Economic Life Support

"A politician and a naturalist were discussing the future of Thjórsárver. Thjórsárver is a world heritage site. The river Thjórsá flows from the glacier and runs through a dip in the highlands, creating a unique area of mountain wetlands, a sudden oasis of green in the bleak black desert of central Iceland. These wetlands are the most important nesting site in the world for the pink-footed goose. There were plans to build a dam and submerge a large part of the area to generate electricity for a new aluminium plant in Hvalfjörđur.
"The naturalist was saying how important this area was for Iceland, and for the world, and for the future of one of the world's most attractive species of geese. To which the politician countered with the 'need to ensure economic growth'. The naturalist tried to enter an objection: '...but do we absolutely need economic growth?' And with that his case was lost, and the politician smiled avuncularly. The politician was being 'realistic': his views were founded on logic and broad perspective. The naturalist was being 'unrealistic', blinded by romanticism and the narrow self-interest of his particular field.

-- Andri Snœr Magnason, Dreamland, 2006, p71.

Economic growth.

The economy in the world today is based on growth. The globalized capitalist system relies on economic growth to continue. Trade, progress, markets, industry, mining, politics, consumption, cities, food—everything today relies upon it. When economic growth slows we get a recession. When it stagnates we get a depression, "with all the desperation and hardship that these words imply". (Naomi Klein, "Capitalism vs. the Climate", The Nation, Nov 2011)

The fear of a depression is crippling to society. On hearing that word, people retreat from the things they most care about, in order to focus on the 'more important' problem. After all, who wants to be against job creation in times of unemployment? Who is for spiralling debt, whether personal or national?

We've seen the effect of this. In 2007 'being green' was in the news, 'eco' was hip, and global action was seen to be urgently needed. Celebrities attending the Academy Awards arrived in hybrids and even politicians dared to engage green issues. But that all changed. With the economic collapse of 2008, all focus was lost. The environment has barely been in the news since, except to cover the failure of Copenhagen in 2009. People aren't interested any more. The coverage of climate change in the media is barely 20% of what it was.

Instead, we are daily bombarded by financial news. The markets have taken the focus from every other issue. And it's not surprising. The markets have unprecedented power in the world, and they are in massive trouble. Their foundational ideology is being questioned as they collide with a sharp rocks of reality. And the reality is, economics based on continual growth doesn't work—the world is finite, and it won't indefinitely supply new markets to expand into.

The idea of economic growth is a metaphor, taken from the living world around us. Trees grow. People grow. Plants, insects and animals grow. They all start small, add to their size by consuming nutrients and resources found in the world around them, and hopefully, they eventually become healthy, adult living beings. But then they do something that our economy refuses to do:

Stop growing.

Once a living creature reaches adulthood, its size doesn't increase. It's growth period is over, and the majority of its life is still ahead of it. At this point, it's reached a relatively-sustainable size. If trees continue to grow past a certain point, they might receive more sunlight for a short period of time, but when the storms come, it will be these over-sized trees that crack in the wind, unable to support their own weight. It's the biggest trees that come crashing down.

Our economic system is more than a tree—it's an entire forest. Nearly everything that can be exploited for growth has been exploited. There are no more significant resources in the world that will be found to keep it growing. And those that are left—agricultural land, oceanic life, biodiversity, and a stable climate—are quickly being used up, breaking down, and reaching their limits.

The economic system has reached the point that it is being artificially kept alive. The massive bailouts of public money that have been donated to private coffers are nothing more than economic life support. They're the last steroid that we can give, the final stimulus that can be used to keep the aged cell walls from collapsing. The era of economic growth is over. It is time for this economic paradigm to pass away, and for a new economic paradigm to take its place.

So where does that leave us? Not communism—that system has already repeatedly failed, and its exploitation of the natural world was at times worse than capitalism. And not libertarianism, civilizational collapse, or anarchy—these just leave the rich and powerful free to prey on the weak.

Instead, we need a new set of policies, laws, methods of economic calculation, and governmental systems that take account of, and respect, nature. We need, as Naomi Klein argues, "an alternative worldview to rival the one at the heart of the ecological crisis—this time, embedded in interdependence rather than hyper-individualism, reciprocity rather than dominance and cooperation rather than hierarchy." "The way out is to embrace a managed transition to another economic paradigm, using all the tools of planning discussed above. Growth would be reserved for parts of the world still pulling themselves out of poverty."

This kind of change of worldview is not easy, but it's also not impossible. We live in an emergent world, a world where the present is an ongoing process, and where history is crafted by the choices we make—when combined with our visions of the future.

So what do we need to achieve this? The problem may seem insurmountable, but when broken down into parts, it starts to fit inside our collective imaginations, and so allow us to move away from the grim future promised by deregulated capitalism.

For example, we need to take the money out of politics. We need to re-regulate the markets, and make the markets work for the public good. We need more planning. We need more accountability in governments, and we need to give governments more power. We need to not only increase taxes on the rich (globally, so they have no tax-havens to run to), we also need to make it clear that those billionaires who hold the capital will be the ones who pay for many of the changes that need to be made. We'll allow them to become philanthropists.

But these changes won't just happen—quite the contrary; they'll be strongly opposed (violently at times) by many in the 1%—and those in the 99% they've convinced to do their work for them. The necessary changes require action from you. They'll need you to start writing to your local elected officials—at least twice monthly. They'll need you to switch your bank accounts (and your company's if you have the chance) away from the worst offenders—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, etc. They will require social movements like Occupy Wall St—and at times they'll need you to leave your day job to go down and join them. And if you really feel incapable of doing nothing else at the moment, at least sign up to several clicktivist sites: Avaaz, 38degrees, 350.org, change.org (but know that clicktivism is only a start—it'll never be enough).

Our future doesn't need to be the grim future of economic and planetary death promised by capitalism. Indeed, de-regulated capitalism is on its death-bed, and the obituary of business-as-usual will soon be written. It's up to you to start preparing for the economics of decline, and to start moving towards a future of interdependence and sustainability. Begin today!

Your device is temporary

Electronics are temporary. The device you're using to read this blog is a short-term passenger that has joined you for a few years (at best) on your journey through life. It will not last. It will soon die.

Look at your life. How many of the electronics in your life are less than a year old? How many of those replaced previous versions of similar electronics? And how many electronics do you own that are older than five years? Ten years? Probably not many.

I suspect your fridge might be over ten years old. And maybe your electric cooker. But other than that? You computer is almost certainly under ten years, and probably under five (an exception being my father, whose '92 Amiga is almost 20). The lightbulbs in your house will be less than ten, unless you're lucky enough to have gotten energy-saving bulbs early. Then, there's just a chance they'll be ten - but they'll be dying soon. If you have a ten-year-old TV in the house, it's probably in the attic. The TV(s) in use are flat-screen, bought in the last three years. If you're like many Torontonians, you put your old CRT out on the street, a piece of worthless junk. And your phone is probably under two years old. A four-year-old phone is almost a museum piece!

All this demonstrates the temporary nature of electronics. Humans have been around for 2 million years. Homo sapians for 200,000. Agricultural society has been around for 10,000 years, and writing has existed for around 5,000. Electricity has been generated by human-made machines for 150 years. Assuming environmental degradation doesn't wipe out humanity in the next few centuries, humanity could well survive for many more years - maybe millions, possibly hundreds of millions. But how long will our electronics last?

Most of our modern-day electronic gadgets require a multitude of rare elements. Although not all that rare, they are still limited. Natural reserves will run out. But when? According to the Guardian, global demand is around 200,000 tonnes/year, and we have 100 million tonnes economically viable and accessible on the planet. That would mean we have 500 years of supply left (if we foolishly assume demand is steady). I've been unable to determine how much of this is economically viable to extract.

However, things don't stop when the total supply is spent. Some things become impossible when the first few critical elements becomes unavailable. That could be by the end of the decade, as Hafnium, Indium and Gallium run out. Furthermore, things will run into problems when China stops exporting. It's likely to do so in 2012, and it currently controls 97% of the worlds rare earth mining (a lot comes from Mongolia - sometimes called Minegolia!). We could see a major price hike in electronics in the next couple of years.

Aside from disappointing human greed, this may not be a bad thing. It will hopefully encourage people to look for longer-lasting electronics, and will encourage increased recycling of electronics. E-waste sites are responsible for polluting large areas of land, and expose the poorest humans to life-destroying toxins. We must press our officials for recycling and waste regulations that take the health of people and the environment into account. Once some of the larger deposits of rare earths are stripped, it is likely to become more economically viable (not to mention more efficient) to create an almost-closed recycling loop. However, this will require laws that force products to be made with recycling in mind. Not impossible, but certainly something that will require widespread public support.

But the biggest problem involved in the temporary nature of electronics is the mining that supports their existence. Mining today is probably the best example of a closed and uncaring mentality that rips apart some of the most valuable parts of the planet. To 'mine' is to 'use up' the planet. Earth is seen to be disposable. The local people, a nuisance. Ecosystems, inconvenient.

Mines are nearly all operated by large multinational companies. Many of these corporations have proven track records of environmental and human-rights abuses. Rio Tinto, DeBeers and AngloGold (to name a few) have all be nominated as the most evil corporations in the world. They repeatedly strip areas of their resources, and in doing so they destroy the local environment, dig up ancient sacred sites, wipe of local peoples and native culture, support and conduct genocide, walk over worker's rights, practice slavery (including child slavery), heavily contribute to climate emissions, poison rivers, steal water, cause species to become extinct, finance violent factions, bribe officials, encourage political instability, and murder activists who try to oppose them. I'd link them all, but you can google each of them pretty easily.

Mining is a major problem in the world today. It is barely regulated, and where it is, the regulations are frequently ignored. It's a problem that isn't going away. You should expect to see the abuses of the mining corporations for the rest of your life. You should look into strategies to stop them. You should get involved whenever you can to stop these corporations from conducting mining, both locally and abroad.

Of course, an important way to reduce the abuses of mining will be to reduce the need for it. The next time you're thinking about buying an electronic product, reconsider. Do you need it? Will it last? Is it worth it? Because every electronic product you buy is almost certainly, in some way, tied to many of the abuses mentioned above. Can you really justify the purchase? And if you can, look for electronics that will last. Look into their production. Look into the supply-chain that brought them in front of you. Be informed, and purchase as ethically as you can.

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Hopefully it won't be long before we have fair trade electronics.

Occupy the Future!

Those who confuse the Arab Spring with the Occupation movement are making a big mistake.

The Arab Spring is a collection of revolts against dictators and totalitarian regimes that have been exploiting and abusing their citizens for many decades. As I write this, the people of Tunisia are voting for their first time. Ever.

The so-called American Fall is a very different thing. It is not the continuance of the same kind of revolutions we've seen in the Arab Spring. It's a different kind of movement. It's not a revolution. It's bigger: it's the brewing of many revolutions to come.

For a long time, the majority of people on this planet have been living in poverty. The vast majority of the people on this planet are in the lower economic class. They have been for a long time. They're use to being exploited. They're used to being bullied by multi-national corporations, and they used to the devastation caused by economic hitmen. In short, they're used to being plundered.

The Occupations are the beginnings of the coming middle class revolution. It is not the revolution. It's only in the past decade that the elite became so desperate that they really started plundering the middle class. Now that the middle class are being stolen from, they're starting to get annoyed. We (in the West) are not ready to go to war. Most of us still have too much to lose. A small minority might be ready, but not the majority. Certainly not the 99%. Not even the 9%.

But that number is growing. The flaws in the system that created the economic crash of 2008 haven't been fixed. Indeed, things have just gotten worse. The risks have simply been transferred from financial institutions to sovereign states. And the financial institutions have merged together to create gigantic monoliths - not only are they Too Big to Fail, companies like Morgan Stanley are now Too Big to Save. They can't be saved. Next time they collapse, major Western economies will crash with them. And we're not talking Greece or Iceland. We're talking Germany, Canada and/or the US.


The Occupy movement isn't going to utterly destroy the system, but it is the brewing of larger changes to come. And it is important. The Occupy movement is massive. According to the Guardian, the movement has had around 1.7 million participants worldwide. It's proudly boasting the involvement of people in 83 countries and 1500 cities. The tent city in Toronto has over-doubled in size in a week, and the protest at City Hall we saw yesterday was bigger than the week before.

Furthermore, the Occupation is a much-needed creative breeding ground. Like-minded people are coming together, networking, debating, and coming up with new ideas. It's a long time since Toronto has seen daily protest marches, and the number of NGO's and other social-advocacy groups getting involved is growing. They're also reviving some of the ideas from previous social revolutions. The Suffragettes. The Civil Rights movement. I suspect we are going to be seeing some big successes, resulting in some amazing changes.

However, very few of us want to collapse into either anarchy or primitivism. We value society. But not only that, there's great fear about the results that would come if society did collapse. And that fear is well grounded. Freedom is a double-edged sword. When there's too much freedom, the strong are free to prey on the weak. Sovereign States are meant to protect us from those kinds of predators (Ignatieff may not be a good politician, but he is a good political commentator). And given the abundance of multinational, predatory corporations, we need protection. Governments should be protecting us against this kind of self-bankruptcy, because individuals simply can't compete with (or keep up with) the economic attacks of the financial sector. It is the job of government to protects us from that, and yet most sovereign states have failed to do so. There's safety in numbers. But only if the numbers are aware of the attacks, and so able to defend against them.

Timing the Revolution

A big question I've been confronted with recently has been the timing of the coming collapses that we can expect. There's so many ways our current civilisation will collapse. Environmental degradation and massive climate change will be the biggest of these, and will result in the death of billions of people, drastically reducing human population from 9bn+ down to around 2bn or less. It will also result in the permanent extinction (extinction is always permanent) of over 75% of the species on the planet. Climate change scientists predict this will take place in 40-90 years, although to-date many effects of climate change have been occurring faster than the most pessimistic predictions

Fresh-water shortages will be felt more and more. There's already been conflicts in some parts of the world over water, and water has caused many previous civilizations to become extinct. The effects of this will simply increase with time. In Canada, we'll feel the effects of this once the US march across the border and take our water from us. I suspect that won't happen for another 20+ years.

Another major source of collapse will be oil shortage. Western society is built on cheap oil. The suburbs exist because of it. Our agri-business-based food production rely on it. Transportation depends on it. Given the ex-President of Shell has predicted the gas will be US$5/gallon by the end of 2012, the end of the age of cheap oil could be very close. Once oil is that expensive, a lot of our society will crumble. Mega-cities won't be able to cope with, among other things, the pressures of suburb migration. Plastic will largely stop being produced. Rail- and water-based transit will come back as the main way to travel. We'll need a lot of farmers, quickly - yet farming takes years to learn.

Edit: My math was wrong. $5/gallon is not that bad. I was thinking it was saying $5/litre. $5/litre would have massive society consequences.

However, people have also been predicting the end of cheap oil since the 1970's. We may still have 20-30 years left of it. Furthermore, we'll likely subsidize oil before it's $5/litre - i.e. we'll permanently lose societal capital (to the 1%) to pay for it. Many addicts bankrupt themselves to get another hit. This is an example of something the Occupation could stop.

But one of the other effects of expensive oil is the transfer of capital from the consumers to the drillers. This will exacerbate the economic crisis. The suburbs are so addicted to oil that they will keep paying for it as long as they can - meaning until they lose their homes (foreclosure takes 1-2 years), and until they're increasingly struggling to buy food (again, another 1-2 harvests). At that point, the Occupation will gain major support from the suburbs. But that will be too late to save many victims.

However, I have recently been around a lot of people who are expecting imminent collapse and revolution. I know that this biases my view. I also know there are a lot of people out there who are dedicated to keeping the current system going. More than 1%. Maybe as many as 20% of people in Western societies. These are people who own their house, and people who feel they are still increasing their capital (they just need to feel it to support the status quo). And those might be enough to keep the system going for longer. What do you think? How long do you give it? Is the Mayan calendar a correct (if self-fulfilling) prophecy?

Or am I just hoping for a non-existent apocalypse?

Please comment on my blog, not on facebook (though you're welcome to Like it there ;).