pints. We tried to savor them, to make them last, to appreciate each strawberry for how it’s slightly different from the rest. The way the sparkling flavor and the seeds make it taste almost carbonated. ...

“I think we have to reinvent ‘poor.’ Most everyone in my life is enduring new poverty. … It’s an unfamiliar and scary leap. … And if it turns out that some of these changes feel good, well, then it’s a win-win. The Great Recession is a watershed time for my generation, possibly the era that will live on to define us.”

Many of us have stories like Corbyn’s from our family histories or maybe from right now—stories of hard work, stubborn resilience, and neighbors helping neighbors. Stories of people waking up each day doing what had to be done for the children.

Our descendants need those qualities from us—not acquiescence to powerful interests or passive acceptance of a no-longer-tenable status quo. Our descendants need us to be as radical and as tenacious as our ancestors were.


Sarah van Gelder and Doug Pibel wrote this article for New Livelihoods, the Fall 2011 issue of YES! Magazine. Sarah is executive editor and Doug is managing editor of YES!

Interested?

  • Less Work, More Living
    Working fewer hours could save our economy, save our sanity, and help save our planet.
  • Want Jobs? Rebuild the Dream
    Interview: Van Jones is leading a national mobilization to rebuild the middle class—through decent work, fair taxes, and opportunities for all.
  • How to Build a People's Movement
    Now’s the time to challenge economic orthodoxy—but only a massive social movement can turn things around.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Bursting capitalism's bubble.




Post Anarchism

David Graeber


Capitalism is Eating Itself

Andrea Giacobbe remixed by Steve Keys

Audio version read by George Atherton – Right-click to download

There is very good reason to believe that, in a generation or so, capitalism itself will no longer exist – most obviously, as ecologists keep reminding us, because it’s impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual growth forever on a finite planet, and the current form of capitalism doesn’t seem to be capable of generating the kind of vast technological breakthroughs and mobilizations that would be required for us to start finding and colonizing any other planets. Yet faced with the prospect of capitalism actually ending, the most common reaction – even from those who call themselves “progressives” – is simply fear. We cling to what exists because we can no longer imagine an alternative that wouldn’t be even worse.

How did we get here? My own suspicion is that we are looking at the final effects of the militarization of American capitalism itself. In fact, it could well be said that the last 30 years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At its root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world – in response to the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s – with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, flourish or propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police; various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, and propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world, an idle fantasy.

Maintaining this apparatus seems more important to exponents of the “free market” than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain what happened in the former Soviet Union? One would ordinarily have imagined that the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and the KGB and rebuilding the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around. This is just an extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, the apparatus is pure dead weight; all the guns, surveillance cameras and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and really produce nothing, and no doubt it’s yet another element dragging the entire capitalist system down – along with producing the illusion of an endless capitalist future that laid the groundwork for the endless bubbles to begin with. Finance capital became the buying and selling of chunks of that future, and economic freedom, for most of us, was reduced to the right to buy a small piece of one’s own permanent subordination.

In other words, there seems to have been a profound contradiction between the political imperative of establishing capitalism as the only possible way to manage anything, and capitalism’s own unacknowledged need to limit its future horizons lest speculation, predictably, go haywire. When speculation did go berserk, and the whole machine imploded, we were left in the strange situation of not being able to even imagine any other way that things might be arranged. About the only thing we can imagine is catastrophe.

David Graeber, an anarchist direct action activist, has been called “the best anthropological theorist of his generation.” The above essay is adapted from his latest book Debt: The First 5,000 Years.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Car-Share: How to Keep Cars Off the Road and Even Break Our Destructive Consumption Habits

comments_image 21 COMMENTS
Innovative new car-sharing businesses are changing the way we think about driving--and owning cars.

Photo Credit: zipcar.com
We already know that cars are contributing to global warming, polluting the air, and hellish traffic jams in the world's biggest cities. We know that since the economy crashed in 2008, more and more people in the U.S. and around the world are struggling to pay bills, and we know that gas prices just keep rising.

Car ownership, it's becoming clear, simply isn't a sustainable way of life. But with an ongoing budget and revenue crisis on the federal, state and local levels, with conservative governors rejecting stimulus money for high-speed rail, it may be a while before we see the investment in public transit that it will take to fully break from the automobile.

Into the gap have stepped a number of innovative car-sharing companies and programs, allowing licensed drivers to pay fees less than traditional rental car companies and often access vehicles conveniently parked in their neighborhood. Each shared car, it's estimated, keeps an average of 15 cars off the road, allowing drivers to access a car only when it's specifically needed.

ZipCar, which calls itself “the world's leading car-sharing network,” has over 560,000 members in 60 cities and on 230 college campuses. Founded in 2000, ZipCar has over 8,000 cars, and options of over 30 makes and models.

To rent a Zipcar, you join at the website and receive a “zipcard” in the mail or from its office. That card is all you need to unlock and start the car—sign up to reserve a car online or from a smartphone, and your card will be activated to use the car for that time period. Gas—a gas card is included with the car—and insurance are covered in your fee, which starts at $8.50 for an hour and $66 for the day. When you make your reservation, a map shows you where your car is parked, and you return it to its designated parking space when you're done.

Zipcar is less hassle than a traditional car rental, though its daily rates rival those of many big rental companies. Convenience is a factor, as is the fact that most car-sharers use the car for short trips on rare occasions—to go to the grocery store, perhaps, or the big box store on the edge of town.

Zipcar is a for-profit company, and turned heads with its initial public stock offering this past April, when it raised $174.3 million. It's not yet profitable, though, and hasn't maintained its stock price. (Henry Blodget at BusinessInsider is skeptical of the value of that 50 percent jump in stock price at the IPO.)

Zipcar isn't the only option. In Philadelphia, PhillyCarShare operates as a nonprofit. “We really see ourselves first and foremost as an environmental organization,” marketing manager Heather Nawoj told me, explaining that by being a nonprofit, PhillyCarShare can focus on its mission of making cars accessible to the entire city, rather than just where they can make the most money. Combining this strategy with a debit-billing system and lower prices than Zipcar, PhillyCarShare encourages its users to drive less, but makes driving accessible to many who otherwise wouldn't have a car at all.

A study by Econsult, a Philadelphia consulting firm, found not only that PhillyCarShare saved its members about 17 million miles of driving, 770,000 gallons of gasoline, 40,000 barrels of oil, saved the city an estimated 47,000 hours of traffic delay and saved the air 7,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants; it also saved each member an average of $2850, providing an increase of $13.2 million in purchasing power. If this holds true in other car-sharing cities, car-sharing programs are an economic stimulus all their own.

Its website says:

“Assuming an average marginal tax rate of 25 percent, this is like PhillyCarShare members getting an aggregate $18 million annual increase in their salaries. Those members are then able to spend their savings locally, thus supporting 150 jobs in the city.”

And coming soon, in partnership with the city of Philadelphia, PhillyCarShare is bringing electric cars to its fleet. According to Nawoj, the city has gotten a $140,000 grant to create electric charging stations, and the electric cars are perfectly suited to the type of driving most PhillyCarShare users do: short trips and errands around the city.

A study by the Philadelphia Parking Authority found that some 60 percent of Philly private cars don't move for at least three days straight, Nawoj said, but for drivers who just don't want to give up their private car, there's yet another option.

RelayRides, based in Boston and now in San Francisco, allows car owners to rent out their own vehicles by the hour. The owners set their own rates, starting at $6 an hour (once again, less than Zipcar) and get 65 percent of their take, with 15 percent going to RelayRides and 20 percent going to insurance. The service provides insurance (up to $1 million) and a screening process as well as the technology to track the cars' use, but it mainly serves as a way to connect people to people. It's a step in between Craigslist and a company like Zipcar.

RelayRides Founder Shelby Clarke told Wired:

“Consumers are increasingly rejecting traditional forms of ownership, preferring to borrow rather than buy,” he said. “RelayRides builds on this changing consumer behavior by enabling neighbors to support each other, both financially and practically.”

In March, RelayRides got some serious funding from Google Ventures and August Capital, and without the overhead cost of buying cars, a lot more of that $5.1 million can go into expanding, possibly to new cities.

Scott Kirsner at Boston.com reviewed his RelayRides experience before the company's official launch, and noted the problems with the private car he borrowed. And yes, unlike Zipcar or PhillyCarShare, your experience will likely vary greatly based on your neighborhood and the owner of the car you choose to borrow. If you live in a relatively pricey neighborhood, the odds of your neighbors owning newer, more expensive cars are probably higher.

And of course, the idea of lending a stranger your car might be unnerving. But with the economy providing a crunch, will the economic incentive push people over the edge? Or is Clarke right that it's a shift in consumer behavior, perhaps driven by a combination of economic necessity, environmental concerns, and the changing technology that we're becoming more and more comfortable with these days?

*****

Without the Web, of course, it would be difficult to run most of these organizations and nearly impossible for RelayRides, which is itself a sort of social network. It doesn't provide cars, after all, just the means by which people—the “neighbor to neighbor” of its tagline—can contact one another to rent their cars out.

The Economist, not exactly known for its share-alike ethos, noted:

“Attitudes to conspicuous consumption are changing. Thorstein Veblen, who coined the term, argued that people like to display their status by owning lots of stuff. But many oftoday’s conspicuous consumers—particularly the young—achieve the same effect by virtual means. They boast about what they are doing (on Twitter), what they are reading (Shelfari), what they are interested in (Digg) and whom they know (Facebook). Collaborative consumption is an ideal signalling device for an economy based on electronic brands and ever-changing fashions.”

They use the term “collaborative consumption” for more than car-sharing; it's taken from the title of a book by Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, What’s Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. But in addition to noting the way social networking has shifted our status symbols, they make a more interesting point:

“Social networks are helping to lower one of the biggest barriers to 'collaborative consumption'—trust.”

It takes trust to let a stranger drive your car even if she's paying you for it. And maybe it took the Internet to help shift our focus from what we own to, in whatever strange way, who we are. It took a while for the Internet to go from the days of pseudonyms and screen names to real names and check-ins at real places. The Internet has gone from being a way we connected with strangers we vaguely thought of as creepy to a way we meet future mates and find out the latest hot night spots. Its community is leaking into the real world.

And as Deanna Zandt points out in her book Share This! “sharing” is the way we create social capital on the Web. Online, it's mostly information that we share, but after years of such sharing, is it such a big leap to sharing possessions?

In addition, could lowering the value of car ownership as a status symbol and replacing it with an ethos of sharing actually start to change our consumption-obsessed society? What if social capital was accumulated not just by purchasing a greener car for your personal use, but sharing that greener car with others for a fraction of what it would cost them to buy it?

*****

Author Douglas Rushkoff, in Life, Inc., included the massive shift to car ownership in his chapter “The Ownership Society,” detailing the way cars helped “to accelerate the conversion of place to property.” With car sharing programs, are we seeing a conversion in the other direction? Is sharing a car, whether it's owned by a company, another person, or your own, a step in the direction back toward place, or toward community?

Rushkoff notes that the car is a suburban phenomenon, having developed hand in hand with white flight and the boom in property ownership. A distant suburban home requires a car to get you back and forth from it; car-sharing services require a city, or at least a dense enough population that scattering shared cars in parking spaces around town will still see plenty of use. Where would you park a ZipCar in a gated community? And a shared car isn't going to replace your morning bus or subway commute—it's far too expensive for that. “We really see ourselves as another arm to public transportation,” Nawoj, of Philly CarShare, agreed.

Cars were and are also subsidized by government-funded, -built and -maintained roads and functioned as an alternative to mass transit. They also managed to neatly separate the haves from the have-nots. But as the economic crisis has compressed the middle and working classes while increasingly separating the rich, and as being “green” is becoming not just a political belief but a status symbol itself, cars are becoming less an indicator of class and status.

When considered as a cheaper alternative to car ownership, in a world designed to cater to the needs of car owners (and the car companies that profited off selling cars), car-sharing programs provide outsize benefits to those who could never afford to buy a car, whose credit is bad or nonexistent, or those who bought a car only to find their economic circumstance rapidly changing.

A low-cost shared car, for instance, could carry residents of a food desert to a good—and cheap—grocery store that's normally impractical for them to access. IKEA in Brooklyn may have taxis and delivery options, but what about a shared pickup truck to hit the summer yard sales or pick up your Craigslist free items? A truly accessible car-share service could be life-changing right now as well as providing the cumulative environmental benefit of taking thousands of cars off the road.

As Philly Car Share's website declares, “We view decreasing auto use as a social benefit, not as a threat to the bottom line.”

Sarah Jaffe is an associate editor at AlterNet, a rabblerouser and frequent Twitterer. You can follow her at @seasonothebitch.