Category Archives: sustainable development

Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability in the Trump Administration

By: Steve Rochlin, Co-CEO, IO Sustainability, Twitter: @SteveRochlin

The trends arising from the new Trump Administration make corporate responsibility and sustainability (CR&S) more central to business success than ever. At first this may seem counter-intuitive. Yet, recent history suggests that Republican controlled Administrations and Congresses create conditions that drive companies to enhance their commitments to CR&S. Ronald Reagan issued an executive order creating a task force calling for business to do more in alleviating social problems. George W. Bush encouraged greater corporate engagement. At the same time, activism calling for business to take on greater responsibility and leadership for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance intensifies from NGOs, investors, and media.

The private sector will have a central and often unique relationship with the Administration. One expects the Administration to pare back environmental, safety, and other regulations; corporate taxes; reporting requirements such as those for conflict minerals and extractive industry tax and royalty payments; and engagement in international agreements from Basel III to the Paris Climate Agreement. At the same time, the Administration will advance a mix of carrots and sticks to keep domestic jobs and invest in infrastructure. The Administration will seek to redo social support systems such as the Affordable Care Act, and push education, housing, health, and welfare programs to the states. Foreign policy will mix assertive and isolationist stances. The Administration will pinpoint trade and international aid efforts to areas that are viewed to enhance security, job creation, or both.

This agenda will move forward in the first multi-media Presidency to operate and communicate at the pace of internet time. In this context CR&S will be an essential Swiss Army Knife supporting business development and sales, enterprise risk management, brand and reputation, and HR. Companies should take the following steps.

1) Rethink your approach about gaining ROI from CR&S

Executives will experience admonishments that shift from one extreme – dismantle the company’s costly and distracting ESG commitments – to the other – redouble commitments and take bold ESG leadership. Designing a clear and measurable strategy to prioritize and invest in core CR&S areas is a business essential.

Fortunately, evidence from the recently published “Project ROI” report shows CR&S if done well can bump share price up by 6%, increase sales up to 20%, reduce employee turnover by half, and deliver a host of financial risk, productivity, and reputational benefits. Project ROI gives guidance on how to achieve these results and measure outcomes.

This has never been more important as we shift away from debates about privatizing public services, to innovating business solutions for the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The “SDGs” represent a $12 trillion opportunity that could create 380 million new jobs. Companies and business initiatives such as the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, IBM, NovoNordisk, and Unilever among many others are taking advantage. As they do, trends suggest that the mainstream investor community will intensify their positions that ESG performance represents an increasingly important predictor of financial performance.

2) Deepen voluntary ESG commitments and reporting

Reagan presciently saw the growing influence of the court of public opinion. A new landscape of organized activists and media has extra-judicial power. Over the last three decades, companies have participated in a massive global experiment to create self-policing stewardship mechanisms across a wide range of ESG issues from chemical-use, emissions, forests, fish, human rights, and many others. The more regulatory constraints are lifted, the higher expectations will rise for companies – especially the the biggest brands and leaders in every industry — to manage their impacts on the environment and communities. They’ll be expected more than ever before to hold their suppliers accountable for meeting so-called, “civic regulation.” It will be more important than ever to find the sweet spot between wider societal needs, and high priority ESG issues that require both management and reporting.

Some industry segments will take advantage, adhering to minimum legal requirements to undercut the costs of ESG compliance leaders. As corporate ESG reporting, commitments, and partnerships continue to establish the new normal for business success, the more these free riders will lose out.

3) Hew strongly to your company’s core values in taking public positions

The current Administration is inventing new ways to engage with the public using new and traditional media. Industries and brands are in the spotlight in ways never seen before. Project ROI finds that the public evaluates the authenticity of corporate responses and positions, and looks to the perceived reaction of employees as a barometer. Culture and values are core to determining where and when companies should pick sides or stay out of the fray. Every company should form a rapid response team with Corporate Communications, Government and Public Affairs, Legal, HR, and the CR&S team leaders attached at the hip.

4) Build your own constituency

The politicization of consumer purchasing behavior is maturing in Europe, and reaching adolescence in the US. Stakeholder outreach is no longer a side activity tied to sustainability requirements. Risk management will increasingly require companies to have access to their own constituent networks willing to serve as character witnesses, advocates, brand ambassadors, intermediaries, and intelligence agents as marketplaces, policy, and politics increasingly intermesh. Companies like Nestlé and Target and collaborative multi-stakeholder initiatives, are finding ways to define how ESG stakeholders can support competitive success. Companies will be wise to move from current forms of stakeholder engagement to corporate constituency development as the Tweets and messages fly.

5) Engage on agreed areas of collective need

Domestically this means jobs and infrastructure. Underneath these tent poles are a host of potential solutions and social innovations such as work force development (see Accenture and PwC), addressing economic opportunity (see Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Walmart), education (see IBM,), health (see Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Campbell Soup Company, Pfizer), and resilience.

Global companies cannot neglect emerging gaps involved in serving international issues. Now is the time to invest in creative and strategic approaches to international development.

Instruments from corporate and workplace community investment, volunteering, R&D, and cause marketing will become more strategic than ever before. The need to demonstrate progress in solving issues will outpace the need to obtain traditional photo-ops and sponsorship branding.

The bottom line is this: don’t myopically focus on the favorable tax and regulatory agenda. Companies should prepare now to be called from all quarters to partner and lead on ESG issues at an unprecedented level of intensity.

IGEL at the COP22

By Eleanor Mitch, CEO and Founder of EM Strategy Consulting, Wharton alumna

The swift approval and ratification of the Paris Agreement[1] (104 countries of the 197, or 58%, have ratified the agreement!) was nothing short of “miraculous” in CIDCE[2] president Michel Prieur[3]’s words. Never before had an international agreement been so rapidly approved and adopted by so many nations in such a short span of time (approximately 1 year). Indeed, Prieur, one of the “fathers” of the principle of non-regression in environmental law, was instrumental in ensuring the addition of “this momentum is irreversible” in para.4 of the Marrakech Action Proclamation[4]. He has participated in the drafting of many international conventions since the 1970s and sees great hope in the rapid action even though we and future generations will still have to face the grave effects of climate change.

As part of this historic movement of awakening to the realities of the changes climate change must bring about, Wharton IGEL was represented with a presentation in absentia[5] by Eric Orts[6] on the implications for business of the Paris Agreement. Indeed, one of the key sectors that will be facing changes is the business sector. While markets have already chosen more sustainable energy sources in some areas (investments in wind and solar power, and Morocco boasts the world’s largest solar power plant, which just went live in 2016[7]), much more needs to be done, all throughout the supply chain, especially in Operations.

For the first time ever at a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC-COP), an event uniting the ITC[8], IFAD[9], WTO[10], UNCTAD[11], UNFCCC[12] and UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation[13] was held to discuss how to move forward with business and trade on the Paris Agreement. During the event, Wharton IGEL Alumni Eleanor Mitch raised the point of the role of business schools, and especially IGEL’s, in leading the way to new business opportunities and innovation in sustainability. Given that Wharton graduates and those of other business schools will become business leaders, it is important to strengthen ties with the international law-making, enforcing bodies and business schools to prepare graduates to provide services and products for the challenges the world faces: environmentally displaced persons, sea-level rising, sustainable energy and consumption among others. Innovation and creativity-driven prosperity can come hand-in-hand with sustainable development.

 

[1] https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

[2] http://cidce.org/

[3] http://cidce.org/structures-institutional/

[4] http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/application/pdf/marrakech_action_proclamation.pdf

[5] Eleanor Mitch, presented for Eric Orts

[6] http://cidce.org/presentations-cop-22-cop-22-presentations/

[7] http://www.greenprophet.com/2016/02/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-goes-live-in-morocco/

[8] http://www.intracen.org/

[9] https://www.ifad.org/

[10] https://www.wto.org/

[11] http://unctad.org/en/Pages/Home.aspx

[12] unfccc.int

[13] http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6406/php/view/reports.php#c

After Fossil Fuels: The Next Economy

By Eric W. Orts, Guardsmark Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Faculty Director, Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership

October 10, 2016

David Orr asked me to serve as a rapporteur for the conference that he organized (with a little help from his friends) at Oberlin College and was held from October 5-7, 2016, and I happily agreed. Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership was one of the first of a number of other organizations to agree to co-sponsor this conference, but the work of attracting a remarkable group of leading experts fell mostly to David and his staff. And what an impressive group they assembled! I have gone to conferences relating to the topic of climate change for more than twenty years, and this was by far the most impressive group of its kind. Headline keynotes were given by celebrity “top influencers” including Bill McKibben, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tom Steyer. In addition, the top executives of organizations including the Sierra Club ad CERES attended, as well as such other well-known names as Gar Alperovitz, Robert Kuttner, Hunter Lovins, and Bill Ritter.

My charge here is to attempt to review the overall course of the conference and to distill some of the major themes. My apologies in advance to anyone at the conference who may feel that I give them short shrift. Inevitably, my own intellectual bias will intrude in selecting the most important themes, but I hope to be as objective as possible in my reporting role. I will also try to be brief.

The conference divided roughly into three parts which were addressed on each day. Of course, different speakers crossed over into different areas, but in general there was an attempt to follow an agenda of organization that would lead to cumulative learning and engagement. Day 1 was devoted to a series of presentations on “theory.” Day 2 focused on elements of the post-carbon “next economy.” Day 3 considered “politics.” This report will follow this division, with transitional keynotes discussed as bridges between the categories.

Day 1: Theory

Elements of the theory needed to make progress on addressing the very large problem of global climate change were addressed by various presentations. These elements included the following.

Vision of sustainability. One must have a working definition of the goal one seeks to accomplish, and perhaps the best reference one can give here is to David Orr’s most recent book, Dangerous Years: Climate Change, the Long Emergency, and the Way Forward (2016). Both economics and politics are necessary to engage, as well as the science providing a background understanding of the challenge. A social transformation is needed to wean human civilization from the destructive use of fossil fuels—namely, coal, oil, and natural gas—and to replace them with renewable energy—such as solar, thermal, wind, and others. Making progress in greater efficiency and conservation in the use of energy is another imperative.

Systems approach. The study of interactions between the natural environment and social behavior and organizations requires a theoretical orientation appreciative of systems, rather than a reductive focus on linear processes. The “next economy” requires innovative new design and reform at both micro (local) and macro (global) levels.

Ethics and values. A general theoretical challenge is to incorporate a new sense of sustainable values and ethics into the social processes of business, work, capital markets, politics, and government. Views of business and markets as concerned strictly with “profit maximization” are inconsistent with this moral requirement. Seeing government as only a game used by people to gain power and influence is similarly impoverished.

Optimistic narratives and stories.   We know from studies in psychology that “optimism is functional” (see Martin Seligman’s work), and a general prescription from the conference seems to be that an optimistic attitude is best even when dealing with the very hard facts of current and impending climate change, including the relentless rise in global concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the fact that average global temperatures continue to set new records. Several presenters noted that 2014, 2015, and 2016 have been progressively the warmest years on record. Fourteen of the last fifteen years have been the hottest ever recorded. Nevertheless, theoretical attitudes toward solving the problem cannot succeed if they fall victim to pessimistic despondency and inaction. New language, metaphors, and concepts are needed. My own view, for example, is that rethinking the purpose and design of business firms is needed as one part of the larger solution (see Orts, Business Persons (2015)). Various presenters focused also on a need to rethink traditional concepts such as “capital” and “eco-system services.” The meanings of “sustainability” itself and somewhat newer ideas of “resilience” are also evolving.

Measurement and accountability. Scientific assessment of progress at all levels is needed as part of the theoretical background. Progress cannot be assumed, and the Paris Agreement opens the door toward better international accounting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and various mitigation or adaptation strategies adopted by and within nation-states. Other large institutions, such as business corporations and nonprofits, should also install reliable internal accounting standards and practices, following the well-known mantra that “you manage what you measure.” Questions were raised about whether older measures of economic progress such as gross domestic product (GDP) continue to be useful—or whether it would be better to develop and follow new measures of well-being, sustainability, happiness, and freedom from hunger and homelessness.

Fairness and justice. Other key principles—emphasized, for example, by Nikki Silvestri—are fairness and justice, including especially racial justice. The phenomenon of Trump indicates also that many poor and working class whites in the United States have been hurt by current status quo policies. Everyone should be considered when making proposals for change, reform, and reinvention. Progress on climate change will not occur unless all citizens and consumers are respected and included.

McKibben Keynote

Bill McKibben provided a keynote in Finney Chapel at the end of the first day, and as a leading environmental activist (and indeed perhaps the best known activist who led the fight that shut down the Keystone Pipeline) his discussion focused on the need for a citizens’ movement to counteract the inertia and special interests supporting the status quo. McKibben struck three main themes.

Time.   First, climate change is unlike other social problems because incremental, slow progress will not be enough. Adverse effects from global warming are occurring faster than had been predicted twenty years ago. Arctic ice has melted. Ocean have acidified. Very soon, vast amounts of methane may release into the atmosphere from northern tundra landscapes. “If we do not solve [the problem] fast,” said McKibben, “we will not solve it.”

Stop fossil fuels now. According to one recent report, coal, oil, and natural gas companies own reserves that amount to four to five times the amount of carbon that can be safely emitted without blowing through the two degree Celsius average global temperature ceiling agreed as a target in the recent Paris Agreement. Another more recent report has found that current resources already being tapped by these companies will be enough to push the world past two degrees. For McKibben, and for some other environmentalists at the conference, such as the Sierra Club, this means that all expansions of fossil fuel production and distribution should be opposed and, if possible, immediately halted.

Force the change. McKibben sees the status quo, as represented by big fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and their political influence, as the primary obstacle to positive change. Citizens coming together in a broad-based movement is the only way to counter the political influence of big oil and other large energy companies. A “Keystone-ization” needs to spread to other controversies, such as the current standoff at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to block the Dakota Access pipeline. There has been a long string of recent victories, and McKibben makes a strong argument that these should continue. Politics at the national level also matters, and McKibben opposes Trump on grounds that his campaign denies climate science and threatens to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Day 2: The Next Economy

                  Day 2 was devoted mostly to what the “next economy” in a post-carbon world would look like. Some participants, such as Gar Alperovitz, focused on the need for new local initiatives that break with the standard model of capitalist financing and management. Many examples of creative grassroots economic development were given, and a key lesson from many presentations is that good jobs are necessary for any environmental reform to succeed. The next economy must provide for secure and well-paid new jobs, because otherwise there will be no political will to make the change from business-as-usual. At the same time, other participants, such as Hunter Lovins, argued that big companies must become part of the solution too. Unilever and Walmart were discussed as positive examples, though a general consensus appeared to support the view that most large corporations were clueless, too casual, or actively dissembling (greenwashing). This widespread lack of true engagement by most businesses in finding climate solutions needs to change.

The financial markets play a large role in the problem as well. Mindy Lubber, the CEO of Ceres, examined various success stories of institutional investors pressuring public companies to disclose risk and performance measures regarding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission has an important task to set “materiality” disclosure standards relating to climate change. Although the size of social impact investing may not yet have had a huge influence, it seems to be growing, and interest on college and university campuses regarding investment policies for endowments (including divestment) has been increasing too.

Mark Campanale of Carbon Tracker provided a well-received analysis of the “carbon bubble” that he and his colleagues have found in the disclosures of fossil fuel companies. A large percentage of assets currently owned by these firms “can’t be burned” if the two degree limit is to be respected. As a result, many of these companies may be financially overvalued—on the optimistic assumption that the political will is forthcoming to curtail this business model. At the moment, however, major investors do not seem perturbed—and they appear to be betting, then, that the two degree limit will be exceeded.

As for solutions, Campanale and other pointed out that the scale of the problem requires massive government (as well as private) investment. Historical low interest rates should be used to finance as much as $70 trillion in global investment in the repair and enhancement of infrastructure, including new smart grids and the development of renewable energy sources. (This very large number compares with $60 trillion as the approximate value of all publicly traded companies in the world.) A number of presenters spoke of the need for a scale of investment to address climate change similar to the expenditures made in fighting World War II. (And one questioner usefully asked: What will be the equivalent of a “Pearl Harbor moment” to provide sufficient motivation for this scale of investment?)

The need to engage with all people, especially those who feel disenfranchised or ignored by globalization, was emphasized, including urban black and white rural populations. Religious groups provide an essential organizational nexus for transformation at the local level. And leaders such as Pope Francis can have large influence at the global level. The role of cities, which account for 72 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, is also key. Joan Fitzgerald noted that the average greenhouse gas emissions in large cities were commonly much less that the average emissions of their countries as a whole. For example, average per capita emissions in New York and San Francisco are less than a third of average emissions of the United States as a whole.

New paradigms were also discussed, such as a need to move toward an objective of “plenitude,” as advocated by Juliet Schor, instead of economic growth. An attitude of plenitude adopts a view that natural resources should be enjoyed rather than exploited. And climate change policies need to fit into a larger strategic template that include other large-scale problems, according to Mark Mykleby and Patrick Doherty. Sustainability should go hand-in-hand with policies promoting economic prosperity and national security.

Brune Keynote

Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, gave a transitional keynote speech that echoed McKibben’s call to oppose the expansion of the fossil fuel industry as a primary target. He first noted an impressive record of success for environmentalists, particularly in the Beyond Coal campaign. Of 200 coal plants proposed fourteen years ago, for example, 90 percent were stopped by coordinated activism and litigation. Six years ago, there were 523 coal plants in the United States, and today more than half of them have been retired. The well-known example of stopping the Keystone Pipeline has been replicated by a string of recent environmentalist victories against similar pipelines and projects. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the overall cost of solar and wind technologies has become very competitive with, and often cheaper than, traditional coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear alternatives.

Brune then drew several lessons from his experience that provided a bridge to discussion about politics in the final day of the conference.

Keep winning. Recent environmentalist victories against the expansion of fossil fuel facilities should continue and, if possible, accelerate.

Reach out to Republicans and Independents as allies. Brune was the first to tag this theme which was later repeated by others. Many of the Sierra Club “wins” have occurred in very politically conservative areas of the country. Climate change cannot remain a cause only of one major party in the United States. Polls show majorities of Republicans believe in climate science and support transitional strategies (despite the rhetoric to the contrary expressed at the top national level). Supermajorities of the American public support policies to counter climate change as well, including many business leaders.

Get active.   People must organize and vote in order for change to happen. Solutions also must work for everyone (a repeated theme throughout the conference). Businesses that embrace climate friendly policies should be welcomed. And “what victory looks like” must include new well-paying jobs, including for unemployed coal miners and persistently marginalized populations.

Moss and Steyer Keynotes

A tag-team keynote session with Otis Moss and Tom Steyer highlighted themes of religion, race, and generational engagement as important. Moss reflected on his own effort to explain and translate environmental issues such as climate change to his religious constituents in order to make change “by any greens necessary.” Environmental justice links with racial justice in the United States, and Moss also emphasized the essential task of engaging younger people.

Tom Steyer agreed with the need to engage youth and described his efforts with NextGen Climate which, for example, has a presence now on fifty college campuses in Ohio. Steyer cited polls that indicated extremely high levels of support for clean energy solutions (around 80% of younger voters) and a transition to a 100% clean energy economy (91% of Millennials according to one poll).

Religious leaders are important as well, and the recent encyclical by Pope Francis carries great weight. Historically conservative icons such as leaders in the military provide another fulcrum from which change may be leveraged.

Day 3: Politics

It is fair to say that the outsized Arnold Schwarzenegger stole the show on the last day of the conference. The former Republican Governor of California made an impassioned case for both parties to tackle the challenge of climate change in a bipartisan manner. His catchphrase, riffing on a famous speech by Obama, was that “there is no Democratic water and Republican water; no Democratic air and Republican air.” He embodied pleas by other participants that Republicans had to come to the table, and he was hard to miss or ignore.

Sharing the stage with Tom Steyer, a Democrat who is known for bankrolling politicians who embrace climate friendly positions, the former Governor elevated California as an example that the rest of the United States could follow. Simply “copy us,” said Schwarzenegger, and I “guarantee” economic growth as well as climate progress. He compared California’s economic and environmental success to Germany’s.

In addition, Schwarzenegger emphasized that the fossil fuel companies (which he described as mostly coming from Texas) had to be opposed. He claimed, with respect to their attempts to lobby against reform, that “we terminated them.” (At the same time, he recognized the ability to work with them on climate-friendly projects such the introduction of hydrogen fuel by Chevron in California.) He reiterated a theme heard throughout the conference that policies to address climate change had to provide good jobs too. In his view, California provides an example for other states (including Ohio and Texas) that green policies can lead to economic prosperity. Interestingly, Schwarzenegger found that some of the biggest opponents of environmental policies or initiatives were in fact environmentalists. For example, proposals to build new solar plants in deserts were opposed and delayed on grounds of threats to endangered species such as tortoises.

Steyer largely agreed with Schwarzenegger on the main points. Both argued for economic growth (which was a contested idea for other participants who see a conflict emerging between growth and sustainability). Both emphasized the importance of jobs. Both made the case of a shift toward bipartisan engagement at the national level.

Earlier in the day, Robert Kuttner provided an incisive commentary on the current political situation. White working class people hurt by governmental policies for several decades appear to have become a wild card supporting the likes of Trump and his anti-establishment, anti-globalization, and anti-science rhetoric. Commenting on “the presence of prophetic voices” at the conference, such as McKibben, Kuttner argued that the deeper roots of Trumpism had to be recognized and countered in order to establish a political consensus to address climate change.   He argued against the “liberal elitism” that embraced climate change as a major issue and yet ignored large losses in wealth and well-being of large swaths of the population. A “possible politics” to remedy the situation could focus on reducing levels of material consumption and reversing the incentives that encourage what he called “predatory capitalism.” He also echoed calls by others at the conference for a massive investment in infrastructure, taking advantage of historically low interest rates. Climate change is a challenge “such as we’ve never faced,” he said, and we are “groping for analogies (but not in Trump’s sense of groping).” Kuttner concluded with one memorable quote from the conference, reflecting on the need to take our grandchildren’s perspective into account: “We need not just to be right; we need to win.”

Conclusion

Many others paid tribute to David Orr at the conference, and his inspiration informed many contributions. I will do so here as well, and mention again that these reflections are sifted through my own particular lenses. I would urge interested readers to consult sources provided at the conference for further avenues of self-edification and engagement. I will leave the last word to Orr, though, and quote the following from his new book, which I believe embraces the spirit of the conference overall:

I do not believe that we are fated to destroy the Earth by fire, heat, or technology run amok. But if there is a happier future it will come down to this: to act with compassion and energy, our hearts must be in it; to act intelligently, we must understand that we are but one part of an interrelated global system; to act effectively and justly, we must be governed by accountable, transparent, and robust democratic institutions; and to act sustainably, we must live and work within the limits of our natural system over the longterm. (Dangerous Years, p. xi)

If we are as a civilization in some measure successful in addressing the massive challenge of climate change, the Oberlin conference on “After Fossil Fuels: The Next Economy” will have had some role in inspiring and informing this future success. It was a privilege to be there for the experience, for the education, and for the inspiration.

Practises that make sustainable development a reality

By Willem Adrianus de Bruijn

The only way to survive with more than seven billion consumers is that each and every one of them spends his money only on products that keep nature in perfect condition.

Consumers will do so the very moment that they are allowed to deduct from their taxable income the money they spend on such products. They will then be driven by self interests and financial interests, two powerful drives in the behaviour of mankind, to maintain ways of living that keep the integrity of Nature.  To safeguard this integrity will be the goal with which these consumers spend their money.

They will continue to demand goods and services that do not impair the environment until they live in harmony with nature.  Then they will not pay income taxes anymore.  The damages to the environment done by the ways of living of consumers will at that time have been reduced to zero.  The costs of these damages by our present ways of living are more than the amount of income taxes, which consumers pay.  When consumers do not harm nature more public funds will therefore be available.

Another way to remunerate the consumer for keeping nature sound is by reimbursing him with a percentage of the purchase price of the ecological products he buys.  This percentage could be an average of the income tax rates consumers pay.  This method can also be applied in countries where consumers do not pay income taxes.

Producers will have to satisfy the demand of these consumers by supplying the goods and services that sustain the good condition of nature.  The goal, which producers pursue will then be the same as the goal of the consumer, to maintain the integrity of nature.  This will be the sense of the development of the economy.

The sense of development is determined by the goal with which the consumer spends his money.  This is a new concept, which I have founded in the science of economy.

The only goal with which the consumer can spend his money in the present economy is, Consume more.  This goal is sustained by the macro economic practise of maintaining growth in development.  Growth in the development of the economy implies producing more, however production figures are incorporated in the statistics of the GNP’s only if that what is produced is also sold, thus consumed.  To maintain growth in development implies therefore that consumers consume always more.

It is not possible to continue consuming more of limited resources without inevitably depleting them.  Having consumed more of the limited resources of this planet since commerce began and particularly since the beginning of the industrial revolution has brought us to the limits of nature, where commerce is stagnating.  No growth is possible anymore, except in economies where the limits of nature have not yet been reached, as was the case in China.  The statistics about the economies in the industrialised and developed countries show that there is no more growth in the development of these economies.  Even the approximately 0% interest rates central banks maintain, like the FED and the ECB, cannot get the economies going again, let alone growing.

When producers and consumers pursue the goal of maintaining the integrity of Nature, the macro-economic practise to keep the economy going will become, to preserve this integrity in the development of the economy.

The prerequisite to remunerate the consumer for buying products that leave the environment unblemished is based on three new concepts.

As explained above, one is, the consumer determines the sense of development with the goal, which he pursues when he spends his money.

Another one is, the consumer has a professional responsibility in the operation of the economy, namely to maintain ways of living that safeguard the integrity of Nature.  It is indeed only the consumer who can ensure this integrity, because he can do it by adapting his ways of living until he lives in agreement with nature.

A third concept is, in order to achieve an optimum efficiency in the utilisation of resources, costs have to be managed at the source of the incomes, which they generate. This means that the people who earn the incomes should manage the costs with which they create them.  When consumers manage the costs of living the efficiency of utilising natural resources in their ways of living will eventually attain the best possible efficiency.  At that moment more than enough goods and services will be produced so that there is no more poverty because there will be enough for everybody.   Everyone can then enjoy compatible levels of well being.  People who share satisfaction live in peace.

This will happen when the consumer is paid for managing his costs of living in order to safeguard the integrity of Nature.  The sooner this is done, the quicker the ecological- and economic crises are solved, poverty is terminated and people will live in peace.

Not to remunerate the consumer for doing his job leaves him consuming more and thus further damaging the planet until it is destroyed.  The time left to do so seems to end in 2030, according to the Club of Rome.  It is less than half a generation away.

Considering the logic to reward the consumer for keeping the environment in impeccable state, the theory sustaining the need to pay the consumer is not one to be discussed but one to be applied.  Any activity should be undertaken to oblige lawmakers to legalise these payments.  Knowingly refusing to do so makes from these lawmakers criminals committing crimes against humanity.

Exploring Diverse Approaches to Urban Agriculture: A Case Study of Three Connecticut Cities

By Ben Laufer, in partnership with Joanne Spigonardo of IGEL

Abstract

Urban agriculture and urban farming, historically often referred to as “community gardens,” have reemerged in recent years due to growing interest in environmental sustainability and local self-reliance. Proponents of the concept have vouched for urban farming’s ability to repurpose land in an effort to spur economic development, provide educational opportunities, reduce current environmental impacts, and strengthen public health. However, few studies have been conducted that create metrics to thoroughly evaluate the impacts of urban agriculture in different sectors. As a result, a lack of data and conclusions have followed, creating a growing landscape of farms without many necessary tools and appropriate information to yield consistent and effective results. Due to the local characteristics of urban farms, there has been little uniformity between organizations’ efforts, leading cities even within states to have differing models and reasons for implementation. The foundation of this report will be constructed from an analysis of US urban agriculture trends and impacts. This report aims to look at case studies from three of Connecticut’s most populated, culturally diverse, and food insecure cities (New Haven, Hartford, and Bridgeport) the role of urban agriculture in each and the impacts and setbacks they’ve experienced. In the concluding remarks, propositions of how to best create effective, innovative, and adaptable solutions will be discussed, as well as the potential for urban agriculture’s role in future sustainable development.

For the complete report, click hereUrban Farming Report Draft IGEL-3