The principal problem with the scenarios posed under GEO3, is that the UN still remains a relatively weak organization which is primarily dominated by the US and other developed nations. The scenarios in GEO3 are posed under a world order where there is some ability to govern globalization through a strong international organization. The UN has not been able to effectively enforce very basic policies and programmes. The report mentions the Global Compact, which is a voluntary initiative. In Thailand and in many nations it has essentially accomplished nothing, but a rewriting of corporate social responsibility activities relative by member companies. It also may be viewed as the UN supporting various multinational corporations.
I propose a scenario with the Noosphere as a driver, that is global consciousness or intelligence which surrounds the ecosphere. In this scenario, the world recognizes evidence of GAIA, that is a living earth (Lovelock) becomes central to our thinking about development policies as we move towards 2032. We recognize that all living things are equal and have a great importance to the health of the ecosystem and furthermore ourselves. On a more practical note, we as individuals evolve to understand the similarities behind the world's religions and move towards a global consciousness. Under this paradigm corporations will be directly responsible for their product impacts. That is a so called massive takeback programme for all manufactured products such as televisions, computers, cars and other physical products. Energy companies will also be responsible for the impacts of their fuels not just emissions from the production of these fuel sources.
ENRM students, do you agree or disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It's an evolutionary idea, Alex. But can this be tied in or broaden onto the Sustainable-First scenario, as opposed to a new and alternative one?
You've raised some of very important issues in the context of Gaia, that is the right of all organisms. If I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest that every organism has rights of its own. However, I would like to rethink again. This is really important. On the basis of ecological perspectives, "right" cannot be understood without responsibility. I would like to encourage you to read Ken Weber's concept of "intrinsic" VS "extrinsic" rights and values. You will get more insights and perhaps make your argument more powerful and practical.
I look forward to hear more of this debate from you.
Ken Wilber says the following on intrinsic vs. extrinsic values,
"I have often written about what I think are the three main types of value in the world: intrinsic value, extrinsic value, and Ground value. Intrinsic value is the value a thing has in itself. Extrinsic value is the value a thing has for others. And Ground value is the value that all things have by reason of being manifestations of Spirit."
I agree with Fourthworld's suggestion to apply Wilber in this case. Based on Wilber's argument it may be more meaningful for humanity if we can understand not only concepts of equality, but interdependence. If we can understand how all living creatures can support each other, we may be one step further towards comprehending the complexity of the world. That is each living creature has a place on the earth, or an extrinsic value to each other. If understood through Gaia, we can say that this interdependence is important to the survival of humanity.
Good Alex. But do you have anything to say on "responsibility" when we talk about "right" of every organism?
The concept of the rights of every organism are based in deep ecology. I imply that all sentient and insentient beings have rights. However, I am not advocating rights in the legal sense. My argument is similar to Wilber's idea of an extrinsic right. In order to shift towards a more sustainable world, we must understand the complexity of interconnections required to sustain a living planet. And losing even one living creature destablizes our ecosystem. Furthermore, a reversal of global warming is not possible if humanity cannot realize these interconnections.
AKOMPAB COMMENTS
I think that it is really true the UN is a relatively weak organization dominated by the US.This may be due to the fact that the US plays by far the largest budget of the UN and also it evades the fact that the UN does not claim or pocess any monopoly on global governance and international institution authurity.GEO 3 i think is an important step made by UNEP to look at the global problems and using scenarios to project the future in 2032.This of course requires global conciousness on the prevailing situations that we face.
The UN i also think has been implimenting basic policies such as the policy on peace keeping and also some environmental policies such as The comission on sustainable development CSD, but the problem that is faced by the world is to strengthen and augment, national and international institutions capable of implementing the national standards norms and laws developed by the UN.
It is true that the global compact which is aimed at bringing together companies with UN agencies , civil societies to support universal environmental and social problems has accomplished nothing in Thailand. This may be due to the fact that local industries are not linked to global markets and the case of their engagement in global compact needs to be defined within a different global context.
There fore the aspect of global conciousness should be our prime objective and i also think that to meet this objective,humans have to realise that they are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development as they are entittled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
well i think it will not be that appropriate for cooporations and energy companies to be directly responsible for the impact of their productions because they will give little attention to this aspect and the effect will be adverse on a global scale affecting others not related to the companies. Therefore what i think is a collective approach to redress such problems that will bring together experts from different domains, just like what the UN is doing.
In response to Bleck, I agree with your statements concerning the UN and enforcement issues.
However, I would like to clarify my statements concerning the responsibility of companies. In Ecology of Commerce, they outline a new force for business where companies look more towards provision of a service than a product. A good example of this business paradigm is Interface Floor Covering. This company has a mission to create zero waste by 2010. If government policies went farther to support these types of companies and encourage others to follow suit, we could be in the midst of a sustainability-policy first scenario. There is no reason why energy companies could not innovate and reinvent themselves along these lines.
In response to Mr Alex's clarification
I think the point is clear , but then am still like curious about the resposibilities of companies.There fore when you talk of provison of services , do you actually mean in terms of redressing the effects of production or the products it self.Also creating zero waste by 2010 is not the problem , but what happens to the emissions during the process of waste reduction or treatment?Will the companies also be working on zero emisions?
Bleck good point and the answer is a difficult one. The company I mentioned is firstly focusing on zero waste. It is probable that they do create emissions as well. For industries such as petroleum their product generates CO2 on a secondary level, that is by the consumers. However, I feel that the producer should be in effect responsible for the harm their product contributes to the environment (from a legal standpoint, ie EPA or other body). Although, petroleum plants may reduce their emissions during the refining process, this is only one fraction of their responsibility/liability.
Thank you Mr Alex for your response. I look forward to further contributions.
Post a Comment