[Scpg] Think of the Economy as a Subsidiary of the Environment

[LBUZZELL at aol.com]

As we enter the New Year with concerns about further  economic decline, this 
article seems a timely reminder of the ultimate source of  prosperity...
 
Wishing you all New Year's blessings,
 
Linda
 
 
_http://www.truthout.org/123008U_ (http://www.truthout.org/123008U)  



_Think of the  Economy as a Subsidiary of the Environment_ 
(http://www.truthout.org/123008U) 
Friday 26 December 2008
by: Gaëlle Dupont, Le Monde 
Jacqueline  McGlade, a British scientist, directs the European Environment 
Agency (EEA),  based in Denmark. The EEA independently studies the state of the 
environment  within the European Union and evaluates the public policies 
conducted there for  the European Commission and Parliament and the Member States. 
Some 170 experts  work for the Agency. 
Le Monde: You are  publishing a report in the beginning of January 2009 about 
what's at stake in  2009 with respect to the environment that is intended to 
be much more accessible  to the larger public than your usual output. What is 
the objective  there? 
Citizens' influence in  2009 will be crucial. They must be informed of what 
will happen December in  Copenhagen, where the agreement that will succeed the 
Kyoto Protocol on the  reduction of greenhouse gases will be negotiated by all 
countries. Citizens hear  talk about global climate change, but don't have a 
clear idea of what's at  stake. Our objective is to make the stakes more 
accessible, to restore power to  citizens. The stakes are considerable. We are in 
the process of moving  dangerously far from a trajectory of security. Our 
greenhouse gas emissions are  growing faster than the most pessimistic scenarios. 
Do the consequences of climate change still  remain abstract in the eyes of th
e larger public? 
Yes. You must be aware  that, up until now, we have evolved in a very stable 
climatic environment. A  drop of a half-degree on average was sufficient to 
send us into the Little Ice  Age. Every degree counts. Our objective is to 
stabilize the rise in temperatures  to an additional two degrees [Celsius]. That's 
an extremely ambitious target,  and even with two additional degrees, we will 
no longer live the same way,  including in Europe. Water will no longer be as 
available. Agriculture will not  be able to stay the same. The tourist 
industry will have to evolve. But the  fight against climate change also contains 
some significant opportunities. For  example, the emission reduction measures in 
Europe will allow us to save some  8.5 billion euros a year in the fight 
against atmospheric pollutants. The  economies for European health services could 
reach 45 billion euros a year. 
Doesn't the fight  against climate change risk moving to the back burner at a 
time when most  people's living conditions are threatened by the economic 
crisis? 
We must use this time  to restructure the economy, to rethink the 
fundamentals. We don't have to  reconstitute the preceding economic model. The "New Green 
Deal" Barack Obama  talks about, that will lead to the creation of many 
"green" jobs, will not work  if, for example, we settle for replacing cars that run 
on gas for cars that run  on renewable carburants. The economy must be 
thought of as a 100 percent  subsidiary of the environment and the price we 
attribute to things re-evaluated.  If we take into account the true cost of the water 
and carburants necessary to  the manufacture and transport of goods, we will 
note that moving them around the  world - and even within Europe - as we do, is 
very expensive. 
The accord recently  concluded by the EU to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20 
percent between now and  2020 was greeted as an historic premier, but also 
criticized by nongovernmental  organizations (NGOs). What do you think of it? 
The politicians  effected an extremely audacious step forward. The NGOs may 
be right to say that  the accord is so complicated no one will be able to 
verify its application.  However, it sets such aggressive, such ambitious 
objectives, that it is already  forcing us to think differently. "Business as usual" 
will not suffice to achieve  them. Through the auctioning of quotas, a price 
will be set on polluting  emissions. That's a beginning, but that will not be 
enough. If they want to  reach their targets, countries will have to implement 
very proactive policies,  very fast. 
Do you think the  international community can come to a satisfactory 
agreement in  Copenhagen? 
That will depend on the  pressure from global publi_c opinion. Some signs are 
encouraging, such as, of  course, the arrival of the Obama team in the White 
House and the emergence of  new countries or groups of countries that want to 
take part in the fight against  global climate change. One of the big issues 
in the negotiations will be the  question of the financing and operation of the 
adaptation fund [subscribed to by  rich countries, its objective is to 
finance the actions of countries confronted  with the consequences of warming]. 
We must take care that  these funds actually serve to slow down climate 
change and to help adapt to it.  We will be accused of neocolonialism should we 
wish to control the use this  money is put to, but direct access to the funds by 
developing countries is not a  blank check. We must, perhaps, apply the 
scenario that obtains in the nuclear  industry, where the possibility of inspection 
by all parties exists. 
_ 
(http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2008/12/26/penser-l-economie-comme-une-filiale-de-l-environnement_1135613_3244.html#ens_id=1099506)  
 




**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/southern-california-permaculture/attachments/20081231/70ea24ba/attachment.html>