Study and Management of Home

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate and NY Times columnist, wrote in today's Times about the slow emergencies our nation and planet face in the economic and ecological spheres. We seem to manage these problems based on their symptoms rather than on theory or knowledge, often making our actions too little too late.

One thing Krugman did not emphasize, but of which he is all too aware, is the tension between addressing the economy vs. the ecology. One of the reasons the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House of Representatives on June 26th was so weak was because of this perceived tension.

However, these issues are not in tension at all, but are in fact aligned. Going back to the root meanings of the words economy and ecology we find that from the Greek economy means 'the management of home' and ecology 'the study of home'. Since when has the management of a subject not required study? How can we expect good management without knowledge? As if it is not obvious, economy requires ecology.

Economy and ecology come into alignment when we realize that the problems of the 21st century are going to be about managing resources to live sustainably. When we realize that the problems we face are systems problems, we will see the system as the earth and everything else as a subsystem within the earth system thus requiring alignment to the workings of the earth system.

For centuries human beings have put the earth in service of the human activity, now with knowledge we must begin to put human activity in service of and alignment with the earth.

Tweet

The Bumpy Road to Copenhagen

Photo: Jason Reed/Reuters.
As the New York Times reported on its website today, the G-8 nations have failed to reach an agreement on goals for eliminating Greenhouse Gases. One observer even claimed that - gasp - President Obama was doing no better the George W. Bush on this score. That's a pretty low bar when it comes to climate change on the international stage.

Tweet

Voices of reason ...

Today I was reading the June 29th issue of the New Yorker and came across an article by Elizabeth Kolbert entitled "The Catastrophist." In a nutshell, the article is about Jim Hansen, who has been spending the better part of the last 40 years understanding the changes in the earth's climate system, and half of that time trying to warn the world by dealing in the facts. Unfortunately, as compelling as they are, the facts continue to get drowned out in a chorus of loud, agenda-driven messaging about how climate change is not a problem, that it's really reversing, and it's all a big hoax anyway.

This was brought home to me clearly this morning when C-Span had a call-in program on the subject of climate change. The Waxman-Markey legislation to cap CO2 is about to go to the floor of the House for debate. Listeners were invited to call three numbers, one for Democrats, one for Republicans, and one for Independents. All the calls were against support for Waxman-Markey. Consistent carefully crafted messages abounded about how global warming was not a problem, and that Waxman-Markey would kill jobs. An email from a climate activist put it this way "I'm getting a ton of messages saying that we're getting killed on C-span this morning. We are trying to generate calls into C-Span while discussion is happening around the bill. Opponents have mobilized effectively to swamp all 3 party call lines. It's 100% against with same talking points."

In the movement to get climate change legislation enacted will mobilized talking-points win out over scientific facts?

Tweet

Coming Home (Part II)

Alignment of Ecology and Economy

If ecology and economy are aligned, what can ecology teach economy? How can ecology inform how to manage the global economic system? Does this mean we all have to live in mud huts, treehouses or caves? Is the implication of this a giant step backward for the quality of life of human beings?

When people start asking questions like that it is apparent that fear has crept into the discourse. “I don’t want to give up my SUV or second home, my steak dinner or trips to the South of France.” This is what they really seem to be saying. No one wants to change if they’ve got it pretty good. And we in the West have got it pretty good. But understanding that ecology informs economy is not about having it bad – it is not a call to privation and poverty. In fact it is the only way to insure sustainable prosperity and abundance for generations to come in the developed and developing worlds.

Having ecology inform economy is first and foremost about understanding systems. The earth’s biosphere is the system from which we all come. Humanity is not only the inheritor of the earth, we are its issue. Human beings are natural adaptive systems within the biosphere. Together we created another very powerful adaptive system called the global economy. Systems theory tells us that every sub-process and subsystem within an overall system must be aligned with the aim of the overall system, otherwise there will be sub-optimization, decay and the ultimate destruction of the system. The global economy as a sub-process within the biosphere must be aligned with the aim and workings of the biosphere. It is through ecology that we can understand how the biosphere works, and it is through economy that we can align with it to achieve sustainable human prosperity.

In that way, concern that ecology could undermine economy makes as much sense as concern that medical research could undermine human healthcare. The two are aligned as opposed to being in tension. An understanding of ecology – how the biosphere works – is a great enabler of a sustainable, prosperous economy.

Tweet

Coming Home (Part I)

In the increasingly urgent discussions around climate change and industrial sustainability, one hears over again concerns about the choice between ecology on the one hand and economy on the other. Renewed concern about the earth's ecology must be weighed against the negative impacts actions from such concerns could have on the economy – especially an economy in global recession with declining equity and credit markets. The earth's ecology and the global economy are presumed to be in tension, what’s good for one is bad for the other, as one rises, the other falls.

If we look more closely, picking between one or the other appears to be a false choice. The very meaning of the words ecology and economy hint at this. The root of both words - ecos - is derived from the Greek and means home or household. Ecology is the study of home, and economy the management of home. As a species we have finally come to realize that home is not the just our house, or the village town or state we come from, but the entire planet on which we live - that's home. Ecology is the study of home - the earth's biosphere and how it works. Economy is the management of home - but this meaning has also expanded as our thinking of home has expanded. Economy now is about managing a global economic system that is reshaping the biosphere on which it depends for its existence.

Since the Enlightenment, the study of a system has informed how it is managed. The fields of astronomy, physics, biology, medicine, psychology and many others – have brought forth new knowledge that has informed and optimized the management of human activities. So it must be with Ecos. Ecology - the knowledge of the biosphere - must be a tool for better economy - informing and optimizing the management of the biosphere.

Using ecology to inform economy is simply using knowledge to inform management. Where tension exists between new knowledge and management, the outcome is generally undesirable. The new knowledge from Darwin’s theory of evolution was very controversial in its day, and is still in tension with the way many groups and individuals view their very existence. This has negative implications for education and the advancement of knowledge and science. Viewing knowledge as a threat compromises human advancement. Viewing knowledge of the biosphere as a threat to the global economy could threaten human existence.

If the study of home, Ecology, and the management of home, Economy, need to be aligned, how can that alignment inform more effective management? Read next week in “Coming Home (Part II).”

Tweet

The Waxman-Markey Bill

Hi Everyone,

I just got back from the North Amercian Summit for The Climate Project, in Nashville Tennesse. W were charged with contacting our elected officials to let them know that we need the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), (the Waxman Markey Bill) to be passed.

Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it essential that we pass this bill now? Absolutely. The world will be meeting in Copenhagen in December to map out the future of global climate policy to cap CO2. If the U.S. does not have legislation in place, a global agreement on capping CO2 will be impossible, and American leadership in the world greatly damaged.

The question is, what type of role do we want to have in the world community in the decades to come? Do we want to be dragged kicking and screaming into responsible governance on global issues, or do we want to take leadership and have influence?

By contacting your representative in Congress you can affect change. Even if your Congressional representative is on-board, an email or a phone call or a letter will strengthen their hand, and perhaps turn them from supporter to advocate.


Tell your friends, corworkers, family, even some strangers, that they need to speak up and now and loud! You can ask them to phone or email their elected officials or direct them to the League of Conservation Voters website, http://action.lcv.org/campaign/april_gw_house_full. You can also direct them to the Alliance for Climate Protection website for Repower America, http://www.repoweramerica.org.

You can read the bill or a summary at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1


The time is now. The opposition and big polluters are very vocally against this legislation. We need every person we can to speak out. It's your right and your responsibility to speak up!

Tweet

All Definitions of Sustainability are Wrong

Some, however, are useful.

The word sustainability is in danger of becoming a 'garbage term', having widely divergent meanings depending on who's using it. A word with too many meanings tends to lose all meaning - more is surely less in this case.

To some people sustainability sounds stagnant, coming across as dug in - neither growing, nor changing nor adapting. To others sustainability means something entirely different - robustness, durability, constancy of purpose, even adherence to core values. Sustainability can reflect how business treats the environment in general such as through recycling and reducing waste and toxins, or it can specifically refer to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change. To some, sustainability is just staying in business. Others define it more broadly, as a paradigm shift from a focus on short-term measures to an alignment to broader aims.

The problem is, no succinct definition can fit them all, so in that sense all definitions of sustainability are wrong. Yet some are useful. The one I find most useful which incorporates a lot of the above ideas - and does so in seven words: sustainability is an appreciation for systems thinking.

A system is a grouping of components and processes in the service of an aim. If it doesn't have an aim, then it's not a system; if you don't know the aim, then you can't optimize the system. If all the subsystems and sub-processes within a system are not aligned with the aim of the overall system, there will be sub-optimization, decay and the eventual destruction of the system.

In looking at the problem of sustainability, the system in question is the earth's biosphere, and embedded within it is a very powerful subsystem called the global economy. Humanity has been putting the biosphere to work in service of the aim of the global economy for centuries. But we will not achieve industrial sustainability and we will not effectively address problems like climate change until we figure how to turn that inside-out, and learn to align the global economy in service of the aim of the biosphere.

What is the aim of the biosphere? Sustainability, of course.

Tweet