1. Instead of not using the term sustainability, I feel we should use the
agreed upon 'green' definition for it. ( I can't remember the exact
wording here at mid-night Sunday and I have to go to the doctor for the
greater part of the day tomorrow, but I will find it so we can make it a
permanent part of the record here by tomorrow evening.)  Maybe Jim Bell
can provide the accurate definition.

The essence of sustainability is that one generation not use more than
its share of resouces as to endanger future generations.

Since we are doing fact-finding here directed toward compiling
information for a book chapter, etc., I feel we must use and define words
that are recognizable by those who are already involved in 'providing for
a sustainable future,' e.g., strawbale network, solar energy people, etc.
and use the word profusely, or we will lose them.

2. If everyone could agree on: Economic, environmental and social justice
(which covers a lot of territory) as reasonable things (for a beginning)
that government should ensure us, then it might be easier for us to
define what type of government we need.   We could look at the models as
defined by James Hall and determine which model  could most easily
provide for economic, environmental and social justice, and if none of
them do, then try to establish a model.

3. Earth Charter:  I feel we should consider the Earth Charter here in
that it was constructed by hundreds of people who revised it time after
time to come up with what most considered the ideal,  for what I would
describe, as a 'preamble' to a constitution for the Global Village.

4. If we are to consider things that affect our security, e.g., global
warming, GMO foods, air quality, right to basic needs (food, water,
shelter and medical care) and ecosystems, things whichare interntional
issues, then I feel we must begin with an ideas in mind for a governing
body such as the U.N.

If the idea here is to protect ourselves through government from entities
such as multi-national corporations, then we must begin at the
international level.  If we don't, a corporation could be relieved of its
charter here in the U.S. but be chartered in another country.  And, many
already are.  That seems to be the problem.  They are able to operate
outside of the jurisdiction of any governing agency at the present time.
(Korten - When Corporations Rule the World.) due to their ability to move
assets around the world defined in minutes via the Internet.  And, if a
government agency somewhere goes after them they just move their
operations.  For instance, with the tobacco companies - we've taken
action here in the U.S. courts  to bring them under control, but the
market is far larger for them in China and other countries in the
developing world. They will now begin to push sales and grow tobacco
there where the market is far larger than here in the U.S.

marguerite

Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@...
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org

I recommend that we agree to be a bit radical and politically incorrect and
ban the word "sustainability" from our discussions, as it is basically an
empty, slippery word that may mislead us into thinking we are in agreement when
in fact it means widely different things to different people. The giant
multinationals also support sustainability, meaning for them sustainably high
profits and sustainably high bank accounts for themselves. In my opinion, it is
better to talk about ways to ecologically meet everyone's minimum requirements
for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education and to think about how
to utilize the surplus after that is achieved for developing a balanced and
dynamic economy which rewards more productive, creative or hard-working
individuals whose work contributes to ecologically maintaining or increasing
the average living standards or cultural standards of the society, while
setting a rational limit on the maximum wealth of individuals and groups, say
10 times the minimum income or wealth of individuals or equal-sized groups in a
particular socio-economic region. Here we must ask ourselves if capitalism
(here I include the capitalist-controlled governmental systems) can be reformed
to do the above, or whether the capitalist-dominated socio-economic system
itself needs to be replaced, and if so how to replace it with one that can
deliver society's basic physical requirements while supporting intellectual and
spiritual freedom for all as well as material progress which is not detrimental
to others' material progress.

     Richard


lcasten@... wrote:

> I'm thinking.
> What if we first decided what is our true goal:  I see one word coming in
> over and over: sustainability.  Agree?

On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 13:39:50 EDT Jhall51300@... writes:
>Thanks, Michael, for your thoughtful post on the role of Government
>and on
>protecting the Earth from global warming.  You offer a lot of food for
>
>thought:
>
>"Good government protects its populations from physical and mental
>harm."
>How far ought "good government" go to protect people?   Should it
>protect
>them from the consequences of their individual actions?  (Example:
>Move a
>homeless and relatively harmless person with mental problems into an
>institution against his or her desires?)  - This should never be done,
especially if the person is creating no harm to others or self.

In my opinion, government should mainly protect individual's from adverse
consequences that are caused by others.  The flip side of this is that
government should make sure that those who do harm to others, either
intentionally  or not, compensate those who suffer the impacts in some
way.   And create and fund programs that attempt to prevent the damage
from occurring in the first place.
>
>How far do we act to take freedom of choice away from someone even
>when that
>choice may harm them?    How about if their choices would harm
>others?

See above.
>
>How do we decide on the definition of "harm," especially "mental harm"
>which
>can be deviled by a lack of objectivity?

If there is a question on a particular situation, that should be argued
before a court of law.
>
>How do we convince others of "harm" when the information is incomplete
>or
>inconclusive, or simply so vast that it's hard to conceive?  One group
>of
>people may be convinced that global warming is an imminent threat.
>Others
>don't see the evidence or aren't sure, and yet others positively deny
>it.
>How do we convince them?

In the case of global warming, we have already moved well beyond the
situation where someone with a vested interest in the status quo, or
someone else in a state of denial, can continue to argue with any sense
of credibility or morals that the status quo should continue and
everything will be just fine.  The facts show this to be erroneous; but
even if they didn't show that, the magnitude of potential devastation and
the uncertainty involved demand a glaring red light and sirens
immediately on this.  I thought I made that clear on my post.

We (government) cannot allow global warming to take the path followed by
the other great environmental sin that already have wreaked great havoc
on society and are just now being ameliorated.  Unlike many of those on
the list, global warming is irreversible, and many of the adverse impacts
being created now by excessive fossil fuel burning will be imposed on
future humans, who are not even born yet, and the impacts will continue
well beyond the life expectancy of most people causing the problem today.


>
>Is it the role of government in this case to act without a consensus
>that
>global warming is real and if real, a threat?

It (GW) has not been proven to be both.  But even this wasn't so, it
should act regardless, for the reasons stated above.

  Should the government
>continue
>to search for evidence of global warming and build a consensus, or
>simply act
>without it?

Government needs to act now, and not wait for future technology to solve
this problem.  If it continues to wait, we will ultimately lose any
opportunities we now have to alleviate, or at least slow down, the
inevitable outcome of global warming.  This is not a myth.  The only
realistic way to slow it down is for people to conserve energy, thus
reducing the total quantities of greenhouse gases irreversibly emitted to
the atmosphere.

The temperature on Venus averages 864 degrees Fahrenheit, considerably
higher than the temperature on Mercury, which is twice as close to the
Sun as Venus is. Scientists say the ungodly temperature on Venus is due
to the planet experiencing a "runaway greenhouse effect" years ago, and
that Venus likely had ocean of water which boiled away because the
runaway greenhouse effect took of, because the stability of the Venus's
atmosphere was disturbed for some reason (could have been an increase in
the Sun's intensity over time).

They say the same thing could happen to Earth if things got really out of
control.  The only difference is that the temperature of the Earth would
probably only go up to 400- 500 degrees; but that is still high enough to
broil steak.

"Human survival through millenniums of natural hazards is not evidence of
ability to survive unprecedented, manmade ecological disasters in the
future."

"For all practical purposes, there is today only one world suitable for
man.  Measured by nature's standards rather than by those of historical
man, it is at present a delicately balanced, highly perishable world that
has evolved over long geologic epochs of environmental change.  And man,
acting as if he owned this world, or at least had come into leasehold
possession of it, has played his role as lessee very indifferently."

- Lynton Keith Caldwell
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:09:13 -0400 Bob Ewing <sixdegrees@...>
writes:

> we need to consider food, housing and clothing (  for example) as human
rights rather than commodities and design accordingly.

I agree strongly.  Every person has an unalienable right to pursue
happiness (at least in the U.S.); and the pursuit of happiness is
impossible when an individual, or that individual's loved ones, lacks
basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter.

If government provided sufficient monetary incentives for people to do
what's right (eg. not wreck the environment for all of us by excessive
gasoline burning and electrical consumption), this would HELP insure
most, perhaps all,  people would be able to at least afford basic
necessities like food, clothing and shelter for them and their family.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I'm thinking.
What if we first decided what is our true goal:  I see one word coming in
over and over: sustainability.  Agree?
Then, what if, as Michael did, we list some of the most pressing of the
problems that are looming.  Michael's list is a damn good start.  I would
add my own including GE foods and Bovine Growth Hormones. and chlorine in
industrial purposes (PVC, pesticides, etc. and incineration.)
Then, we list specifics of what citizens can do to think and act and do
business differently.
Then we list why these suggestions may not be so eagerly embraced.  There
will be plenty of obstacles and we must be thorough in our analysis.  One
good reason is the false assumption that the economy would suffer if we
changed systems.  Well, in some instances, it might, but in others--as in
phasing out chlorine for industrial purposes so we don't get dioxins--it is
possible and economically smart. There are good examples already.
And then, we go on to deal with getting around the obstacles.  Creatively,
pro-actively and compellingly.
Liane
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael T Neuman <mtneuman@...>
To: <FixGov@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 10:05 AM
Subject: [FixGov] Brainstorming - Role of Government


> Good government protects its populations from physical and mental harm.
> But since governmental institutions have failed this on many accounts in
> the past (see the list below), I seriously doubt current government
> institutions (our economic system) have the capability to accomplish this
> much longer into the future.
>
> Therefore, I believe government's social and economic institutions must
> undergo a major overhaul to protect the long-term (may be shorter than we
> think?) survivability of "the spaceship earth".
>
> In the words of Albert Einstein:
>
> "The problems that we have created cannot be solved at the level of
> thinking that created them".
>
> To be blunt, people who are still waiting for the global warming axe to
> fall before becoming alarmed enough to voice their concerns to their
> governmental officials about this impending major catastrophe should take
> note of the fact that ALL of the following issues were once considered by
> government and most traditional minded people of society to be "foolish
> scares" and "environmental myths" promoted unreasonable "environmental
> extremists".  The truth of the matter is that all of these concerns
> ultimately proven to be well founded.  Unfortunately, the concerns could
> only be "scientifically proven" after a great number of people, as well
> as our environment, suffered irreparable damage.
>
> We ought not allow global warming to follow this ominous path.
>
> Global warming has the potential to overshadow all other global
> environmental ills combined.  As such, policies and programs to reduce
> the causes of global warming ought begin today, not wait another 8 years
> to be employed.  The North Pole is already melting!  Global temperatures
> are accelerating much faster than earlier predictions speculated.  Yet
> many people continue to believe this is either not a solvable problem,
> its not their problem, its not a big problem, or that if we wait long
> enough, the problem will go away, knowing, deep down, that it won't.
>
> If given the choice between being inconvenienced by not flying or driving
> so much - over-reliance on fossil fuel burning for transportation of
> people and goods is one major source of the problem - as is recreational
> use of fossil fuels in sports cars, ATVs, single engine airplanes,
> snowmobilies, jet skies, motor boats, cruise liners ....flying to the
> Olympics games in Australia, and the destruction of all life on Earth,
> all reasonable people would choose the later, to be sure.  The problem is
> that the activities that are likely to cause the ultimate catastrophe
> (excess travel and consumerism) do not manifest themselves into the
> problem right away, so those who cause the problem (excessive energy
> users) do not have to experience the adverse consequences of their
> actions upon the rest of society (who are removed in time).  This is
> clearly an inequitable outcome of our present, temporally focused, modern
> day society.
>
> Humans lived perfectly good lives on Earth for hundreds of thousands of
> years before the invention of motorized technology at the turn of the
> last century, without grossly threatening all future life forms by
> emitting unnatural quantities of heat absorbing gases via excess fossil
> fuel burning in cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, furnaces, power plants,
> motors....  With ample less energy consuming technologies available now
> than ever before, and the age of computers, television and telecommuting
> available to many of us, I believe we are actually in a better position
> to do that now than at any other time in history.  All it would take
> would be a few years of adjustments and a transition period, and we could
> achieve a more sustainable lifestyle for the world.  The alternative is
> no longer
>
> The Earth's positive (warming) feedback loops (warmer oceans; melting
> permafrost; reduction of polar snow caps, astronomically increasing use
> of fossil fuel burning derived electricity in air conditioning, worldwide
> - all of which add to more global warming) are already starting to kick
> in.  A holocaust of unthinkable proportions, within this century, is not
> an unrealistic scenario.
>
> The "scientists" who belittle the severity of modern environmental
> problems have been wrong before, very wrong.  They should not be allowed
> another chance to show their ineptitudes, or for undoubtedly some, their
> clearly homicidal and unethical tendencies.
>
> Atomic energy releases
> Ingestion of mercury
> Inhaling and ingestion of lead from unleaded gasoline
> DDT and the Bald Eagle
> Pesticides and human health
> Dioxin poisoning
> PCB contamination of fish in the Great Lakes system
> Hole in the Earth's ozone layer
> Smoking tobacco and lung cancer
> [GLOBAL WARMING]
>
> In a "Resources for the Future Study" publication, Sterling Brubaker made
> these comments concerning the ethics of appropriately addressing major
> environmental threats in the correct time frame:
>
> "Long-range problems strain our conventional decision apparatus.  We can
> ensure a future for subsequent generations only if we develop an
> essentially conservationist view of the earth...
>
> "Most health and amenity considerations are one-generational problems.
> We may pass on a technology  that imposes burdens on our heirs, but they
> have the same options as we to escape their dilemma.  We are left to our
> own standards of taste and to our willingness to pay for higher
> standards; we can hardly be expected to consider only the remote
> future....
>
> "The presence of irreversibilities changes the picture, even for health
> and amenity considerations, for then the future generations do have a
> stake in our actions.  We may still choose to proceed with caution.  But
> when dealing with significant established threats to human genetics or
> the life-support system [global warming is certainly this] we cannot
> responsibly proceed in the face of such uncertainty.  At this point,] we
> must invoke another standard - one that holds the life-support system
> inviolate above all else."
>
> Stated another way:
>
> "Only the mad or the most heedless hedonist could knowingly condone
> destruction of the life-supportive capacity of the earth."  [the majority
> of the global warming skeptic, in my opinion, fall in this group (MTN)].
>
> - Sterling Brubaker, "To Live on Earth: Man and His Environment in
> Perspective", The John Hopkins Press, 1972.
>
> According to Bill McKibben:
>
> "The math is hard to argue with; business as usual and growth as usual
> spell and end to the world...This is the one overwhelming fact of our
> lifetimes".
>
> "If you are worried about the largest problems, such as global warming,
> the to consume only a bit is the best remedy..."
>
> [Quote from recently published "Waldon" (Henry David Thoreau),
> "Introduction and Annotations by Bill Mc Kibben", Beacon Press,1997.]
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> FixGov-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Bob Ewing writes:

<Do we want a government with human rights? . . . if peoples basic needs
are not met they
cannot take part in the process of change because they are preoccupied
trying to meet
their basic needs. In other words, it is a trasnition stage between where
we are now and
the sustainable society we must have.>

This brings to mind the situation in Guatemala where 500,000 indigenous
people are destroying what is left of the Peten-Belem rainforest to cook
the rats they are forced to catch and eat as there is no other food. They
have no shelters - their homes are now gone as they have been forced to
migrate in search of food. Since these people have been driven off of
their lands by ranchers raising beef cattle for the U.S. and European
market, and through logging and oil drilling - largely to keep the
industrialized world in its present fixated and affluent state, I DO feel
that the burden should be placed upon the those who have caused this
situation - the multi-national corporations and their stockholders - to
remedy the situation.  Here we have people's lands, upon which they
formerly lived for generations, being taken from them without just
compensation and the people who occupied them cast aside like objects.
They have been taken from their place of being valueable contributors to
society and find themselves in a position such as to take from society in
order to feed their childen and merely survive.

Only the most crass and greedy among us can turn away from situations
like this that are repeated throughout the Third World and developing
countries, as well as on our Indian Reservations here in North America
and in parts of Europe.  The homeless on the streets of the
industrialized world is becoming more and more visible.  As technology
replaces human labor more and more people will find themselves left out
of society today.  This is not now a question of: is it happening, it is
a question of 'who is next'.

Human dignity itself demands that we address the issues related to human
rights. We the people must demand of government that it enact and enforce
rules and regulations that put people before profit. The needs of people
worldwide for economic, environmental and social justice must be met.
Since most issues of social justice are tied into land rights, I do not
believe that you can separate social issues from environmental ones and
the outcome is bound to impact economics - this must be 'a communion of
subjects'.

Father Thomas Berry, one of the great religious and environmental leaders
of our time, speaks of the earth (and those upon it) as 'coming out of
adolescent fixation'.  If we are to become human beings in a higher
reality and meet the unprecedented challenges that face us today, we
must, of necessity, address the issues related to human rights.  Greed
and excessive profitability no longer have a place in our society.

marguerite

Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@...
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org

Thanks, Bob Ewing, for the link.  I wrote a letter to my local editor
summarizing the crimes of the top ten and pointing out that the media
concentrate on street crimes while largely ignoring the corporate crimes
that entail more deaths, injuries, and money losses than all the street
crime.  It was promptly published.  This might be an idea for others to
help spread the word.

Richard A. Stimson, c/o Westchester Press, High Point, NC
(336) 884-1038   E-mail: Westcpress@... OR stimso1@...
http://homestead.juno.com/stimso1

Michael Newman has given us much food for thought.  What do the rest of
you think of his proposal, and how could something along these lines be
implemented, if you think it should?

Richard A. Stimson, c/o Westchester Press, High Point, NC
(336) 884-1038   E-mail: Westcpress@... OR stimso1@...
http://homestead.juno.com/stimso1

FixGov@egroups.com wrote:

>
> Bob Ewing has opened the discussion of human rights.  Though modern humans
> take the notion of "rights" for granted, it wasn't always so.

Perhaps this was so because societies provided for all members and there was no
need for
rights.

> In fact, the
> idea of human rights is a modern phenomenon.  There are systems of
> government--chiefly utilitarianism ("The greatest good for the greatest
> number.")--where the notion of human rights for individuals is downplayed or
> even non-existent.
>
> Bob has suggested that there be a right (or rights) to food, shelter, and
> clothing.  I would ask:
>
> 1.  Do we want a government with human rights?

Where I live in Ontario, people are being denied food and shelter because they
do not have
sufficent income to purchase them in the market place. Human rights gives us a
space for
negotiation and discussion of the role of government and food and housing,
without them,
under the current system , people will continue to die , hungry out in the cold.
It also
enables us to demand that the government take action, build asscessible
affordable housing
for example.

>
>
> 2.  If so, what rights would we guarantee?  How absolute would be those
> rights?  (Example, how much would government have to spend to guarantee food,
> shelter and clothing for each person?  Would he or she have to work for it?)

The Tobin tax will provide sufficent funds to generate the food and shelter and
a
guaranteed annual income the income.  Personally this needs to be the next step
in the
transformation of society to a sustainable one, if peoples basic needs are not
met they
cannot take part in the process of change because they are preoccupied trying to
meet
their basic needs. In other words, it is a trasnition stage between where we are
now and
the sustainable society we must have.

>
>
> 3.  Rights may conflict with each other. (Example:  A human right to build
> shelter may conflict with right to own property.)  How do we balance our
> rights?

i don't accept the right to own property has a right so see no conflict. land
can be woned
in common and particular parcels leased with terms that determine how the land
will be
used.

>
> Bob Ewing

Thanks, Michael, for your thoughtful post on the role of Government and on
protecting the Earth from global warming.  You offer a lot of food for
thought:

"Good government protects its populations from physical and mental harm."
How far ought "good government" go to protect people?   Should it protect
them from the consequences of their individual actions?  (Example:  Move a
homeless and relatively harmless person with mental problems into an
institution against his or her desires?)

How far do we act to take freedom of choice away from someone even when that
choice may harm them?    How about if their choices would harm others?

How do we decide on the definition of "harm," especially "mental harm" which
can be deviled by a lack of objectivity?

How do we convince others of "harm" when the information is incomplete or
inconclusive, or simply so vast that it's hard to conceive?  One group of
people may be convinced that global warming is an imminent threat.  Others
don't see the evidence or aren't sure, and yet others positively deny it.
How do we convince them?

Is it the role of government in this case to act without a consensus that
global warming is real and if real, a threat?  Should the government continue
to search for evidence of global warming and build a consensus, or simply act
without it?

James Hall

http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html

Greetings, interested in corporate behaviour.

Bob Ewing

resistance is fertile.

Good government protects its populations from physical and mental harm.
But since governmental institutions have failed this on many accounts in
the past (see the list below), I seriously doubt current government
institutions (our economic system) have the capability to accomplish this
much longer into the future.

Therefore, I believe government's social and economic institutions must
undergo a major overhaul to protect the long-term (may be shorter than we
think?) survivability of "the spaceship earth".

In the words of Albert Einstein:

"The problems that we have created cannot be solved at the level of
thinking that created them".

To be blunt, people who are still waiting for the global warming axe to
fall before becoming alarmed enough to voice their concerns to their
governmental officials about this impending major catastrophe should take
note of the fact that ALL of the following issues were once considered by
government and most traditional minded people of society to be "foolish
scares" and "environmental myths" promoted unreasonable "environmental
extremists".  The truth of the matter is that all of these concerns
ultimately proven to be well founded.  Unfortunately, the concerns could
only be "scientifically proven" after a great number of people, as well
as our environment, suffered irreparable damage.

We ought not allow global warming to follow this ominous path.

Global warming has the potential to overshadow all other global
environmental ills combined.  As such, policies and programs to reduce
the causes of global warming ought begin today, not wait another 8 years
to be employed.  The North Pole is already melting!  Global temperatures
are accelerating much faster than earlier predictions speculated.  Yet
many people continue to believe this is either not a solvable problem,
its not their problem, its not a big problem, or that if we wait long
enough, the problem will go away, knowing, deep down, that it won't.

If given the choice between being inconvenienced by not flying or driving
so much - over-reliance on fossil fuel burning for transportation of
people and goods is one major source of the problem - as is recreational
use of fossil fuels in sports cars, ATVs, single engine airplanes,
snowmobilies, jet skies, motor boats, cruise liners ....flying to the
Olympics games in Australia, and the destruction of all life on Earth,
all reasonable people would choose the later, to be sure.  The problem is
that the activities that are likely to cause the ultimate catastrophe
(excess travel and consumerism) do not manifest themselves into the
problem right away, so those who cause the problem (excessive energy
users) do not have to experience the adverse consequences of their
actions upon the rest of society (who are removed in time).  This is
clearly an inequitable outcome of our present, temporally focused, modern
day society.

Humans lived perfectly good lives on Earth for hundreds of thousands of
years before the invention of motorized technology at the turn of the
last century, without grossly threatening all future life forms by
emitting unnatural quantities of heat absorbing gases via excess fossil
fuel burning in cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, furnaces, power plants,
motors....  With ample less energy consuming technologies available now
than ever before, and the age of computers, television and telecommuting
available to many of us, I believe we are actually in a better position
to do that now than at any other time in history.  All it would take
would be a few years of adjustments and a transition period, and we could
achieve a more sustainable lifestyle for the world.  The alternative is
no longer

The Earth's positive (warming) feedback loops (warmer oceans; melting
permafrost; reduction of polar snow caps, astronomically increasing use
of fossil fuel burning derived electricity in air conditioning, worldwide
- all of which add to more global warming) are already starting to kick
in.  A holocaust of unthinkable proportions, within this century, is not
an unrealistic scenario.

The "scientists" who belittle the severity of modern environmental
problems have been wrong before, very wrong.  They should not be allowed
another chance to show their ineptitudes, or for undoubtedly some, their
clearly homicidal and unethical tendencies.

Atomic energy releases
Ingestion of mercury
Inhaling and ingestion of lead from unleaded gasoline
DDT and the Bald Eagle
Pesticides and human health
Dioxin poisoning
PCB contamination of fish in the Great Lakes system
Hole in the Earth's ozone layer
Smoking tobacco and lung cancer
[GLOBAL WARMING]

In a "Resources for the Future Study" publication, Sterling Brubaker made
these comments concerning the ethics of appropriately addressing major
environmental threats in the correct time frame:

"Long-range problems strain our conventional decision apparatus.  We can
ensure a future for subsequent generations only if we develop an
essentially conservationist view of the earth...

"Most health and amenity considerations are one-generational problems.
We may pass on a technology  that imposes burdens on our heirs, but they
have the same options as we to escape their dilemma.  We are left to our
own standards of taste and to our willingness to pay for higher
standards; we can hardly be expected to consider only the remote
future....

"The presence of irreversibilities changes the picture, even for health
and amenity considerations, for then the future generations do have a
stake in our actions.  We may still choose to proceed with caution.  But
when dealing with significant established threats to human genetics or
the life-support system [global warming is certainly this] we cannot
responsibly proceed in the face of such uncertainty.  At this point,] we
must invoke another standard - one that holds the life-support system
inviolate above all else."

Stated another way:

"Only the mad or the most heedless hedonist could knowingly condone
destruction of the life-supportive capacity of the earth."  [the majority
of the global warming skeptic, in my opinion, fall in this group (MTN)].

- Sterling Brubaker, "To Live on Earth: Man and His Environment in
Perspective", The John Hopkins Press, 1972.

According to Bill McKibben:

"The math is hard to argue with; business as usual and growth as usual
spell and end to the world...This is the one overwhelming fact of our
lifetimes".

"If you are worried about the largest problems, such as global warming,
the to consume only a bit is the best remedy..."

[Quote from recently published "Waldon" (Henry David Thoreau),
"Introduction and Annotations by Bill Mc Kibben", Beacon Press,1997.]
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:13:55 EDT Jhall51300@... writes:
>
>Welcome to the list.  We are just getting into discussions by
>brainstorming
>different ideas on what forms "good government" can take.
>
>We are in the brainstorming phase of our discussion now, casting about
>for
>ideas of a "good government."

I believe "good government" provides an institutional framework
environmentally sustainable and equitable living in the world.  Current
government frameworks are doing just the opposite for the most part, and
must be fixed soon or chaos is inevitable.

I will quote a passage from Sterling Brubaker's "To Live and Earth"
(1972), John Hopkins Press, to further express my views on this:

"The root cause of environmental problems is economic and demographic
growth.  It is true that we have compounded our problems by emphasizing
incentives more appropriate to achieving growth than to improving
environmental quality.  But even with "wrong" incentives, development at
lesser rates and lower magnitudes did not impinge so strongly on natural
systems and did not overwhelm them as it threatens to do now and in the
future.  Increasingly we exceed the capacity of natural systems to
assimilate waste."  (pg. 222, A Summary and Prospect).

Good government provides monetary incentives that encourage sustainable,
less resource consuming and waste producing lifestyles, and charges
people who waste resources or create excessive levels of adverse external
impacts on the rest of society extra to pay rewards to the people who
don't.
>
>I am interested in your ideas for government encouraging less driving
>and
>therefore less pollution by giving payments/tax breaks to drivers who
>use
>their cars less.  This seems to be a solution that a Right Model or
>Center
>Model form of government might want to try.  Can you tell our members
>a
>little more about it, and how it might be adapted to other forms of
>pollution
>control?
>
I would be more than happy to.  Please forgive the disjointed nature and
length of the following.

My proposal for financial incentives for less driving, flying and energy
use in the home is actually a follow up on Kenneth Boulding's "The
Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth" (1971).  I remember reading the
paper while in college soon after it was first published, and I only
recently reread it.  Based on my rereading it, I see where what I am
proposing is, in theory, what Boulding appeared to be saying was needed
30 years ago!  Too bad no one picked up on his idea in the meantime.  I
believe it's been needed for too long a time already.

I believe the root cause of many our biggest and as yet unsolved
environmental problems of today is too many people driving and flying too
much.  This is a huge problem that is so diffuse that is often not even
recognized as a problem, unless there is a traffic jam or a prime wetland
has to be filled somewhere.  It's impacts are much, much greater than
most people believe.

Fully one third of all fossil fuels burned in the U.S. is "consumed" in
motor vehicles and airplanes, technology which didn't even exist 120
years ago.

The projections are for continuously increasing quantities of greenhouse
gases emissions in transportation, as least for the next 10-15 years, and
most likely beyond that if people don't begin to cut back on motor
vehicle travel.  Waiting is becoming ever more dangerous by the day.

The best, perhaps only (?),  way to get people to minimize their
consumption is provide them with ample financial motivations to do so.

It is often said money is the root of all evil; it can also be the root
of our survival.

"The Neuman proposal" would provide people financial incentives to
consume no more energy than needed, in driving, flying and in
electrifying their homes.

The intent of the driving less for dollars (incentive #1 or Neuman
Proposal) was, and is, not selected to
any income level.  Evidences shows rich, poor and middle class families
are all interested in making a few more bucks, for whatever reason.

The problem is ever since mass production of the auto, city planners have
designed urban environments around people's use of the auto.  All other
means of transportation became a thing of the past in most cities of the
country.

That is a problem that will be difficult to correct as we move toward
more sustainable means of transportation, and toward living and doing
daily business without overuse of personal motorized transportation,
which is something that we must now do if we want life on this planet to
remain hospitable.

The problem we have in most places is of not having sufficient
alternatives
to the auto in many cities and previously rural areas surrounding many
cities.  Sidewalk installation, bike paths, bus systems and other transit
have all fallen victim to the auto in America and other well developed
countries.  So to get those system in public demand, the public itself
needs to be vocal in demanding alternatives ways of travel and better
location of services.  The only good way I see of making that happen
(making people want to get out of their cars and take alternatives to
auto; or, alternatively, seeking out closer locations to live relative to
where they presently need to travel to, is to pay them rewards for not
driving so much.

And if the amount of money in the payment schedule is not enough to make
that happen, then it should be increased to a level that will.  Money is
what makes the world go round, as we all know, and we have to face up to
that reality.  It can also do wonders.

Finally, we will never beat back global warming if we do not concentrate
on reducing peoples driving level, today.  We cannot, and we must not,
wait for the further development of rail or any other less greenhouse gas
producing technology to come.  I believe it is extremely risky to the
future of this planet and all its populations to wait for undetermined
solution.  We need to act now.

I need to clarify that the rewards are not a subsidy, nor are they just
for the poor.

The rewards ($400 - $2800, per household) are doled out only after a
household successfully puts less than 13,500..9,000...1,000 total miles
on the vehicles registered to adults in the household.  The amount of
payment depends on the number of drivers in the house and the number of
dependents who don't drive.

People "earn" the money by not overtaxing our highway system and our
environment with excessive driving over the year.  This is likely to help
poor people more, because they undoubted drive less to begin with and
they need the money for necessities, like food, bus tickets, education,
etc..  But this does not prevent others who wish to be rewarded for their
lower driving levels from registering for the rebates.  After all, they
pay for the gas taxes now anyway, and the only ones who really benefit
are the highway engineers and road building contractors.

The auto industry would not be appreciably hurt, since most people would
still own, buy and drive new cars.  They just wouldn't drive the cars as
many miles as they now do.  Its a win win situation, for all but the road
builders and the gas suppliers.  Even people who don't sign up for the
drive less credits benefit because their is less congestion on the road
from those who drove more than necessary before the rebates were offered
to them.

The environment is actually the main winner from this proposed "change".
People will live closer to where they work (less sprawl), there will be
less auto exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions, reduced highway noise,
habitat and farmland saved by less road building and more centralized
development, utility cost of extending services out to the country will
be reduced;  people who can't afford the high cost of prescriptions and
health insurance will have more money to pay for those things.

Households not owning vehicles would get the full rebate:  $2,800.

That money can buy health insurance, food, clothing, college tuition
fees....  No restrictions.  It is not enough to make any one rich.  But
it may help some people make ends meet.  Or it can be given to charity.

That $2,800 is a reward for not screwing up the environment.  The money
comes from those who do.

My paper concludes a 25% reduction in greenhouse gases can be achieved in
the U.S., and perhaps in other developed countries, by offering rewards
to people who drive and fly less, and use less energy in their homes.
There are many, many alternatives available to people to drive less, and
use less energy than they currently do.  Many of these are listed in the
appendix to the proposal.  Other papers I have read confirm this in an
amount that is realistic to save.  We are being grossly inefficient in
using energy in this country, as is Canada, Australia and a few other
countries.

Most people could also do much better in saving electricity in their
homes.  The lack of use of compact fluorescent lighting is a prime
example.  Having government (or regulated utility monopolies) pay rewards
to people who use less energy in their home (on top of the saving they
would already get by not using as much electricity and heat), would
encourage them to conserve energy even more, which is what I believe is
what is needed to slow global warming, since 70-80% of electrical energy
is derived from burning fossil fuels.

Appropriately addressing transportation costs hidden in most consumer
products must be a prerequisite to moving green consumerism into the
mainstream of Americans' day-to-day purchasing decisions which affect us
all.

1.  We need to convince ourselves and other people, that the most
important
thing for us (them) to do is to minimize our (their) lifetime negative
impacts on the environment, that we can still experience an enjoyable
life
while accomplishing that, and that doing so will not prevent us from
living
out all of our potentials, including our potential to help to other
people
who are in need.

2.  Once we have done that, all products are suspect.  The products that
are
most suspect are those that must be transported long distances, by ship,
air, truck or train, for more fossil fuels are burn in the transportation
of
most products, than are burned in producing the products in the first
place.
Products produced from combining large quantities of water with other
ingredients (pop, liquid soaps, beer, liquor, bottled juices - especially
bottled water!), when water is available almost everywhere locally, are
particularly suspect to "non-green" labeling.  Greenhouse gas emissions,
oil
consumption (as well as production and distribution), highway development
and traffic congestion could all be reduced if people in this country
significantly limited their consumption of these products and chose
alternatives like concentrated and powdered products (or just water from
tap!), or if people bought these products from local producers,
distributors
(or if people brewed their own beer, root beer and wine!).

3. In other words, people should buy what goods they must have from local
or
regional producers, whenever possible; conversely, there should be more
of a
competitive advantage (than currently exists) for growers, producers and
manufacturers, to sell their products to nearby consumers, rather than to
consumers located at a distant from the production location.  The price
of
the product should be more reflective of the transportation cost.

To do this, I would propose all government levy a "transportation tax" on
products that are shipped over 50 miles, with the amount of tax based on
miles shipped and/or energy used.

There must be dramatic change to the economic and political systems that
lead to the problem in the first place. But without dramatic increases in
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices, which nobody really wants, the
prices
that consumer are paying for products produced at distant locations will
continue to not reflect the substantial economic and environmental costs
of
shipping those products.

Equity concerns are an integral part my proposal that government provide
financial incentives and rewards to individuals and families who burn
less fossil fuels in driving, flying and home energy use.

The poor would benefit significantly under the drive less, fly less
financial incentives proposal.   The billions of dollars the government
is already collecting for building more huge new multimillion dollar
highways, more new lanes of highways, and more airport runway projects,
throughout the country,  would be used to provide widespread and
meaningful financial incentives, on an annual basis, to people to who
drive fewer miles on the highway system and who take few, or no, airline
flights.  The financial incentives would benefit households having
limited incomes the most, since not only do they generally travel less
(by car and plane), but also because they need the money more, for
everyday human necessities.

With global warming now edging to the forefront of major issues * (as it
should), the need for this energy paradigm shift, to help people wean
themselves, and their family members, away from heavy reliance on fossil
fuel burning for travel, has now become not only paramount, but urgent.

The New York Times just reported today that the North Pole is now MELTING
due to human activity caused global warming.  This should catapult global
warming above all other environmental issues being faced by the world in
this century, and perhaps for all time.

Providing meaningful financial incentives to drive and fly less would
also chip away at many other of society's problems besides global warming
and solving problems of income distribution and equity.

Other environmental problems it would positively impact include less
urban sprawl (harder to earn incentives when commuting long distances to
work); less highway congestion (less overall driving);
less auto and aviation air pollution, less noise pollution, fewer
agricultural and wildlife land losses to highway and airport development
(and to urban sprawl); less oil drilling in Alaska and elsewhere; less
oils spills....

It would be great if this kind of program could be employed world wide.
Many of the poor countries now would be entitled to financial incentives
(desperately needed) because most poverty stricken people do not (do not
have the resources to) burn comparative high amounts of fossil fuels.
This should be the ultimate goal.

The poor continue to get poorer; their numbers continue to grow.
We cannot - must not - leave them behind.   Many of them, probably most
of them, are poor through no fault of their own.  Providing meaningful
financial incentives to households who burn less fossil fuels would help
equal the playing field, for everybody, and help sustain a life-friendly
Earth for the future.

For  more information on  "The Neuman POSITIVE Incentives Proposal to
Reduce Greenhouse Gases,   - go on the web to:
      http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/
Scroll to June 1, 2000  and click your choice.
    1.     Click -   Mike's Letter to Representatives -  May 26, 2000
    2.     Click -   Neuman on Global Warming  -  May, 2000
    3.     Click -   "Continued"       to get  report submitted by Mike,
June 13, 2000
    4.     For Mike's "VMT Reduction Plan "    -  scroll to August 2,
2000, click VMT Reduction Plan - (April 4).

"A persistent dilemma in a free society is whether public officials
should give people what the public wants or what they believe is good for
it.  In the matter of global threats to life-support systems and genetic
damage there can be no compromise.  Of course, it is the responsibility
of leaders to lead, and in the final analysis a society that does not
accept the necessary conditions for survival will fair.  Wide spread
awareness of the consequences of irresponsibility is absolutely
essential."

-Sterling Brubaker (pg. 212)
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Excuse duplicate posting, but I am sending this to both the Alternate
Culture Forum since it originted here and to the FIXGOV forum to assure
that everyone receives it.   I believe it should be a part of the FIXGOV
discussion so please post comments there. Marguerite
__________________________
I just reread the Earth Charter to which some of you took exception for
different reasons when I broached the subject of
signing it as a part of membership requirements for TII.  While I find
nothing in the document that would cause me not to sign it, I realize
others may.  So I feel the best thing to do here is to include the Earth
Charter within a membership package and ask that everyone read it.  I
feel that this act itself might generate a little more awareness among
the unaware, of the need for change.

There also seems to be a need for a document that can be 'rallied
around.'  Whether we like it or not, via the Internet we have become the
Global Village.  As the Global Village, we must address how the Village
will govern itself.  Today, the threat to our security and our freedoms
by the multi-national corporations is surpassed only by that of global
warming and consequent global climate change.  No one country can address
these issues alone - they must be addressed on a global level.

Which brings us to a turning point in history.  If we are to solve our
problems, we, the people of the world, must unite in solving them.  This
is not about one country, or a group of countries - this is about all of
us.  For a long time we have lived under a 'divide and conquer'
philosophy devised by those few who seek to dominate the world through
corporatisation and colonialisation.  In the process, the industrialized
world has profited immensely while the Third World countries continue to
suffer what began hundreds of years ago under colonial rule.  Now,
corporatization threatens even those in the industrial countries with a
form of colonialisation that seeks to remove our freedoms too.

I am again reminded of Fr. Thomas Berry's words:  "The universe is not a
collection of objects--it's a communion of subjects.  It seems to me that
if we are to address the world's ills we need to begin the dialogue for a
communion of subjects.  The Earth Charter appears to be a starting point.


As I read the Earth Charter, this paragraph on Sustainable Development
jumped out at me and I wondered if it might be something that all of us
on this list could aspire to live by?

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

<The goal of sustainable development is full human development and
ecological protection. The Earth Charter recognizes that humanity's
environmental, economic, social, cultural, ethical, and spiritual
problems and aspirations are interconnected. It affirms the need for
holistic thinking and collaborative, integrated problem solving.
Sustainable development requires such an approach. It is about freedom,
justice, participation, and peace as well as environmental protection and
economic well-being. >

Richard Richardson wrote that he thought the Earth Charter was too vague
and not well defined; that multi-national corporations could weasel
around it, and he didn't want to sign it.  What Richard writes as
desirable in his way of thinking is:

<A real solution to our socio-economic-ecological would include education
at the grass roots level as to the real state of affairs,  mainly
cooperatively-based decentralized regional economies putting people and
the
rest of the living world before profits; rational limits on wealth
accumulation by individuals and corporate entities; a social guarantee of
at
least the minimum necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter, medical
care
and education) to all human beings; improving average living standards
through
a rational and humane system of work incentives and utilization of
resources;
honest leaders; protection of local cultures, a global confederation of
political regions; and spreading of universal spiritual values of life.>

Something we can all aspire to, perhaps.  But I have to ask, what agency
will enforce the rules that must, of necessity, be part of any small,
large or medium sized community, or of the Global Village, in order that
the above may be achieved peacefully and without cohersion.  Our
forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States in order to unite
us in a common cause - the pursuit of liberty and justice for all.  Do we
now need a Constitution for the Global Village that assures liberty and
justice for all?  The Earth Charter is not intended to be a legal
document - those who have worked over years with hundreds of people
involved in its writing, now want to present it to the United Nations for
endorsement - not for making it a part of the law.  But, do we not need
some sort of governmental body at the international level to ensure that
there is liberty and justice for all in the Global Village?  Or, does
liberty and justice for all mean just those in the United States for all
time to come and to the exclusion of all others?

Comments at FIXGOV are welcome.  To become a part of this group:
http://www.egroups.com/group/FixGov

marguerite
Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@...
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org

James,
    your idea on tax breaks or other breaks/payments for lesser use of
vehicles, car pools, etc., is on the right track.  The sad part is that you
have to wave an award in order to make changes, even if it's for the better.
People have to get educated to understand the impact of cars on the
environment ... it should start in schools or even in Kindergarten.  People
probably would use their cars less if there would be more sufficient public
transportation around the clock or more bicycle path's.  Most European
countries have implemented good, efficient public transportation for years
... very affordable ... and a majority of Europeans are using it.
Here, people have to understand, that it's a good thing to walk a few steps
and that you don't have to drive your car directly to the door.  A car in the
US is still a big status symbol which resembles money, translating into power.

Monika

One of our members, Jim Bell, has a weekly radio discussion program,
campaigns for local office in California, and has published a book that
is quite pertinent to our subject of discussion.  With his permission,
part of Chapter 11 dealing with federal, state, and local government is
reproduced below. You can read more from his book at www.jimbell.com.
Chapter 3, for example, deals with economics and explains his concept of
true-cost-accounting.

Please consider his points, together with government reform suggestions
from other authors previously posted to this site, and my own proposals
that will be posted before long, as you exchange ideas. All this is
aiming at our developing a chapter to be included in a book (and possibly
other media) from the Alternate Culture site.  Here is a portion of Jim
Bell's book with an introduction  in his own words:

Achieving Eco-nomic Security On Spaceship Earth by Jim Bell. 260 pages.
$16.00, (includes taxes). Add $4.00 for postage and handling. Quite
simply, Achieving Eco-nomic Security On Spaceship Earth is a nuts and
bolts, how to, common sense book about how to use free-market-forces to
revitalize our national and world economies in ways that are completely
ecologically sustainable. Although the book is comprehensive it is
written for the average reader. It also has over 800 footnotes for those
who want to explore the subjects discussed in the book in more depth.

PART FIVE

TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE


	 Chapter XI

	 THE ROLES OF SOCIETY

	 Synopsis

	 The preceding chapters have explored many of the ways that eco-nomic
security can be enhanced and why doing so is in everyone's interest.  The
material that follows will focus on how we as individuals, groups, and
institutions, can actively participate in the process of getting us from
where we are now to a more eco-nomically sustainable future.

	 The Government

	 Federal

	 As with other sectors of our society, the federal government has an
important role to play in moving us toward eco-nomic sustainability.
Probably the most important task at the federal level is the
implementation of true-cost or full-cost-pricing.  This is essential to
the process of moving away from our present subsidy-skewed economy to a
truly free market system.  Toward this aim the federal government can
help by:

1. Establish a true-cost-accounting methodology.  Once established, this
methodology can be used to find out what the products and services
offered in the U.S. market place are really costing us.

2. Passing legislation to ensure that the true or full costs, to the
degree that they can be known, are included in the retail price of the
product or service involved.


	 As was discussed in preceding chapters, at least partial true-cost
methodologies are already beginning to emerge.  The development of such
methodologies could be accelerated by teaming up ecologically
knowledgeable economists with the best U.S. accounting firms and the U.S.
General Accounting Office for this purpose.

	 As methodologies and costs emerge from this collaboration, the
information could be developed into a comprehensive system for evaluating
true or full-cost.  As this system evolves, federal legislatures could
begin the process of gradually adding the true-cost to the price of
products and services.  The word "gradual" is used here advisedly.  The
speed at which the true-cost is added should only be tempered by how
rapidly the free market can respond to the leveling of the economic
playing field that true-cost-pricing would foster.  If the change is too
rapid, the market will not have enough time to change over to the
production of ecologically benign replacement goods in sufficient
quantities at reasonable prices to meet demand.

	 In addition to the implementation of true-cost-pricing, the federal
legislature has another parallel role to play -- to phase out all energy
and materials-related subsidies that make non-renewable energy and virgin
material prices lower than they actually are.  Getting rid of such
subsidies would stimulate efficient energy use, the development of
renewable energy resources, and the design of reusable and recyclable
products and packaging.  Eliminating subsidies would also contribute
toward strengthening the free market process, in general, by further
leveling the economic playing field.

	 In conjunction with phasing out energy related subsidies, it would be
advisable for the federal legislature to set a floor on how low retail
energy prices in the U.S. could fall.  This is needed for the following
reasons.

	 True-cost energy pricing, coupled with the elimination of tax subsidies
for the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, would greatly stimulate
the move to more efficient energy use and the replacement of conventional
energy supplies with renewable energy resources.  This, in turn, would
result in a rapid reduction in the amount of energy consumed in the
United States, particularly imported energy.  In light of the relatively
large change in world energy demand that such a reduction would cause,
world oil prices would fall quickly to perhaps $5 per barrel or less.
Small improvements in U.S. energy efficiency and over-production by OPEC
dropped world oil prices down to $8.50 per barrel for a short time in
1986.

	 If retail energy prices in the U.S. were allowed to fall with world
market prices, the move to efficiency and renewables would be slowed or
even reversed.  If the demand for oil increased, in response to lower oil
prices, world energy prices would rise and we would be back on the same
energy see-saw that we are on now.

	 With an energy price floor, however, lower prices for energy on the
world market would not effect retail energy prices in the U.S.  Thus, the
move to greater efficiency and renewables would not be stifled.  If, for
some reason energy prices on the world market went higher than the U.S.
retail energy price floor, U.S. retail prices would be allowed to rise
with them.  But as long as the United States continued to reduce
consumption, a rise in world energy prices would be very unlikely.

	 A painless way to set this floor price would be to base it on the price
of oil on the world market at the time of its enactment.  If this price
was $16 per barrel, for example, the retail price of energy in the U.S.
market could fall no lower than $16 for the equivalent amount of energy
in a barrel of oil plus any fixed costs and true-costs associated with
its procurement,   processing, delivery, and use.  In the case of
electricity, its retail price could fall no lower than what electricity
would cost if it was produced by burning $16 a barrel oil plus fixed and
true-costs.  But unlike its retail cost, the wholesale price of energy in
U.S. markets would rise and fall with the world market price.

	 After setting this floor, the U.S. government should do everything
possible, short of providing subsidies, to promote efficient energy use
and renewable energy resources.  One way to do this would be to provide
low interest federal loans to finance energy efficiency improvements and
renewable energy projects.  These loans would finance projects that have
paybacks that exceed by .5 percent plus administration, the interest that
the government would be paying on what it borrowed to implement the
program.  In other words, the loan program would be designed so that the
government would earn .5 percent on each loan.  Actually, becoming more
energy efficient and switching to renewables would happen naturally with
true-cost-pricing and the elimination of energy industry subsidies.  But
setting a price floor and providing loans would make it to happen more
rapidly which, after the dust settled, would be to everyone's advantage.

	 In addition to keeping the U.S. on the efficiency and renewables track,
setting an energy price floor would help to reduce our national dept and
free up cash to take care of other problems.  For example, if the price
of a barrel of oil on the world market fell to $5 per barrel while the
retail price in the U.S. was based on $16 per barrel energy equivalent,
an $11 surplus would be available for every barrel of oil energy
equivalent used in the United States.  Even if we were only using half
the energy we currently use now, an $11 surplus per barrel energy
equivalent, would generate over $60 billion each year.    This amount is
on top of the $100 to $300 billion or more   that would be saved by
getting rid of direct and hidden energy and material subsidies.

	 State Governments

	 Although true or full-cost-pricing should be instituted on national and
ultimately global levels, state governments can help the process along in
a number of ways.  States can set up their own accounting procedures to
find out what the products and services offered in the state's economy
are really costing the citizens of the state.

Unless products are:

	 o made from materials that were mined, harvested, processed and
fabricated in way that are ecologically sustainable,

	 o designed to be used in ways that are ecologically benign,

	 o designed to be easily reused, recycled, or composted at the end of its
usefulness,

	 o associated with an in-place, incentive based   infrastructure to
insure that products are reused, recycled, or composted, as is
appropriate, when their usefulness has passed,

the products in question will burden society with hidden costs.

	 In other words, on one or more of the levels listed above, we as
individuals and as taxpayers are going to have to pay something above and
beyond what the consumer paid for the product at the retail level.  By
adding these real costs to the retail price of the product in question,
we avoid the public liability associated with them.  Since the purchasers
of a product are those who assumedly benefit from their purchases, it is
only fair that they should pay all the costs connected with the product.


	 It would also be legitimate and logical to add these same costs to
similar products imported into a state.  Obviously, the destination state
will have to pay for any negative environmental impact caused by the use
of a product inside state boundaries.  If the product is not designed to
be easily recycled and a recycling infrastructure is not in place to
handle it, the state will also have to pay for the product's disposal.
The destination state will also be on the hook for any negative impacts,
like groundwater pollution, that disposal of the product may cause.

	 Even the negative impacts associated with the creation of products in
another state or country and the negative impacts associated with the
energy used to transport such products to their retail destination will
have a negative economic impact on the state where they are sold.  For
example, ecological or health problems sustained in one state affect
every other state.  Even if the costs associated with mitigating such
problems are paid by the state where a product is produced, it creates a
strain on that state's revenues.  This increases the possibility that
there will be less money to deal with other problems, such as providing
homes for the homeless, public assistance for the poor, better education
for youth, and better trained police.  If a product's destination state
has a superior public assistance program, reduced revenues in other
states can have an additional effect.  Since the people affected by these
cutbacks are mobile, they may migrate to other states where services and
conditions are better.  As recent migration trends have shown, this
phenomenon is also happening between nations.

	 Federal revenue may also be required to take up the slack in any of the
areas just discussed to directly pay for cleanups or to pay health costs.
  For example, it may ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars to
clean up all the toxic waste dumps in our country.  The payment for
pollution-related health costs may also run in the hundreds of billions
of dollars.  The more federal revenues are used up in dealing with these
problems, the less there is money available to help states with education
and so forth.

	 Even when ecological and health damages are sustained in other
countries, the eco-nomic liabilities sustained will ultimately affect
everyone.  For example, if a local fishing industry is damaged or
destroyed in a politically unstable country by pollution or
over-exploitation, it can lead to civil unrest that may even cause
governments to be overthrown.  Even short of a revolution, such
occurrences would have cost implications for the U.S. on at least two
levels.  Militarily, this could lead or contribute to expenditures like
those we are currently paying to blockade Haiti or keep the peace in
Somalia.  Although it has not been widely publicized, the environmental
degradation of Haiti and Somalia has been a contributing factor to the
devastating problems experienced in those countries.

	 Local Government

	 Since these same issues apply to the local level, local governments can
also play a role in implementing true-cost-pricing.  One area where local
true-cost-pricing could be applied is in the disposal sector.  Any
product residue or product packaging that is not designed to be easily
reused or recycled is going to cost something to dispose.  At a minimum,
these disposal costs include getting the residue or package to the
disposal site and the cost of replacing the landfill volume the packaging
or residue will use up.  If the packaging or residue results in the
release of air or water pollution, additional costs would be sustained.
If the product residue or its packaging is toxic or partially toxic, even
more costs, like cleaning up groundwater pollution, will be involved.

	 Under California State law, a $1 can of spray paint, with paint residue
in it, costs about $20 to dispose legally.    With local
true-cost-pricing, the can of spray paint would cost at least $21.  Of
course no one would buy it, which would quickly lead to the development
of spray paint cans designed to be reused or at least recycled which
would contain non-toxic paints and ecologically benign solvents.

	 In addition to disposal costs, the use of toxic materials has health
cost implications to local governments.  If the use of a material causes
health problems, these costs should be added to the cost of the material
involved.  Leveling the economic playing field in these ways, would
foster the development of non-toxic replacement products that would avoid
such liabilities.

Richard A. Stimson, c/o Westchester Press, High Point, NC
(336) 884-1038   E-mail: Westcpress@... OR stimso1@...
http://homestead.juno.com/stimso1

Jim - This forwarded message came through to me blank.  I suspect you
forgot to highlight what you wanted to forward.  When I use AOL I find
this is necessary, although on Juno it's done automatically if that's
what you've selected.

Please try again.

Dick

On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:38:54 EDT Jhall51300@... writes:
> I'd like to forward a message I originally sent by mistake to
> Alternate
> Culture.
>
> James Hall
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> FixGov-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>

Richard A. Stimson, c/o Westchester Press, High Point, NC
(336) 884-1038   E-mail: Westcpress@... OR stimso1@...
http://homestead.juno.com/stimso1

FixGovs:

Bob Ewing has opened the discussion of human rights.  Though modern humans
take the notion of "rights" for granted, it wasn't always so.  In fact, the
idea of human rights is a modern phenomenon.  There are systems of
government--chiefly utilitarianism ("The greatest good for the greatest
number.")--where the notion of human rights for individuals is downplayed or
even non-existent.

Bob has suggested that there be a right (or rights) to food, shelter, and
clothing.  I would ask:

1.  Do we want a government with human rights?

2.  If so, what rights would we guarantee?  How absolute would be those
rights?  (Example, how much would government have to spend to guarantee food,
shelter and clothing for each person?  Would he or she have to work for it?)

3.  Rights may conflict with each other. (Example:  A human right to build
shelter may conflict with right to own property.)  How do we balance our
rights?

Finally, I agree with Bob.  Brevity is a wonderful part of good listserv
discussions.

James Hall

Michael:

Welcome to the list.  We are just getting into discussions by brainstorming
different ideas on what forms "good government" can take.  I've thrown out
three broad forms that currently have support in the world:

*The Right Model--Capitalist, libertarian, limited government.
*The Left Model--Socialist, equalitarian, government by consensus.
*The Center Model--mixes elements of the Right and Left model.

We are in the brainstorming phase of our discussion now, casting about for
ideas of a "good government."

I am interested in your ideas for government encouraging less driving and
therefore less pollution by giving payments/tax breaks to drivers who use
their cars less.  This seems to be a solution that a Right Model or Center
Model form of government might want to try.  Can you tell our members a
little more about it, and how it might be adapted to other forms of pollution
control?

James Hall

> Bob:
>
> Your statement is a classic expression of support for the Left Model, one
> that values social justice above all other values.  How will you solve the
> problem that Marxists have consistently run into--that once idealism flags,
> production does too, and the economy drifts into medocrity or worse?   Would
> you do things differently than the Marxists have?

Greetings while the slogan is associated with the Left and marxism, I feel that
it has a greater meaning and actually serves as a mission statement for a new
social relationship.  Traditonal economic therories, both capitalist and
socialist accept the market place as a real construct rather than the abstract
notion that it actually is. I'll elaborate on the non-market place concept in
another post after I've done more research, also I dislike long posts.

For now, what the saying means for me is that we need to consider food, housing
and clothing (  for example) as human rights rather than commodities and design
accordingly.


Bob Ewing

Hi folks

I just got on this list, and since I normally am not a lurker, I thought
I'd let you know I joined.

Have I missed anything?



________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Bob:

Your statement is a classic expression of support for the Left Model, one
that values social justice above all other values.  How will you solve the
problem that Marxists have consistently run into--that once idealism flags,
production does too, and the economy drifts into medocrity or worse?   Would
you do things differently than the Marxists have?

I'd like to forward a message I originally sent by mistake to Alternate
Culture.

James Hall


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To each according to his/her needs: from each according to her/his abilities/

The reversal in previous post  was NOT intentional, just moving too fast.

Bob

Welcome, Bob.
Please keep contributing.
I wonder if you intentionally reversed the classic socialist slogan?
If you meant it in the reverse form, I'd really have to think about
what it means and implies.
Richard A. Stimson

--- In FixGov@egroups.com, Bob Ewing <sixdegrees@b...> wrote:
> Greetings, I believe that the best model of government will be the
one that can
> deliver the promise held in the following:
>
> From each according his/her needs, to each according to her/his
abilities.
>
>
> Bob Ewing

Greetings, I believe that the best model of government will be the one that can
deliver the promise held in the following:

From each according his/her needs, to each according to her/his abilities.


Bob Ewing

I'd like to suggest we begin by looking at all ideas for fixing government.

In the classic technique for finding solutions, called "brainstorming," we
first suggest as many ideas as possible, no matter how outrageous or silly,
old or new, and postpone critical comments until we've had a chance to list
them and consider them.

Here are at least three models for fixing government which are now
circulating.  For the purposes of beginning the discussion, I will greatly
oversimplify them here:

1.  The "Right Model"--Free market capitalism with limited government and an
individualistic, libertarian philosophy that guards individual rights and
property rights.  Solutions to environmental problems along these lines have
been suggested by the economist Milton Friedman, who suggests taxing
inefficient, pollution-producing conduct, using capitalism's innate ability
to decrease costs by increasing the efficient use of resources.

*Advantages: People often act in their self-interest.  Aligning that
self-interest to the environment by taxing waste and pollution will increase
the methods designed to combat them, creating a clean, nonpolluting economy.
A strong economy like that provided by capitalism can provide numerous
solutions to protecting and preserving environments.

*Disadvantages:  By encouraging people to act *only* in their self-interest,
a sense of community is discouraged and social justice is minimized.
Environmental values can be submerged beneath commercial and individualistic
values.  Property rights supersede human rights.  Capitalism is the most
efficient mechanism for producing goods and services but does not distribute
them equitably.

2.  The Left Model: Socialism with a strong central government and a strong
philosophy of social justice and equity.  Environmental solutions to this
sort of government would involve strict government controls over wealth- and
pollution-producing entities.  The people through government would own and
protect extensive environmentally important lands.  Collective
decision-making to establish priorities.  Some current arguments along these
lines are made by the world-wide organizations of the Green Party.

*Advantages: Equitable distribution of wealth and collective decision-making.
  Protection of large amounts of environmentally important areas.  Firm
control over polluters.

*Diadvantages: A socialist-based economy is inherently less efficient than
one based on capitalism and therefore offers a lower standard of living,
creating the desire among the public for tradeoffs of economic for
environmental issues.  Socialism often creates an entrenched bureaucracy with
its own agenda.  Attempts to make changes are slow.  Socialist nations have
often been among the worst polluters for these reasons.  Loss of individual
rights.

3.  The Center Model:  Attempts to combine the best elements of the Right and
Left Models, creating a government that recognizes individual rights and
private property while recognizing that government has a role in the
equitable distribution and use of wealth to protect the environment.  Self
interest is balanced with social justice and equity.  Both public and private
methods to preserve the environment are tried.  This model is being worked on
now by groups like the Progressive Policy Institute.

*Advantages: Capitalism, the most efficient use of resources and most
efficient way to produce more, can be practiced, but its fruits are partially
redistributed to meet the goals of equity and social justice.  Both public
and private use of lands and resources.  Some decisions are made
individually, some by consensus.

*Disadvantages: Finding the best mix of the Right and Left Models will always
be a political issue.  Some individuals will want to push the system to the
Right, others to the Left, depending on their sense of the rights of
individuals versus their sense of social justice.  (See the works of
philosopher Isaiah Berlin for the inherent conflict between the values of
liberty and justice.)

I suggest that this very simplified Three Model hypothesis provide a rough
framework for our initial discussion, unless someone has a completely
different model to offer to the group.

James Hall

Greetings, Bob Ewing here, Thunder Bay, Ontario.

I'm looking forward to this discussion and will add a quick comment,
unless we can develop a government that includes all the people and
values Life in its widest definition then we will not succeed.
Participation is the key .


Bob

James Hall is surfing the net to find useful sources of information
for our work.  I was planning to send him some URLs I had come
across, but am posting them to our list so that others can refer to
them pending the development of a whole set of links when we figure
out how Egroups provides for this facility.  For now, here are some I
think are useful:

www.commoncause.org
	 Common Cause, founded by Ralph Nader, "a non partisan
citizen's group working for openness, honesty and accountability in
government

www.congresswatchdog.org
	 Public Citizen's site for voting records

www.vote-smart.org
	 Project Vote Smart provides factual information on
candidates' positions, voting records, backgrounds, and campaign
financing

www.psr.org
	 Physicians for Social Responsibility (US affil. of
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) opposes
hazardous transport and use of plutonium for nuclear energy plants
around the world.

www.epinet.org
	 Economic Policy Institute

www.infact.org
	 INFACT "campaigning for corporate accountability"; publishes
annual "Hall of Shame" for corporations involved in influence
peddling, environmental destruction, hazards to health, etc.

www.wfa.org
	 World Federalist Association works for more effective world
government.

www.cunr.org
	 Campaign for U.N. Reform offers a questionnaire to pin down
your candidates on foreign policy questions

www.indymedia.org
	 Independent media reports, especially covering protest
meetings against WTO, IMF and World Bank abuses, such as at Seattle
and at the Republican and Democratic conventions. "For more
information...visit the following"

www.papertiger.org

www.deepdishtiv.org

www.a16.org
	 Mobilization for Global Justice

www.50years.org
	 50 Years is Enough Network, a project of the Alliance for
Global Justice, opposing policies of World Bank and IMF.

www.sonoma.edu/projectcensored/
	 Project Censored at Sonoma State University in California
compiles annual lists of the most neglected and the most overcovered
news stories in the mainstream media.

www.projectcensored.org
	 Weekly release of important news undercovered by mainstream
press.

www.shadowconventions.com
	 Iconoclastic cooperative website of several organizations,
featuring satire and commentary on the official conventions; main
spokesperson is the reformed Ariana Huffington.

www.debates.org
	 The place to submit your suggestions for questions to be
asked in the presidential debates.

www.hagelin.org
	 Official website of the Reform Party faction that claims Pat
Buchanan stole the party's nomination.  Nominee Hagelin, a Ph.D.
physicist, also running on the Natural Law Party ticket, favors
disease prevention in health care, campaign finance reform, fair
trade, and other issues.

www.votenader.org
	 Official website of presidential candidate Ralph Nader and
the Green Party, favoring campaign finance reform, economic fairness,
universal health care, and environmental issues.

www.jimbell.com
	 Jim Bell is an AlternativeCulture member who is an
independent broadcaster in California.  His radio show at 10-11 p.m.
Sundays can be heard on the Internet; his guest on Aug. 20 is Ralph
Nader.

www.greenpeaceusa.org/ge
	 Green Peace website fighting genetically engineered food in
Kellogg's cereal and other products.  Kellogg promises not to use
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their cereal sold in Europe,
but refuses that promise to Americans.

www.foe.org
	 Friends of the Earth opposes genetically engineered food, and
has sued to force cost-benefit analysis of the US Forest Service's
logging program.

www.essential.org/monitor/monitor.html
	 Multinational Monitor's on-line database.  World Bank, IMF,
environmental and labor issues, searchable back issues, and links to
other sources on corporate and international issues.

www.tcf.org/ideas2000
	 The Century Foundation (formerly Twentieth Century Fund) "New
Ideas for a New Century"

Richard A. Stimson, c/o Westchester Press, High Point, NC
(336) 884-1038   E-mail: Westcpress@... OR stimso1@...
http://homestead.juno.com/stimso1

Welcome to Fixing Government (FixGov).  You are invited to
join others around the world to discuss how local, national and UN
governments can be made more responsive to the people, all in the
context of the AlternateCulture group's objectives to promote
economic, ecological, and social justice in a sustainable global
economy.

        To start the discussion, here are some ideas that have been
published in recent years (bibliography of sources at the end):

	 Several authors have made a convincing case that we are now
experiencing an important turning point in history.  The
Tofflers' "The Third Wave" (1980) rated the current era of rapid
change as important as the Agricultural Revolution (when nomadic
herdsmen settled on the land) and the Industrial Revolution.

	 Their account of mass production and mass consumption being
replaced by customized production, micro markets, and infinite
channels of communication was criticized by Wolman and Colamosca for
neglecting "to inform their public that this devolutionized
system of production continues to be dominated by the great
multinationals."

          Thurow, in his 1996 book, "The Future of Capitalism," used
the analogy of tectonic plates to describe the world's current
upheaval,listing their economic counterparts as (1) the fall of
Soviet Communism, (2)a shift toward mobile brainpower industries, (3)
huge demographic changes, (4) replacement of national economies by a
global economy, and (5) lack of an umpire to enforce rules of the
economic game.

	 In the midst of this ferment, aside from the
lingering threats of nuclear war and terrorist attacks, the major
challenge to democracy and human progress involves the domination by
corporations of the institutions of self-government.  Democracy has
always had an uphill fight against various forms of tyranny. It has
made much progress in the developed countries that have put behind
them the absolute monarchies and the doctrine of the divine right of
kings that prevailed until the 20th century.  Today's major
challenge is to overcome domination of government by corporations,
and it is made more difficult when the corporations are actually
bigger than the national governments.

	 In the United States the most blatant forms of bribery may be
rare, but through concentrated corporate control of the information
media, as well as corporate favors and campaign financing to
politicians, the rulers of big corporations tend to get their way
most of the time.  On the world scene, global corporations (including
global bankers and financial companies) dominate international
agencies unrestrained by democratic safeguards.

	 The key reform in U.S. politics, upon which almost all
economic reforms depend, is campaign finance reform.  Television has
made campaigning so expensive that fund-raising is a perpetual burden
to elected officials, and their contributors, who are mainly
corporations and their controlling stockholders, expect gratitude.
Although it is illegal for corporations to contribute to political
campaigns, they seem to have done so by various loopholes and
subterfuges.

	 The solution is conceptually simple but politically daunting.
Government could restore the requirement that broadcasters serve the
public interest and that they maintain fairness by providing equal
time to opposing sides of controversial issues, including election
campaigns, and there could be requirements for a reasonable amount of
time for debates, instead of hit-and-run attack ads.  At the same
time, limits could be placed on campaign contributions in some of the
ways that have already been incorporated in proposed legislation.

	 Attempting to reform campaign finance in ways that would not
run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, the bi-partisan McCain-Feingold
bill got a bare majority in test votes in the Senate but was killed
on February 26, 1998, when the majority leader removed the bill from
the agenda after threats of a filibuster.  It got another chance some
months later when the House of Representatives passed the Shays-
Meehan campaign finance reform bill (the House version of the McCain-
Feingold Senate bill) but this also died in the Senate.

	 If there is no other way to overcome the favored status
courts have given to corporations, it would have to be accomplished
by constitutional amendment, making the limitations and
responsibilities of corporations so clear the courts could not
interpret them away.

	 Constitutional amendment would also be necessary for at least
some of the changes in the political system proposed by Phillips in
his 1994 book, Arrogant Capital: (1) dispersing power away from
Washington by letting Congress vote electronically from home
districts and meet sometimes away from Washington, (2) emulating
parliamentary systems where legislators can serve in the cabinet and
new elections can be called when gridlock occurs, (3) using
nationwide referendums and proportional representation to upset the
two-party political monopoly, (4) reducing outgrown Congressional
staffs that have become cozy with lobbying interests, and (5) adding
national referendums as an alternative method of amending the
Constitution.

          The above includes portions of "Playing with the Numbers:
How So-called Experts Mislead Us about the Economy" by Richard A.
Stimson (Westchester Press, 1999), used by permission of the author
and publisher.

                           Bibliography

Phillips, Kevin, Arrogant Capital (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1994)
Toffler, Alvin, The Third Wave (1980)
Wolman, William, and Anne Colamosca, The Judas Economy: The Triumph of
Capital and the Betrayal of Work (Addison-Wesley, 1997)