Will Barack Obama Tread the Torturous Path to a Sustainable New World Order?
According to a report published by the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Footprint Network: "Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 if current trends continue.
" WWF Director-General James Leape said: "For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path.
" He continued: "If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us.
" In part of Barack Obama's acceptance speech he said: "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
" It will be interesting to observe just how much Mr Obama offers in greenhouse gas goals and aid to assist developing countries to help achieve this.
But it needs to go far further and deeper than independence from oil.
Economic perceptions about how we organise our lives have taken generations to formulate, with consumerism and growth the very heart of our beloved capitalism system; it is on everyone lips in almost every word they utter when referring to a country or region's success.
If this is to change, and it must, it is a colossal challenge to meet.
This massive environmental clean-up cannot be taken on by Mr Obama's new administration alone but it can drive the new agenda forward; an agenda that is sustainable, renewable and intelligent.
The old order had this to say about its willful neglect, not only of the economy but, more importantly, the environment: On 12 May 2008 in Washington, DC George W.
Bush announced: "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.
" Or didn't happen, more to the point.
America has for years refused to co-operate with urgent calls to tackle global warming.
With the new president this cannot be allowed to continue.
But if we're going to blame the Republican Party for deregulating the economy and neglecting environmental issues, we should also point the finger of blame across the entire spectrum of world leaders and bankers.
In a recent cover story in The Economist they wrote: "Global finance is being torn apart; it can be put back to together again.
" Really? But surely, if global capitalism's flaws have just driven the world into this financial cul-de-sac, then why reconstitute the model, albeit with more responsible, transparent protection? Their argument seems to be that with the world's largest investment banks and insurance companies, most now in the hands of receivers, merged or bailed out, and with recessions and redundancies about to change the face of the world forever, they accuse systemic institutional failures to regulate sub-prime mortgages as the cause of the meltdown.
They then went on to suggest that, don't worry, Humpty Dumpty will be put together again any time soonish.
The Economist contends that even though America's (and for that matter everyone else's) fragmented system of oversight, lack of transparency and accounting methods, which factors in values risk, has caused the greatest recession since World War II, the system is sound enough to withstand a new Depression.
Maybe it can, but what controls have been put in place and what government dare tussle with the remaining super-banks? The onus of risk now seems to have shifted to the unsuspecting taxpayer.
In Britain, trust has been completely scuppered by a bailout by the people on behalf of the banking system which has kindly responded by a declaration that interest rate cuts will not be passed down to the people.
So much for fair play in the world of bonuses-first banking.
The question is should the world slither back up the greasy pole of capitalism as it was, the system that righteously declared itself the victor over communism at the close of the cold war, or do we look for a deeper understanding, realise its faults and then add other ingredients into the mix? The time is ripe for environmentalism to be added into a new economic paradigm, one that goes hand-in-hand with global responsibility and our very survival.
Existing accounting models across the globe are very fickle about what they call 'procyclicality', meaning transparent and immediate write-downs of toxic assets on a company's books.
But what if the accounting methods in the new paradigm were to factor in environmental cost and waste, and penned into the ledgers of these vast corporations? That is only fair, for if not it would be like having HIV and not informing your partner.
Morally, that's an abomination; having toxic assets, and worse, toxic products hidden from your investors apparently isn't.
It should be.
And so shouldn't a company's green mission statement also be available, transparent and immediate? And shouldn't harmful environmental fallout resulting from the means of production be available too, and penalised? It is said that the years ahead will be much harsher than they were before, both in the realms of finance, the environment and our way of life.
Now the former has failed us the system needs to be re-modelled with environmental sustainability built into it.
Today there is limited finance available, trillions of dollars of it, and for some foreseeable time to come - the brain of the capitalist system.
Surely it is the right time to embrace the fundamentals of our existence and not just how many new gadgets we dutifully buy because of the constant bombardment of advertising.
The economic argument cannot afford to leave the environment behind as they are both intrinsically linked.
According to an annotated interview on the BBC website: "I think the credit crunch shows an end of an era.
The lack of recognition of the end of American economic dominance contributed to the severity of the credit crunch.
Resolving it will require no less than a new world order.
The risk at the heart of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of low interest rates and excess liquidity.
To resolve the resultant credit crunch in the globalised financial market, the West will need to work with emerging markets to deleverage.
While the economic growth in the United States and the European Union has stagnated, global growth is driven by China and other emerging markets.
Companies are turning to those markets.
This is where the global economy has shifted East and is no longer driven by one dominant country.
This heralds a new world order.
" Unfortunately, this train of thought, with the prospect of China at the helm of the "new economic order", does not sit so tightly with reality.
If the economic powerhouse of post-American hegemony wants to champion itself as the world's leading light, then the government needs to correct it internal problems.
In the opinion of Will Hutton, Asia is just not innovative enough to seize the reins of global power yet.
Although Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was right in calling for rich nations to abandon their "unsustainable lifestyle" to fight climate change, perhaps he should first look at his own backyard: China is the world's greatest emitter of carbon dioxide.
Boldly, the British government has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
That is an admirable goal but the massive cultural change needed to shift it away from the toxic system of consumerism to a more sustainable model is a tough nut to crack.
Ed Miliband, the new energy and climate change secretary, told MPs that the tough economic conditions were not an excuse to "row back" on the commitment to tackle global warming.
However, with all these worthy initiatives coming from Mr Miliband, it is interesting to note that less than 1% of the UK's heat currently comes from renewable sources.
Contrast this with Germany, which has ten times as much wind power as Britain and 200 times as much installed solar power.
America needs to play catch-up with them as soon as Mr Obama is in office.
Recession is already on Britain's doorstep and there's been a lot of talk about switching the world economy to a carbon-free future.
Some naysayer's say it cannot be afforded but in October the government announced its intention to introduce a "feed-in tariff" (FIT), which guarantees rates for renewably produced electricity.
In the US, part of its bail-out is said to include $16bn of new green tax breaks for renewable energy, cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.
That's encouraging.
But are we to believe this or is it more idle rhetoric? Governments the world over need to take Germany's cue and kickstart nascent industries, rewarding adopters of green technology.
In the US, Mr Obama should send a clear message that he plans to take global warming seriously, first by appointing a "climate change czar", functioning as a special environmental adviser to the new president, and then taking bold new steps in arresting climate change.
We have yet to see what the new president will bring to the table but the old world order is surely finished and much of the world's enthusiasm over Barack Obama's victory was focused on change - his campaign slogan.
What we need to see is economic fundamentals being re-wrought into a new 21st century paradigm that rejects the consumer merry-go-round into a sustainable, edifying world that is seen to be dismantling toxic produce-and-dump economics in favour of one that benefits us all.
It is also about time governments sidelined multinational corporations that refuse to go along with greening up.
You can see the brutal reality of how these corporations wantonly and arrogantly pollute the planet, resulting in the cruel destruction of the Earth, in particular developing nations, on The Story of Stuff website.
But for that to happen we must all start to face the stark reality that colossal change must be made to economic systems and lifestyles, how we live and what we consume.
The cultural changes necessary to bring this about will rent huge divisions for those reluctant to cede their fortunes of comfort - the pariahs of the new world order.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work and has been proved not to work.
It has also been the heart and soul of countries like Britain and the US for decades.
Undoing it, rebuilding a system that is intelligent and renewable, is going to take time.
And time is not something there's a great abundance of.
It would also help if developed nations agree to clean technology transfers to the developing world to ensure some sense of equity.
The overriding question now is: will President Barack Obama accede to this mantle and start dissolving the Republican legacy of the toxic economy? He must; humanity is at a crossroads and it is the responsibility of everybody to play their part in rebuilding it anew, sustainably so.
It is especially important that the lead comes from the world's great consumers and polluters: America.
" WWF Director-General James Leape said: "For more than 20 years we have exceeded the Earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path.
" He continued: "If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us.
" In part of Barack Obama's acceptance speech he said: "And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
" It will be interesting to observe just how much Mr Obama offers in greenhouse gas goals and aid to assist developing countries to help achieve this.
But it needs to go far further and deeper than independence from oil.
Economic perceptions about how we organise our lives have taken generations to formulate, with consumerism and growth the very heart of our beloved capitalism system; it is on everyone lips in almost every word they utter when referring to a country or region's success.
If this is to change, and it must, it is a colossal challenge to meet.
This massive environmental clean-up cannot be taken on by Mr Obama's new administration alone but it can drive the new agenda forward; an agenda that is sustainable, renewable and intelligent.
The old order had this to say about its willful neglect, not only of the economy but, more importantly, the environment: On 12 May 2008 in Washington, DC George W.
Bush announced: "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.
" Or didn't happen, more to the point.
America has for years refused to co-operate with urgent calls to tackle global warming.
With the new president this cannot be allowed to continue.
But if we're going to blame the Republican Party for deregulating the economy and neglecting environmental issues, we should also point the finger of blame across the entire spectrum of world leaders and bankers.
In a recent cover story in The Economist they wrote: "Global finance is being torn apart; it can be put back to together again.
" Really? But surely, if global capitalism's flaws have just driven the world into this financial cul-de-sac, then why reconstitute the model, albeit with more responsible, transparent protection? Their argument seems to be that with the world's largest investment banks and insurance companies, most now in the hands of receivers, merged or bailed out, and with recessions and redundancies about to change the face of the world forever, they accuse systemic institutional failures to regulate sub-prime mortgages as the cause of the meltdown.
They then went on to suggest that, don't worry, Humpty Dumpty will be put together again any time soonish.
The Economist contends that even though America's (and for that matter everyone else's) fragmented system of oversight, lack of transparency and accounting methods, which factors in values risk, has caused the greatest recession since World War II, the system is sound enough to withstand a new Depression.
Maybe it can, but what controls have been put in place and what government dare tussle with the remaining super-banks? The onus of risk now seems to have shifted to the unsuspecting taxpayer.
In Britain, trust has been completely scuppered by a bailout by the people on behalf of the banking system which has kindly responded by a declaration that interest rate cuts will not be passed down to the people.
So much for fair play in the world of bonuses-first banking.
The question is should the world slither back up the greasy pole of capitalism as it was, the system that righteously declared itself the victor over communism at the close of the cold war, or do we look for a deeper understanding, realise its faults and then add other ingredients into the mix? The time is ripe for environmentalism to be added into a new economic paradigm, one that goes hand-in-hand with global responsibility and our very survival.
Existing accounting models across the globe are very fickle about what they call 'procyclicality', meaning transparent and immediate write-downs of toxic assets on a company's books.
But what if the accounting methods in the new paradigm were to factor in environmental cost and waste, and penned into the ledgers of these vast corporations? That is only fair, for if not it would be like having HIV and not informing your partner.
Morally, that's an abomination; having toxic assets, and worse, toxic products hidden from your investors apparently isn't.
It should be.
And so shouldn't a company's green mission statement also be available, transparent and immediate? And shouldn't harmful environmental fallout resulting from the means of production be available too, and penalised? It is said that the years ahead will be much harsher than they were before, both in the realms of finance, the environment and our way of life.
Now the former has failed us the system needs to be re-modelled with environmental sustainability built into it.
Today there is limited finance available, trillions of dollars of it, and for some foreseeable time to come - the brain of the capitalist system.
Surely it is the right time to embrace the fundamentals of our existence and not just how many new gadgets we dutifully buy because of the constant bombardment of advertising.
The economic argument cannot afford to leave the environment behind as they are both intrinsically linked.
According to an annotated interview on the BBC website: "I think the credit crunch shows an end of an era.
The lack of recognition of the end of American economic dominance contributed to the severity of the credit crunch.
Resolving it will require no less than a new world order.
The risk at the heart of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of low interest rates and excess liquidity.
To resolve the resultant credit crunch in the globalised financial market, the West will need to work with emerging markets to deleverage.
While the economic growth in the United States and the European Union has stagnated, global growth is driven by China and other emerging markets.
Companies are turning to those markets.
This is where the global economy has shifted East and is no longer driven by one dominant country.
This heralds a new world order.
" Unfortunately, this train of thought, with the prospect of China at the helm of the "new economic order", does not sit so tightly with reality.
If the economic powerhouse of post-American hegemony wants to champion itself as the world's leading light, then the government needs to correct it internal problems.
In the opinion of Will Hutton, Asia is just not innovative enough to seize the reins of global power yet.
Although Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was right in calling for rich nations to abandon their "unsustainable lifestyle" to fight climate change, perhaps he should first look at his own backyard: China is the world's greatest emitter of carbon dioxide.
Boldly, the British government has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
That is an admirable goal but the massive cultural change needed to shift it away from the toxic system of consumerism to a more sustainable model is a tough nut to crack.
Ed Miliband, the new energy and climate change secretary, told MPs that the tough economic conditions were not an excuse to "row back" on the commitment to tackle global warming.
However, with all these worthy initiatives coming from Mr Miliband, it is interesting to note that less than 1% of the UK's heat currently comes from renewable sources.
Contrast this with Germany, which has ten times as much wind power as Britain and 200 times as much installed solar power.
America needs to play catch-up with them as soon as Mr Obama is in office.
Recession is already on Britain's doorstep and there's been a lot of talk about switching the world economy to a carbon-free future.
Some naysayer's say it cannot be afforded but in October the government announced its intention to introduce a "feed-in tariff" (FIT), which guarantees rates for renewably produced electricity.
In the US, part of its bail-out is said to include $16bn of new green tax breaks for renewable energy, cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.
That's encouraging.
But are we to believe this or is it more idle rhetoric? Governments the world over need to take Germany's cue and kickstart nascent industries, rewarding adopters of green technology.
In the US, Mr Obama should send a clear message that he plans to take global warming seriously, first by appointing a "climate change czar", functioning as a special environmental adviser to the new president, and then taking bold new steps in arresting climate change.
We have yet to see what the new president will bring to the table but the old world order is surely finished and much of the world's enthusiasm over Barack Obama's victory was focused on change - his campaign slogan.
What we need to see is economic fundamentals being re-wrought into a new 21st century paradigm that rejects the consumer merry-go-round into a sustainable, edifying world that is seen to be dismantling toxic produce-and-dump economics in favour of one that benefits us all.
It is also about time governments sidelined multinational corporations that refuse to go along with greening up.
You can see the brutal reality of how these corporations wantonly and arrogantly pollute the planet, resulting in the cruel destruction of the Earth, in particular developing nations, on The Story of Stuff website.
But for that to happen we must all start to face the stark reality that colossal change must be made to economic systems and lifestyles, how we live and what we consume.
The cultural changes necessary to bring this about will rent huge divisions for those reluctant to cede their fortunes of comfort - the pariahs of the new world order.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work and has been proved not to work.
It has also been the heart and soul of countries like Britain and the US for decades.
Undoing it, rebuilding a system that is intelligent and renewable, is going to take time.
And time is not something there's a great abundance of.
It would also help if developed nations agree to clean technology transfers to the developing world to ensure some sense of equity.
The overriding question now is: will President Barack Obama accede to this mantle and start dissolving the Republican legacy of the toxic economy? He must; humanity is at a crossroads and it is the responsibility of everybody to play their part in rebuilding it anew, sustainably so.
It is especially important that the lead comes from the world's great consumers and polluters: America.
Source...