Sustainable Policy: Lessons from the Past and Present; Democracy and Capitalism

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Myth America: Democracy vs. Capitalism
by William H. Boyer
ISBN: 9781891843198
In William Boyer’s book, he attempts to expose the myths thrust upon the American public concerning the nature of traditional capitalism and its effect on democracy. Most of us go through life without ever questioning these myths. “We assume they are a given from our education and experience, but what if major facts have been and are being selectively eliminated from our education and our media, sources from which we assume we are getting credible information?” In Boyes book, he attempts to expose the truths surrounding several key areas of entrenched thought in American society inluding that American capitalism is based primarily upon democratic principles, the concept of stock ownership, the free market system, capitalistic growth, and the fact that war and violence is accepted and used to protect the corporate structure at all costs. He makes the point that American priorities are upside down; for example Economics sits atop America’s top priorities, whereas Ecology should be in that position. Capitalism, as it has come to be defined, has no definition of ethics built into it; profit at all cost is the motto. In no other place is this more true than in the recent financial meltdown on Wall Street. The idea that an ethical capitalism would be less profitable than our current system is a false assumption. "Of the hundred largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations and only 49 are states." This is not the land of the free and the home of the brave we are living in anymore, it is the land of corporation and the home of the controlled.

_____________________________________

When did it happen? How did American democracy become controlled by the economic system set up within it to afford its citizenry a chance for a better life? What exactly constitutes a better life? Is it more goods and services, or is it a healthy planet with functioning ecosystems that can be passed on to future generations so they too may learn how to be good stewards of this planet? Are the two concepts of Ecology and Economics mutually exclusive, or is there a way to combine them in such a way as to protect the planet, increase economic growth, and allow humanity to learn the true definition of ‘progress’?

We are coming off of a period of eight long years where the interests of business were put ahead of all other interests; human needs, environmental needs, educational needs, ethical needs, informational needs were all neglected. In their place was thrust the assumption that distortion, deception, omission, and marketing were all the tools necessary in order for business to be able to accomplish their single goal of maximizing profit.

Maximizing profit is not a bad thing in and of itself; money is what we have based our entire global economic system upon and it is far too late to change that concept overnight. Rather, what is the foundation for despicable acts is the notion that it is acceptable to use the tactics of deception to influence collective behavior in order to achieve objectives that only benefit certain sectors of the general public.

Starting with Dick Cheney’s secret meetings with the fossil fuel industry to work out America’s energy policy, and then Reagan’s trickle-down economic theory, and then working ourselves backward, we find that it is ‘we-the-corporations', not ‘we-the-people’ that has been most influential upon our government over the years.

In a letter penned by Abraham Lincoln in 1864 (cited from Global Issues), he stated, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed”. Lincoln recognized the fact that corporations were beginning to be afforded rights that individuals in this country and across the world were not. In fact, individuals were able to hide behind from responsibility behind a veil that the establishment of a corporation afforded them.

Even Adam Smith, one of modern American capitalism’s founders saw corporatism as a direct threat to a free market system. “He saw corporations as working to evade the laws of the market, trying to interfere with prices and controlling trade.” No more is this true than in today’s form of lobbyists influencing governmental policy in the form of benefits to business at the expense of the collective citizenry. The power being wielded by global corporations today is almost insurmountable. Look at the behavior of American banks in the past six months for an example of just what the general public is up against: ‘Give us trillions of dollars, or we will collapse the entire global economy; we know that we are in the position we have found ourselves because of our own failure to adhere to any ethical standards, but we also know the incredible power that we wield. Show us the money, or else…’

This is the beast that we have passively permitted to be created. The American public likes its technical gadgetry, it likes its entertainment, it likes the creature comforts it is afforded, and so, corporations have been permitted to increase their control over global governance structures and institute their will against the general interests of the public, namely clean air, water, and soil, as well as health, education, and representational government; and to use the media to enforce that agenda.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, intended to secure the rights of former slaves, was used in a Supreme Court ruling in 1886 to “rule that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech”. This paved the way to political contributions to influence legislative policy in favor of business, and the way toward the marketing empire that essentially rules our lives and is used my media organizations to program is to think that propaganda is news.

The ensuing free-for-all that set in throughout the next several decades after this ruling was termed market capitalism; although it has gone by other names, this one is the most well-known and is still parroted by many of today’s conservative ‘representatives’. Here are a few of the guiding principles to this ideology:

• Sustained economic growth is the path toward human progress.
• The establishment of a free market (one without government interference) is the most efficient way to allocate resources and will benefit the collective society the most.
• Globalizing the corporate structure will be beneficial to everyone, especially the poorer nations because prosperity will trickle-down in the form of goods and services provided, as well as employment opportunities.
• Privatizing every industry will remove inefficiencies that set in when certain services are placed under public sector control.
• Governments should mainly function to provide the infrastructure to advance the rule of law with respect to property rights and contracts; in cases where the rule of law interferes with business, government should actively seek to amend the rules that restrict economic growth (as those laws no longer serve the people to make their lives better).

The problems surrounding campaign financing in the modern political arena is a direct cause of this 1886 ruling and the ensuing amendments to the market capitalistic agenda, as are the widespread philosophy of consumerism and the use of the media for control and influence rather than for information dissemination as it was conceived to do.

According to Thom Hartmann in an article called The Dinosaur War; To Protect Corporate Profits “before 1886, most states had laws that prevented corporations from meddling in politics”. In today’s world, the size of corporations and their increasing wealth and influence over governmental policy all point to a more concentrated form of government where politics is influenced by economic factors more than social or environmental ones.

This is not a formula for democracy; this is the definition of oligarchy. Oligarchy is “a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family, military influence or occult spiritual hegemony”. This is what America fought the revolution against the British in order to escape from, and it is essentially what has been established in America in the 20th century and cemented in governmental policy through the Bush/Cheney regime.

Where we are going from here is anybody’s guess; the definitions and direction forward has all been muddied, no doubt as part of the grand strategy to further hide behind the veil of law that has been recruited as the corporations best weapon. To dismantle the corporate control that has become entrenched would require money paid in legal fees and any collection of citizens does not have. Today, “of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries”. Even if the 49 wealthiest countries in the world got behind an effort to institute some form of democratic capitalism, they would be met by 51 corporations willing to fight them ‘tooth and nail’ as a matter of survival.

The nature of capitalism and corporations is not necessarily against the public good, but the current evolutionary trajectory has enabled these two concepts to morph into something that is considerable different than Adam Smith’s conception of free market capitalism. In his book “Wealth of Nations”, he stated, “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers] ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it”.

George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s war in Iraq is part of furthering the expansion of a form of capitalism that is contrary to the philosophies of capitalism’s founders. The use of war and undue political influence from the oil industry is a perfect example of corporate influence run amok.

As the implications of the war in Iraq began to fall outside of political predictions and the price of oil began its rise to record levels, other forms of energy [besides oil] started to enter the market. This idea of widening the number of competitors in the energy generation sector is in perfect line with a free market capitalistic system. Citing free speech right, however, the fossil fuel industry launched a brilliantly conceived, multi-frontal plan to sabotage the up-an-coming, but still fledgling industry. The strategy included donating huge sums of money to academic institutions and essentially paying for ‘scientific’ reports that claimed wind turbines killed birds, solar farms impacted BLM land, biofuels create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels and will create a massive global starvation period, electric cars will crash the grid, the entire electric grid is unable to handle renewable energy, a carbon market will cause exorbitant rises in consumer prices, and the like. They then used their influence in the media to push the idea that any form of renewable energy build-out equated to a socialist takeover of democratic principles.

Since when is an oligarchy a democracy? Democracy, by definition includes multiple competitors, and in the case of energy generation, adding renewable energy resources will only benefit the American public. Instead of paying higher prices for energy based upon the cost of war in distant lands to secure oil, Americans can pay higher prices for energy based upon the cost of developing a domestic renewable energy sector. This kind of thinking was beginning to catch on even in some of the corporate circles, so it became necessary to drive the price of oil down to record low levels.

To think that global markets are not manipulated and timed to coincide with the achievement of strategic objectives is naïve. The global slowdown is a direct result of renewable energy’s challenge to the fossil fuel industry and it will continue for as long as there are still renewable energy companies standing or until American free market capitalism wrestles control away from the rogue elements of the global economic system.

Regardless of how long it takes, the battle will last for some time. This is a philosophical war being fought in the minds of the next generations; what they come to believe and institute is anyone’s guess, just as the unfolding of the 20th century brought with it many surprises. We have an opportunity, though, as Americans to take back the economic system that so many of America’s greatest thinkers advocated; that is, an economic system that benefits the collective society and does not just reward a select few.

_______________________web recommendation
Oil WatchDog
www.oilwatchdog.org
Oil Watchdog is a resource that tries to expose the profiteering and unscrupulous practices going on in the oil industry. It is part of the the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. Since the oil industry is so heavily subsidized by taxpayers dollar, every citizen has a right to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent. At Oil Watchdog, writers report on tactic used to “rip-off its customers, harm the environment and hide their misdeeds”. The site tracks monetary influence of industry officials on government representatives. Reporting the facts from the oil industry usually results in stories that reveal greed, arrogance, and a general disregard for the public at large, without whom the oil industry would cease to be profitable. Worth a look just to see if you State’s representative is on the payroll of Big Oil.

Sustainable Policy; Lessons from the Past and Present; the 20th Century

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

The Political Economy of World Energy: A 20th Century Perspective
by John G. Clark
ISBN: 0807843067
Although this book was written in 1991, the topics raised are still relevant today. In order to understand better the paradigm shift currently going on here at the beginning of the 21st century, it is necessary to look at the past, particularly the 20th century. More than any other technological breakthroughs in the past several decades, developments in the energy sector have the potential to ultimately change the modern world going forward into the future. As America and the rest of the world try to move away from coal, oil, and natural gas because of geopolitical influences, leaders find themselves asking from where they will obtain enough energy to power their societies; energy has become the dominant factor in shaping a country’s future prospects. In the past, availability or access to these resources determined whether or not a nation was able to rise into the arena of wealthy nations. WWI and WWII helped propel oil onto the world’s stage where it remained on top, unchallenged until the energy crises in the 1970s and ‘80s; Coal, because of its abundance, continued to be relied upon primarily for stationary applications. Here, though, at the beginning of the 21st century, where China, India, the Middle East, and many other areas of the world seem to be developing on a similar trajectory to America in the 20th century, it would greatly benefit us all if politicians and economists would take a minute to study some of the trends of industrialization that developed over the course of the last 100 years.

________________________________________________

Modernization through industrialization is a trend that has been shaping the world since human civilization began. We like to think that our modern era is the first time period where technology was developed in order to make life easier, but the truth of the matter is that past societies like the Chinese, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, and Europeans in the past all sought to use energy to develop a more powerful society. The more advanced of these societies created mechanical systems and routes of transport that were developed in order to simply improve life.

When one attempts to compare the advancements in the modern world to those of the past, it becomes apparent that human civilization’s development is not linear at all. Oddly enough, to think about the 20th century in America in terms of human progress requires us to neglect looking at the environment all around us. While society has progressed, the environment has been degraded.

From a technological standpoint, the 20th century did however result in several achievements that changed the way that human beings interacted with their environment.

When we try to list the top ten achievements that advanced our society in the past 100 years, a few significant events stand out. In terms of providing valuable lessons as we go forward from here, it is important to look at not only how these advancements improved our daily lives, but also how they sped up the destruction of the environment in which we live.

The establishment of an energy grid and the ensuing electrification of business and residential areas is an incredibly important event along the human evolution continuum. By developing an electrical grid, humans were able to take themselves out of the natural world; they also were required to feed the grid with an ever-increasing supply of natural resources. Electricity put humanity on an continually-speeding-up path of progress. People no longer had to work according to cyclical patterns; they could burn the candle at both ends. The conveniences that were afforded to people made everything from cooking to reading to washing their clothes easier; not to mention, electricity allowed for an entertainment industry to develop through radio, television, and movies.

A significant majority of our electricity for the grid today is generated from the burning of fossil fuels. In America, this is primarily in the form of coal. In order to obtain this coal, mining companies are using explosives to blast off the tops of mountains so that they can harvest the fuels faster; but this practice and the process of burning copious amounts of coal is falling under more and more criticism.

We probably would have to say that the invention of the automobile is second in the list of societal achievements in the 20th century. By itself, though, the invention of the automobile really would not have revolutionized our collective society. It wasn’t until America built the Interstate Highway System that the automobile assumed the role that we know it as today. Before the highway system, the transport of goods primarily went by rail, and trains used coal in order to be powered across the terrain. The invention of the automobile began the general transition in the transportation industry from a reliance primarily on coal to a reliance on petroleum. Now we were burning two fossil fuels simultaneously in order to fuel our expanding civilization.

These two achievements alone are responsible for dramatic improvements in the quality of life for modern people. The grid and the automobile, though, while making life easier for those people living in the countries that developed them, are responsible for a majority of the environmental destruction and resource depletion that we are experiencing today. Electrification and mechanized travel on a societal scale are processes that need to be analyzed thoroughly before being implemented; but they weren’t.

America and Europe have gone through an industrial age where their national grids were built out and every family was given the opportunity to own a car and drive anywhere they wanted; but is it actually possible, after looking at the damage incurred from these advancements, that the world has the ability to offer the citizens of China, India, the Middle East, and South America these same luxuries?

These two modernizing trends required so much additional energy in order to fuel their advancement that life in other parts of the world not fortunate enough to develop a grid or an Interstate system was compromised. As societies that employed these advancements expanded, the impact on the global environment widened. As populations grew and more resources were needed to power our homes, businesses, and machines, it became apparent that humanity had started to value oil, coal, and natural gas more than they valued clean air, water, and soil. Now that humanity was isolated from nature within their homes and businesses, the need for a clean ecosystem in which to live was not so necessary.

In the case of the automobile, the consumption of additional resources in the form of oil to the point where readily available reserves were shrinking considerably was just one factor associated with these trends of progress that would ultimately prove the technologies to be unsustainable. If we were to try to learn some lesson from the 20th century from the use of the automobile, we might take this sustainability argument and try to apply it to our transportation system of the 21st century.

It is common knowledge that global oil supplies cannot accommodate China and India’s industrial age. In order to be able to allow for further distribution, the automobile industry must begin its transition into a sustainable design. While Americans, over the course of the past few decades, bought bigger and bigger cars with lower and lower gas mileage, the prospect of exporting this kind of thinking to Asia as it goes through its industrialization is troubling.

Pollution and environmental degradation are the unpleasant side effects of relying on electricity and machines to power our lives. We have to ask ourselves if the current structure of the grid and the Interstate highway system is really what we were after when we set them up. We were after improving the quality of life for future generation; is that what we achieved? We have made outstanding advancements with our technological gadgetry, but at the expense of the living world to the degree that those future generations are now beginning to question whether or not life is really better at all.

The advent of the Interstate highway system allowed for an ease of travel not experienced before; it permitted communities to spread out. While this was welcomed by many as an advancement in society, it also made America more dependent upon fossil fuel resources that it didn’t have and that were already being depleted globally. Even if America could drill for all of its own oil domestically, it doesn’t mean that we should. If we apply some of the lessons learned from the 20th century to our energy paradigm in the 21st century, we would begin to see the importance of developing a sustainable energy policy; one that is based upon a patchwork of technologies.

So, before we can continue on with this next phase of industrialization in other areas of the world, it is important to begin lowering consumption of natural resources through energy efficiency programs and the through the development of renewable energy technology. There is a building database of information on this topic. From the information being gathered, it is becoming apparent that there is no possible way that fossil fuels will be able to support human population projection figures in 2050; not to mention that the natural environment simply cannot handle another 3 billion people all living the ‘American lifestyle’.

There is an evolving global energy policy that is going on currently; of course, there are those nations that are working to get their hands on as many fossil fuels as possible before their prices shoot through the roof, but research indicates that sustainable economies based upon renewable sources will fare better in the future. Those nations that rely on fossil fuels to power their societies will undoubtedly be a part of the collapsing world order. Those nations that pursue strategies that are not dependent upon fossil fuels have the potential to be part of the creation of an era of advanced industrialization. What are we if not creatures that learn from our past mistakes and evolve going forward?

In order to keep the two greatest advancements of the 20th century, grid and auto, we need to evolve them in order to have them function more efficiently. If we do not do this then we will not be able to support them going forward on an economic, as well as on an environmental level. What we need to do is begin linking together energy demand projections with natural resource indicators and environmental impact studies; for example, the fact that coal is abundant and cheap does not outweigh the fact that burning more of it on a wider scale will cause an increase in health risks, not to mention the environmental destruction that goes on to make it so cheap. If coal companies had to pay for the environmental damage caused by mountaintop mining, then coal would not be so cheap. In the future, it is important to put a value on the things that we value the most, like clean air, water, and soil.

A lot of attention has been given to the concept of climate change in the recent past. Experts across many fields are beginning to say that increased CO2 levels are bad for the environment. While there remains some controversy around the subject of CO2 science and its relationship to climate change, the simple fact is that CO2 levels are shooting off of the charts. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases trap heat. To continue to burn fossil fuels would be foolish behavior; the projections of the amount of fossil fuels necessary to power society in 2050 would cause atmospheric CO2 level to rise even more dramatically than they currently are. It is important to begin developing a sustainable energy portfolio that looks toward the future and takes into account population growth models and developing nations’ industrialization periods.

Until we begin investing in renewable energy technology on a scale that allows for it to expand to a significant market share, we will be locked on the fossil fuel trajectory of collapse into the future. That future is filled with runaway prices and global resource wars scenarios. A significant investment in converting to a sustainable energy system now, while relatively expensive, will save an untold amount of money in the future. The renewable energy technology currently available is approaching grid parity, and with the removal of subsidies from the fossil fuel industry, in the form of pollution forgiveness, and the creation of a fair value energy system, renewable energy technology will be able to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas.

There is a social conditioning aspect to this whole energy transition thing. People have grown accustomed to the processes of the 20th century. Even though it has been shown that burning coal is harmful to people and the planet and that we simply cannot sustain burning it on the scale that we currently are, people want to rely on an abundant, domestic fuel supply for their energy. Even though it has been shown that America’s reliance on oil is fueling petrodictators across some parts of the world and inciting radical fundamentalism in others, people do not want to drive smaller cars, or get better fuel efficiency. This kind of thinking, though, is changing.

We are transitioning to an age of energy consciousness. America is learning from its actions during the 20th century that it cannot continue to waste energy or generate it using old world means; a new age of technology is upon us and humanity should be able to generate energy using more sophisticated methods than burning fuels. Solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass all utilize advanced technological gadgetry; this reliance upon innovation is what brought about the industrial revolution and it will be what pushes the technology revolution into the energy sector.

The explosion of population in the 20th century in conjunction with the number of people experiencing a lifestyle interspersed with creature comforts has created a crisis that needs to be addressed. At times, the problem can seem so overwhelming that one does not know where to begin. In order to formulate a long-term energy and environmental policy, we need to address just two areas of energy use. By rewiring the electrical grid to not only be powered by renewable energy but also to be more energy efficient in its transmission will allow America to stop burning so much coal and become an example to nations like China and India who are anxious to allow their citizenries an opportunity to catch up to the American lifestyle. By retrofitting America’s automobile fleet to get higher fuel efficiency or to run off the grid will allow America to consume less petroleum.

It appears that humanity built out its infrastructure before the technology was ready for it. In much the same way that the brakes have been put upon the biofuel industry because of questions relating to its sustainability, America should have put the brakes on the coal and petroleum industries at the beginning of the 20th century when they were building out the grid and conceptualizing the automobile industry. To say that people 100 years ago did not have the capacity to be foresighted enough to see these problems that we are experiencing today is foolish. Of course, they saw them; they were just hoping that we could export our problems to other places in the world.

Well, our problems have come home to roost. We are currently experiencing one of those crossroads periods in human history. We definitely cannot afford to burn coal and petroleum at the levels that we currently are. The electricity grid and the automobile were not bad inventions on their own; but the introduction of indoor light and the freedom of mobility (two innovations that sought to improve the quality of life for people) may ultimately spoil the quality of life for many of us.

We can either adapt and innovate, or we can end up entering a period of collapse similar to those societies in the past that neglected to interpret those signs given to them by the environment in which they lived.

_______________________________________________________web recommendation
Ten Successes that Shaped the 20th Century American City
www.plannersweb.com
From the development of water and sewage treatment facilities to the abolition of corrupt political bosses, America over the course of the 20th century developed into the beacon of modern society. Besides the establishment of the electricity grid and the Interstate highway system, what other advancements are considered in the top ten achievements of American society? This page outlines ten. These kinds of lists that span 100 years are important to give us a perspective in relation to the 21st century. What kind of achievements will future citizens look back upon as defining innovations? Will it be the advent of the smart grid; the establishment of the electric automobile? One thing is for certain; without innovation, America would not have assumed the role that it is in today, nor will it be able to keep its position of leadership going forward into the future.

Sustainable Policy; Constructing a New World; Genuine Green Industries and Sustainable Business

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Renewable Energy; Sources for Fuels and Electricity
By Thomas B. Johansson, Laurie Burnham
ISBN: 1559631384
This book that is recommended here provides a thorough look at the renewable energy industry. Society, in general, has a growing need to find new ways to develop energy. Conventional sources of generating energy have been proven in the last decade to be detrimental to most ecosystems, and the world is moving in the direction of developing other sources of power. We must not only learn how to use energy more efficiently, but also how to generate in ways that are sustainable and clean. By shifting to a renewable energy economy, we can address some of the more egregious violations of our current energy policy. This book recommended here “discusses overall performance, cost, market potential, and environmental impact for a variety of fuels and electricity derived from hydroelectric, wind, photovoltaics, solar-thermal, geothermal, ocean, and biomass energy sources. In addition, policies for adopting renewables on a broad scale are provided.”

______________________________________

Believe it or not, according to Wikipedia, the word sustainability was not introduced into the sphere of economics until the 1980s. The concept of sustainable business tries to bring together financial, environmental, and social concerns to map out the full impact production has on society. There is no doubt that, for most of the 20th century, the corporate mindset saw no problem sending numerous ecosystems into distress and hundreds of species into extinction everyday, and if left to their own philosophies, would have left the planet on a path toward catastrophe…wait a minute!

The fact of the matter is that for the entire duration of the 20th century, the global economy was based upon principles that were completely contrary to a growing reality; that is, the planet was dying due to overpopulation, over-pollution, resource exploitation, and a general disregard for life sustaining systems like clean air, water, and soil. The next generations of humanity on earth are preparing to reap the whirlwinds of a century of exploitative principles pushed around the globe by a short-sighted version of capitalism.

Corporate capitalism is extremely short-sighted; it looks for profits now, and worries about the future repercussions of their actions later. Corporate capitalism tries to ‘get away’ with as much as it can by dancing upon the lines of legality. Is it legal to use dynamite to strip mine mountaintops for coal? Yes. Is it ethical to destroy whole ecosystems by poisoning water sources and burying streams? No.

Sustainable economics seeks to bring a broader definition of ethics back into business by putting a price on the things that we value the most. If mountaintop strip mining companies were to be held financially accountable for polluting the waterways, in addition to the air (from the burning of their product), their most damaging practices would stop immediately. What if they were held liable for all of the health related problems in the people who lived near the site where the minerals were mined from? They would probably clean up their act. If the petroleum industry was held accountable for oil spills and CO2 emissions, we would probably have more electric cars on the road by now instead of watching oil companies reap record profits at the expense of humanity’s health.

The argument that most corporate capitalists use the constitution to forego federal regulations regarding the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act is at the core of the creation of the term sustainable industries. If the government is not going to regulate air and water pollution and environmental degradation, then consumers will have to hold the corporations responsible collectively with their individual wallets. It is working, and the movement is gaining traction in the business community. CEOs are realizing the potential of greening up their manufacturing loops.

Corporations argue that restrictions on the harvesting, manufacturing, and consumption of natural resources take away from their basic rights to sustain profit curves and, essentially, the rights of shareholders. They argue that government regulations actually hurt citizens by taking away jobs. Sustainable business seeks to introduce a new term to the shareholder equation that calls this whole line of reasoning into question.

Stakeholders, by definition, are any entity that is affected by the production of a good. This involves the people in the community where the good is produced, the larger global ecosystems affected, and the health of the planet in general. Introducing stakeholders to the business equation makes corporations consider the larger arena in which they operate.

Environmentalists took this as an opportunity to define sustainability in different terms than corporate capitalism had in the past. They claimed that a globally sustainable economy was structured in such a way as to promote the overall health of people, ecosystems, and the planet. This in turn would create more jobs because the types of jobs in a sustainable economy require more employees to cover the entire lifecycle of manufactured products. After the consumption phase in a corporate capitalistic society comes re-harvesting, recyling, re-engineering, retrofitting, and reuse. In a sustainable economy, harvesting resources, manufacturing products, transportation to market, and consumption is only the beginning. Collecting, recycling, and reusing waste materials are uncommon in the old corporate model of conducting business but are essential to creating an economy that will be able to sustain itself in the long-run.

Under an economy in which sustainable business dominates, concepts such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and resource conservation are central to reducing waste in the manufacturing process. By concentrating on the safety of individual citizens and employees, as well as all stakeholders involved, sustainable industries are better suited to not only meet the consumptive needs of future generations and profit curves of big business, but also create a cleaner environment and healthier workforce after all is said and done.

Of course, some of the materials needed to create a sustainable economy are more costly in the short-term. Successive generations will simply have to realize that these new costs are the price of doing business; they are an indication of the real value associated with retaining clean air, clean water, and clean soil so that their future generations will have all of the same opportunities that were afforded us.

For example, computer manufacturers will simply have to realize that part of the cost of manufacturing a computer is the price figured for recycling it when it stops working; maybe they will design computers to last longer than two years. Oil companies will have to pay more for environmentally sensitive extracting procedures and more rigid shipping regulations; but maybe we will see fewer environmental catastrophes. Ethanol’s feedstock need not threaten people's food supply; we can use organic waste to produce biofuel without the need for additional agricultural acreage. This is simply the way sustainable business is done. It looks forward and adds in future costs associated with production and disposal; it figures in costs that are generally hidden from the present quarterly reporting.

So, let us take some time here to discuss the concept of sustainable design. This concept has also been called eco-design, or the more popular, green design. It is very much in line with the triple-bottom line philosophy, whereby companies figure into the manufacturing process economic, social, and environmental costs. The fundamental principle behind sustainable design is to bring individuals back into a mutually beneficial relationship with the environment. It has been said that human beings act like locusts, laying waste to the environment behind their consumptive paths; this does not have to be the case. We are intelligent creatures and have subsequently begun evolving to a more conscious way of doing business.

Sustainable design, in general, came about as a reaction to the current environmental crisis. A recent rapid expansion of economic activity due to ‘developing’ nations becoming ‘industrialized’ has caused a depletion of natural resources, damage to ecosystems, and the loss of biodiversity to levels that threaten the overall health of the entire planet.

According to Wikipedia, “the needed aim of sustainable design is to produce places, products, and services in a way that reduces use of non-renewable resources, minimizes environmental impact, and relates people with the natural environment. Sustainable design is often viewed as a necessary tool for achieving sustainability. It is related to the more heavy-industry-focused fields of industrial ecology and green chemistry, sharing tools such as life cycle assessment to judge the environmental impact of various design choices.”

The public’s voice is beginning to demand new industrial practices that reduce the negative side-effects that are associated with traditional manufacturing. What sustainable innovation and technology offers is a cleaner way of producing the same goods and services that society has come to rely upon. Economics, the art of making money, does not have to destroy life in order to continue generating wealth.

In order to define more clearly the practices involved in sustainable economics, let’s look closely at some of the principles involved in green industries in general.

First and foremost is to determine the environmental footprint that the manufacturing of a product has upon the planet as a whole. This is done using computer models and is based upon production at a commercial scale. Inherent to this idea is the lifecycle of product. Does the manufacturing process pollute basic survival elements like land, air, and water? Does the physical product include non-toxic materials that biodegrade over a reasonable amount of time? Included in this concept is the use of recycled materials that require less energy to manufacture than harvesting fresh resources.

Second, businesses that want to be considered sustainable need to design products that last longer and function better so that they do not have to be replaced as often. Businesses need to also have a way of taking their used products back and recycling the material into the manufacturing of new ones. This, of course, requires companies to design products to be recycled, that is, ones that can be easily disassembled and harvested for valuable materials. The concept of biomimicry centers on this idea of reusing materials in a fashion similar to the natural world. In nature, there is no such thing as waste. Redesigning products using nanotechnology can close some of our manufacturing waste loops.

Next, are the feedstocks for production renewable? Can the business or industry sustain itself based upon reasonable projections regarding harvesting, manufacturing, and disposal? Does the manufacturing of the product impact the health of global ecosystems negatively?

Finally, businesses that are considered sustainable, harvest, manufacture, and sell locally. WalMart is the antithesis of this concept. Producing plastic and toxic crap in far off distant lands and then shipping them halfway around the world leaves the planet in worse shape than producing products in nearby communities to where they are sold. Companies are also able to be held more responsible for the social and environmental effects of their product if they are located locally.

The simple fact of the matter is that sustainable industries are having a difficult time getting their footing in the predatory marketplace that has established itself over the past half millennium on North American soil. The current upper-class in America is heavily invested in pollutive technology and has paid handsome sums of money to politicians over time in order to bend the market rules in their favor. As long as these people decide to shun sustainable business and greenwash their own industries, corporate capitalism will go on consuming resources at ever-increasing rates in the name of economic growth.

It can be difficult to determine which businesses are pursuing truly sustainable practices and which companies have simply greenwashed their image. Corporate executives in search of cashing in on the green-craze sweeping the planet have essentially just rebranded their old ways.

Without changing the underlying production methods that drive the global economic system, the renewable energy movement will turn into a market bubble similar to the dotcom bust requiring more resources to clean up after another generation of greedy individuals takes their retirement money out of the system.

So, what are some examples of genuine green industries that have the potential to change the way our current economic system functions? A basic list might include lifecycle assessment software, nanotechnology, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, ocean energy, hydrogen, smart grids, energy efficiency, organic food, electric vehicles, battery technology, emission controls, water purification, forest management, and waste disposal. In all of these areas there are currently developing many investment opportunities for small and large investors. The time is swiftly approaching where sustainable economics is going to replace corporate capitalism. Which side will you be on?

___________________________web recommendation
Sustainable Industries
www.sustainableindustries.com
The gameplan for this magazine is to focus strictly on the environmental and economic aspects of sustainable industries. When they began in 2002, few others were doing that. Today, Sustainable Industries is in a unique position to take the conversation further and to connect the dots between the environmental and social components of the West Coast progressive economy. Seeing how the West Coast is ahead of the rest of the nation when it comes to cleantech, the ideas posted here will become more mainstream over the next decade. This site focuses on green building, clean energy, green technology, green marketing, and many other areas related to cleantech. Click and check it out!

Sustainable Policy; Constructing a New World; The Future of Resource Efficiency

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements
by John M. Polimeni, Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro, and Blake Alcott
ISBN: 9781844074624
A man by the name of William Stanley Jevons, in a book he wrote called The Coal Question back in 1865, stated “increasing the efficiency of a resource leads to the increased use of that resource”. This simple statement was made concerning the introduction of the coal-fired steam engine and has had many test applications over the years across numerous industries. The Jevons Paradox, as it has come to be known, is widely used in the field of economics and can help us understand the realistic availability of our natural resource supplies. One of the central concepts of the book recommended here is the increase in agricultural production efficiencies over the past fifty years and how those efficiencies in yield resulted in larger human populations, which then required more feedstocks to sustain them than in the system with pre-efficiency modifications. Jevons Paradox stipulates that increases in efficiency alone will not lead toward sustainability. Today, the theory is as valuable as it was one-hundred fifty years ago. Many people who argue that renewable energy is the way to future technological innovations that will ultimately reduce our consumption of natural resources to sustainable levels might change their opinion after familiarizing themselves with Javons Paradox. By pulling on lessons from the past, this book leaves the reader asking if sustainability is an unattainable dream.

____________________________________

Whether we are talking about the food we eat or the cars we drive or the electricity that powers our homes, the same five-step process applies. Natural resources are harvested and then manufactured into products that are transported to a marketplace so that consumers can use them and then ultimately dispose of them; harvest, manufacture, transport, consume, and dispose. This simple five-step process applied millions of times over the course of several successive centuries, collectively, is having a catastrophically detrimental effect on virtually every ecosystem and species on earth, including the human species.

Contrary to what renewable energy advocates often claim, simply retrofitting our existing consumerist structure will not solve all of our problems. If we simply change the resources that we are consuming rather than changing the underlying assumptions about our consumerist society, we will remain locked on the trajectory of depletion, simply depleting alternative sources.

We need to change more than the list of resources that we consume; we need to adopt a new business structure that allows for our environment to be cleaned up. Our entire economic system needs to begin to enact regulations that will allow for it to evolve into a one that is based more upon the natural systems from which it draws all of it feedstocks. If our society is to thrive, it will have to learn how to sustain itself into the future where our planet will house an ever-increasing human population.

Jevons Paradox warns us that increasing efficiency is not enough to solve our depleting natural resource stock on earth. The conditions in the decades after the advent of the coal-fired steam engine showed us that, even though the energy efficiency levels of a resource (coal) were increased, overall use of that resource increased. The reason this happens is because, as the efficiency of a resource increases, price decreases, making the resource more affordable to a wider array of consumers. If we do not change the consumerist culture that has been created by capitalism, we will continue to consume more and more resources as the population grows. Even after efficiency levels are increased, the same five-step process exists: Harvest, manufacture, transport, consume, dispose. This process is what is unsustainable; by simply putting a different resource through the equation, we are not addressing the root cause of the problem.

Harvesting resources will always be damaging to the environment; we cannot get around this, but we need to start looking at the amount of waste that is being created collectively by a consumerist economy. If we begin to look more closely at the amount of waste created through the manufacturing process and analyze ways to incorporate waste back into the production loop, we might be able to lower our levels of resource extraction to sustainable levels.

Businesses can streamline their manufacturing processes in many ways that ultimately benefit their bottom-line and the environment. Capturing waste heat to produce energy to be used on site, or capturing emissions to be processed into industrial chemicals that can be sold as feedstocks to other industries, or reuse and recycling program costs that are figured into the production process are but three ways to streamline consumerist culture and can lower long term manufacturing costs and benefit the overall environment.

Once the products are made, they are often moved across the world by airplanes, trains, trucks, and cargo ships. This process of sending goods across the planet is extremely costly in terms of its use of fuel. For now, petroleum is the central source of power for the transportation industry, but not only are we running out of this fuel, we also have come to understand that burning petroleum on the scale that we are is having detrimental effects on human health and on the health of several key ecosystems across the planet. To continue shipping goods around the planet using petroleum as the base fuel is insane. We need to start creating local economies that do not depend so heavily upon economies of scale in order to reach their economic equilibrium. We need to start figuring the costs associated with environmental degradation into the equations relating to sending goods around the globe.

Depending on the product, the consumer usually uses a particular good and then disposes of it in the trash. Most goods that are made today are not built to last very long; computers are obsolete in 3-5 years, cars are inefficient after 10 years, televisions, refrigerators, and other household appliances are simply not built to last. Instead, it is in a company’s best interest to design a product that needs to be replaced in a cyclical fashion in order to keep revenues coming in over time. This kind of degenerative systems-thinking is what is causing us to realize that our current economic structure is unsustainable. We are running out of places to discard our waste; we are running out of energy to manufacture our goods; and we are running out of resources to harvest.

Companies have a responsibility to design products in a way in which they can be discarded in a responsible manner, a manner in which the components of the original product go back into the manufacturing process instead of heading to a landfill. Old computers need to be reengineered, old refrigerators need to be rebuilt, old car parts need to be reused and recycled. Not only is the marketplace currently adopting measures that will allow society the ability to easily adapt to these measures, but political momentum is building behind the idea of evolving capitalism so as to make it more sustainable.

So, how much efficiency will be enough to overcome Jevons Paradox? Is there one innovation in manufacturing, transportation, or in consumption that promises a substantial return on an investment? The answer is that we need legislation to be enacted that helps create a new system of ground-rules that will govern the business world. There is no one innovation that is the answer. Sustainability will be met through the use of a variety of practices; efficiency is just one of these practices. Much like the patchwork of renewable energy sources that will power the future, sustainability is made up of a consortium of different practices across every sector of our society.

Finding an alternate fuel to oil, one that comes from a renewable source, is just the beginning. How about wires that transfer energy almost instantaneously with 100% efficiency, or filters made from algae blooms that capture CO2 from industrial smokestacks? The point being made here is that innovation is coming in many forms spread out across every industry. This is an evolution of the human imagination, and it is all set to come to a reality near you over the course of the next century. We can either choose to innovate, or we can continue to operate from behind the eight-ball in a perpetual state of disaster recovery for the foreseeable future.

The patchwork of innovation that is forming presently will not be allowed to enter the arena of entrenched industry moguls without legislative help. If the past few decades are an indication of the stakes, there is destined to be a fight in order to change our capitalistic society. American capitalism was built upon monopolies and connections between insiders, but the evolution of economics over the course of the next one-hundred years does not have room for monopolies or for old-world cronyism.

The world, and hence, political participation, is evolving toward an open, information-based arena similar to the one that is developing on the internet; one where every individual is afforded the opportunity of a fair playing field. Customers and citizens alike can learn so much about a company or country and its products or actions before they decide to buy an item or support a candidate. The availability of information makes it so that companies and leaders who abuse people or the environment in bringing their product or vision to life are being held responsible for their actions; in some cases, companies or leaders are even held liable for the unintended social and environmental consequences hidden in their manufacturing processes or caused as a result of their legislation.

In other words, sustainability requires information, and information leads to rules being put in place to protect stakeholders. Regulations, generally speaking, have been seen in the past by the established ruling class to be intrusive, but without regulation, we can not achieve sustainability. Regulation is the key to creating a foundation for the global economy upon which certain principles will be honored. Regulation is good for people and the planet and bad for those who seek to take advantage of the system at the cost of others. We have learned countless times in our past that without regulation, people and businesses will take advantage of others and pollute the environment.

Let us look at an example here to highlight the evolution of an industry so as to maybe shed some light on where we are headed. We will look more closely here at how the application of Jevons Paradox is spurring the advancement of the field of biofuels. Perpetually applied, this idea of economic evolution fueled by innovation will ultimately lead to the development of a sustainable system that can then be implemented to legislative policy.

Once the world agreed that our use of oil was unsustainable, we set out to design a system for producing fuel that was able to sustain itself in spite of the planet’s global population projections. Corn ethanol production came online as the first solution to the energy matrix we set up for ourselves. It was touted as a sustainable solution to some of the concerns regarding petroleum, mainly price spikes and atmospheric pollutants. In terms of harvesting, it could be grown and produced domestically, cutting down on transportation costs; but in terms of manufacturing, we found that the increased demand for corn caused price spikes in the food sector. It was also speculated that consumption would increase because no system was put in place to lower these rates. In terms of disposal (in this case, burning it), analysts have suggested that instead of reducing atmospheric pollutants, we will simply be emitting similar levels of different, equally harmful contaminants. Innovators set out to design a process of making our transportation industry sustainable by only addressing one of the five steps of production. Through research and financial simulations, the market’s first choice, corn-based ethanol, was shown to be a complete failure at addressing most of the concerns that initiated the project because it did not address the root of the problem.

Their second choice, cellulosic ethanol, while addressing more of the concerns, has proved itself to also be unsustainable in the long-run. In terms of harvesting, the feedstock is grown domestically or taken directly from local landfills. In terms of manufacturing, since we are not using food crops, we detach ourselves from food price spikes (although some analysts have suggested that marginal cropland will have to be used for switchgrass and woody vegetation growth). In terms of consumption and disposal, the rates remain the same as with corn ethanol. The fundamental production cycle remains in place with cellulosic ethanol, and we are still locked on an unsustainable growth track in terms of atmospheric pollutants and consumption levels based upon population projections and feedstock availability.

The idea of an ethanol-powered economy, though, did not die because it failed twice. That is because the fundamental concerns with a petroleum economy are real and ethanol relieves some of them in terms of CO2 emissions, future extraction costs, foreign policy issues, and environmental degradation. Sure, we can go electric with all of our automobiles, but where will all of the power to charge the vehicles come from? Most likely, it will come from burning more coal at power plants, which will be more damaging than driving on petroleum. Creating a sustainable substitute for oil will allow us to begin the shift from a fossil fuel economy toward a renewable one.

Accounting for the population increases and the growing global middle class of the future is a difficult task, but ethanol innovators must account for future demand when figuring the sustainability of a given feedstock. While first and second generation biofuels, as some analysts suggest through their use of computer models, are unsustainable, researchers have found their answer to the source of the next generation of biofuels in the most unlikely of sources. What they have found is algae. Yes, algae. This fledgling industry may be the solution we have been waiting for; it is poised to provide energy in a multitude of forms for an unlimited number of people.

Algae grows quickly, cutting down on costs associated with production while increasing the availability of feedstocks; some strands are nearly 50% oil by mass, making the refining process extremely efficient; it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, so it can act as a filter for pollutants while it creates fuel; and innovators and scientists are working to bring the costs of commercial production in line with those of petroleum refining.

The technology exists, or will shortly, to be able to produce algae-based ethanol in a cost-competitive manner. Algae can be grown on filters at industrial sites inside smokestacks to consume valuable CO2, or it can be grown in giant algae ponds located next to power plants where smokestacks are bent around to pump their CO2 back into the water, or it can be grown in laboratory conditions where it can be genetically engineered to grow faster and produce more oil. Scientists are also working to genetically engineer algae so as to emit more hydrogen through the growing process. The hydrogen gas can then be used as an additional fuel source. In terms of consumption, since algae sequesters CO2 from the air, the more we grow, the cleaner our atmosphere becomes. As the population grows and more power plants are built, more algae farms are installed in order to keep pace with increases in emissions. Algae requires less acreage than cellulosic ethanol’s feedstocks, and therefore environmental concerns regarding sustainability are addressed. We are left with a different set of atmospheric pollutants than petroleum, but we have addressed four of the five steps in the production process. Only time will tell what next generation biofuels will bring.

From corn to biomass to algae, the innovation keeps evolving because of the need to clean up the entire production process; it is important to consider all of the five steps in the production process, harvesting, manufacturing, transportation, consumption, and disposal. If we don’t, we are simply re-disguising the original condition and are, in no way, solving problem we are facing collectively.

Will ethanol help in cleaning up the five-step process? Some people say that it does. Others say that it might in the future, and still others claim that it makes the situation worse. Depending upon which generation technology these people are referring to, they are all correct.

Once the questions regarding its primary feedstock are resolved, ethanol will contribute to a sustainable world in three major ways. First, it will burn considerably cleaner than fossil fuels, lowering air pollution and the trickle-down environmental poisoning that ensues from dirty air. Second, feedstocks that are grown for production will sequester CO2 from the air; and third, environmental degradation that occurs around extraction sites for oil, coal, and natural gas, not to mention the number of oil spills on the world’s oceans or the wars currently being waged to secure access to oil, all will be a thing of the past.

Obviously, though, algae ethanol is not at your local gas station available for purchase right now. This is because the evolution of economics is only in its infancy. It is still much cheaper to poison the air and degrade the environment than it is to enact environmental regulations around the fossil fuel industry. The sustainability movement is still trying to break in to mainstream economics and politics. It is still in its initial phase where it is trying to define itself, fleshing out different scenarios before innovations are mass-produced and regulations legally enforced.

While consumer items created from renewable or sustainable sources are mostly scattered about and hard to find here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, over the course of the next one-hundred years, those items will be the standard, and our way of life that we are living now will seem as archaic as that of those who lived in the nineteenth century do to us.

For now, though, we have to deal with what we have, and for us that means investing in the initial sustainable economy infrastructure and pressuring politicians to enact legislation that puts a realistic value on a functioning ecosystem. We can no longer continue living lives filled with creature comforts at the cost of future generations. It is time to start building the bandwagon that will drive the evolution of capitalism toward sustainability.

Big innovations in sustainability are not readily offered to the public yet. They will all be here soon. You, however, are being offered an opportunity to help create the sustainable economy of the future by investing in innovative companies on the forefront of the renewable economy. Only through conscious investing can we create a sustainable domestic energy policy. We can no longer just sit idly in the status quo and hope that change will come. Through bold investments, the individual investor can be a part of creating the momentum that will enable legislation to be passed that will allow for the creation of a sustainable economy. The markets respond to shifts in monetary investment and politicians listen to markets.

The exciting part about living in a polluted world where many life forms are going extinct is that the human imagination is in overdrive trying to come up with a solution to our environmental end-game that we have created for ourselves with our economy. Over the next one-hundred years, we will witness an age of human discovery equal to other great periods in human history, or we will become part of one of the greatest mass-extinction events in the history of this planet. The smart investor will help build the vehicle that will help us travel into the future.


___________________________________web recommendation
International Energy Agency
www.iea.org
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is “an intergovernmental organization which acts as energy policy advisor to 28 member countries in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens”. It was created during the global oil crisis in 1973-74. It is primarily concerned with energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. Some of their current work is focused on climate change policies, market reform, energy technology collaboration, and outreach. This website is important to review in order to analyze some of the global trends developing concerning energy development in the twenty-first century.

Sustainable Policy; Constructing a New World; A Non-Linear Model of Human Evolution

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Neanderthals and Modern Humans: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective
by Clive Finlayson
ISBN:0521820871

Like the purpose of most books, Finlayson’s book is no different than others in its attempt to reveal lessons learned from the past to us living in the modern era. The topic of his book, Neanderthals were primitive people inhabiting Europe and Western/Central Asia beginning between 600,000 and 350,000 years ago. These modern human predecessors then began to disappear around 130,000 years ago and disappeared completely around 30,000 years ago. Why did their evolutionary strand go extinct after hundreds of thousands of years? One view of their extinction was that it was due to the arrival of modern humans and the mixing of the two species. Finlayson’s book provides evidence to the contrary; while he does not dispute the reason for the mixing of the two species, he provides evidence that the Neanderthal extinction may have actually been a result of not adapting fast enough to changing ecological and environmental conditions, thus causing Neanderthal populations to seek adoption into modern human societies. The question Finlayson’s book leaves us with is this, what will the modern human’s response be to the current changing ecological and environmental conditions, and at what pace will our species adapt to these changing conditions. By extension, we need to ask ourselves, will we head the way of the Neanderthals toward extinction and ultimately be locked away in the fossil record buried deep in the stratified sedimentary layers of the earth waiting for future civilizations to figure out what went wrong?

_________________________________________

If we were to align the economic principles and capitalistic philosophy that has guided the United States and the rest of the world over the past few hundred years with a branch of science, they would most likely all fall under the topic of classical (Newtonian) physics. Classical physics and its subsequent linear equations depend highly upon constants in order to be graphed. These constants are what give the graphs their underlying linear, and hence progressive, nature; but are there really constants in nature, or is the impermanence of a cyclical world the only constant in the nature?

Classical, or Newtonian physics is lined with linear representations that describe the natural world. (pun intended) An object’s position, mass, and the force applied to it are of central importance. In a classical world, conclusions can reasonably be drawn based upon assumptions that objects will move linearly along their development continuum; but what about non-linear systems? Those functions involving an infinite number of variables from a multitude of systems that are interlinked and dependent upon each other tend to behave in different ways than Newton predicted.

New developments in quantum physics are beginning to provide better representations of our natural and business worlds. These new developments, in essence, are beginning to call our classical, linear representations of reality into question. Quantum physics states that matter has both particle and wave-like behavior, essentially meaning that everything on earth is interrelated. Reality, then, is more cyclical than it is linear.

We are discovering that matter is made up of more space than it is of substance. The information age that we are embarking upon with the advent of the computer is evidence of this. We are also discovering that subatomic particles do not behave under the assumed principles of classical physics. Therefore, our entire economic system, which is based upon classical physics principles needs an overhaul or it will continue its path toward irrelevance for the existence of life on earth.

Instead of a linear representation based upon constants, it seems that reality is based more upon happenstance, or what philosophers like to call fortuitous evolution. This concept of fortuitous evolution can then be traced through cyclical patterns. Whereas classical physics declares certainties and makes measurements, quantum mechanics suggests probabilities that move in spiraling cycles through the universe. In the business world, what we call evolution is innovation. The habit we have gotten into in the business world of rewarding the big players and the established moguls with larger contracts is contrary to the nature of evolution. Each species in the natural world has established its own niche and evolves accordingly.

Fortuitous evolution is supported by Darwin’s Origin of Species. Living organisms are opportunistic creatures that adapt to environmental influences in order to continue on existing. Countless variables are figured into the equations of evolution every day. No computer or human being can possibly figure with absolute certainty the outcome of the great experiment that makes up life on earth. Of all of the multitudinous possibilities that were offered to the human species, this one, the one we are living now, is the one that has come to pass; but there exists countless alternate possibilities that could have just as easily come to pass had different conditions existed or were chosen. We are being offered an opportunity here to nudge our economic system down the path of evolution.

While the natural world shows an abundance of constants on the surface, the underlying structure of the natural world that we live within does not appear to be linear at all. Measuring, in a quantum universe, brings matter out of its wave-like state into existence. Production makes consumables out of resources. On the surface, it appears that classical economics has all of the tools to help us through the twenty-first century, but the recent tremors throughout the global economy show this to be a false assumption. We are in dire need for more people to begin seeing themselves as part of a living system that is becoming more and more disconnected from the cycles of creation in the universe. Our business world has become stagnant, lacking innovation.

Let’s look at weather systems as an example of a non-linear complex system. The atmosphere is a dynamic system driven by a number of interrelated factors; in a way it appears to behave based more upon the principles of quantum mechanics rather than on the laws of classical physics. When viewed from above through the use of satellite images, weather systems appear to move from one point to another in the form of spiraling waves; when measured from below, they are quantified in the form of matter. While classical physics models and mathematical formulas are regularly applied to weather forecasting, the overall structure of weather systems exhibits the interrelatedness of global patterns. The reason weather forecasts are so often not accurate is because they rely so heavily upon classical physics. (This representation drawn here simply serves as a visual interpretation of the dual nature of reality; matter is but a resting point in an infinite progression of wave-like motion.)

Predicting the weather three days out is an arduous task because of the nature of the number of variables that need to be considered. Predicting the weather three decades from now is an impossible endeavor, right? What about one-hundred years from now?

What scientists are doing regarding long-term climate prediction is an indication of where we are headed in the evolution of our species. Scientists are running computer programs that take into account countless variables, and they are repeating the process millions of times. What they are ending up with is a graph of numerous possibilities grouped around a trend. What they are realizing from these trends is that, because the natural world is intimately linked together, certain environmental events are destabilizing to the entire ecosystem and ultimately shape every event after it occurs. For example, the melting of Greenland’s glaciers can be seen as a climatic tipping point. Events such as this can be referred to as a tipping point because it tends to tip the results in a certain direction and is irreversible.

When we run these same kinds of non-linear models using our current economic structure, we discover quite early on that our current capitalistic system is unsustainable.

The Neanderthals (or the Maya or the Ancestral Puebloans or the Roman Empire, for that matter) passed a tipping point when they neglected to adapt to the changing environmental conditions of their era. We are being asked to interpret certain sets of data in the present in order to change our current economic course and halt our linear progression toward an environmental tipping point swiftly approaching us from the not-so-distant horizon.

The modern human is heading away from certainties based upon linear calculations, and we are moving toward a future based upon quantum mechanics. If we continue to interrupt the wave-like progression of natural systems through the use of economics for environmental exploitation, we risk bringing to a halt all life on earth (at least until the energetic systems can recover).

While linear representations may have described, quite well, trends over time in the past when human populations were smaller, their use in describing action in the present is limited because of the sheer volume of human beings. In the past, there simply was not enough of us on the planet to interrupt the natural global patterns of renewal. We are being asked to develop a deeper understanding of the human condition because there are more of us living here; one where we see ourselves as part of a continual loop that is based upon probabilities and possibilities rather than on certainties. We are being asked to recognize that our economic system falls within the non-linear, cyclical systems of the natural world.

It is becoming apparent to more and more people in this world that economic principles are appropriately grouped under biological concepts like growth, adaptation, evolution, and interdependence, all of which have their base in the quantum mechanical view of the universe. These kinds of terms are generally expressed in non-linear relationships that operate more cyclically than linearly. They are based upon concepts of interdependence where each organism depends upon the others for its own survival. Competition exists but not in the modern human’s sense of global dominance.

The fact that capitalism, in its essence, is based upon biological principles rather than simple linear mathematical concepts is a relatively recent advancement in the evolution of the human species. It is only through the population explosion of the last century that we came to this realization; it was a fortuitous development in our evolution only if we are able to implement our scientific findings into our business strategies. If we fail to enter the implementation phase, then our survival as a species will have just been one possibility of the infinite number of possibilities that could have come to pass. Like the Neanderthals who were relegated to the fossils of the past, modern humans will have failed to adapt to the changing environment around them.

It goes without question that the business world is heavily tied to the natural world through the extraction, manufacturing, use, and ultimate disposal of the planet’s resources. To bring consumer goods into existence requires energy and resources. Our current business models incorporate linear mathematical formulas to accomplish these tasks that have no place in a world based upon quantum mechanics. In fact, linear thinking is what has caused us to stand of the brink of our own extinction.

Business would benefit in the long-term from adapting to more non-linear practices like closed-loop production systems and zero waste principles. Redefining our growth expectations and incorporating social and environmental concerns into the bottom line of corporate spreadsheets will go a long way in bringing the human condition back into line with the natural world.

The renewable energy and sustainable business movement is the ultimate form of life-systems thinking. Renewable energy taps into the wave-like structure of the universe for power. Capturing it allows us to capitalize upon an endless source of energy. Fossil fuels are based upon dead organic matter being converted into chemicals spewed into the air we breathe; no wonder the earth and all of its creatures are dying off in one of the largest mass extinctions on record. We are interrupting the natural flow of energy in order to bring consumer goods into existence, and this is not sustainable. It is not the consumer goods that are bad in and of themselves, it is the process by which they are brought into existence that needs to be changed.

Another example of non-linear practices in the business world is shown through the concept of sustainable design, which means figuring all of the costs associated with the life cycle of product. Using life cycle assessment software, companies can figure out the full cost of a given product including emissions from production, availability of resources, and the product’s ultimate disposal. Until we consider the social and environmental impacts of our production processes in addition to financial concerns, we will remain trapped on a linear progression toward the destruction of our own society. When a horde of grasshoppers eats all of the leafy vegetation in a given area, the group then begins dying off until its numbers reach a more sustainable level. We are smarter than grasshoppers; we are smarter than Neanderthals.

There is no way that Adam Smith could have forecast the ways in which the discoveries in science, particularly those of quantum physics, would alter our concept of the earth and of ourselves, and there is no way he calculated how the exploding global population would affect business and the availability of resources. At the time that Adam Smith was postulating his views in his book Wealth of Nations, Newtonian physics was the dominant science of the day; Einstein hadn’t even been invented yet. In his day, America was not defined in terms of its borders, and resources seemed unlimited to him; therefore, growth, in his mind, could go on increasing forever. We are now in the position where we have to redefine the definition of growth. Certain aspects of capitalism have become like weeds that have overrun the garden.

The philosophy of economics outlined by Adam Smith is linear in its conception; as long as resources are unlimited, growth of the economy is unlimited. However, the constant of unlimited resources that Smith assumes is not true. Economic models based upon biological concepts of growth instead of linear growth should become more adopted over the course of the next few decades. If we adopt economic models based upon these kinds of principles, then much like the natural world, our business world will continue to provide ample harvests for as long as they exist. In nature, there is no such thing as waste, and perpetual growth is the norm.

Ecological economics is the idea that we can assign numbers to aspects of the environment in order to understand the complex system better. These formulas that are developed can help us figure out possible courses of actions and probable outcomes. We have a number of scientists and mathematicians all coming together to describe a similar situation; that is, we need to fundamentally change the way in which we do business. There is no ‘away’ anymore; we all live on the same planet. The natural world and the business world are the same world. To destroy one is to destroy the other.

One of the simple principles involved in the calculations of formulas in the field of ecological economics is that clean water, air, and land is important to the foundation of business. Up until now, environmental regulations were seen as limiting factors to growth. Without protecting these basic resources, though, through economic incentives, as well as penalties for polluters so that future generations on earth can sustain themselves, we seek to bankrupt the very system that we have based our entire civilization upon. By incorporating the interdependence of the natural world into the economic principles of Adam Smith, we are able to create a new system of economics that is able to sustain itself and provide future generations with the same sense of wealth experienced by former generations.

Resource consumption based upon sustainable practices and renewable sources is the future of business. Economic dogma will have to be rewritten. Limiting the use of exploitative principles that inflate the unsustainable concept of unlimited growth potential will be commonplace in the future. Legislation will be drafted and the human species will evolve.

Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of past species and ultimately disappear like the Neanderthals? I think not. The modern human will adapt to the information it is being given because we are more evolved than the Neanderthals. We are on the cusp of greatness, just steps away from tapping into the limitless power generated from the waves that created the entire known universe. If only the governments of the world can unhinge themselves from the chains of business as usual and dive whole-heartedly into a period of endless innovation, then capitalism can be saved.

The good news for investors today is that many companies are beginning to spring up that operate under more sustainable practices. These companies adhere to principles that protect the ecosystems where their resources are taken from. These industries seek to limit the production of waste or use it to produce other goods. Whole industries are beginning to spring up around capturing energy from the sun or the wind or from the heat of the earth’s core. We are beginning to take notice of the limits of our global environment and innovate our business strategies to be more in line with natural systems. Nature does not have to be conquered; it needs to be harnessed.

Investing in sustainable economics is a lifelong endeavor, and it is proving to be lucrative for those investors keen enough to ‘get in’ in the early stages of the crossover from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The transition from linear thinking to non-linear thinking will involve a complete metamorphosis of capitalism; but just as a butterfly cannot assume its majesty without first being a caterpillar, next generation technologies will owe a debt of gratitude to all of those industries that came before them.

____________________________web recommendation
What the Bleep Do We Know?
www.whatthebleep.com
This website goes along with the 2004 documentary by the same name. The film was initially not picked up by any distributors so the film makers went ahead and released it themselves. The movie combines a storyline with a multi-media format to introduce and discuss some of the concepts involved in quantum physics. The world that we have come to know through our lives is a diverse place capable of holding multiple dimensions of endless possibilities. Did you know that your life could have an alternate ending if you so wish? Go in and explore a bit.

Sustainable Policy; Constructing a New World; Opportunity Knocks

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many, and Endangered the Planet
by Richard J. Douthwaite
ISBN-0-933031-74-2

Douthwaite’s book raises a fundamental question that we should have considered from the start of civilization, that is, whether or not the path of economic development that we are on is improving the quality of life for ourselves and for our future generations. The common opinion held by most economists is that growth and development spur increases in individual income levels and this, in turn, results in a better quality of life for all; but is this true for ALL of humanity? The ideas presented in Douthwaite’s book offer a contrary opinion to that of common economists. The overall implications of current economic policies being enacted by governments around the world may increase national income levels, but only for a select few. The end result of current capitalistic policies is the consumption of more resources, and as the population of the planet increases, we will push up against the limit of global resources available within one generation. While we have pursued unsustainable production methods since the inception of American capitalism, recent innovations have allowed us to begin to produce many of our consumables on a sustainable basis. Douthwaite’s book acts as a warning for us by making the claim that humanity has been running backwards, and that we are currently living on borrowed time. This idea that our economic system is not sustainable as it currently exists is becoming a more mainstream idea in business communities around the globe. As different sectors of the consumption economy feel the crunch of globalization, international standards, and overpopulation, more interest will develop around the creation of sustainable economic policy.

______________________________________

Environmental Disasters: A Chronicle of Individual, Industrial, and Governmental Carelessness
by Lee Allyn Davis and Lee Davis
ISBN:0816032653

This book is offered here together with Growth Illusion to not only show the environmental costs of the unsustainable economic policy pursued over the course of the last century, but also to propose the question, how much longer can the planet sustain ‘our way of life’? Weill we heed the warnings blaring all around us, or will we fade into the dust of the earth like every great civilization of the past?

________________________________________

Many businesses today are only beginning to sense their relationships to the natural resources of the earth. For example, computer manufacturing giant Dell (and many other Fortune 500 companies, particularly the oil and coal industries) are beginning to realize the potential of greenwashing their image; this is the idea of initiating marketing campaigns to change the public perception of business as usual. Dell recently announced that its company had gone carbon neutral. This means that for all of the pollution Dell emits through the production and use of its products, they have made efforts to offset their carbon emissions through planting trees and buying carbon credits. The truth of the matter is that they, along with the oil and coal industries, are nowhere close to carbon neutral.

While the standards for evaluating carbon neutrality are anything but uniform, the trend of companies caring about their environmental impact is an important step in the evolution of American capitalism. Greenwashing, however, is a smokescreen and needs to be addressed through international standards before any real progress can be made, but humanity has begun its progression toward sustainability.

Even the big oil companies in America and beyond are beginning to acknowledge the limits as well as the pollutive nature of their resource, and they are starting to realize that their industry is not sustainable in the long-term. Companies like BP are realizing the potential of renewable energy sources and are beginning to pursue investments in the industry. IBM is beginning to focus on creating the computer servers capable of handling the demands of a smart grid. This realization by Big Business that sustainable processes ARE the future is becoming, more and more, a sound business strategy, and the more foresighted companies are building the bandwagon by beginning to pursue renewable energy technology in the form of wind, solar, biofuel, smart grids, battery, and geothermal development.

The idea that our economy as it exists today is tied to depleting our natural resources is something completely contrary to the principles upon which our whole economic system was founded; limitless resources and continuous progress is what our nation is built upon. The notion that our entire economy is intimately connected to the natural world is a new generational concept, and it will become the dominating philosophy of the future. The population explosion of the last century has led us to the realization that we need to find a balance located somewhere within the borders of sustainable progress. This is the most important discovery of the twentieth century, and it can only be ignored at our own peril. We will either listen to and heed the warnings we are being given from the living planet, or we will enter a period of prolonged economic decline before the ultimate collapse of the entire economic system upon which we have built our civilization.

The earlier on in this process that we adopt sustainable principles into our economic system, the better off we will be and the more prepared America will be to lead the world through the twenty-first century. The warnings we are being given are coming from every corner of the earth; whether it be from the melting glaciers, the acidification of the world’s oceans, the dying coral reefs, the increase of toxic algae blooms, the spreading of the earth’s deserts, the mass extinction of the planet’s animal populations, the rampant deforestation and loss of animal habitat that is occurring, the spread of disease, the frequency of war, or the lack of available space to dispose of our collective waste, the warnings we are being given are LOUD and CLEAR!

Let’s take a look at the forestry industry as an example of an industry making efforts to responsibly manage their resource. We can all agree that without forests there would be no forestry industry; so for this reason alone, forestry officials have the incentive to protect the resource. We also can agree that to continue clear-cutting the forests of the earth on the scale that we are will lead to the ultimate collapse of the entire ecosystem. Without healthy forests, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will spiral out of control and more animal populations will become endangered and ultimately go extinct; the entire web of life that our economic and physical survival depends upon will be in jeopardy. It makes no sense to destroy one of the fundamental building blocks of life on earth, or to destroy one of the pillars of the foundation of the entire global economic system. Upon realizing this, regulations for forest management began to be put in place, and forestry officials actually created an industry standard handbook in order to try to achieve their goal of adopting sustainable forest management practices. We are still clear-cutting forests and are in danger of destroying the bedrock of biodiversity, but the blueprint for the bandwagon has been drawn for future generations to begin construction.

After beginning to realize the rate at which forests were being clear-cut worldwide, the logging industry went through the process of changing itself into the timber management industry. Was this simply an act of greenwashing? Only time will tell, but the main difference between these titles is that a timber management company cares about the shape the forest is left in after the logging is complete. There is no reason why every industry within our economic system should not go through a similar metamorphosis. Shouldn’t utilities be concerned about efficiency regarding the transfer and use of electricity? Shouldn’t the automobile industry be concerned about the diminishing availability of petroleum?

To consider the limits of an industry’s feedstock is sound business strategy. If forest management practices are not employed, the industry itself runs the risk of depleting its main resource.

As the forestry industry continues to mature, timber management companies are beginning to value the forest as a whole, not as its parts that can be cut up and sold. This is good for the planet, the people, the animals and plants, and our capitalistic economic system. To deplete the entire ecosystem in one generation and leave future generations with an economic system that is unsustainable is, simply put, irresponsible

Fifty years ago, sustainable business practices were virtually unheard of. The echoes from the 1960s in America echoed throughout the seventies, eighties, and the nineties. We were given the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act by our government as tools to help ensure that the future would provide future generations with the same opportunities that our predecessors had. We are the future generations!

Since these Acts were passed by congress, corporations have hired their expensive lawyers to find loopholes and ways to get around the principles that ensured clean air, clean water, and the biodiversity necessary to sustain life on this planet. People who voiced concern for the planet over the course of the past several decades were labeled hippies, treehuggers, irrational, non-realists, and the like. We have come a long way from the beginning days of our industrial revolution, and the tide is beginning to shift once again. It is becoming more and more mainstream to care about the planet, and those who strive to preserve biodiversity are being hailed as heroes; I don’t see Big Oil or Big Coal winning any international awards, I see them fighting for their very survival as their empire begins to crumble beneath their feet.

Over the past decade, sustainable economics has moved from an obscure concept that was developed solely in Ecology and Environmental Science academic centers to now, where it is at the center of discussion in big business’ development strategies. Companies like IBM, GE, BP, (even Dell) and the like have begun to see a strategic advantage in developing renewable energy and sustainable business practices (or at least talking about it). They say that change happens slowly, and perhaps, it could be that we need to talk about this concept for two decades or so before we begin acting on the principles being discussed here.

The question being sounded by scientists and economists alike is whether or not we have time to waste. On a global scale, America and China are systematically beginning to position themselves to be the worldwide leader of clean energy. We fought the cold war against the Soviet Union to fight back communism in the past, and now we are seemingly allowing communist China to position itself at the forefront of the clean energy revolution while America clings to the dirty industrial habits of the past. It is only a matter of time before sustainable business is the global standard, and if America sits on its hands much longer, other countries in the world will seize the massive fortunes that will pour into the clean energy industry as the next generation matures and comes into power.

Over the past decade, America has used its resources to attack the clean energy industry; instead of seeing the transfer of power as an opportunity, the establishment sees it as a threat, but this generational shift in the tide of economic philosophy can not be held back. The future generations are beginning to fight back.

Under attack are some of the most prominent myths perpetuated by old-school thinking. Among them is the idea that increasing production in new industries associated with renewable energy requires additional resource use. Established businesses use this argument when lobbying government as the main reason for not supporting sustainable energy policies. This may be true at first, but long-term projections prove this concept wrong. For example, developments in the solar industry will require use of silicon and other industrial chemicals in the industry’s first years of development, but once established, solar cells can deliver energy with no pollution and relatively low maintenance costs compared with the fossil fuel and coal industry that we are currently dependent upon to meet our energy needs. Reductions in CO2 emissions alone, over the lifetimes of solar cells, is reason enough to abandon the oil and coal industries entirely.

The myths that are centered on regulating pollution are also false. Any efforts to reduce pollution will affect the bottom line negatively, we are told. Environmental issues are best dealt with through public relations campaigns; this is how Big Oil and Big Coal choose to deal with the problem. Marketing is the best way to change the public perception of the crisis we are in; this is what many companies today are basing their business strategies upon. This is a short-sighted strategy that will lead to the ultimate collapse of the entire economic system within one generation. If we begin to figure into the bottom line of oil and coal companies the cost of pollution, it is a simple accounting problem that will bankrupt the entire American economy. Business as usual has brought us to the precipice that we now stand upon.

It is time for America to begin its transition to a clean energy economy; it is time to encourage innovation. Whether it is a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, American business will be better served on its march toward innovation by regulating carbon. Regulating carbon will finally put a fair value on our most precious resources, and it will punish those who seek to destroy life on earth and hope in the future for the ensuing generations. It is always better to innovate than it is to hold on to the errors of the past as though they were dogma (as it always has been); to hold on to the past is to admit failure. The future generations of this country should always remain the most treasured resource we have, and their prospects should be protected with every breath we take. To fight his fight is to be a true patriot, as well as a global citizen.

Globally, the movement of economic policy toward sustainable business practices is well under way. In 1992, the United Nations hosted the Earth Summit. At this meeting, a global environmental bill of rights was drafted, which detailed ‘principles for economic and environmental behavior of peoples and nations.’ (UN) The topics of most concern at the 1992 meeting were forest management, climate, and biodiversity. Since then, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has evolved to draft a global treaty signed by a majority of the nations on earth; albeit the largest polluters on the planet refused to sign (the United States, China, and India). The global climate treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan was a step in the right direction for the planet, the people, and our entire economic system. It forced businesses to innovate towards better efficiencies. America chose to stick to its guns, defending the industries of pollution, inefficiency, and waste.

The world as a whole is moving toward sustainability. Globally, many national governments have created their own research channels into sustainable development that are responsible for ‘integrating the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in policy-making at international, regional, and national levels coordinating efforts between all sectors of society.’ (UN) Countries that fail to adopt sustainable methods of development, for the time-being, are still included in the global marketplace, but the time is coming when tariffs and regulations will be put in place that will leave them far behind the rest of the world that takes the initiative to innovate now.

In the United States, because of backward thinking involving energy policy over the past decade or so, individual states have banded together in regional treaties and have adopted their own sustainable economic plans in direct opposition to federal policy regarding environmental regulations. Regional agreements in New England, the Midwest, and the West Coast have been implemented to foster renewable energy development and sustainable policies through a carbon emission regulation marketplace. Combined, member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Northeast), the Western Climate Initiative (Northwest), and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (Midwest) and their observers contain a majority of American States who are ahead of the national curve. These agreements made by individual governors have allowed America to begin its clean energy revolution in spite of opposition from the federal government, who seemingly have been bought off by industrial lobbyist insiders.

While every region of the United States is beginning to regulate emissions, we will use the Northwest region as our example here to highlight some of the language and societal changes that will take place over the course of the next several decades. The city of Portland has required ‘all of its bureaus and agencies to integrate sustainable principles into plans that impact transportation, housing, land use, economic development, energy use, air quality, water quality and supply, solid and hazardous waste, and many other areas.’ The city also broadcasts its acceptance of policies that ‘maintain a stable, diverse and equitable economy, protect the quality of the air, water, land and other natural resources, conserve native vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat as well as other ecosystems, and minimize human impacts on local and worldwide ecosystems.’ In addition, ‘elected officials and staff are encouraged to develop connections between environmental quality and economic vitality, promote development that reduces adverse effects on ecology and the natural resources, and include long-term and cumulative impacts in decision making that protects the natural beauty and diversity of the city for future generations.’ (City of Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability) This is sound government policy!

The overall theme shows the direction that many of America’s largest cities are beginning to head. This path toward sustainability, over the coming decades, will be lined with opportunities as businesses adapt to the environmental regulations of the twenty-first century. As the federal government comes more into line with the individual states’ policies, America as a whole can then begin the business of exporting these new technologies that will come about from our environmental regulations. If we just have the courage to innovate and evolve our economic system toward sustainability, the United States can become the world leader in renewable energy technology, and we will be able to secure the American economy for the entire duration of the twenty-first century. We have the talent and the resources; all we lack is the political will. It would be a shame to allow the greed from one generation of Americans to take away opportunities from several successive generations of Americans.

This transition to sustainable economics is not limited to America. The European Union’s renewable energy industry has been growing for nearly a decade now. China is beginning to innovate towards sustainability. Brazil has reached energy independence. Russia, on the other hand, is frantically trying to secure oil and natural gas resources in the regions surrounding the country. We, here, in America have a choice. We can either see this trend toward sustainability and move to the front of the innovation curve, or we can hide our heads in the sand and prepare to fight more and more wars in the future as dwindling resources are controlled by fewer and fewer players. If we hide our heads in the sand, we are dooming future generations of Americans to failure, and this should be an inconceivable concept in a country that is founded on the principles of opportunity.

There has been plenty of research published in the last decade that has pointed us towards the conclusion that is being drawn here; that is, now is the time to act. A democracy allows the voices of the majority to drown out the lobbyists and industrial insiders. If America is a democracy, then we investors have the opportunity to put our money where our children’s and grandchildren’s mouths and futures are. The dissenting voices on climate change and ecological pollution are beginning to wane. The blueprints have been drafted and the bandwagon is being constructed. As the former generations of the past century lose their grip on power, and the younger generations reach maturity, America will choose nothing less than hope, prosperity, and optimism (like we have done throughout our past). The age of fossil fuels is coming to an end over the course of the next century, and clean energy and sustainable business practices will become the new standard. Innovation will, at first, be encouraged through governmental policy, but as it has been in the past, once capitalism take hold of an idea, individuals will use the free market to drive the innovation curve to maturity.

Many foresighted businesses have seen this trend and have already begun to adopt sustainable practices. This initiative, now being picked up by many of today’s most successful businesses, is beginning a ripple effect that is traveling all the way through the halls of Washington D.C. United States Federal Policy is beginning to change. The coming Clean Energy Revolution has the potential to not only allow the world’s ecosystems a buffer period in which to recover, but it also provides a path for America to retain it position of leadership in the world.


_____________________________________________________web recomendation
The Center for American Progress
www.americanprogress.org

CAP was founded in 2003 and has a progressive slant. The ideas and discussions pursued by this organization are meant to challenge the conservative agenda. This think-tank is dedicated to restoring America’s global leadership, developing a clean energy economy, and delivering universal health care. While progressives are often termed idealistic by conservatives, CAP is realistic in its agenda; the thought that America is a land of unlimited possibilities is essentially American. The reports put out by CAP will become more influential in an Obama Administration and will serve as good preparation for foresighted investors seeking to secure their investments for future generations.